- Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey .BayiGreat Sandy'Strait 
- (GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 
Report to Governments 
on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the 
Great Barrier Reef and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
(7 March 1997) 
" This report has been prepared in cooperation with other Commonwealth and Queensland 
government agencies but does not necessarily represent their views. Extensive consultation 
with non-government stakeholders and interest groups has also occurred. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
Executive Summary 
Background 
2 
PAGE 
3 
7 
The Report 
Terms of Reference 	 8 
Consultation and research regarding the Report 
	
8 
Appraisal of Dugong Protection Area boundaries 	 8 
Appraisal of issues about impacts 
Commercial fishing activities 
Recreational fishing activities 
Indigenous hunting 
Illegal take 
Vessel and aircraft activity 
Shark netting for bather safety 
Use of explosives 
Habitat loss, especially of seagrasses 
The Library 
Great Barrier Reef 
Marine Park A uthorto 
P.O. Box 1379 
mulls ville, 4810 
10 
14 
14 
15 
16 
17 
17 
18 
Attachments 
Record of Decisions : 22nd Meeting of the GBR Ministerial 
Council, Brisbane 30 November 1996 
Measures endorsed by GBRMC 22 and subsequent action 
List of submissions and reports 
Summaries of biological and user information about interim and 
proposed Dugong Protection Areas. 
Maps of Dugong Protection Areas and their locations 
Comment on QCFO proposals by GBRMPA, the Board of the 
Queensland Fisheries Management Authority and the interagency 
Dugong Working Party (through QFMA) . 
Map representation by GBRMPA of the Queensland 
Commercial Fishermen's Organisation proposal (overlay maps 
at Attachment E) 
Tables 
Comparison of biogeographical information on interim and 
proposed Dugong Protection Areas 
Species catch in mesh nets in interim and proposed Dugong 
Protection Areas 
Comparison of commercial fish netting in interim and 
proposed Dugong Protection Areas 
Appendix : Submissions and Reports 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 
	 3 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Surveys indicate that, while dugong populations appear to be stable in the 
Far Northern Great Barrier Reef (GBR), the populations have declined in 
the southern Great Barrier Reef and the adjacent Hervey Bay by over 50% in 
the period between 1986-87 and 1994. The maximum loss from unnatural 
causes that could be sustained by the dugong population in the southern 
GBR and still allow the population to recover could be as few as 3.3 dugongs 
per annum, and in Hervey Bay 1.6 dugongs per annum (H. Marsh, personal 
communication). The corresponding figure for the Far Northern Section of 
the Great Barrier Reef is between 105 and 162 dugongs per annum. Carcass 
reports during 1996 indicate that human related deaths are continuing at 
unsustainable levels in the southern Great Barrier Reef and Hervey Bay. 
The Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council has directed the Great Barrier 
Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) to report on actions necessary for 
dugong conservation in the Great Barrier Reef and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy 
Strait. 
In particular, the Ministerial Council asked that the report address actions 
'necessary to ensure no further dugong mortality occurs as a result of 
commercial and recreational fishing practices ' in Interim Dugong 
Protection Areas (DPAs), with the objective 'that fishing practices that may 
result in dugong mortality will not be permitted in those areas. Council also 
asked that the report address other activities that adversely affect dugong 
populations in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait region, as well 
as the appropriateness of the Interim DPA boundaries and any requirement 
for additional DPAs. 
In the area under review, the three significant human activities that directly 
contribute to the reduction in dugong numbers are commercial fishing with 
mesh nets, indigenous hunting, and illegal take. Practical steps can be taken 
for each in the short-to-medium term to reduce their risk to dugongs. 
Widespread seagrass loss is a fourth issue of major concern in the Hervey 
Bay region. Within the GBR it is not an issue to the same extent. Impacts on 
seagrasses appear to be localised, although land-use practices and coastal 
	
The Library 
Great Barrier Reef 
management require careful attention to minimise adverse impacts 
 (seharine Park Authority 
report # 24). 
	 P.O. Box 1379 
Townsville, 4810 
Mesh netting : By their design and method of setting, four major categories 
of mesh nets represent a risk to dugongs : offshore set, foreshore set, river 
set and drift nets (see report #19). However, in its report on measures to 
address the risk of nets to dugongs, the Queensland Commercial 
Fishermen's Organisation (QCFO) proposes changes only to offshore and 
limited foreshore net operations in the Interim DPAs (see report #1). 
Changes to river set and drift nets are not proposed as fishers do not 
consider them a risk to dugongs. Carcass records and other opinion is 
contrary' to that view. Whilst GBRMPA supports a number of the QCFO 
proposals, the Authority believes that the proposals are insufficient to 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 4 
achieve the Ministerial Council objective of no further dugong mortality 
from fishing practices. Accordingly, the Authority recommends as follows : 
Legislate to remove mesh nets and set mesh nets from all DPAs, subject 
to such removal in Hervey Bay and Great Sandy Strait applying only to 
methods of fishing which target shark, mackerel and barramundi. 
Assess the risk to dugongs of seine, tunnel, ring and set pocket nets for 
each DPA and fisher, and regulate use accordingly; 
Permit the use of cast nets under the current Fisheries Regulation 1995 
(Qld); 
As proposed by most stakeholders and interest groups, develop an 
Industry Adjustment Scheme in consultation with the Queensland 
Government and commercial fishing industry (Table 3 provides an 
appraisal of fishing in each DPA and for proposed additional areas, see 
below); 
Alternatively, further negotiate and agree with commercial fishers 
on much stronger dugong protective proposals in DPAs than they 
have submitted for this report. These measures may include : a 
limit of one set net per person requiring 'at the net' attendance, 
limits on net size and breaking strain, tight specifications on 
method of deployment, careful selection and monitoring of 
approved fishers in DPAs, and enhanced enforcement. Such 
measures may reduce the risk of nets to dugongs in DPAs, 
however they are unlikely to meet the Ministerial Council 
objective of eliminating the risk; and 
Implement training, education and compliance strategies in line with the 
QCFO submission. 
Indigenous hunting : There are some 50 different groups (incorporated 
bodies) representing indigenous peoples in the southern GBR area. To 
GBRMPA's knowledge, seven of these, representing some significant areas, 
have agreed to suspend, or have voluntarily ceased, hunting. GBRMPA has 
a policy against the issue of hunting permits in the southern GBR. It is 
reported that some (unquantified) hunting is continuing in the Yarrabah, 
Palm Island and Mackay regions.The cessation of hunting is culturally and 
politically sensitive. GBRMPA believes that, for cessation of indigenous 
hunting to be successful, indigenous people need to be more involved in 
the management of dugongs. In addition, ATSIC have stated that if a fishing 
industry adjustment scheme is developed to reduce commercial fishing 
effort for the benefit of dugongs, equal consideration needs to be given to 
indigenous peoples (see submission #5). The Authority recommends as 
follows : 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRiviPA, 7/3/97) 
	 5 
Do not permit indigenous hunting in the southern GBR whilst dugong 
populations remain threatened and support the continuation of 
GBRMPA's work with staff of the Queensland Department of 
Environment (QDoE) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 
Council (ATSIC) which aims to inform indigenous groups of the urgent 
need to protect dugongs; and 
Develop, in conjunction with ATSIC and representative bodies, 
arrangements for joint management with indigenous peoples of 
dugongs in DPA's for implementation as a part of management 
planning for the areas. 
Illegal take : Illegal fish netting and hunting activities are a significant 
component of unnatural dugong mortality in the GBR region. However, the 
extent of such activities is difficult to quantify and assess. Illegal activities 
may be contributing to a coastal trade in dugong meat amongst indigenous 
communities. Current enforcement resources are insufficient to adequately 
address the matter. Accordingly, the Authority recommends as follows : 
• Establish a task force of professional enforcement personnel and 
representatives of indigenous peoples, together with other interests as 
necessary, to urgently review and implement actions necessary to 
successfully counter illegal take of dugongs and other endangered 
marine animals on the GBR and in the Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
region. This will require additional funding in the order of $0.5 million 
per year over at least two years. 
Additional DPA areas : In addition to the above three significant issues, the 
Ministerial Council directed that this report review, amongst other things, 
the adequacy of the Interim DPAs and the need for additional areas. The 
biological basis for the boundaries was reviewed by James Cook University 
scientists (refer report #18 and its supplementary report). Table 1 
summarises biogeographic information contained in report #18. For 
example, the Interim DPAs agreed by the GBRMC would encompass 40% of 
dugongs sighted in the southern GBR in the 1986-87 surveys and 66% of 
coastal seagrasses, whilst the additional areas proposed by report #18 would 
encompass respectively, 74% of dugongs and 79% of seagrasses. In view of 
the critical nature of the dugong decline in the southern GBR and Hervey 
Bay/ Great Sandy Strait, GBRMPA believes that the sanctuary system will 
need to incorporate as high a proportion of dugongs and their habitats as 
possible to benefit dugongs. DPAs should also be about 200 km apart for 
biological reasons and to conform with the Ministerial Council direction. 
GBR1VIPA recognises that there has been no opportunity for stakeholders to 
consider the additional areas. GBRMPA recommends as follows : 
1. Confirm the Interim and proposed additional DPA areas but, subject to 
other decisions arising from this report, seek further consultation with 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 6 
stakeholders regarding appropriate strategies for the conservation of 
dugong within the additional DPA areas; and 
Combine southern Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Strait as a single 
DPA; and 
Do not include Princess Charlotte Bay and Bathurst Bay in the northern 
GBR as DPAs at this time, noting that management regimes for 
conservation of dugongs in these Bays are being developed under the 
GBRMP Far Northern Section Zoning Review. 
Define the coastal boundary of the DPAs as including all tidal areas. 
Vessel and aircraft activity : For reasons related to the water conditions, 
dugong behaviour, and increasing vessel use, the Authority believes that 
dugongs in the Hinchinbrook Region DPA are at greater risk from vessel 
strike than in other DPAs. Accordingly, GBRMPA recommends as follows : 
Apply speed limits and restrictions on boat, helicopter and float plane 
activity in areas of the Hinchinbrook Region DPA. 
Shark netting for bather safety : Twelve shark nets are set for bather safety 
in the GBR World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), two being in the Cleveland 
Bay Interim DPA. The Queensland Government recently announced that 
one of these two is to be replaced with drumlines. The Queensland 
Department of Primary Industries is reviewing the remaining nets on the 
Queensland coast. The Chairperson of the Authority has submitted to the 
review that all nets in the GBRWHA should be replaced unless the nets can 
be shown to be preferable to drumlines for reasons of human safety. The 
review is expected to be completed by mid-1997. It is recommended that : 
Shark nets for bather safety in the GBR and Hervey Bay/ Great Sandy 
region be replaced by drumlines unless the nets can be shown to be 
preferable to drumlines for reasons of human safety 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 7 
BACKGROUND  
Although dugongs are distributed throughout the Indo-pacific region, they are 
now either extinct or rare over most of their original range. They are listed by 
the World Conservation Union as 'vulnerable to extinction'. A decade ago 
Australia was believed to have the largest, most stable population left in the 
world. Recent surveys however, indicate that, while dugong populations in 
the Far North of the Great Barrier Reef appear to be stable, in the southern 
half of the Great Barrier Reef and Hervey Bay dugong numbers have declined 
by 50-to-80% in most areas over the last eight years. The causes of this decline 
are not certain but acknowledged threats include habitat loss, mesh netting, 
Indigenous hunting, shark netting for bather protection, vessel collision, 
pollution, and explosions for purposes such as Defence training or marina 
construction. 
Recent reports of dead animals suggest that, at least in the southern Great 
Barrier Reef, the annual human-related mortality is continuing at between 6% 
and 10% per year. The maximum loss from unnatural causes that could be 
sustained by the dugong population in the southern GBR and still allow the 
population to recover could be as few as 3.3 dugongs per annum, and in 
Hervey Bay 1.6 dugongs per annum (H. Marsh, personal communication). 
The current evidence therefore suggests that dugong are in immediate danger 
of being lost from a significant proportion of their Australian range if effective 
and immediate action is not taken to reverse the decline. 
On 30 November 1996, the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council (GBRIvIC) 
considered a program of emergency measures for dugongs and recorded the 
decisions at Attachment A. 
Among other things, Commonwealth and Queensland Government 
Ministers agreed to list 9 Interim Dugong Protection Areas (DPAs) and to 
consider listing a further 2 areas as the basis of a sanctuary system. 
At Attachment B is a brief report on action to implement the decisiQns of 
Ministerial Council since it met. The remainder of this paper addresses the 
requirement to report on actions necessary for dugong conservation and 
management. 
In this report, critical recommendations for the survival of dugongs in the 
southern GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Region are indented and 
preceded by the letter 'C'. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 
	 8 
1. Terms of Reference  
Ministers directed that this report be prepared by the Great Barrier Reef 
Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) in cooperation with other agencies 
and in consultation with the fishing industry. 
Ministers requested that the report address : 
what action is necessary to ensure no further dugong mortality occurs 
as a result of commercial and recreational fishing practices in each 
DPA. The objective is to ensure that fishing practices that may result in 
dugong mortality will not be permitted in those areas. 
Other issues to be included are : the identification of additional DPAs, 
illegal take, shark netting, use of explosives, indigenous take (including 
the effectiveness of voluntary moratoria), habitat loss (especially 
regarding seagrass distribution and health). 
Ministers also recognised the principle of locating dugong protected areas 
at approximately 200 km intervals. 
CONSULTATION AND RESEARCH REGARDING THE REPORT 
This report has been prepared in cooperation with an inter-agency Dugong 
Working Group comprising representatives of the Queensland Department 
of Environment (QDoE), Queensland Department of Primary Industries 
(QDPI), Queensland Fisheries Management Authority (QFMA), Aboriginal 
and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), and Environment 
Australia - Biodiversity Group. However, it does not necessarily represent 
the views of those other agencies. 
At Attachment C is a list of submissions and reports by government and 
non -government individuals and organisations in relation to the 
preparation of this report. The submissions and reports are numbered 
-_sequentially for reference purposes and are included in the Appendix. 
Summaries of biological and user information about the Interim DPAs and 
additional sanctuaries proposed in this report (see section 3 below) are at 
Attachments D and are mapped at Attachment E. 
APPRAISAL OF DUGONG PROTECTION AREA BOUNDARIES  
The GBR Ministerial Council directed that this report review the adequacy 
of the Interim DPAs and the need for additional areas. The biological basis 
for the boundaries was reviewed by T. Preen and N. Morissette of James 
Cook University (refer report #18 and its supplementary report). Their 
review assessed all available sources of data on dugongs and seagrass 
distribution including : 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 9 
the three reef-wide aerial surveys of dugongs conducted in 1986-87, 1992 
and 1994; 
surveys of seagrass distribution by the Queensland Department of 
Primary Industries (QDPI); 
dugong carcass reports collected by James Cook University since the 
1970s, the QDPI shark control program, and other sources; 
shoreline aerial surveys by researchers in 1970s and 1990s; 
incidental dugong information collected during whale surveys of Hervey 
Bay by the Queensland Department of Environment (QDoE); 
satellite tracking studies of 17 dugongs; 
incidental sightings by Coastwatch, Marine Parks surveillance patrols, 
the general public and scientists; and 
information from indigenous peoples. 
In assessing areas that would form a reliable basis for a network of dugong 
sanctuaries, Preen and Morissette (report #18) recommend that, because 
dugongs are relatively mobile and utilise large home ranges, dugong 
sanctuaries must be relatively large if they are to be effective. They 
considered that the sanctuaries also need to extend to high water as much 
favoured seagrass occurs in the inter-tidal region, and into estuaries and 
streams. Estuaries and streams are outside the GBRMP. In addition, the 
sanctuaries must form a network that facilitates movement of dugongs 
between populations. The report states that DNA analysis indicates that 
interbreeding is restricted to neighbouring populations, so the distance 
between populations must be small enough to allow for adequate mixing. 
On these bases, Preen and Morissette propose a number of amendments to 
the boundaries of the Interim DPAs, and suggest three additional 
sanctuaries south of Cooktown. In all, they propose a network of 10 
sanctuaries. Their proposals are mapped at Attachment E. 
Table 1 provides biogeographic information comparing the proportion of 
dugongs and seagrass habitat in each of the Interim DPAs and the additional 
areas proposed by Preen and Morissette. Information on the extent of the 
areas is also provided. Generally, the more coastal waters or mainland 
coastline occupied-, by sanctuaries, the more dugongs would be included. 
The system of sanctuaries accepted as Interim DPAs by the GBRMC 
incorporate in the southern GBR (Cape Bedford to Bundaberg) at least 40% 
of the 1986-87 estimated dugong population and 79% of the 1994 estimated 
population. For the same southern GBR region, they encompass 66% of 
coastal seagrasses, 13% of nearshore coastal waters and 23% of the mainland 
coastline. 
In comparison, the extended and new areas proposed by Preen and 
Morissette would incorporate at least 74% of the 1986-87 estimated dugong 
population and 89% of the 1994 estimated population. They encompass 79% 
of coastal seagrasses, 34% of nearshore coastal waters and 44% of the 
mainland coastline. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 1.0 
The sanctuaries proposed by Preen and Morissette range in size from 193 
km2 to 1268 km2 and are separated by distances of between 65 km and 240 
km (an average of 132 km). 
In the short time frame available, the Preen and Morissette review did not 
give detailed consideration to proposals for a sanctuary system in the 
northern GBR (north of Cape Bedford near Cooktown). However, a review 
of Marine Park zoning for this area is nearing completion, and the current 
proposals for that review would provide a sound basis for a dugong 
protection in a more broadly based protected area system (see report #35). 
In order to reverse the decline in southern GBR dugong numbers, the 
GBRMPA believes that the sanctuary system will need to incorporate as 
high a proportion of dugongs and their habitats as possible. DPAs should 
also be no more than about 200 km apart to conform with knowledge of 
their movements, based upon satellite tracking and as accepted in principle 
by Ministerial Council. Although the Preen and Morissette report has been 
circulated to stakeholders and interest groups, detailed consultation with 
those groups has not been possible regarding the implications for them of 
the additional DPAs and the proposed boundary alterations. Accordingly, 
the GBRMPA recommends as follows : 
Recommendations : 
Confirm the Interim and proposed additional DPA areas but, subject to 
other decisions arising from this report, seek further consultation with 
stakeholders regarding appropriate strategies for the conservation of 
dugong within the additional DPA areas. 
Combine southern Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Strait as a single 
DPA. 
Do not include Princess Charlotte Bay and Bathurst Bay in the northern 
GBR as DPAs at this time, noting however that management regimes for 
conservation of dugongs in the Bays are being developed under the 
GBRMP Far Northern Section Zoning Review. 
Define the coastal boundary of the DPAs as including all tidal areas. 
4. APPRAISAL OF ISSUES ABOUT IMPACTS  
11. Commercial Fishing Activities 
The DPAs support varied fisheries using a number of fishing methods, 
including trawling, potting, line fishing and netting. More than 50 species 
of fin fish, sharks and crustacea are commonly caught in a variety of habitats 
including estuaries, foreshores, reefs and bays. The most significant and 
direct impacts on dugongs from commercial fishing activities are from 
netting. Other indirect and direct effects may result from damage to seagrass 
habitat from trawling; vessel strike and displacement of animals through 
vessel noise and activity. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 11 
i) Commercial Netting: Considerable spatial and temporal overlap exists 
between commercial netting activities and areas favoured by dugong. 
Although inadequate reporting practices make it impossible to gain a 
reliable estimate of the number of dugong deaths that are attributable to 
commercial netting activities, a number of authors have provided 
information that suggests that significant numbers of dugong deaths are 
attributed to gill netting activity. For example, Preen and Morissette (report 
# 18) state that of the 35 stranded dugong carcasses reported in the southern 
Great Barrier Reef during 1996, 16 were found to have clear signs of having 
been entangled in nets. 
In Queensland waters, the net design and the locations and methods of 
setting are regulated under the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994 and by the 
Queensland Fisheries Regulations 1995. There are seven basic net designs 
identified in the Queensland Fisheries Regulations 1995 for commercial use 
in Queensland waters, referred to as: mesh nets, set mesh nets, seine nets, 
tunnel nets, set pocket nets, ring nets and cast nets. Each design can have 
many different specifications depending on the target species and the area of 
use. 
The review of nets used in DPAs by Russell in report #19 indicates that 
dugongs appear to have difficulty in detecting nets because of relatively poor 
eyesight. Death occurs by drowning within approximately eight minutes (H. 
Marsh, personal communication) once the animal becomes entangled by 
their appendages such as tail and flippers. Russell (report #19) suggests that 
certain net designs have a much higher propensity to capture dugong. He 
concludes that: 
meshnets and set mesh nets used in an area inhabited by dugong pose a 
threat of capture to those animals; 
seine, tunnel or set pocket nets used in an area inhabited by dugong may 
pose a threat of capture to those animals depending on the method and 
location of use; and 
a cast net, due to the small size and minimal soak time, poses little or no 
threat of capture to dugong. 
The Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation has submitted a 
proposal on netting strategies in DPA's based on their stated 'obligation to 
mitigate and wherever possible, eliminate impact on dugongs' (submission 
#1). The submission addresses a wide range of proposals, including: 
an education and awareness strategy for commercial fishers; 
legislative changes, enforcement and compliance; 
incident reporting; 
modification of netting practices; and 
research. 
The QCFO proposals aim to achieve 'best practice' by commercial netters 
and, if implemented may have potential to reduce the mortality of dugong 
from commercial netting. 
ii 
.1 
ii 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 
	 12 
Table 2 lists netted catch weights of different fish species for the Interim 
DPAs and proposed additional areas. Note should be taken of the 
preponderance in areas north of Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Strait of 
large species, such as shark, mackerel and barramundi, which require 
stronger nets which represent a greater entanglement risk for dugongs. 
GBRMPA concludes that many of the aspects of the QCF0 submission (for 
example, training and reporting programs) may appreciably reduce dugong 
mortality in commercial fishing nets in the medium-to-long term . 
However, the extent of netting that is proposed by QCF0 to continue in 
DPAs would not deliver changes or practices that are likely to ensure the 
Ministerial Council direction "that fishing practices that may result in 
dugong mortality will not be permitted in those areas". A more detailed 
assessment of the QCF0 submission by GBRMPA is included in Attachment 
F together with comments by the Board of the Queensland Fisheries 
Management Authority (QFMA) and a letter from the interagency Dugong 
Working Party (through QFMA) seeking clarification of the QCF0 proposals. 
QCF0 clarified some proposals in two faxes subsequent to their report (see 
submission #1, supplementary). 
Hervey Bay and Great Sandy Strait support varied fisheries using a number 
of fishing methods. In 1988, use of a lighter breaking strain net (0.65 mm ply 
diameter) was made mandatory between Elliott River and Urangan in an 
attempt to reduce dugong deaths. However, information collected from 
strandings indicate that dugong are still being killed in fishing nets in 
Hervey Bay and Great Sandy Strait. The nets are implicated in dugong 
mortality are mesh nets and set mesh nets involved in the shark, 
barramundi and mackerel fisheries. Nets used in the whiting and mullet 
fisheries in Hervey Bay and Great Sandy Strait do not appear to cause 
mortality. 
GBRMPA notes that most stakeholders and interest groups have strongly 
stated that any netting prohibition needs to be accompanied by an Industry 
Adjustment Scheme (see Table 3 for estimates of numbers of net fishers in 
DPAs). Stakeholders believe that this is necessary to ensure that 
displacement of fishing effort, with its attendant problems, does not occur 
into other critical dugong areas (e.g. the Far Northern Section which 
supports about 86% of the remaining dugong population in the GBR ). 
Other relevant factors include the concern that fishers are more likely to 
comply if they have been compensated for their lost opportunities to fish in 
DPAs, or that those who hold licence endorsements for more than one 
fishery may switch to other forms of fishing and place more effort or 
pressure on those fisheries leading to problems of over-fishing. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 13 
The Authority believes that the submission by QCFO is insufficient to 
achieve the Ministerial Council requirement of ensuring 'that fishing 
practices that may result in dugong mortality will not be permitted in those 
areas (DPAs). Given the limitations on the information that can be readily 
obtained on dugong movements and interaction with nets, in order to 
confidently attempt to achieve this objective the Authority recommends as 
follows : 
Recommendations 
Legislate to remove mesh nets and set mesh nets from all DPAs, subject 
to such removal in Hervey Bay and Great Sandy Strait applying only to 
methods of fishing which target shark, mackerel and barramundi. 
Assess the risk to dugongs of seine, tunnel, ring and set pocket nets for 
each DPA and fisher, and regulate use accordingly; 
Permit the use of cast nets under the current Fisheries Regulation 1995 (Qld); 
As proposed by most stakeholders and interest groups, develop an 
Industry Adjustment Scheme in consultation with the Queensland 
Government and commercial fishing industry (An appraisal of fishing 
in each DPA and possible additional areas is in Tables 2 and 3). 
• 	 Alternatively, further negotiate and agree with commercial fishers on 
much stronger dugong protective proposals in DPAs than they have 
submitted for this report. These measures may include : a limit of one 
set net per person requiring 'at the net' attendance, limits on net size 
and breaking strain, tight specifications on method of deployment, 
careful selection and monitoring of approved fishers in DPAs, and 
enhanced enforcement. Such measures may reduce the risk of nets to 
dugongs in DPAs, however they are unlikely to meet the Ministerial 
Council objective of eliminating the risk; and 
Implement training, education and compliance strategies in line with 
the QCFO submission. 
ii) Trawler impact on seagrass habitat : Under current marine park zoning 
in the southern GBR, trawling is generally not permitted over seagrass beds, 
although the there are some, generally small areas of seagrass habitat, that 
may not have been covered in current zoning. Although this is an 
important issue, an immediate need is for more detailed surveys to define 
and appraise seagrass beds, and is most appropriately addressed in longer 
term planning for each DPA. 
An issue which needs further examination in Hervey Bay is the relative 
absence of dugong in what appears to be suitable habitat between Elliott 
River and Theodolite Creek. There is a major increase in the density of 
dugong populations immediately south of the 'offshore trawl' boundary. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 14 
iii) Vessel strike, noise and general disturbance of dugongs : This matter is 
appraised under Issue 5 below. 
Recreational Fishing Activities 
The most likely impacts on dugongs from recreational fishing activities are: 
vessel strike, noise and disturbance of dugongs; these matters are appraised 
under Issue 5 below. There may also be some, very limited, potential for 
dugong interaction with seine nets as they are currently defined by the 
Fisheries Regulations 1995 (Qld). 
Indigenous Hunting 
The decline of dugongs is a serious cultural issue for indigenous peoples. 
The animal is associated with "dreaming" stories in many areas and the act 
of hunting is seen as a continuance of cultural practices in the marine 
environment. Many indigenous people have expressed concern at the 
decline in dugong numbers and have voluntarily suspended hunting. 
Concern has been expressed by others that stopping hunting may potentially 
result in extinguishment of residual native title rights (see submission #5, 
and report #21). 
There are some 50 different groups (incorporated bodies) representing 
indigenous peoples in the southern GBR area. Of these, seven to GBRMPA's 
knowledge have agreed to suspend, or have voluntarily ceased, hunting (see 
map, report #21). 
In general those people/groups who have decided, or agreed, to voluntarily 
suspend hunting have complied with the suspension. The voluntary 
agreements are not comprehensive in geographic or group coverage 
consequently some people are continuing to hunt in the southern Great 
Barrier Reef region. There are also reports of illegal hunting activities and 
commercial trading of dugong meat in some areas, but this is not condoned 
by the wider indigenous community (see discussion under next Issue). 
According to the evidence proviAed by researchers hunting is not 
ecologically sustainable in the southern GBR region. The Authority has a 
policy that dugong hunting in the southern GBR is not sustainable, and that 
permits for dugong hunting cannot be granted on environmental grounds 
(see report #31). 
Cessation of hunting is a culturally and politically sensitive issue. 
Indigenous people require involvement in management of proposed 
Dugong Protected Areas and the species in recognition of their cultural 
associations and responsibilities. ATSIC state in their submission (#5) that if 
compensation for loss of access to an activity is considered for other sectors 
such as the commercial fishing industry, then indigenous people require 
similar consideration. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 15 
Recommendations 
Do not permit indigenous hunting in the southern GBR whilst dugong 
populations remain threatened, and support the continuation of the 
GBRMPA's work with Queensland D of E and ATSIC staff which aims to 
inform indigenous groups of the urgent need to protect dugongs. 
Develop, in conjunction with ATSIC and representative bodies, 
arrangements for joint management with indigenous peoples of 
dugongs in DPA's for implementation as a part of management 
planning for the areas. 
14. Illegal take 
Dugong deaths appear to occur illegally as a result of two main activities - 
illegal fish netting, and illegal hunting. The extent to which they have, and 
are, adversely affecting dugong populations is difficult to estimate because of 
socio-cultural and political problems with intelligence, surveillance and 
enforcement. Reports that are mainly unsubstantiated indicate that 
significant illegal indigenous hunting is occurring in some coastal areas. In 
some areas a trade has apparently developed in dugong meat derived from 
both or either illegal fish netting and illegal indigenous hunting. 
The apparent extent of illegal take of dugongs is of considerable concern to 
the GBRMPA. Current enforcement resources are insufficient to adequately 
address the matter. The legislation is also complex in the area and may 
require amendment to improve enforcement. 
Recommendations 
C Establish a task force of professional enforcement personnel and 
representatives of indigenous peoples, together with other interests as 
necessary, to urgently review and implement actions necessary to 
successfully counter illegal take of dugongs and other endangered 
marine animals on the GBR and in the Hervey Bay/Grea: Sandy Strait 
region. This will require additional funding in the order of $0.5 million 
per year over at least two years. The Task Force 
-mil : 
review legislation (eg. moratorium to hand in illegal nets, review 
protection of dugongs; 
undertake intelligence work; 
undertake special enforcement activities; and 
assess the ongoing role of the Force (subject to review at end of first 
two years). 
I/ 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 16 
1 5• Vessel and aircraft activity 
The main vessel and aircraft activities which may adversely affect dugong 
are vessel strike, noise and general disturbance of dugongs. 
Unlike the related manatee in Florida, there are comparatively few recorded 
instances of dugongs being struck by vessels in coastal Queensland. Research 
on factors affecting vessel strike of dugongs is inadequate and would be very 
difficult to acquire. However, the risk of striking a dugong appears to be 
greater where there are frequent and/or high speed craft traversing shallow 
waters (especially in confined areas such as bays, tidal estuaries and creeks) 
and when weather is rough. In these circumstances the animal has little 
time or place to dive to avoid being struck. Propeller guards probably have 
little effect in minimising injury to dugongs in a high speed collision. It is 
also estimated that 40% of boat strikes on manatees do not involve 
propeller injuries (H. Marsh personal communication). 
From discussion with people who have struck dugongs with vessels, the 
GBRIVIPA suggests that a threshold speed of no more 10 knots apply in 
depths at low water of less than 5 metres. These guidelines should be 
applied to defined parts of DPAs as necessary and after appropriate 
consultation where use patterns, geographic parameters and dugong biology 
suggest that they are appropriate to minimise risk to dugongs. Dependent 
upon circumstances, their application could be either voluntary or by 
legislation. On present appraisal, vessel constraints are necessary in the 
Hinchinbrook Region DPA, and for activities such as boat racing, water 
skiing and jet skiing in all DPAs . 
Noise disturbance from vessels and aircraft, especially helicopters and float 
planes, can adversely affect dugongs. Sound is possibly important for 
dugong communication as they live in turbid waters. Sound is an efficient 
form of communication as it disseminates well in water. High levels of 
unnatural background noise may interfere with dugong communication 
and cause hearing difficulty or damage and social disruption. In general, the 
larger and faster the engine, the greater the sound. Accordingly, the 
GBRMPA recommends as follows : 
Recommendations 
C 1. Apply vessel speed limits and restrictions oil/helicopter and float 
plane activity in areas of the Hinchinbrook Region DPA; and 
2. Adopt a policy prohibiting boat racing, water skiing and jet skiing in areas 
where dugongs may be at risk from vessel strike and noise effects in DPAs 
such as the Hinchinbrook Region, Cleveland Bay, Upstart Bay, and Newry 
Region DPAs. The areas are to be defined in consultation with stakeholders, 
local users and the general public and implemented as appropriate under 
marine park permitting and other legislative frameworks. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 17 
Shark netting for bather safety 
 
Twelve shark nets for bather safety are currently deployed in the GBR 
World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). Two of the nets are in the Cleveland Bay 
DPA. The remainder are outside DPAs. The nets constitute a significant 
threat to dugongs. A number of nets have been replaced on the GBR over 
the years; for example in 1992, they were replaced by drumlines in the 
Rockhampton region and at one beach on Magnetic Island near Townsville 
with a resultant reduction in the take of non-target species, including 
dugong, and without apparent loss of efficiency in capture of sharks. 
The Queensland Department of Primary Industries is reviewing the shark 
control program under which the nets are operated. Submissions #4 and 6 
relate to that Review. On current advice, the Review is expected to be 
completed by mid-1997 in time for the proposed June meeting of the 
GBRMC. The GBRMPA Chairperson has submitted to the Review that all 
nets in the GBRWHA should be replaced by drumlines unless the nets can 
be shown to be preferable to drumlines for reasons of human safety. 
Submission #4 states that the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries 
recently decided to remove one of the two remaining nets from Magnetic 
Island, within the Cleveland Bay DPA. The Authority recommends as 
follows : 
Recommendation 
C Replace shark nets for bather safety in the GBRWHA and in Hervey Bay 
and the Great Sandy region by drumlines unless the nets can be shown 
to be preferable to drumlines for reasons of human safety. 
Use of explosives, 
 
Explosives are used rarely in waters of the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great 
Sandy region and only after careful assessment. They are not recorded as 
having adversely affected dugongs in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy 
Strait but if inappropriately used, have the potential to do so (there are 
records of the use of explosives to hunt dugongs in Sri Lanka and Palau). As 
endorsed by--the GBRMC on 30/11/96, the Department of Defence has 
instituted a-moratorium during 1997 on the Department's use of explosives 
in Interim DPAs except in the Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area where 
specific guidelines have been agreed with the Royal Australian Navy for 
their explosives training exercises at Triangular Island. GBRMPA will 
conclude discussions with Defence this year seeking a long-term prohibition 
on the Department's use of explosives in DPAs as an inappropriate activity 
unless for exceptional reasons of human safety eg discovery of unexploded 
World War 2 ordnance. The use of explosives for commercial or other 
purposes in DPAs should be considered during the environmental impact 
assessment of proposals with due recognition being given to the status of 
the areas. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 18 
Recommendation 
C. Endorse GBRNIPA negotiations with Defence during the existing 
moratorium period, with a view to securing a long-term prohibition on the 
Department's use of explosives in DPAs as an inappropriate activity unless 
for exceptional reasons of human safety : for example, discovery of 
unexploded World War 2 ordnance. 
18. Habitat loss, especially seagrasses 
The issue of the actual or potential loss of the dugong's seagrass feeding 
habitat is potentially the most significant in terms of the long-term survival 
prospects of dugongs in the southern GBR region. However, there is little 
information available that can be applied to an analysis of the matter in the 
region (see report # 23). 
Dugong feeding scars have been seen in seagrass meadows at water depths of 
33 metres and feeding may occur in greater depths. There are anecdotal 
reports of local losses of seagrass in areas of the GBRWHA, for example, 
Upstart Bay (see submission #1), The last widespread scientific survey of 
coastal seagrasses in the southern GBR was in the 1980s. Whilst localised 
surveys have occurred since in some areas, resources are not available 
currently for detailed fine-scale surveys of each DPA. Nevertheless, in the 
event of a significant seagrass die-off event on the GBR, whether from 
disease or any other factor, it is not readily apparent that a rapid or 
appropriate management action could be taken to redress the situation. It is 
therefore appropriate to minimise the risks to seagrass habitat through the 
application of best management practice to the possible contributory 
activities. 
Hervey Bay is identified as having the second largest area of deep water 
seagrass habitat on the east coast of Queensland. In 1992, the loss of the 
majority of this habitat (over 100 km 2) had a significant effect on dugong 
populations. The habitat loss has been attributed to an extended period of 
reduced light conditions caused by a persistent plume of turbid water that 
resulted from the floods and the resuspension of sediments caused by the 
cyclonic seas. Recent studies have also identified a pathogen which is 
documented as causing declines in seagrass communities worldwide. In the 
system of DPA's, Hervey Bay and Great Sandy Strait is a major stronghold 
for dugong and dugong habitat. It is essential that any conservation 
measures for this DPA include a programme of research and monitoring 
aimed at providing a better understanding of the complex issues affecting 
seagrass and the health of dugong. 
Recommendation 
Support further appropriate management-related research into seagrass 
habitat issues, particularly in Hervey Bay/ Great Sandy Strait; and 
Support the furtherance of best management practices focussing on 
activities that may impact on seagrass habitats in DPAs. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 19 
Attachment A 
Record of Decisions : 22nd Meeting of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial 
Council, Brisbane, 30 November 1996. 
Agenda 2 
EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR GREAT BARRIER REEF AND ADJACENT 
AREA DUGONG RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION 
Council: 
confirmed that urgent action is required to ensure recovery of dugong 
populations in the Great Barrier Reef and adjacent waters; 
noted the material assembled by the Working Party of the Great Barrier 
Reef Dugong Review Group and comments by all members of the Group on 
a Draft Program of Emergency Measures; 
agreed to the list of 9 Interim Dugong Protection Areas (DPAS) and to 
consider listing a further 2 Areas on the basis of a sanctuary system; and 
recognised the principle of having dugong protected areas at approximately 
200 km intervals; 
specifically endorsed the following measures for dugong recovery and 
conservation : 
the Queensland Government will legislate as soon as possible 
under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 to require fisher 
attendance at offshore set mesh nets; 
the Commonwealth Government through GBRMPA will finalise 
the Shoalwater B ay (Dugong) Plan of Management as soon as 
possible including a provision prohibiting mesh nets for fishing in 
the Bay; 
the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments will realign 
and enhance surveillance and enforcement patrols to focus on 
areas of high dugong risk; 
the Department of Defence will institute a moratorium during 
1997 on the use of explosives in the DPAs except in the Shoalwater 
Bay Military Training Area and under existing terms agreed with 
the Royal Australian Navy for Triangular Island in the Shoalwater 
Bay Military Training Area; 
GBRIvIPA in cooperation with QDoE, QFMA and QDPI to report to 
Governments by 28/2/97 on what action is necessary to ensure no 
further dugong mortality occurs as a result of commercial and 
recreational fishing practices in each of the Interim Dugong 
Protected Areas. The objective is to ensure that fishing practices 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 20 
that may result in dugong mortality will not be permitted in those 
areas. The report is to be prepared in consultation with the fishing 
industry. 
Other issues to be addressed by agencies and to be reported to 
Governments by February include identification of additional 
DPAs, illegal take, shark netting, use of explosives, indigenous 
take and habitat loss; 
Ministers will also address the effectiveness of voluntary 
moratoria in relation to indigenous take of dugongs within the 
GBRMP. 
The Council also had brought to its attention major loss of dugong in the 
Torres Strait and whilst beyond the jurisdiction of GBRMPA the 
Commonwealth Minister for the Environment undertook to investigate 
such losses and review appropriate strategies to advance conservation. 
The Council heard concerns in relation to the health and distribution of 
seagrasses and required GBRMPA to review the status of research and to 
report back to the next Council meeting on whether further action 
should be taken. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 21 
Attachment B  
MEASURES ENDORSED BY GBRMC 22 AND SUBSEQUENT ACTION 
  
Measure Subsequent Action 
 Legislate to require fisher attendance at 
offshore set nets; 
Mid-February submission by Queensland 
Commercial Fishermen's Organisation is 
being appraised by the Queensland Fisheries 
Management Authority. Recommendation to 
Queensland Minister for Primary Industries 
expected shortly, with legislation enacted 
March-April. 
 Finalise the Shoalwater Bay (Dugong) 
Plan of Management; with a provision 
prohibiting mesh nets for fishing in the 
Bay (except cast nets & crab dilly pots); 
Finalised. Public notification to bring the 
plan into force will occur by mid-March 1997. 
Enforcement provisions require Governor-
General's approval and subsequent gazettal. 
 Realign and enhance patrols in areas of 
high risk to dugongs; 
Actioned to the extent possible 
under current funding and other 
management imperatives. 
Additional funding required each 
Financial Year for long-term action. 
4. Institute a one-year moratorium on the 
use of explosives in DPAs by Defence 
except in the Shoalwater Bay Military 
Training Area and under existing terms 
agreed with the Royal Australian Navy 
for Triangular Island; 
In-place. Discussions to be held ASAP with 
Defence regarding long-term management 
arrangements for dugong on the matter. 
5. Report by 28/2/97 on, 
- what action is necessary to ensure no 
further dugong mortality occurs as a 
result of commercial and recreational 
fishing practices in each DPA, 
- other issues including identification of 
additional DPAs, illegal take, shark 
netting, use of explosives, indigenous 
take and habitat loss, 
- the effectiveness of voluntary 
moratoria, 
- the health and distribution of 
seagrasses and whether action should be 
taken. 
Subject of this Report. As requested, the 
Report has been prepared by GBRMPA in 
cooperation with other government agencies 
and in consultation with the fishing 
industry. 
6. Review appropriate conservation 
strategies for Torres Strait dugongs. 
Environment Australia - Biodiversity 
Group have prepared a preliminary report 
(see report #30). Further action to be 
developed in consultation with Torres Strait 
and Queensland management agencies. 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 	 22 
Attachment C 
List of Submissions and Reports  
(numbered for reference purposes in this report) 
Submissions 
Industry proposal for implementation of the QCFO Dugong 
Conservation Strategy; plus supplementary fax of 26/2/97 on 
'clarification of areas in QCFO Strategy'. 
(by the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation) 
Dugong mortality from the perspective of recreational anglers in 
Queensland (by Sunfish Queensland Incorporated) 
Dugong Shoalwater Bay (by Sunfish Queensland Incorporated) 
Latest situation - nets - shark control program (by QDPI) 
Letter of 19/2/97 from Commissioner I Delaney, ATSIC Commissioner, 
Queensland Metropolitan Zone 
Letter of 24/1/97 from Dr P Corkeron, James Cook University, to the 
Queensland Minister for Primary Industries (copied to GBRMPA) 
regarding shark nets at Magnetic Island. 
Letters of 19/2/97 and 21/2/97 from Humane Society International 
Dugong Conservation Policy (by Australian Marine Conservation 
Society, 20/2/97) 
Letter of 21/2/97 from the Queensland Conservation Council 
Letter of 21/2/97 from the Australian Marine Conservation Society 
Letter of 21/2/97 from the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 
(Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch Inc.) 
Letter of 22/2/97 from the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 
(Townsville Branch Inc.) 
Letter of 23/2/97 from the Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc. 
Letter of 23/2/97 from the North Queensland Conservation Council 
Letter of 24/2/97 from Dr T. Preen, James Cook University, enclosing 
'Comments on the Dugong Conservation Policy of the Australian 
Marine Conservation Society'. 
Letter of 24/2/97 from the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 
(Tully & District Branch)- 
Letters of 17/2/97 and 25/2/97 from Professor H. Marsh, James Cook 
University, including the draft report, 'Attempts at minimising the 
bycatch of endangered species in commercial fishing operations in the 
United States: lessons for the Great Barrier Reef region' . 
Reports  
A system of dugong sanctuaries for the recovery and conservation of 
dugong populations in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and 
adjacent southern waters ; plus supplementary report and comparative 
Table, received 26/2/97 [attached to main report are overheads and notes 
for verbal presentation to MPA 165, 20/2/97] 
(by Tony Preen and Nina Morissette, James Cook University) 
Mesh nets used in waters of Queensland's East Coast : The risk to 
dugongs in proposed Interim Dugong Protection Areas 
(by Martin Russell, GBRMPA) 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRM.PA, 7/3/97) 	 23 
Report on vessel use in the Interim Dugong Protection Areas 
(by M. Gilbert and D Benzaken, GBRMPA) 
Report on effectiveness of voluntary cessation of dugong hunting 
(by Greg Smith, GBRMPA, in consultation with Rick Hill and Bill White 
of ATSIC) 
Coastal development and pollution in Dugong Protection Areas 
(by J. Brodie and D. Haynes, GBRMPA; J Cavanagh, AIMS; D. Pitts, 
Environment Science and Services) 
Dugong Protected Areas - Seagrass Issues 
(by W. Lee Long, L. McKenzie, R. Coles, Queensland Dept of Primary 
Industries) 
Impacts on and responses of seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef - issues 
for management (by W. Lee Long and R. Coles, QDPI) 
The effects of trawl fisheries on Great Barrier Reef seabed habitat (by C R 
Pitcher et. al., CSIRO Division of Marine Research) 
Large scale seagrass dieback (by J. McLeod, Cooloola Seafood Festival) 
A part resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great 
Sandy Strait and Tin Can Inlet (by FRC Coastal Resource and 
Environmental; submitted by J McLeod) 
The Influence of water quality on the virulence of the seagrass pathogen, 
Labyrinthula (by M Wnuczynski; submitted by J McLeod) 
Report on illegal take of dugong in the Great Barrier Reef region and in 
the proposed dugong sanctuary areas (by T. Christensen, Queensland 
Department of Environment) 
Information on the conservation status of dugong in the Torres Strait 
Area (Preliminary report; by G Anderson, Environment Australia - 
Biodiversity Group) 
Interim Policy - Traditional Hunting Dugong (by Great Barrier Reef 
Marine Park Authority) 
Further Additions 
32 Letter of 25/2/97 from Mackay Conservation Group 
33 Letter of 27/2/97 from Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 
(Proserpine/ Whitsunday Branch) 
34 Letter of 25/2/97 from Cairns and Far North Environment Centre Inc. 
Dugong Management in the Northern Great Etc-r_ier Reef (by J. Phillips, 
GBRMPA) 
Notes on seagrasses and seagrass-dugong interactions in the 
Hinchinbrook Region (by W. Lee Long and R. Coles, QDPI) 
.0.0. 
ATTACHMENT D 
Summaries of Biological and User Information About 
Interim and Proposed Dugong Protection Areas 
Low Isles 
Dugong numbers and distribution 
No dugong population estimates exist for this region because of the 
relative rarity of dugongs between Dunk Island and Cape Bedford since 
the mid-1980s. However, herds of 27 and 19 dugongs (possibly the same 
herd) were recorded just west of Port Douglas in 1994 and 20 dugongs at 
Agincourt Reef in 1996 demonstrate that significant numbers can occur in 
the area. 
The area was historically important for dugongs as indicated by the high 
number caught in shark nets at Cairns from the early 1960s . The 
establishment of a DPA in this region should encourage the recovery of 
this dugong population and ensure genetic continuity between important 
dugong populations at Hinchinbrook and the Starcke River. 
Dugong habitat 
The major reefs in this proposed DPA (Batt and Tongue Reefs) are 
believed to be important nursery areas for dugongs. Dugongs are also 
commonly seen in the area between White Cliffs and Rocky Point. 
Seagrass meadows have not been surveyed. 
Fisheries 
Low Isles supports a commercial net fishery which in absolute value 
comprises 1 tonne or 0.4% of the total catch for the proposed DPA's in 
the southern GBR. 
Netting effort: 
Netting effort in the area is very low relative to the total effort in the 
proposed DPA's in the southern GBR with 15km of net length used in 
1995 compared to a total of 1955km set in all proposed DPA's in the 
southern GBR. 
Netting activity 
Of the 900 licensed net fishers in Qld: 
500 reported activity in 1995 
250 of those operated in the Marine Park 
150 of those operated in the DPA's, and 
Three of those reported catches in Low Isles of which two reported 
significant catches (>3tonnes). 
4. Strandings 
There are no dugong carcass records for the area. 
Traditional hunting 
The Kuku Yalandji Marine Resource Management Committee has, since 
1994, declared a moratorium on dugong hunting in this area. 
Recreational boating 
No information available. 
Hinchinbrook 
1. Dugong numbers and distribution 
In 1994, 24% of the southern GBR dugong population was located in 
both the interim and proposed Hinchinbrook DPA's. The area has the 
most stable dugong population remaining in the southern GBR and the 
second largest area of seagrass meadows. 
Transect aerial surveys indicate that the number of dugongs increased 
between 1987 and 1994: up from 284 (+/-131) to 484 (+/-170). This 
increase is due, in part, to movement of dugong into this area. 
Missionary Bay is the most important dugong habitat in this region. 
Hinchinbrook Channel, Cardwell coast, Lucinda coast, and the east coast 
of Hinchinbrook Island are also used by dugongs. 
2. Status of seagrass meadows 
Fine scale (detailed) surveys were undertaken in 1996. 
Seagrass meadows comprise 18.6% of coastal seagrass in all interim and 
proposed DPA's in the southern GBR, and cover 10, 773 hectares; 
They are extensive and healthy (W. Lee Long, QDPI pers.comm.) and 
composed of species favoured by dugongs; 
Meadows occur around the island, providing a range of feeding 
opportunities for dugongs. 
In order of importance (based on size), extensive meadows are located in: 
Missionary Bay to Goold Island; 
Shepherds Bay (Northeast coast of the island); 
vicinity of Meunga Creek (north of Cardwell); 
the entire western side of Hinchinbrook Channel to the mouth; 
Lucinda Point to Forrest Beach and Lady Elliot Reef; 
the eastern side and central section of the Channel; 
the east coast of the Island which contains a chain of patchy meadows. 
Rivers and creeks with meadows are: 
1 
Deluge Inlet on the eastern side of channel (1.8km inside creek) 
Conn River mouth (western side of channel) 
Seymour River mouth (western side of channel) 
the most northern (unnamed creek) on eastern side of the channel ( a 
600m meadow, lkm inside creek) 
Protection of seagrass under current Marine Park Zoning is satisfactory 
but not adequately cover the range of significant meadows. 
Meadows protected from trawling under Marine Park zoning are in 
Missionary Bay and the Channel; 
Important meadows within Marine Park zones that allow trawling are 
located at Shepherds Bay and Meunga creek. Their protection should be 
reviewed. 
Important meadows south of Lucinda Point are currently outside the 
Great Barrier Reef and State Marine Parks and habitat is not protected. 
The interim DPA would include 694km2 of seagrass and exclude major 
meadows north of Cardwell (Meunga Creek). 
3. Fisheries 
The Hinchinbrook area supports a commercial net fishery which in 
absolute value comprises 30 tonnes or 28.6 % of the total catch for the 
interim DPA's, and 35 tons or 13.9 % for the proposed DPA's in the 
southern GBR.. 
The main target species are: barramundi; shark; mackeral; mullet and 
salmon along with trevally, whiting, flathead and mixed fish 
Netting effort: 
Effort in the interim DPA is low-medium, with 210 km of net length 
used in 1995 compared to 250 km used in the proposed DPA in the same 
period. 
Overall netting effort is the highest for all interim and proposed DPA's 
in the southern GBR (excluding Hervey Bay). 
Highest netting effort occurs in the DPA: 
2 
Off Cardwell (25.2 km/yr) 
Mid-Channel: between Conn creek and Neams inlet: (23.9km/yr) 
In Missionary and Shepherds Bay: (19.2 - 13.7 km/yr), and 
These areas are coincident with key dugong habitat. 
Netting activity 
Of the 900 licensed net fishers in Queensland, 150 operate in the DPA's. 
Eighteen (18) fishers reported catches in the interim and proposed 
Hinchinbrook DPA's; six of those reported significant catches (>3 
tonnes). Netting occurs day and night throughout the area, and is 
concentrated in the intertidal areas, rivers and creeks. 
4. Strandings 
Ten dugong carcasses were recorded in 1996. Cause of death was 
established for 7. River set mesh nets; unidentified nets and vessel strike 
are implicated. 
The Hinchinbrook area is characterised by shallow waters where 
areas of seagrass meadows occur in sheltered bays; rivers and on 
intertidal banks. These areas overlap with some of the main mesh netting 
locations, bringing the animals into a high risk of incidental capture. The 
area of subtidal seagrass is small, which reduces the amount of alternative 
low-conflict feeding areas. Some major rivers also contain seagrasses to 
which dugongs may travel and become entangled in set nets. It is also 
possible that additional day-time boat traffic is increasing the likelihood 
of vessel strike and may cause dugongs to retreat to offshore areas during 
the day and concentrate inshore feeding activity at night. This would 
increase likelihood of capture in nets set at night. 
Traditional hunting 
The Girrgun people are traditionally associated with the Hinchinbrook 
region. They have elected not to hunt dugongs out of concern for the 
species. There have been reports of hunting by people from the Palm 
Island area in the southern Hinchinbrook area. 
Recreational boating 
The total number of boats registered in the Ingham area for 1995 was 
1604. The Hinchinbrook area has a high recreational boating value as well 
3 
as boating from fishing activity. The channel has particularly high use due 
to its all weather boating environment. Missionary Bay is also intensively 
used because it is the main access to the start of the island's Thorsborne 
bush-walking track. Recreational events such as water skiing races are 
held in the channel, in which vessels reach speeds of up to 70 knots across 
shallow waters. The level of boat use and high speed boating events are of 
concern in the area. 
4 
Cleveland Bay /Cape Bowling Green 
Dugong population 
The interim DPA would include 18% of the 1994 dugong population 
recorded in the southern GBR and 21% in the proposed DPA's. 
The population of dugongs in the Cleveland/Bowling Green Bay region 
has declined by 52% between 1987 and 1994 (down from 496 +/-151 to 
237 +/-48). 
The Cleveland Bay region provides very important dugong habitat. 
Seagrass 
The interim DPA would include 19.3% of coastal seagrasses DPA's in 
the southern GBR and 20.9% of the proposed DPA's. 
Cleveland Bay has extensive and healthy meadows covering 121km2 
(W.Lee Long QDPI pers.comm.) which were surveyed in detail in 1996. 
They are both intertidal and sub-tidal, extending to 7km from the coast. 
3. Fisheries 
Cleveland Bay supports a commercial net fishery which in absolute 
value comprises 35 tonnes or 26.1 % of the total catch for the interim 
DPA's in the southern GBR and 75 tonnes or 29.9 % of the extended 
DPA's. 
The main target species are shark; mackerel; barramundi; mullet; 
salmon and trevally. 
Netting effort is low in relation to the total effort for all DPA's but the 
highest of each interim or proposed DPA, excluding Hervey Bay. 
Highest effort occurs around Halifax Bay and lowest in Bowling Green 
Bay. 
Netting activity 
Of the 900 licensed net fishers in Qld: 
500 reported activity in 1995 
250 of those operated in the Marine Park 
150 of those operated in the DPA's, and 
Ten (10) of those fishers reported catches in the interim DPA and 18 in 
the proposed. 
4. Strandings 
289 dugongs died in shark nets since 1960; and 
6 carcasses resulting from other causes were recorded in 1996 ; one a 
confirmed fishing net entanglement; one from vessel strike. 
Traditional hunting 
No agreements are in place with any indigenous groups in the area. 
Recreational boating 
Boat registrations from 1995 were 6336. 
Cleveland Bay is an area of high recreational use. No information for 
Bowling Green Bay. 
Of concern are high speed vessels; power boat races and jet ski 
operations. 
Upstart Bay 
Dugong numbers and distribution 
In 1986-7 four (4) percent of the southern GBR dugong population was 
located in Upstart Bay and two (2) percent in 1994. Dugong density 
ranking for the area is medium with an estimated .0235 animals per 
kilometre (Marsh et al 1996). 
Records show that Dugongs use all of the Bay with heaviest 
concentrations associated with seagrass meadows. 
Transect aerial surveys indicate that the number of dugongs in Upstart 
Bay has declined by some 89% between 1987 and 1994 (171+/-87 to 
19+1-19; Marsh et al., 1996). Despite this, a herd of up to 30 dugongs was 
seen there by Artie Jackobson as recently as 1993 (John Locke, pers. 
comm.). The movements of a dugong tagged in Cleveland Bay, which 
spent most of its time in Upstart Bay (Fig. 5G, Marsh and Rathbun, 
1990), demonstrated a link between the dugongs in these two areas. 
Status of seagrass meadows 
Upstart Bay occurs in the Burdekin region where seagrass meadows 
receive the lowest protection under Marine Park Zoning than elsewhere 
in the GBR (Morissette 1992). 
Upstart Bay has extensive and ecologically significant seagrass for 
dugongs and prawns (Morissette, 1992; Marsh et al 1996) because: 
It contains 15 meadows (Morissette 1992) comprising 1.5% (an area 
of 193 km2) of the coastal seagrass meadows of the southern GBR . 
It is one of 3 areas in the region with the most extensive meadows (the 
others are: Cleveland and Edgecumbe Bay) 
It is one of only 2 areas in the Central Section of the GBRMP that are 
remote from development and sewage. 
The area's urban population is developing rapidly, increasing the threat of 
degradation; sewage and waste disposal in the meadows. 
According to QCFO sources, fishers have noted a deterioration of 
seagrass meadows in the southern pocket of the Bay (between Molongol 
creek and Oyster Point) and attribute this to increased land use for 
agriculture (QCFO submission on netting to GBRMPA, 1997). 
3. Fisheries 
Upstart Bay supports a commercial net fishery which in absolute value 
comprises 5 tonnes or 4.8 % of the total catch for the original DPA's and 
5 tonnes or 2% of the proposed DPA's. The main target species are shark; 
blue salmon; king salmon; mullet and barramundi along with queenfish; 
yellow finned bream; grunter; flathead garfish and mixed fish. 
Netting effort: 
Effort in Upstart Bay is low relative to the total effort in the original and 
proposed DPA's with 30km of net length used in 1995 in the original 
Upstart Bay DPA (compared to 870km for all DPA's in the southern 
GBR), and, 30 km of net used in the extended DPA compared to 1,955km 
for all proposed southern GBR/ DPA's. 
Netting effort is highest in the western side of the Bay. 
Netting activity 	 , 
Of the 900 licensed net fishers in Qld: 
500 reported activity in 1995 
250 of those operated in the Marine Park 
150 of those operated in the DPA's, and 
Two of those fishers reported catches in Upstart Bay. 
The only access to a large number (about 100) of houses on the western 
shore of Cape Upstart is by boat, and it appears that they are used 
primarily as fishing retreats by people from the Burdeldn delta. As a 
result, Illegal gill netting may be a potential management problem in this 
sanctuary. These houses appear to be within the boundary of the Cape 
Upstart National Park. 
Strandings 
There are no records of dugong carcasses for the Bay. 
Traditional hunting 
The Giru Dala are the traditional owners of the Bay . They have agreed 
not to hunt dugongs in the area. 
Recreational boating 
The total number of registered vessels for 1995 in the Ayr/Home Hill and 
Bowen area is 3656. Commercial fishers report that up to 700 boats 
travel over the eastern side of the Bay on weekends and constitute 
significant vessel strike threat. Other reports suggest up to 50 boats use 
access facilities on long weekends. 
There is a proposal to dredge an access channel through Molongol Creek 
for an all tide boat channel, and this would be through prime seagrass 
meadows. 
Edgecumbe Bay 
1. Dugong numbers and distribution 
In 1986-7, 8% percent of the southern GBR dugong population was 
located in the proposed Edgecumbe Bay DPA, and 1% in 1994. 
Transect aerial surveys indicate that the number of dugongs dropped 
from 173 +/- (77) to 20 (+/- 17) in 1994. 
Historically, Edgecumbe Bay has been important dugong habitat, 
supporting large herds of up to 30 as recently as 15-20 years ago. 
Anecdotal information from local people suggests that the decline has 
been associated with increased trawling and netting activity, especially in 
the unprotected Sinclair Bay area. Today there are few dugong in the 
area although regular sightings are made by Aborigines hunting turtle in 
the southern half of the Bay. 
The location of a sanctuary at Edgecumbe Bay should facilitate the 
recovery of this dugong population. The available data indicates that all of 
Edgecumbe Bay should be included. The recovery of dugong populations 
at Repulse Bay and Edgecumbe Bay should eventually result in an 
increase in the number of dugongs residing around the Whitsunday 
Islands. 
2. Status of seagrass meadows 
2.4 % of coastal seagrasses in the southern GBR occur in the proposed 
DPA. 
Edgecumbe Bay is identified as one of 5 significant seagrass habitats in 
the Central section of the Marine Park, and supports commercially 
important prawn nurseries as well as turtle and dugong populations. 
Extent and status 
Approximately 16 seagrass meadows occur in the intertidal area of the 
Bay and on the western side of Gloucester Island. 
Protection 
Protection of meadows in the proposed DPA under Marine Park Zoning 
is unsatisfactory, with a significant portion outside the Marine Park and 
unprotected (includes 7 major meadows from Bowen to Adelaide Point as 
well as Sinclair Bay), and the remainder not protected from trawling 
Marine Park Zone, General Use A. 
3. Fisheries 
Edgecumbe Bay supports a commercial net fishery which in absolute 
value comprises 5 tonnes or 2 % of the total catch for all proposed 
DPA's. The main target species are mackerel, salmon, mixed fish, shark; 
and barramundi . 
Netting effort: 
Effort is low with 10 km of net length set in the Bay in 1995 compared to 
1955 km of net set for all proposed DPA's in the southern GBR. 
Netting activity 
Of the 900 licensed net fishers in Qld: 
500 reported activity in 1995 
250 of those operated in the Marine Park 
150 of those operated in the DPA's, and 
Four (4) of those fishers reported catches in 1995 in the proposed 
DPA. 
Three out of those 4 reported significant catches (>3 tonnes). 
4. Strandings 
Six carcasses have been recorded in the proposed DPA in recent years. 
Netting is implied in two (1996). 
Traditional hunting 
The Giru Dala are the traditional owners of the Bay . They have agreed 
not to hunt dugongs in the area and there has been very little dugong 
hunting there since the early 1950s . 
Recreational boating 
The total number of registered vessels for 1995 in the Bowen area is 
1381. Edgecumbe Bay is within the Whitsunday region where 97% of 
meadows are within 30km of a boating facility. Whilst Edgecumbe Bay is 
still relatively remote from mainstream tourist operations there is 
concern about potential boating impact from future tourist developments. 
Newry / Repulse Bay 
1. Dugong numbers and distribution 
Both the interim and proposed DPA's would protect 2% of the 
estimated 1994 southern GBR dugong population. 
The proposed DPA supported 11% of the population in 1986-7, 
indicating the importance of the area. Historically, the proposed DPA 
region supported two dugong fisheries; one at Newry Island and one at 
nearby Repulse Bay. 
Transect aerial surveys indicate that the dugong population in the 
Newry area has declined by about 84% between 1986 and 1994 (240+!-
104 to 38+/-37). In Repulse Bay it appears that the decline may have 
occurred well before the start of systematic aerial surveys as the 
population estimate from the first aerial survey in 1986-7 was only 31 
(+1-35). During 1992 the estimate was 70 (+1-59), but in 1994 no dugongs 
were seen. 
It is likely that the population could recover if it was afforded adequate 
protection. 
Most dugong records occur in the vicinity of the Newry Islands and in 
the north of Repulse Bay. 
2. Status of seagrass meadows 
The interim DPA would include 0.8 % of coastal seagrasses in the 
southern GBR and 2.1% in the proposed DPA's. 
Extent and status 
There are six large meadows in the DPA. 
Protection 
The level of protection is unsatisfactory because both the interim and 
most of the proposed DPA are outside the Marine Park. Concern about 
the low level of seagrass protection in Repulse Bay is often expressed by 
members of that local community, along with concerns about the level of 
trawling and netting and decline of dugongs. 
3. Fisheries 
The interim DPA supports a commercial net fishery which in absolute 
value comprises 10 tonnes or 9.5% of the total catch for the original 
DPA's in the southern GBR and 45 tonnes or 17.9% of the proposed 
DPA's. The main target species are shark; barramundi and salmon. 
Netting effort: 
Effort is low (11.5%) in the interim DPA with 100km of net length set 
in 1995 compared to 870km for all interim DPAis in the SGBR. In the 
proposed DPA, effort is low, with 18.4% or 360km of net set compared 
to 1,955km for all proposed DPA's in the SGBR. 
Netting activity 
Of the 900 licensed net fishers in Qld: 
500 reported activity in 1995 
250 of those operated in the Marine Park 
150 of those operated in the DPA's, and 
Six (6) of those fishers reported catches in the interim DPA and ten 
(10) for the proposed DPA. Less than half the fishers in both DPA's 
recorded significant catches (>3 tonnes). 
4. Strandings 
Eight carcasses have been recorded in recent years. Netting is implicated 
in several. 
5. Traditional hunting 
The Giru Dala people are traditionally associated with the area. They 
have agreed not to hunt dugongs in the interim and proposed DPA's. 
There are reports that illegal Aboriginal hunting is conducted out of 
Midge Point (southwest corner of Repulse Bay) indicating the continued 
presence of dugongs. 
6. Recreational boating 
The total number of registered vessels for 1995 in the Newry region is 
6635. It is a busy recreational area with up to 100 boats a day launched 
from Seaforth. There is a resort on Newry island. 
Ince Bay/ Cape Palmerston 
1. Dugong numbers and distribution 
The Interim and proposed DPA would include 1% of the 1994 
population, however it is important to note that historically, the 
proposed DPA included 5% of the southern GBR population. 
Dugong numbers have declined by 85%, from 542 (+/-293) in 1987 
to 82 (+/-60) in 1994. This decline may be due to a combination of 
netting and hunting.(There have been recent reports of gill-net 
deaths in the Cape Palmerston-Sarina Beach area, and of 
Indigenous groups hunt out of Clairview and Sarina Beach). 
Distribution of dugongs in this region includes two main areas: 
between Sarina Beach and Cape Palmerston (including Sarina 
Inlet, Llewellyn Bay and Ince Bay) and between West Hill Island and 
Clairview Creek. 
The interim Ince Bay sanctuary does not encapsulate most of the 
important dugong habitat in the region and, as initially draw, is too 
small, relative to the scale of dugong movements. 
2. Seagrass 
The interim DPA includes 2.5% coastal seagrass in the southern 
GBR; the proposed DPA, 6.7%. 
The area contains the next most important meadows north of 
Shoalwater Bay. Two large meadows are located in Ince and 11 
south to Clairview. A large and important meadow occurs off the 
coast of the town of Clairview. 
Protection of these meadows for the proposed DPA could be 
improved. In the Marine Park, Ince Bay is zoned to exclude 
trawling and the remaining Marine Park portion of the proposed 
DPA is zoned to allow trawling. Protection of the intertidal area 
would be required under State legislation. 
3. Fisheries 
The absolute value of the commercial net catch in 1995 was a low 
10 tonnes (9.5%) for the interim DPA and 25 tonnes (10%) for the 
proposed DPA. 
Main target species are shark, salmon and barramundi. 
Netting effort is low in the interim and proposed DPA's (110km 
and 230 km of net was set respectively compared to total net length 
set of 870km and 1955km for the interim and proposed 
SGBR/DPA's). 
Strandings 
8 carcasses have been recorded in recent years. Nets are implicated 
for some. 
Traditional hunting 
The Djupera Dili people of Mackay have declared a moratorium 
on the hunting of dugongs in the area. 
Other Aboriginal /Torres Straight Islanders may still be hunting as 
there are reports of Aboriginal hunting in the area. 
Recreational boating 
*6635 boats are registered for the Mackay region. The interim Ince 
Bay DPA is relatively remote, with access limitations. Boats are 
launched from the Cape Palmerston National Park. 
Of concern is that the important meadows off Clairview are 
within <1km from boat ramps. The average range of recreational 
fishing trips in the area is 30km return. Therefore, all meadows 
have a potential to be influenced by boating. 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 
1. Dugong numbers and distribution 
Both the interim (Shoalwater Bay) and proposed (Port Clinton area) 
DPA's would include 31% of the 1994 southern GBR dugong 
population. 
The combined area supports the largest dugong population between 
Hinchinbrook and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait. 
Both the seagrasses communities of the area and the dugong population 
have been well researched. 
Satellite tracking of ten dugongs show that dugongs move regularly 
between the two DPA areas, establishing their habitat importance in the 
home ranges of the regional dugong population. 
The current boundaries of the interim Shoalwater DPA are appropriate 
except for a need to include the Island Head Creek area in the Port 
Clinton interim DPA, to provide a protected swimway around the top of 
the Peninsula Range and incorporate all critical habitat. 
2. Seagrass 
Both the interim and proposed DPA would include 21.4% (13,076 +1-
800 ha) of coastal seagrasses for all DPA's in the southern GBR . 
Fine scale surveys of these meadows were undertaken in 1996, building 
on broad scale surveys conducted in 1987. 
Meadows in the proposed and interim DPA were extensive and healthy. 
Meadows in both DPA's occur mostly on intertidal banks, extending into 
many rivers and creeks and around some islands (Akens; Triangular; 
Leicester; Townshend). There are few sub-tidal meadows (important 
feeding options for dugongs during low tide). They occur in Shoalwater 
Bay off the southwest corner of Townshend island and in Canoe Passage. 
The nearest other large seagrass meadows are 150km south at Gladstone 
(see Rodd's Bay DPA) ; meadows 50km north at Clairview (see Ince/Cape 
Palmerston) and 300km north in the Whitsunday region (see Edgecumbe). 
Protection of meadows in the interim Shoalwater Bay DPA is adequate. 
Most of the Bay is zoned to prohibit trawling. Protection for the Port 
Clinton DPA is unsatisfactory as the entire area is outside the Marine 
Park. 
3. Fisheries 
The commercial net fishery has a low absolute value of 15 tonnes for 
both the interim and proposed DPA, which contributes 14.3% and 6% of 
the catch respectively in the southern GBR for all interim and proposed 
DPA's. 
Fish netting has been implicated as the major cause of dugong mortality 
in the area. 
Netting effort in the interim DPA is low, with 13.8% (120km net length 
set) of all netting effort in southern GBR and 6.1% of effort for all 
proposed DPA's in the southern GBR. The amount of net length reported 
set in 1995 (120km) did not vary between the interim and proposed 
DPA's. 
The main target species are: shark; mackerel; salmon and barramundi. 
Mesh nets are used in rivers and creeks; intertidal foreshore areas and 
offshore areas of both DPA's. 
Netting in Shoalwater Bay will be prohibited under a management plan 
recently completed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
4. Strandings 
Between 1995-1996, 15 carcasses were recorded in the interim and 
proposed DPA's. Netting was implicated for 13. 
5. Traditional hunting 
The Darumbal-Noolar Corporation, which represent the traditional 
Aboriginal users of the area, have agreed not to hunt dugongs in the area 
whilst the population remains endangered. 
6. Recreational boating 
5583 boats were registered in the Rockhampton district in 1995. 
Motorised vessels are of most concern in the interim and proposed 
DPA's. 
The main recreational use group for Shoalwater Bay/Prot Clinton have 
been identified as residents from Yeppoon and Rockhampton. 
Motorised vessels are the most common in Shoalwater Bay with sailing 
vessels used on outer coastal areas. 
From 1988-1995; 493 commercial and recreational boats were recorded 
in Shoalwater Bay and 694 in the Island Head Creek/Port Clinton area. 
Rodd's Bay (Gladstone Area) 
1. Dugong numbers and distribution 
In 1986-7, four ( 4) percent of the southern GBR dugong population 
was located in the proposed Rodd's Bay DPA, increasing to seven (7) 
percent in 1994. 
Transect aerial surveys record that between 1986-7 and 1994 the 
regional population fell by 65% (from 301 +1-95 to 104 +1-56). 
Dugongs were once abundant in this area. By the 1970's, shoreline 
aerial surveys indicated that dugongs were common. Carcass data suggests 
that this decline was buffered, to some extent by immigration of dugongs 
from Hervey Bay, following the loss of seagrass there in 1992. 
Dugongs seem to be distributed in two areas in this region: from the 
southern end of The Narrows through to the southern end of Facing 
Island (including the Gladstone shoreline) and Rodd's Bay. Local 
Aborigines are concerned that the reclamation of dugong feeding areas at 
Gladstone is jeopardising the declining dugong population. 
The role of this proposed DPA in dugong recovery is in maintaining the 
interchange of dugongs between central and south-east Queensland, as the 
habitat occurs mid-way between the important dugong populations at 
Shoalwater Bay and Hervey Bay which are approximately 400 km apart. 
Much of the habitat is also relatively remote with a low level of human 
use. 
2. Status of seagrass meadows 
3.6 % of coastal seagrasses in the southern GBR occurs in the proposed 
DPA.Land reclamation at Port Curtis is regarded as a major threat to 
35% of the meadows in the area. 
Protection 
Protection for the area could be improved. 
A large area of Gladstone Harbour, including the Port Curtis meadows 
are outside the Marine Park. The portion of the DPA in the Marine Park 
is mostly zoned to allow trawling. There is a narrow Marine Park zone of 
General Use B and Marine National Park A around Rodd's Peninsula 
where trawling and mesh netting are exluded. 
3. Fisheries 
Rodd's Bay supports a commercial net fishery which in absolute value 
comprises 45 tonnes or 17.9% of the total catch for the proposed DPA's 
in the southern GBR. The main target species are shark; mullet; mackerel; 
salmon; bream; barramundi and mixed fish. 
Netting effort: 
Effort is low-medium (22%), with 430 km net length set compared to 
1,955 km for all proposed DPA's in the southern GBR. 
Netting activity 
Of the 900 licensed net fishers in Qld: 
500 reported activity in 1995 
250 of those operated in the Marine Park 
150 of those operated in the DPA's, and 
Fifteen (15) of those fishers reported catches in the Rodd's bay DPA. 
Nine of those recorded significant catches (>3 tonnes) 
4. Strandings 
One carcass has been recorded in the Gladstone area in recent times. 
Traditional hunting 
No information on level of hunting in this area. 
Recreational boating 
Over half the meadows in the area ( in the south near Rodd's Peninsula) 
are remote from boating facilities. Areas of concern are in the Gladstone/ 
Curtis Island area. 
lax from 	 i'ZZbl 	 fe' 	 f lb ; 	 rg 
Hervey Bay / Great Sandy Strait 
Dugong numbers and distribution 
Hervey Bay / Great Sandy Strait support an important number of dugong. In 1988, the 
estimated population size was 2,206 dugong equivalent to ca. 20% of the total Great Bather 
Reef population. In 1992 there was a drastic decline and movement of the population due to an 
extensive loss of habitat. Dugong numbers declined by approximately 50% and had moved 
into the southern Great Sandy Strait area. In 1993 the-population estimate was only 600 
dugong. It is estimated that it will take 25 years for the dugong population to recover to the 
1988 population estimates. Calculations by Prof. Helene Marsh of the number of dugong that 
can be su.stainably removed from Hervey Bay is only 1.6 dugong. 
Concentrations of dugong are found in south west Hervey Bay and southern Great Sandy 
Strait. The proposed boundaries reflect the distribution and movement of high density dugong 
in Hervey Bay / Great Sandy Strait. 
Impacts 
2.1 Habitat 
Hervey Bay is identified as having the second largest area of deep water seagrass habitat on the 
east coast of Queensland. In 1992, the loss of the majority (over 1000 km 2 ) of this habitat had 
a significant effect on dugong populations. The habitat loss has been attributed to an extended 
period of reduced light conditions caused by a persistent plume of turbid water that resulted 
from the floods and the resuspension of sediments caused by the cyclonic seas. Recent studies 
have also identified a pathogen which is documented as causing declines in seagrass 
communities worldwide. 
Hervey Bay Great Sandy Strait is a major stronghold for dugong and dugong habitat. An 
assessment of the complex issues affecting seagrass in Hervey Bay / Great Sandy Strait 
concerning the quality of dugong habitat must be a priority. Consequently, it is essential that 
any conservation measures for this area include a programme of research and monitoring. 
2.2 Fisheries 
Hervey Bay and Great Sandy Strait support a wide variety of fisheries using a number of 
fishing methods. The main fisheries using mesh netting arc: 
'..: 	 - .... 	 . 	 ,.. 	 • 	 .: .,...l 	 • ..'.:212::::‘,....f?; 	 - 	 , 	 -. ..„,!... 	 iY( t n .42 .., Air,,,,,'"" 	 } 	 % 	 ...r. 4 ' 	 1- 	 ,,,S 	 :!',I.j .` 4=111;0,=:,Z.1,1 	 f 
Mullet 68,000 
Whiting 46,000 
Mackerel 26, 000 
Shark 18, 000 
B arramundi 1, 000 
In the high density seagrass habitat between Elliott River and Point Vernon, there are some 
discrepancies in the dugong distribution. Dugong herds are localised to the southern part of 
this seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat does not appear to differ significantly throughout its 
distribution but the north / south boundaty of high to low density dugong coincides with the 
offshore trawling boundary. Further work should be undertaken to establish whether this 
anomaly in dugong distribution is related to trawling. 
Macintosh HD:Liz Macedo:Dugong:Working Gp:HB & 055.1 
r ax t rom . o r 44 1707 	 C1.3, tJ(f ( lb • 	 rg • 
Between Theodolite Creek and Point Vernon there is a coincidence of high density dugong and 
mesh net fisheries. In the early 1980's eight dugong drowned in mesh nets in the Bunum 
River. A seasonal night closure and restrictions on gear type were implemented as a result. 
The measures implemented have not eliminated dugong mortality. Owing to a limited 
regrowth of shallow water seagrass since the 1992 floods both dugong and mesh net fishers 
may be concentrated over a smaller area of seagrass habitat. Numbers of dugong have stranded 
in this area during recent winter and spring periods. 
2.3 Traditional Hunting 
There are six clans of indigenous people in the area collectively known as the Butchulla people. 
The level of take. by traditional hunting in this area is minimal. Although no formal agreement 
exists, a voluntary cessation of traditional hunting is currently in effect. 
2.4 Recreational Boating 
Strategies are required to minimise movement of high speed boats into and over seagrass areas. 
Coastal management plans should seek to limit development and population growth adjacent to 
seagrass concentrations between the Elliott River and Point Vernon. Development of boating 
facilitates in this area and from the Mary River Heads to Tin Can Bay should be discouraged. 
High speed vessel traffic in the Great Sandy Strait should be restricted to matted channels. 
There should be no provision to allow high speed boat races in this area. 
Macintosh H1):Liz Macedo:Dugong:Working Gp:HB & GSS.1 
Attachment E 
Maps of Dugong Protection Areas (Interim 
and proposed in this Report, as per Preen 
and Morissette report #18). 
100km 
Coastline Distance between DPAs 
Proposed by GBRMPA report 
100kmi Agreed by GBRMC 22 
GBRMP Boundary 
Land & Mangrove 
Reefs 
Location of Interim Dugong 
Protection Areas and Those 
Proposed in this GBRMPA Report 
in southern GBR & Hervey Bay 
185km Edgecurni36 
Bay 
:.• 
Upstart 
Bay 	 Bowen 
Proserpine 
Figgjon. . 
• 
Rockhampton 
Rodds 
Bay 
Bundaberg • 
Southern , 
Hervey 
Bay 
Great 
• 
Maryborough 	 Sandy 
Strait 100 200 100 0 300 Kilometres 
Legend 
Towns 
Dugong Protection Areas (DPAs) 
   Proposed by GBRMPA report 
IN Agreed by GBRMC 22 
27/
7
/ 
Bathurst 
11Pr,""revA;I::;"4-ZW..eVe. 
Heads 
5 
	
5 
	
10 
	
15 
	
20 	 25 	 30 
Kilometres 
4 
.-0...rearregraStMW‘Matel 
"WA=  .1.4 fleaPi 
# 	 1iA 
 
.r171:11MW /Rif 
x 
111111LAMVIMff 	 ; isirofflow 	 • Amors7, . 
;. 	 AFAW/OF /#77, 	 M.O.M.057 ja;77.4001ralif, 
V' 	 '  	 717/MASW,  : "ffid:I'lMOS. 	 gm" 
.WSEEFMMEX..hNPM,INFONSMSN.fMrigMfifflNWAPMe 
ANY 774., .: 1MSTIEN 1/102, Off fielaNW1VIMOIA at  • dge W.IgMAZWirreiZFANWAWATMINW-WANWASCrA, 
• 
/ o: / iff/MOIA2W/iMffirlibi MAW A P 172,0.0.M.MSM2PRIOMagM earrilit /  ..  
0 ilWaZ7M0027 eir 
 
VMS YaReNS ;WARM .,WareartaveaNN  
dremeareizarmwmiozommeme, 
'MEW MAWS NZ zezawromemsre 
:1,1 
eiv'Ai 
1114.MWASMiiiiairM 
'27101; 	 FRANNINK. 
Wei 
_ ,„,„ 	 _ 	 4,41 
Pnncess C ar o 	 a 	 ote,e4' 
ereeVrererereer 
00Off0,00,7000 
:c:::fiXE SSNIMWASSIOrrig YON RNA 
' IME/7(Ma1111111111ffeW  sellEM  
5.1MJ37 	 ifaMMOMNRAI 2 ,, 
:*.e.orreepre 
.6.,400rre 
'e.f4d.44' 
M • 
, 	 . 
/ 
Grub 
Ree 
4v 
tree 	 reere -eoreOrreeieerree 
err
▪ 
eereereereeteree,,errelee 
% 
e 	 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 
,,,,, eeeeeeeeeeee 
r,eeerrorree 
OeeeleOfeee 
re:poem...erre 
AMMOK0g4. 
/2" 
Ai: OW 
WW,Mlair 
4.ekh 
Interim 
Dugong Protection Areas 
Princess Charlotte Bay 
Bathurst Bay 
..AFAXAT 
'MIS .01.0=7, 
*"*IllrgiattiMe7,07 /fa 
A/W .:07/772, 7.er 
Legend 
t Incidental Dugong Records 
I Heinsohn Dugong Shoreline Survey 
1995 Dugong Aerial Survey 
dfn 1990 Dugong Aerial Survey 
	  Dugong Protection Area 
Agreed by GBRMC 22 
Seagrass '84 
Land dr Mangrove 
GBRMP Boundary 
Reefs 
ar Northern Zoning 
General Use 'A' Zone 
:1 General Use 'B' Zone 
Islands 
Marine National Park 'A' Zone 
Marine National Park 'B' Zone 
Marine National Park Buffer Zone 
Preservation Zone 
Scientific Research Zone 
GREAT BARRIER REP' 
Note: DPA boundaries slightly altered from maps agreed at GBRMC 
meeting #22, by less than 1 minute for cartographic purposes 
SS 	 S1.1..SSS 
OOOOO Of00000 O 0 OOO 000000100 
etreererreoriereoreterreror 
SSSSSNI.S,NSSS1S,Siss,,,,S 
0000000000000,0000004, 00000 
'erre...erre 
ssssssss 
Proposed Dugong 
Protection Area 
Low Isles 
(Proposed by Preen/Morissette 
report, February 1995) 
t Is ,?. sIsIs t 	 i 	 ! 
le .... e:‘, r),,, ok• ek.,_, 	 ev. e f reg.. 
ns.:.st,,, ,,,,.. is ,, •,.. 
	 't. 	 . 
'• , - 4., oiro,o,,,,,,,,,, ; 1,,:: s •,... '1.,S 1.",..: s„1„,";:• ,,%- ' 7,,We;.• 
..!.. ! 
iler4r,Ve4re'reireee=0 , , ,,,,,, 
t" 
' 	 • 
/}7 •n••' 	 ."17" 
, 	 .• n• 
irs eles AtVi el'00,0100:00i01,
• 
0,00000,04e 
i 
' 
' 
s s 	 s 
/*, 	 " "?. **" ."' s Legend 
t Incidental Dugong Records 
Air Heinsohn Dugong Shoreline Survey 
y 1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
A 1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1987 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
   Proposed by PreenrMorissette report 
flJ  Seagrass '84 j Built-up Area 
Land & Mangrove 
GBRMP Boundary 
Reefs 
Cairns Zoning 
Buffer Zone 
Conservation Park Zone 
;:n7  Estuarine Conservation Zone 
General Use Zone 
675,Ti Habitat Protection Zone 
National Park Zone 
NA Preservation Zone 
• 
A 
Brook 
Islands 
Legend 
!" Incidental Dugong Records 
6 Dugong Carcass Records 
Heinsohrt Dugong Shoreline Survey 
I, 1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
k 1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1987 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
Proposed by PreentMorissette (report #18) 
— Agreed by GBRMC 22 
Seagrass '96 
Seagrass '94 
Seagrass '87 
Built-up Area 
Land & Mangrove 
GBRMP Boundary 
Reefs 
!ntral Zoning 
General Use 'A' Zone 
General Use 'B' Zone 
Island 
Marine National Park 'A' Zone 
. Marine National Park '13' Zone 
Preservation Zone 
Scientific Research Zone 
Management Plan Areas 
Planning Area 1 
Planning Area 2 
Planning Area 3 
Planning Area 4 
Dugong Records - 
A. Preen i' Gl3RNIPA 
lte : Seagrass '96 boundary indicative 
: DPA boundaries slightly altered from maps 
agreed at GBRMC meeting #22, by less than 
1 minute for cartographic purposes 
Interim 
Dugong Protection Area 
Hinchinbrook Region 0 
Kilometres 
5 	 10 	 15 	 20 
4464 
• 	 Interim 
Dugong Protection Area 
Cleveland Bay 
04,e 
Cape 
Bowling 
Green 
A 
Legend 
Incidental Dugong Sighting Records 
i Dugong Carcass Records 
Heinsohn Dugong Shoreline Survey 
)-- 1997 Dugong Aerial Shoreline Survey 
y 1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
A 1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1987 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
Proposed by Preen/Morissette (report #18) 
Agreed by GBRMC 22 
Seagrass '87 
Built-up Area 
Land & Mangrove 
GBRMP Boundary 
Reefs 
entral Zoning 
General Use 'A' Zone 
General Use 'B' Zone 
Island 
Marine National Park 'A' Zone 
---'' Marine National Park 'B' Zone 
Preservation Zone 
':,:-.,p 
 Scientific Research Zone 
Note : DPA boundaries slightly altered from maps 
agreed at GBRMC meeting 122, by less than 
1 minute for cartographic purposes 
5 	 0 	 5 	 10 	 15 	 20 
Kilometres 
GRF.AT BARRIER REEF 
MAII7Pdi PARK AinlialtrrY 
Legend 
Incidental Dugong Records 
Heinsohn Dugong Shoreline Survey 
1997 Dugong Aerial Shoreline Survey 
y 1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
A 1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1987 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
Proposed by Preen/Morissefte (report #18) 
	
 Agreed by GBRMC 22 
Seagrass '87 
Land ISz Mangrove 
GBRIVIP Boundary 
Reefs 
entral Zoning 
General Use 'A' Zone 
' General Use 'B' Zone 
Island 
Marine National Park 'A' Zone 
Marine National Park B' Zone 
Preservation Zone 
NEI Scientific Research Zone 
I 
I 	 I 
Interim 
Dugong Protection Area 
Upstart Bay 
10 
Kilometres 
Abbot 
Bay 
GREAT BARRIER REEF 
ware PAU tarrisolun 
Legend 
• Incidental Dugong Records 
4 Dugong Carcass Records 
# Heinsohn Dugong Shoreline Survey 
.3.- 1997 Dugong Aerial Shoreline Survey 
ir 1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
A 1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
0.4 1987 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
Proposed by Preen/Morissette report M Seagrass '87 
' Built-up Area 
6en
Land & Mangrove 
. 
 GBRMP Boundary 
Reefs 
tral Zoning 
General Use 'A' Zone 
General Use 'B' Zone 
Island 
Marine National Park 'A' Zone 
Marine National Park 'B' Zone 
Preservation Zone 
Scientific Research Zone 
I I 	 I 
ei0 Proposed Dugong Protection Area 
Edgecumbe Bay 
(Proposed by Preen/Morissette report, February 1995) i 	 il l 	 i 1/ 	 ; ;; Ilktill 
	 li 	 11= 
	
iliTlif 
	 ill 
	 li; 
	
; 1. 1 ;!IIIII 
	 !I 
	
IIIIIIIIMI 
	 II 
	
! 	 11! 
	 !MI! 
	 I! 1 
	
ill! 
	 II 	 ! Hi 
	
ii 	 ;till; 11 
	
I 	 I! 
	
1111 
	
I 1111 1 
	
1! 	 3 f li 
	
-Ili; 
	 Illii 	 !ill 
	 1 
? 
	
-->eP--,!n% 	 i ill 
	 lilli 
	 ;t;; 
	
I 	 1! 	 i 	 iii 
	 i 
	
'•-• BOWeit
-' 	 i; 	 I 	 iii?iii 
4 1 i 1 anw 1 	 WIMP 
,414n41 I li 
 
I 
11. 
	
1111 
	 1 	 ;ii; 	 I 	 i 
	
ilif 
	 i 	 II 
11 	 I 
11 11\1 ;11 1 
	
Ill 
	 ;i 	 Ilif 
	 1 111!1, ; 
;I 	 111111 
it 	 1 	 ' 	 i 	 1 	 i 
Rattray 
Islandd 
2 	 0 	 2 	 4 	 6 	 8 	 10 
GREAT BARRER RUA. 
MAIONE MLR AUTHORITY 
Kilometres 
Legend 
Incidental Dugong Records 
Dugong Carcass Records 
Heinsohn Dugong Shoreline Survey 
1997 Dugong Aerial Shoreline Survey 
1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1987 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1986 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
Proposed by Preen/Morissette (report #18) 
Agreed by GBRIVIC 22 
Seagrass '87 
Land ez Mangrove 
GBRMP Boundary 
Reefs 
P Zoning 
General Use 'A' Zone 
General Use 'B' Zone 
Island 
Marine National Park 'A' Zone 
Marine National Park 'B' Zone 
Preservation Zone 
Scientific Research Zone 
Note : DPA boundaries slightly altered from maps 
agreed at GBRA4C meeting #22, by less than 
1 minute for cartographic purpose$ 
)- 
V 
A 
• 
of 
Akn 
1:1151Z 
; 
" 
01=• 
„ • ,* 
, N\N' 
`.,\\..\'''• 
	 "'"'; 
Lindem‘ 
Group* 
so 
Cape Conway 
Midge Pointill 
"v1 
4N, 
• 
eri 
GREAT BARRIER . Rk..131] 
Cape 
Hillsborough 
5 	 0 	 5 	 10 	 15 
Kilometres 
Legend 
Incidental Dugong Records 
Dugong Carcass Records 
Heinsohn Dugong Shoreline Survey 
1997 Dugong Aerial Shoreline Survey 
1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1986 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
Proposed by Preen/Morissette (report #18) 
Agreed by GBRMC 22 
Seagrass '87 
Built-up Area 
Land & Mangrove 
Reefs 
Marine Park Exclusion Area 
Mackay! Capricorn Zoning 
General Use 'A' Zone 
General Use 'B' Zone 
Islands 
Marine National Park 'A' Zone 
Wit Marine National Park 'B' Zone 
,4 Preservation Zone 
Scientific Research Zone 
Note : DPA boundaries slightly altered from maps 
agreed at GBRA4C meeting #22, by less than 
1 minute Pr cartographic purposes 
1 
›- 
'V 
Prudhoe 
Island 
Sarina 
Cape 
- 
• 	 \ 
" 
Yaralla 
Shoal 
...%k, 
k.„ ...,,,„, -.., 	 .•4,,,.., , 
,\.z,:1--wk.,_ N: s . s 
	
t'''''';$-‘,*.w-s.4N,‘, •- , NkN 	 ' 
4,,,iwkx\•.,.. 
4Ar'lql-A, — • \ N.,W4.;.'k4k, ttikt\Ns,. 4114414Nts— .‘ 
k.N; ',.. 
'Itko,, ,.. , 
. 
'kl.t4,k, 
Flat 
Isles 
Interim 
Dugong Protection Area 
Ince Bay 
5 0 5 10 15 20 
Kilometres Clairvie 
Bluff 
GREAT BARRIER REEF 
WARM PARK Aumoiernr 
Legend 
Incidental Dugong Records 
4 Dugong Carcass Records 
Heinsohn Dugong Shoreline Survey 
1997 Dugong Aerial Shoreline Survey 
Dugong Feeding Trails Coles '95 
4 1995 DOE Aerial Dugong Sightings 
1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
A 1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
13 1987 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1986 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Sightings '75 - '92 Various Studies 
Dugong Protection Area 
Proposed by Preen/Morissette (report #18) 
Agreed by GBRMC 22 
Seagrass 95 
Seagrass '87 
Land & Mangrove 
GBRMP Boundary 
Reefs 
ay/Capricorn Zoning 
General Use 'A' Zone 
General Use 'B' Zone 
1-7 Islands 
Marine National Park 'A' Zone 
Marine National Park 'B' Zone 
NA Preservation Zone 
Egg Scientific Research Zone 
I 	 1 
MEI 
A 
• 
<ttll 
	
/// 	 j !  
44# /:#1/ 24/: 
r 	 ZW,O ,i 1r4 
muc We 4 
, 
///: /?, 0'? :6;1 	 P 
„ AjAkioax.horis,-zwes fr 
,..45111ffirr,,Fir726,1$06magraw 10/ 
*fall'4Whisge164.4448:Pgaffillerle fAretagleglik4;,e1c7417"7%ifi,1:41,6 ; 
	
rik..VirfAnfr VifrOferA2„ 	 , 	 etX. 6 
attei 	 4.at 
.-, 
&SAM  Fe,,,;41,..S43frzli*:1- - 
.,..
. 	 • 	 • 
k,z4 SKAP:;.;AitrWE,12-TO, 
rry.?;,.W.Ar.A.RVgAN 
r4I 2181,ME77.41:41:2E,'&11k4.- 
/4k/sAr-AgefIREEN h'?gfi 'car AVRI 
' MOO 
-war' 
aw.hsw 
Ifkr/.1r4,, 
I F 
Afr14, 
Iva 
04,0i 
water a i/ 
Tinton 
2 
; 
GREAT BARRIER REEF 
M.APZYI PAID( Ii121110JUTIf 
Note : DIM boundaries slightly altered from maps 
agreed at GBRMC meeting #22, by less than 
1 minute for cartographk purposes 
5 
	 0 	 5 	 10 	 15 
Kilometres 
riffc/1"7' TIP rflff 40/Pi i 
' I" ' / , /
4 4 
een/MorISSe te 
1995) 
Legend 
Incidental Dugong Records 
4 Dugong Carcass Records 
Jr Heinsohn Dugong Shoreline Survey 
1997 Dugong Aerial Shoreline Survey 
1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
A 1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1986 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
Proposed by Preen/Morissette report 
Seagrass '88 
, Built-tr.) Area 
Land & Mangrove 
Reefs 
Marine Park Exclusion Area 
Mackay/Capricorn Zoning 
General Use 'A' Zone 
General Use 'B' Zone 
Islands 
Marine National Park 'A' Zone 
Marine National Park 'B' Zone 
Preservation Zone 
Scientific Research Zone 
Gladstone 
Bustard 
Head Rodds 
Peninsu 
20 30 10 0 10 
Kilometres 
GREAT BARRIER R.E.q_ 
MARINE PARK MMIDRITY 
Interim 
Dugong Protection Areas 
Southern Hervey Bay I 
Great Sandy Strait 
A 
, Bunbaberg A Hervey Bay 
40 10 
	 0 	 10 20 	 30 
Kilometres 
Maryborough• 
Legend 
• Towns 
Dugong Carcass Records 
1992 Dugong Aerial Shoreline Survey 
A 1988 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
010 Proposed by Preen/Morissette (report #18) 
Agreed by GBRMC 22 
Land & Mangrove 
GBRMP Boundary 
Reefs 
ay/Capricorn Zoning 
General Use 'A' Zone 
General Use 'B' Zone 
Islands 
Marine National Park 'A' Zone 
Marine National Park 'B' Zone 
Preservation Zone 
Scientific Research Zone 
I-1 
11119 
Av 1;59 
Great 
Sandy 
Strait 
GREAT BARRIER RA4F 
Note : 
DPA boundaries slightly altered from maps 
agreed at GBRMC meeting #22, by less than 
1 minute for cartographic purposes 
ATTACHMENT F 
Comment on QCFO Proposals by GBRMPA, the Interagency Dugong 
Working Party and the Board of the Queensland Fisheries 
Management Authority 
ATTACHMENT F: GBRMPA Comments on QCFO Proposals 
QCFO PROPOSAL 
Education and Awareness Strategy 
Implement an endangered species 
awareness course for commercial fishers 
with local modules where appropriate. 
Legislation 
Any changes to fishing practices should be 
introduced through Queensland. fisheries 
legislation. 
Compliance 
Impose severe penalties for dugong deaths 
caused by intentional actions or gross 
neglect. 
Incident Reporting 
An incident reporting program has been 
proposed by QCFO, includes proposal to 
receive feed back from autopsies and 
development of carcass handling guidelines. 
Research 
Proposes priorities for research should 
include: 
seagrass assessment; and 
migration patterns and paths. 
COMMENT BY GBRMPA 
Supported. This strategy applies to activities within and outside DPAs. 
The most appropriate legislation should be determined on a case by case basis. In 
particular, comments on inflexibility of Marine Park zoning are not correct and in any 
case do not reflect regulations and other avenues available under that legislation. 
Supported in principle, but may need modification to address legislative requirements 
and practical implementation. 
Supported. Will complement action underway by management agencies. 
Support priority for research that will clearly assist management to address threats to 
dugong and enable recovery of populations. 
Attachment F (p.2) 
Offshore Nets - Attendance 
propose 
at the net attendance be introduced, 
except in specific areas; 
attendance by trainee or assistant master 
fishers 
Identification of Nets 
Propose registration system for nets to 
enable identification of illegal nets. 
Reporting of Illegal Netting 
Protection for persons reporting illegal 
netting 
Displacement of Effort and Compensation 
Propose: 
compensation to displaced fishers for loss 
of income; and 
funds to buy out rather than displace 
effort. 
Support at the net (within 100 metres) attendance. 
Do not support exceptions proposed for Halifax and Repulse Bays, as they would 
maintain high risk to dugong in those areas. 
Do not support attendance by trainee or assistant fishers as it is desirable to have the 
most experienced fisher in attendance with one other person to assist if a dugong has to 
be released. 
Support the development of better systems for addressing illegal netting. 
Supported if a practical solution can be found. 
Displacement of effort may have significant flow -on effects and must be addressed. 
Compensation is a matter that concerns legislative provisions and government policy. 
Attachment F (p. 3) 
Region Specific Measures 
There is insufficient basis for accepting that the region-specific measures proposed by QCFO will be adequate to ensure that nets do 
not cause dugong mortality in DPAs. In particular, the following issues would need to be addressed in each situation: 
Netters have previously stated that foreshore set nets have been responsible for dugong deaths yet under the QCFO submission 
they would only be restricted in some DPAs, and then only to a very limited extent. With the exception of the proposal for "at 
the net" attendance at the northern end of Hinchinbrook island and maintenance of the existing requirement that foreshore nets 
are not permitted in Hervey Bay, QCFO propose that netters should continue to be able to set 3 of these nets (and 6 nets in 
Princess Charlotte and Bathurst Bays) in areas that are known to contain significant number of dugong and be up to 2.6 
kilometres from the furthest net; 
River set nets have reportedly been implicated in some dugong deaths and yet no actions are proposed to restrict their use 
outside of Hervey Bay. Netters would continue to be permitted to use up to 3 nets (6 nets in Princess Charlotte and Bathurst 
bays) and be up to 2.6 kilometres from the furthest net; 
Drift nets have some potential to catch dugong but the QCFO does not propose to limit their use in DPAs; and 
The proposal to remove offshore set nets in specific instances should indicate a clear intention to remove any possibility that that 
particular type of net could catch a dugong in that location. However, discussions with QCFO officials suggest that it has been 
proposed to replace offshore nets with shorter, rocky headland foreshore nets in a number of instances. Such foreshore nets will 
remain a risk to dugongs, albeit perhaps to a lesser extent when shortened. The use of foreshore nets may also increase the risk to 
dugongs, as current legislation restricts the use of offshore nets to one per fisher, and the QCFO proposed "at the net" 
attendance. However, in contrast, up to 3 foreshore nets can be set, and fishers can be up to 2.6km from the furthest net. 
Queensland Fisheries 
Management Authority 
Our Ref: th:pa:appleton:ltrs:stokes 
gibe. 
28 February 1997 
Mr A Stokes 
Senior Planning Officer 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
PO Box 1379 
TOWNSVILLE Q 4810 
Dear Tony 
The following report is provided to give the Working Group members an indication as to how 
the Board of the QFMA views the current situation with dugong, particularly in the southern 
Great Barrier Reef region. 
The report will follow the sequence of the recommendations in the Commercial Industry 
Proposal for the implementation of the QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy. 
2.1 	 Education and Awareness Strategy 
The QFMA supports the implementation of the Endangered Species Awareness Course as a 
medium to long-term measure but recognises that it will not meet the objective set by 
Ministerial Council. 
2.2.1 Legislation 
The QFMA does not unconditionally support the industry recommendation as the 
Commonwealth has similar, if not greater, powers than the Fisheries Act 1994 and there may 
be instances where it may be more appropriate for Commonwealth legislation to be used. In 
terms of assisting commercial fishers, any appropriate Commonwealth legislative measures, 
which affect commercial netting, may be placed in "Queensland fisheries legislation as well. 
2.2.2 Compliance 
The QFMA notes that penalties are set by Government and the QFMA has a policy of licence 
suspension/cancellation for serious fisheries offences. 
Managing; Queensland Fisheries 
Enquiries 
Telephone: (07) 3225 1848 
Facsimile: (07) 3225 1823 
E-Mail: fisheries@qfma.q1d.gov.au 
 
Offices 
Level 6 
40 Tank Street 
Brisbane 
Please address all correspondence to: 
The Executive Officer 
Queensland Fisheries Management Authority 
PO Box 344 Fortitude Valley Qld 4006 
 
2 
2.3.1 Incident Reporting 
The QFMA supports an open and transparent process, which would include clear guidelines 
in dealing with these issues and currently being developed by the Department of 
Environment. 
2.3.2 Research 
The QFMA supports research into priority dugong matters which clearly assist management 
in protecting dugong from any potential hazardous source. 
3.1.1 Offshore Set Net Attendance Rules 
The QFMA does not support the proposal that trainee master fishers can fulfill any 
attendance rule. There has not been any time to examine the ramifications of this 
proposal to other aspects of fishing. There is a need for experienced people to be in 
charge of the fishing operation at all times and it would be desirable to have not only 
the master fisher in attendance but at least one other person as well. 
The QFMA supports an attendance "at the net" rule for offshore netting ie. within 100 
metres of the net or nets. The arguments used by industry for Halifax and Repulse 
Bays for the 800m attendance rule appear inappropriate for dugong protection as it 
may be too rough to see the net, take too long to reach the net if a dugong is 
entangled, if the weather is that rough not to have an "at the net" rule how can fishers 
be clearing their nets of fish at appropriate times and it may be that a net should not be 
set if the conditions at those times are too rough or dangerous. 
3.1.2 Identification of Nets 
The QFMA would support any investigation or analysis of existing net identification (current 
regulations require nets to be identified) particularly if a more effective system can be found. 
3.1.3 Reporting Illegal Netting 
The QFMA would support in principle any method which would eliminate illegal netting 
practices. QFMA also noted that many commercial netters working in an area can have a 
limiting effect on the number of illegally set nets. 
3.1.4 Displacement of Effort 
The QFMA is very concerned that any closures to commercial netting will have a 
displacement effect if licences are not removed. This displacement effect will not only affect 
other fisheries management regimes but would also exacerbate the dugong problem when 
dugong migrate from one DPA to another. The question of compensation is a matter 
concerning possible legislative provisions and Government policy at both Commonwealth 
and State levels. 
3 
4.1.1 Introduction to Region Specific Measures 
Any changes to Queensland fisheries legislation would be dependent on divisions of 
Ministerial Council and the relevant power of specific pieces of legislation on which they are 
basing those decisions. 
4.1.2 Conditions on Use of Foreshore Set Nets 
The QFMA does not support this proposal at this time as there appears to be questionable 
linkages to dugong mortalities. There would need to be further analysis of the proposal 
before QFMA could support it. 
4.2-4.7 Specific Measures in DPA's 
There has been insufficient time to evaluate some of the specific measures advocated by 
industry. 
4.8 
	 Shoalwater Bay 
The QFMA understands that the closure of Shoalwater Bay was agreed to in principle at 
Ministerial Council and that a Management Plan would be the vehicle by which this would 
occur. 
4.9-4.11 Specific Measures in DPA's 
There has been insufficient time to evaluate some of the specific measures advocated by 
industry. 
In conclusion the Board of the QFMA has the following general comments to make on the 
issue of dugong - 
the dugong issue is a high priority as identified by Ministerial Council; 
the QFW _recognises that dugong populations have undergone severe decline in 
abundance in some areas (eg. Hervey Bay and southern Great Barrier Reef); 
the QFMA recognises there are a number of reasons for the decline including loss of 
seagrass habitat, shark nets for bather protection, pollution, commercial netting, boat 
strikes, traditional hunting. The QFMA believes that all of these reasons need to be 
addressed, not just the commercial netting industry; 
the QFMA supports the need to mitigate dugong captures in commercial nets through 
a number of approaches including:- 
seasonal and/or area closures to netting operations; 
requirements for offshore net attendance by commercial operators; 
education and training of fishers in release of protected marine animals; 
redesign, where appropriate, commercial netting apparatus to mitigate against 
capture; and 
research to more reliably assess dugong status. 
4 
• 	 the QFMA supports a cooperative, collaborative approach to resolution of this issue 
with the fishing industry and other agencies as the best approach and not by 
introducing regulations without sufficient consultation; and 
• 	 there is a management planning process in fisheries legislation, with MACs and ZACs 
in existence and this process should be adhered to for consideration of any detailed 
proposals before they are implemented. For example, if significant areas are closed 
this may displace effort in the other regions or fisheries which needs to be taken into 
account. 
Yours sincerely 
‘.., 
PL Appleton 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
C)FINALA 
Queensland Fisheries 
Management Authority 
Our Refldrpa:dugong:ltrs:greenhalgh 
6 March 1997 
Mr C Greenhalgh 
QCFO 
Clayfield Court 
PO Box 392 
CLAYFIELD Q 4011 
Dear Cliff 
I refer to discussions held on the Industry's Proposal for the Implementation of the QCFO 
Dugong Consorvation Strategy at QFMA on Tuesday 4 March 1997. 
On behalf of the Dugong Working Party I would like to thank you and Stephen Tapsall for 
attending the meeting at relatively short notice, and assisting the Working Party members in 
clarifying some of the proposed measures in the Strategy. 
As indicated at the meeting there are some matters which remain outstanding in terms of their 
impact on dugong and I advised you that I would write to you seeking further information on 
them. 
I propose to do that by seeking a clarification on a number of general points and then proceed to 
some points concerning specific Dugong Priority Areas. 
The initial point which is essentially an observation is that from our discussions on Tuesday it
-
would appear that the industry has the view that when considering the relative potential dangers 
posed by nets to dugong it ranks the offshore set mesh net the highest risk, the foreshore set mesh 
net a marginal risk and the river set mesh net of minimal risk. This assessment has been derived 
at by the high degree of attention paid to the offshore set mesh net and the relatively low amount 
of discussion on the other two forms of nets in the industry report. 
Another general observation by the members of the Working Party is that a lot of the prbposed 
measures have been advocated to protect dugong from the "travelling fisher" who either does not 
know the local conditions in terms of dugong behaviour or activity or simply just doesn't care 
about the consequences of unwise netting practices. 
Managing Queensland Fisheries 
EA Cp1;176 
Telephone: (07) 3225 148 
Facsimile: (07) 3225 1823 
E-Mail: 	 fisherics@qfma.q1d.g0v.au 
 
  
  
Offitts 
Level 6 
k40TnkSi 
Brisbane 
Mast address Ali Correspondence to: 
The 13xecutive Officer 
Queensland Fisherie,s Management Authority 
PO Box 344 Fortitude Valley Qld 4006 
  
LA" 	 1,1-n 11•8 	 • L.P.A. 	 .11.,110 Cosa 	 I 	 Ps!, 	 J.. • 	 .L 	 • 
_ • _ • • •• • 	 -• 	 • 
A general point raised is the general attendance rule at foreshore set mesh nets. The understanding 
of the Working Party members is that existing foreshore set mesh net attendance rule would mean 
that it is possible for a fisher to be anywhere from "at the net" to a maximum of 2.6km from the 
furtherest net. This distance of 2.61ans is brought about by the rule that the distance between the 
first and last net can be 1 nautical mile (approximately 1.81m) and the general 800m rule for 
attendance. 
The Working Party members are concerned that given these potentially long distances involved 
with foreshore mesh net attendance, it poses a significant threat to dugong because the time taken 
to get to a net where a dugong maybe accidently entangled would be greater than the time it takes 
for a dugong to drown (eight minutes). 
The non-recognition of the potential effects of the general attendance rule on foreshore set mesh 
nets contrasts with the degree of effort put by fishers into the measures designed to mitigate the 
effects of the offshore set mesh net on dugong. 
The Working Party members acknowledge this as being a result of the relative ranking of the 
dangers posed by the different nets but would appreciate any further comments from industry on 
the potential dangers posed by the general attendance rule on foreshore set mesh nets_ 
In relation to the proposed "at the net" attendance rule being advocated by industry for offshore 
set mesh nets the Working Party acknowledges it as a significant step in attaining the goals of no 
further deaths of dugong caused through commercial netting. 
The exemption for Halifax Bay and Repulse Bay to "at the net" attendance requirements however 
was of considerable concern because the proposed SOOm attendance rule, associated with the 
exposed waters, and the sea conditions associated with it, would not enhance the survival of a 
dugong if caught in a net. h was not known what is meant by "to remain in sight of the net" when 
the reason for the exemption to the "at the net" rule was fOr the purpose of rough sea conditions 
which would tend to make any reasonable sighting of the net very difficult. It was indicated at 
our meeting that there are plenty of examples in Queensland waters where nets are taken out of 
the water when sea conditions are such that working the net is dangerous or the risk of catching 
a dugong is unacceptable. 
It is therefore requested that the industry reconsider the exemptions for Halifax and Repulse Bay 
in light of the unacceptable risk that this measure could pose to dugong in these areas. 
The Working Party members acknowledge that the industry views the use of river set mesh nets 
as being of minimal risk but there is a lot of evidence that dugong do travel and feed in a number 
of rivers and creeks within the Dugong Priority Areas. It will be appreciated if comments would 
be obtained from commercial fishers fishing in the rivers and creeks in the Dugong Priority Areas 
as to any measure which could be introduced to achieve the objective of the Great Barrier Reef 
Ministerial Council of no farther dugong mortality as a result of commercial or recreational fishing 
practices. 
CI CPO" 7'1 	 -LCJI • Da 	 r s 
3 
The last general point concerns the proposal tc- 3o to 50m length of foreshore net for use around 
rocky headlands. The Working Party understands that the effects of this measure to mitigate 
against deaths or dugong include the following in areas below Cape Flattery - 
	
• 
	 3 x 50m nets will decrease the amount of net in the water below low water mark provided 
current use of 200m nets are used (1h= 66m). However if only 3 x 100m nets are used 
the use of 50m nets will increase the amount of net below low water mark; 
the 50m net size will greatly convenience the fisher with the use of nets for rocky 
headlands; and 
if the 50m maximum net length can be used off rocky headlands it will take the place of 
offshore set mesh nets. 
The decrease in use of offshore set mesh nets will be removing a danger to dugong in these areas. 
Your confirmation on clarification of these effects would be appreciated. 
In terms of the more specific points relating to specific Dugong Priority Areas, I will pose the 
concerns/questions following the sequence of Dugong Priority Areas in the Report. 
PCBfBathurstiNearby areas. 
	
0 
	 There is no mention of the possible effects of river set mesh nets; 
	
9 	 attendance rules for use of foreshore set mesh nets, particularly around rocky headlands 
and or islands. 
Innchinbrook 
It is assumed that the offshore drift net is not being included within the attendance rules of the 
offshore set mesh net in this region and in all other regions. 
It would be appreciated Wit could be confirmed if any offshore set mesh nets are used in 
Hinchinbrook Channel and if so what are the industry's views on their conditions of use; 
What is the industry's view on the "at the net" .endance proposal for areas between 
Hecate Point to Cape Sandwich to be extended to include Hinchinbrook Channel as well? 
Cleveland Bay 
In the Report it states that there is minimal (if any) dugong interaction with netting operations 
north of etc. Could it please be confirmed thac the "at the net" attendance is being proposed for 
this area? 
Upstart Bay 
Is there any foreshore 
	 from f' :ater Creek to Oyster Point? And if there is 
industry's views on the dugong interaction and possible measures would be appreciated. 
A. an 	 •-• -•• 	 • 	 IL•L.•••.• 
- • • • • • 	 -• 	 • 
• 44J ...4J 
	 01 , 03, 711 	 rg: 
4 
naiscli or, further evidence of many sightings of dugong in the north-western part of the 
Boy, the QCFO weed to re-examine the proposed measures. 
Bny 
The major difficulty with this area was the statement by industry that whilst the major 
dugong area within this region is around the seagrass at the mouth of Black Rock Creek 
as well as close to the rocky headlands around St Helens Bay, they appear to be 
advocating the use of foreshore set mesh nets back into the critical, high density dugong 
areas. Some clarification would be appreciated to ensure that the members of the 
Working Party are using the correct interpretation. 
The other point of clarification was the actual line of low water as there was some 
uncertainty as to whether the line on the map was correct or should it have been drawn 
between Jewers Point and Finlaysons Point. 
Ince Bay 
General question of attendance rule of foreshore set mesh nets and the use of river set 
mesh nets. 
Shoalwater Bay 
All participants agreed that the negotiation on this Bay would be undertaken under the Shoalwater 
Bay Management Plan process being carried by GBRMPA. This was not to downgrade the 
measures being proposed for the Shoalwater Bay area but to acknowledge that another process 
had been commenced and negotiation and consultation would be effected under that process. 
Port Clinton 
Can views be obtained on the proposition to reduce the ply strength on river set mesh nets 
in this area to match the reduction in ply strength for the foreshore set mesh nets. 
It is noted that the "at the net" attendance rule is proposed for foreshore set mesh nets in 
Port Clinton. 
Hervey Bay and Great Sandy Straits 
No points of clarification were needed. 
The amount of effort and time being attached to this important dugong issue by the commercial 
industry and the ongoing consultation and commitment to finding an effective solution to the 
problem is acknowledged and greatly appreciated. 
Yours 	 rely 
.a4L/ 
L Appleton 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
Attachment G 
Map representation by GBRMPA of the 
Queensland Commercial Fishermen's 
Organisation proposal regarding 
dugong conservation 
(Maps are overlays of those at 
Attachment E) 
 Foreshore Net Closure on set nets greater 
than 50m long Aug-Oct inclusive (Use of 
up to 6 nets less than 50m to continue, 
standard rules to apply that 213 of 
net to be above low water.) 
No anchoredioffshore set nets 
Bizant 
River 
Complete closure on Foreshore 
Set Nets greater than 50m long 
around Rocky Islands (Use of up 
to 6 nets less than 50m to continue) cs 
z 
4& 
QCFO Proposals 
(February 1997) 
QCF0 Proposals 
(February 1997) 
Offshore set net closure 
south of this line to the 
Hinchinbrook Channel 
Mermga 
Creek 
Require 'at the net' 
attendance of foreshore 
set nets from Hecate 
Point to Cape Sandwidi 
thus allowing only1 net 
to be  
Prohibit foreshore set 
nets greater than 200m 
long from Neams Inlet 
to Lady Elliot Reef 
Lady 
Mot 
Reef 
Prohibit foreshore 
set nets around 
'GooId Island' 
( 
800m attendance for offshore 
nets west of this line except as 
otherwise shown 
To Albino 
N., Rock light 
1\ 
Cape 
Cleveland 
Yitis 
9rbsnk
vilje
.Vittlr 
'16 	
, 
slicm orpen$,),- 	 4,,Aio),„(ieve)/ 
, 	 eto°40,14.(-)0tY /" / / 
wier°.( 
/4/ 
‘"‘ 
Alligator 
Creek 
From Cape Cleveland to Ross 
Creek, restrict general 
purpose nets to less than or equal 
to 400m long, less than or equal to 
115mm (4.5") diameter mesh, ply 
strength less than or equal to 0.62mm 
diameter monofilament (line14) 
Prohibit foreshore set nets greater 
than 200m long between Alligator 
Creek and Cape Cleveland 
QCF0 Proposals 
(February 1997) 
Require 'at the net' 
attendance for 
offshore nets 
QCF0 Proposals 
(February 1997) 
Saltwater 
Creek 
Foreshore set 
net closure 
Oyster 
Point 
Windy 
Point 
,<2 
c:3 
QCFO Proposals 
(February 1997) 
With foreshore nets 'around' 
Pigeon Island and Brother Islands, 
restrict to less than 3, each up to 
50rn long with one end of each 
fixed above low water for the day. 
Prohibit foreshore set nets 
beyond the low tide line 
Finlaysons 
Point 
(February 1997) ,. 
Allom Pt 
Taffy 
_ Island 
6 
13 
Prohibit offshore 
set nets shoreward 
of this line 
Glendower 
Point 
With foreshore nets 'around' Allom 
dr Glendower Points, Taffy Island, 
Cape Palmerston restrict to less 
than 3, each up to 50m long with 
one end of each fixed above low 
water for the day. 
a 
QCFO Proposals 
PORT CLINTON 
Foreshore set nets : 
- prohibit if greater than 
200m long 
- prohibit with monofilament 
diem. greater than 0.62mm 
- require 'at the net' attendance 
BO only 1 net can be used 
General purpose nets : 
- prohibit mesh greater than 
175mm (7") diam. 
- prohibit ply greater than 
0.81mm diam. or line 24 
(except for bun or bag) is 
attached 
Pearl 	 _Dv 
Bay - 
Island 
osHead 
V 
QCFO Proposals 
(February 1997) 
SHOALWATER BAY 
Create special net endorsement based on historic use; 
implement with stringent conditions to allow 
cancellation if fisher: 
- does not exit durin6 Defence closures, 
- does not comply with fishery SC other regs, 
- brings the industry into disrepute, 
- does not comply with stringent reporting procedures 
re. commencement & end of each trip. 
Consider re-opening Canoe Passage to offset impact 
on fishers 
Consider use of set arrowhead and of portable 
fishtraps which are 'dugong friendly' 
0 
Prohibit use of general purpose 
nets, mesh greater than 125nun (5"), Baffle Creek, near GBRMP 
boundary to Dayman Point 
Current prohibition 
on foreshore nets 
Theodolite 	  
Creek 
Remove area east of 153°E 
from the DPA as 'dugong 
only common after flood' 
and to accord with the 
fish regs. 
Burrum 
Riv 
Prohibit offshore set 
nets from 4pm to 5am 
6), - <9 
Beelbi 
Creek 
O'Regan 
Creek 
scat.z 5 
v i=1 
7.4 6 
eEc 
g-5.5 
Utw 
z 
o 
0 2 
Dayman 
Point 
Sheridan Flats 
lnskip Point 
QCFO Proposals (February 1997) 
Prohibit river set nets in 
vicinity of 'Kauri Creek' 
TABLES 
Table 1: Comparison of Biogeographical Information on Interim and Proposed Dugong Protection Areas  
(Notes: 1. All data is indicative only - additional appraisal is required; Bio-geographic data is from report #18; 
2. The biogeographical information relates to the southern GBR only, not Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait and Princess Charlotte/Bathurst Bays; 
1. Int DPAs means boundaries as at GBRMC 22; Proposed means boundaries as proposed in report #18, attached). 
DPA Dugongs sighted on aerial 
transect surveys 1986-87/1992/1994 
CYO 
[differing survey intensities used in some 
places] 
Coastal seagrasses 
in DPAs 
(%) 
Area 
(km2) 
Distance to next 
DPA north 
(km) 
Coastal waters in 
DPA 
CYO 
Coastline in DPA 
(%) 
Low Isles Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 1/3/0 
Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 0 
Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 1268 
Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 210 
Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 1.5 
Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 1 
Hinchinbrook Island 
Region 
Int DPAs = 8/8/24 
Proposed = 8/9/23 
Int DPAs = 18.6 
Proposed = 18.6 
Int DPAs = 694 
Proposed = 815 
Int DPAs = 473 
Proposed = 240 
Int DPAs = 2.6 
Proposed =3 
Int DPAs = 4.5 
Proposed = 4.8 
Halifax, Cleveland Bay 
and Bowling Green Bays 
Int DPAs = 8/4/18 
Proposed = 13/7/21 
Int DPAs = 19.3 
Proposed = 20.9 
Int DPAs = 646 
Proposed = 1168 
Int DPAs =80 
Proposed = 80 
Int DPAs = 2.4 
Proposed = 6.3 
Int DPAs = 1.8 
Proposed = 5.2 
Upstart Bay Int DPAs = 4/3/2 
Proposed = 4/3/2 
Int DPAs = 3.5 
Proposed = 3.5 
Int DPAs = 193 
Proposed = 193 
Int DPAs = 124 
Proposed = 65 
Int DPAs = 1.5 
Proposed = 1.5 
Int DPAs = 3.3 
Proposed = 3.3 
Edgecumbe Bay hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 8/3/1 
Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 2.4 
Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 412 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 80 
Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 2.5 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 2.4 
Newry Island/Repulse 
Bay Region 
Int DPAs = 0/1/2 
Proposed = 11/3/2 
Int DPAs = 0.8 
Proposed = 2.1 
Int DPAs = 150 
Proposed = 752 
Int DPAs = 143 
Proposed = 100 
hit DPAs = 1.2 
Proposed = 5.2 
Int DPAs = 2.6 
Proposed = 7.3 
Table 1 (cont.) 
DPA Dugongs sighted on aerial 
transect surveys 1986-87/1992/1994 
00 
[differing survey intensities used in some 
places] 
Coastal seagrasses 
in DPAs 
(%) 
Area 
(km2) . 
Distance to next 
DPA north 
(km) 
Coastal waters in 
DPA 
(%) 
Coastline in DPA 
00 
Cape Palmerston (Ince 
Bay) 
hit DPAs = 0/0/1 
Proposed = 5/1/1 
hit DPAs = 2.5 
Proposed = 6.7 
hit DPAs =80 
Proposed = 800 
hit DPAs =99 
Proposed = 75 
hit DPAs = 0.7 
Proposed = 5.6 
hit DPAs = 1.5 
Proposed = 5.4 
Shoalwater Bay/Port 
Clinton 
hit DPAs = 21/31/31 
Proposed = 21/31/31 
Int DPAs = 21.4 
Proposed = 21.4 
hit DPAs = 1050 
Proposed = 1080 
hit DPAs = 160 
Proposed = 100 
hit DPAs = 5 
Proposed = 5.5 
hit DPAs = 9.7 
Proposed -= 10.4 
Rodd's Bay hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 4/4/7 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 3.6 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 510 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 190 
Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 3.5 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 4.3 
Great Sandy Strait/Sthn 
Hervey Bay (outside 
GBRMP) 
Int DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = N/A 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = N/A 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = N/A 
Int DPAs = 396 
Proposed = 160. 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = N/A 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = N/A 
Princess Charlotte Bay & 
Bathurst Bay Under 
Consideration (Northern GBR) 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = N/A 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = N/A 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = 0 
Int DPAs = 473 
Proposed = 210 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = N/A 
hit DPAs = N/A 
Proposed = N/A 
TOTALS(SGBR) Int DPAs = 41/47/78 
Proposed = 75/64/88 
Int DPAs = 66.1 
Proposed = 79.2 
Int DPAs = 2813 
Proposed = 6998 
Int DPAs = 211 
(average) 
Proposed = 130 
(average) 
Int DPAs = 13.4 
Proposed = 34.6 
Int DPAs = 23.4 
Proposed = 44.1 
Table 2 : Species catch in mesh nets in interim and proposed Dugong Protection Areas  
(Notes : 1. Catches - kg live weight - in 19951. 2. Based upon QFMA 6 minute logbook data, reworked by GBRMPA; 
3. Discrepancy with total catches in some DPAs is due to non-inclusion of 30 minute data) 
A. Interim DPAs agreed by 22nd meeting of GBRMinisterial Council 
  
      
      
      
, 
	  Sum of live_wght 
OW1[111(1/ f 	 MUNI Ill arum- S • ctes 
	 • , 
_ 
Species Name  
species_code_nu 
m 
Princess 
Charlotte Bay 
Bathurst 
Bay 
Hinchinbroo 
k 
Cleveland 
Bay Upstart Bay Ince Bay 
Newry 
Region 
Shoalwater 
Bay Port Clinton 
Southern 
Hervey Bay 
Great Sandy 
Strait 
 
. 
Total Shark  901034 20,023 1,100 6,518 6,527 321 5,738 1,140 2,027 440 11,696 5,641 61,170 Barra.  610002 11,373 , 	 ' : 438 i 7,324 3,906 97 758 1,554 709 223 831 116 .27,329 Spotted Mackerel  441015 0 i 	 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 16 13,715 780 14,523 Mackerel Other  441800 326 72 1,713 813 . 	 o 184 268 2,230 0 1,671 2,894 10,171 Grey Mackerel  441018 52 0 ' 	 2,258 1,089 0 31 20 32 122 203 771 4,578 School Mackerel  441014 0 0 o o 0 29 15 o 0 3,397 1,657 5,099 Mackerel Total  378 72 3,972 1,902 0 257 303 2,262 138 18,987 6,102 34,372 Mullets  381000 46 10 5,487 6,001 234 258 232 154 195 22,296 28,145 63,058 _ Sea Mullet  381002 o o o o o o o o 0 11,618 0 11,618 FANTAIL MULLET  381009 o o 0 o o o o o o 109 1,289 1,398 Mullet Total  46 10 5,487 6,001 234 258 232 154 195 34,023 29,434 76,074 Blue Salmon  383004 1,277 o 2,802 3,431 458 578 793 2,079 343 137 206 '12,104 King Salmon  383005 1,880 20 1,337 118 107 408 1,181 791 140 508 616 7,105 - Salmon Total 3,157 20 4,140  3,550  565  986 1,974 2,870 483 644 821 19,209 QUF.ENFISII  337905 399 0 607 1.444 77 0 351 I 86 6 119 43 3,231 TREVALLY  337900 166 60 7 902 0 21 292 63 1 0 474 274 2,827 BLACK TREVALLY  337800 	 0 0 0 o 0 o o o 0 693  1,336 Trevally Total  565 60 614 2,345 77 21 643 818 6 1,286 1,653 
2,029 
8,087 Whiting  330900 0 0 10 0 0 25 10 0 0 11,535 26,507 38,087 SUMMER WHITING  330800 0 0 1) 1) 1) 0 0 0 0 1,555 871 2,426 Whiting Total 0 0 10 0 0 25 10 0 0 13,090 27,378 40,513 Yellow Finned Bream 
 353004 0 0 118 0 183 56 161 0 0 2,361 5,546 8,425 GRUNTER/F3REAM 350800 280 I() 89 1,340 34 89 346 620 12 o o 2;819 Bream Total  280 10 207 1,340 217 144 507 620 12 2,361 5,546 11,244 Flat Head 
 296000 0 0 78 173 85 242 80 46 123 582 3,886 5,295 ' SEA GAR 
 234000 520 0 973 287 0 0 0 0 0 145 1,441 3,366 TAILOR  334002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 448 
, 
1,604 2,052 Mixed Fish 599000 1,186 20 490 515 0 257 323 0 0 991 1,442 5,224 OTHERS  999999 4,135 0 181 0 0 42 7 0 0 0 	 0 4,364 Tow 'ler PP A 4 1,661 P• '" 2.! "", - 	 47 -`7:: ' ,59E ' 
 8,7n  6.  - ,i20 ' . _, 
	 .„ 
 
, 
Table 2 Cont.) 
B. Extended and additional DPAs proposed in this Report 
&1111=2.1diaaLituaa=LA 
species_code 
_num 
Princess 
Charlotte 
Bay/ 
Low 
Isles 
Hinchinbr 
ook 
Cleveland Bay/ 
Bowling Green 
Bay 
Upstart 
Bay 
Edgecumbe 
Bay 
Newry/ 
Repulse 
Bay 
Cape 
Palmerstone 
Shoalwater 
Bay/ Port 
Clinton 
Rod's Bay 
Gladstone 
Hervey 
Bay/ Great 
Sandy Strait 
Totals per 
Species 
Shark 901034 21,083 0 8,179 11,104 231 73 16,378 11,982 1,562 14,029 17,337 101,956 
Barra 610002 11,751 492 7,884 9,472 97 66 6,429 1,420 604 1,255 947 40,417 
_Spotted Mackerel 441915 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 16 0 14,494 14,523 
 
Mackerel Other 441800 398 0 1,713 1,032 0 236 516 194 1,054 688 4,566 10,396 
Grey Mackerel 	 •  441018 52 0 2,258 9,463 0 0 1,883 3,897 122 30 974 18,679 
School Mackerel 441014 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 29 0 147 5,054 5,264 
Mackerel Total 450 0 3,972 10,495 0 236 2,432 4,133 1,192 865 ' 25,088 48,863 
Mullets 381000 56 0 5,855 7,679 188 2 4,026 343 349 15,394 50,441 84,332 
Sea Mullet 381002 0 0 o o o o o o o 0 11,618 11,618 
FANTAIL MULLET 381009 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 1,398 1,398 
Mullets Total 56 0 5,855 7,679 188 2 4,026 343 349 15,394 63,457 97,348 
 
Blue Salmon 383004 1.277 678 . 	 3.463 
, 	 It...509 
4,972 
7,602 217 156 3,966 726 1,156 4,189 342 23,773 
Kill.cl Salmon  383005  1,900 0 890  
8,492 
107  
324 
30 
186 
3,013  
6,978 
600  
1,326 
! 	 6c,)5 
i1,8.51 
901 1,123 10,767 
Salmon Total 3,177 678 5,090 1,465 34,540 Qt Tr:NI -As!! 337905 399 o MP 4.100 77 0 1.151 0 192 104 162 6.882 
'1RI-NALLY 337900 226 122 7 ' 	 966 0 0 887 38 152 18 748 3,164 
BLACK TREVALLY 337800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,029 2,029 
DA 1:"1' 337004 0 0 0 108 0 0 )81 0 0 233 1,017 1,729 
Trey:111v Total 625 122 614 -•; 
- ,-
3 
 -
'CI 77 0 2,319 38 344 355 3,956 13,804 
Whiting 330900 0 0 1:) 0 0 0 659 ::5 0 213 38,042  38,954  
SUMMER WHITING  330800 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 163 2,426 2,589 
Whiting Total 0 0 15 0 0 0 659 25 0 376 40,468  41,543  
GRUNTER/BREAM 350800 290 13 95 2,062 34 6 1,621 89 • 	 4 3.86 884 .0 5,479 
Ye!Inw Finned lIreani 35300.1 •  0 
290 
0 162 1 	 I 178 0 I 0)3 56 0 675 7.907 10.082 
Bream Total 13 257 2,073 211 6 2,714 144 386 1,559 7,907 15,561 
Flat Head  296000 0 0 108 396 34 0 854 256 147 843 4,468 7,106 
SEA GAR  234000 520 0 973 287 0 0 12 0 0 0 1,586 3,378 
TAILOR  334002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,052 2 ,052 
Mixed Fish  599000 1,206 25 490 1,833 0 174 788 301 0 2,382 2,433 9,632 
OTHERS  999999 4,135 0 181 433 0 0 7 63 0 934 0 5,752 
BAIT FISH  599920 0 0 140 56 0 ' 	 0 141 0 0 2,523 71 2,931 
Totals per DPA 43,293 1,330 33,639 57,673 , 1,161x 	 743 43,737 20,031 6,435 45,604 171,235 424,882 
Table 3: Comparison of Commercial fish netting in Interim and Proposed Dugong Protection Areas 
 
(Notes: 1. All data is indicative only - additional appraisal is required; netting data is from GBRMPA appraisal of 1995 QFMA logbook returns; 
2. Significant netters means commercial netters who caught over 3 tonnes of fish of which the majority caught > 10% of their total product in the 
DPA; 
DPA Effort in 
Original DPAs 
(km netlength 
used in 1995) 
% Effort over 
all Original 
DPAs 
Effort in 
Proposed 
DPAs 
(km netlength 
used in 1995) 
% Effort over 
all Proposed 
DPAs 
Catch in 
Original DPAs 
(tonnes live 
weight in 1995) 
% Catch over 
all Original 
DPAs 
Catch in 
Proposed 
DPAs 
(tonnes live 
weight in 1995) 
% Catch over 
all Proposed 
DPAs 
# netters who used 
the area / # of 
significant netters* 
Low Isles N/A N/A 15 0.8 N/A N/A 1 0.4 Int DPAs = N/A. 
Proposed = 3/2 
Hinchinbrook 
Island Region 210 24.1 250 12.8 30 28.6 35 13.9 Ent DPAs = 18/6 
Proposed = 18/6 
Halifax, 
Cleveland Bay 
and Bowling 
Green Bays  
300 34.5 510 26.1 35 33.3 75 29.9 Int DPAs = 10/10 
Proposed = 18/14 
Upstart Bay 30 3.5 30 1.5 5 4.8 5 2.0 Int DPAs = 2/1 
Proposed = 2/1 
Edgecumbe 
Bay N/A N/A 10 0.5 N/A N/A 5 2.0 Int DPAs = N/A. 
Proposed = 4/3 
Newry 
Island/Repulse 
Bay Region  
100 11.5 360 18.4 10 9.5 45 17.9 Int DPAs = 6/4 
Proposed = 10/5 
Cape 
Palmerston 
(Ince Bay)  
110 12.6 230 11.8 10 9.5 25 10.0 Int DPAs = 5/4 
Proposed =10/6 
Shoalwater 
Bay/Port 
Clinton 
120 13.8 120 6.1 15 14.3 15 6.0 Int DPAs = 8/3 
Proposed = 8/4 
, 3. Int DPAs means boundaries as at GBRMC 22; Proposed means boundaries as proposed in report #182 attached). 
Table 3 (cont.) 
DPA Effort in 
Original DPAs 
(km netlength 
used in 1995) 
% Effort over 
all Original 
DPAs 
Effort in 
Proposed 
DPAs 
(km netlength 
used in 1995) 
% Effort over 
all Proposed 
DPAs 
Catch in 
Original DPAs 
(tonnes live 
weight in 1995) 
')/0 Catch over 
all Original 
DPAs 
Catch in 
Proposed 
DPAs 
(tonnes live 
weight in 1995) 
'% Catch over 
all Proposed 
DPAs 
# netters who used 
the area / # of 
significant netters* 
Rodd's Bay N/A N/A 430 22.0 N/A N/A 45 17.9 Int DPAs = N/A. 
Proposed = 15/9 
Great Sandy 
Strait/Sthn 
Hervey Bay 
(outside 
GBRMP)  
2,630 
(1100) * 
See Note 1 below 
N/A 2,630 
(1100) * 
See Note 1 below 
N/A 190 
(65) * 
See Note 1 below 
N/A 190 
(65) * 
See Note 1 below 
N/A Int DPAs = 32/30 
Proposed = 34/30 
Princess 
Charlotte Bay 
& Bathurst Bay 
Under 
Consideration 
(Northern GBR)  
320 N/A 320 N/A 45 N/A 45 N/A hit DPAs = 9/5 
Proposed = 9/5 
TOTALS (SGBR) 870 100.0 1955 100.00 105 100.0 251 100.0 All Int DPAs = 90/63 
- without GSS/ 
HB = 58/33 
- without 
PCB/BB = 49/28 
All Proposed 
DPAs = 131/85 
- without 
GSS/HB = 97/55 
- without 
PCB/BB = 88/50 
Note 1: Figures in brackets for Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Straits relate to those fisheries which pose a threat to dugong (ie: those - 
targeting shark, barramundi and mackerel). 
Appendix 
SUBMISSIONS AND REPORTS 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 
	 22 
Attachment C 
List of Submissions and Reports  
(numbered for reference purposes in this report) 
Submissions 
1. Industry proposal for implementation of the QCFO Dugong 
Conservation Strategy; plus supplementary fax of 26/2/97 on 
'clarification of areas in QCFO Strategy'. 
(by the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation) 
4b(  2. Dugong mortality from the perspective of recreational anglers in Queensland (by Sunfish Queensland Incorporated) 
itp,A 3. Dugong Shoalwater Bay (by Sunfish Queensland Incorporated) 
4. Latest situation - nets - shark control program (by QDPI) 
0.. 4 5. Letter of 19/2/97 from Commissioner I Delaney, ATSIC Commissioner, 
Queensland Metropolitan Zone 
Letter of 24/1/97 from Dr P Corkeron, James Cook University, to the 
Queensland Minister for Primary Industries (copied to GBRMPA) 
regarding shark nets at Magnetic Island. 
Letters of 19/2/97 and 21/2/97 from Humane Society International 
Dugong Conservation Policy (by Australian Marine Conservation 
Society, 20/2/97) 
41A( 9. Letter of 21/2/97 from the Queensland Conservation Council 
10. Letter of 21/2/97 from the Australian Marine Conservation Society 
0,4 11. Letter of 21/2/97 from the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 
(Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch Inc.) 
Qa, 12. Letter of 22/2/97 from the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 
(Townsville Branch Inc.) 
Letter of 23/2/97 from the Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc. 
Letter of 23/2/97 from the North Queensland Conservation Council 
Letter of 24/2/97 from Dr T. Preen, James Cook University, enclosing 
'Comments on the Dugong Conservation Policy of the Australian 
Marine Conservation Society'. 
Letter of 24/2/97 from the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 
(Tully & District Branch)- 
Letters of 17/2/97 and 25/2/97 from Professor H. Marsh, James Cook 
University, including the draft report, 'Attempts at minimising the 
bycatch of endangered species in commercial fishing operations in the 
United States: lessons for the Great Barrier Reef region' . 
Reports 
  
(Li 18. A system of dugong sanctuaries for the recovery and conservation of 
dugong populations in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and 
adjacent southern waters ; plus supplementary report and comparative 
Table, received 26/2/97 [attached to main report are overheads and notes 
for verbal presentation to MPA 165, 20/2/97] 
(by Tony Preen and Nina Morissette, James Cook University) 
19. Mesh nets used in waters of Queensland's East Coast : The risk to 
dugongs in proposed Interim Dugong Protection Areas 
(by Martin Russell, GBRMPA) 
ii 
Report to Governments on actions necessary for dugong conservation in the GBR and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
(GBRMPA, 7/3/97) 23 
20. Report on vessel use in the Interim Dugong Protection Areas 
(by M. Gilbert and D Benzaken, GBRMPA) 
(;) 	 21. Report on effectiveness of voluntary cessation of dugong hunting 
(by Greg Smith, GBRMPA, in consultation with Rick Hill and Bill White 
of ATSIC) 
22. Coastal development and pollution in Dugong Protection Areas 
(by J. Brodie and D. Haynes, GBRMPA; J Cavanagh, AIMS; D. Pitts, 
Environment Science and Services) 0„ 	 23. Dugong Protected Areas - Seagrass Issues 
(by W. Lee Long, L. McKenzie, R. Coles, Queensland Dept of Primary 
Industries) 
24. Impacts on and responses of seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef - issues 
for management (by W. Lee Long and R. Coles, QDPI) (4,1 25. The effects of trawl fisheries on Great Barrier Reef seabed habitat (by C R 
Pitcher et. al., CSIRO Division of Marine Research) 
01. 26. Large scale seagrass dieback (by J. McLeod, Cooloola Seafood Festival 
.271 A part resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great 
1L-0 n • Sandy Strait and Tin Can Inlet (by FRC Coastal Resource and 
Environmental; submitted by J McLeod) 
28: The Influence of water quality on the virulence of the seagrass pathogen, 
P-/-1 7. Labyrinthula 
 (by M Wnuczynski; submitted by J McLeod) 
Report on illegal take of dugong in the Great Barrier Reef region and in 
the proposed dugong sanctuary areas (by T. Christensen, Queensland 
Department of Environment) 
Information on the conservation status of dugong in the Torres Strait 
Area (Preliminary report; by G Anderson, Environment Australia - 
Biodiversity Group) 
Interim Policy - Traditional Hunting Dugong (by Great Barrier Reef 
Marine Park Authority) 
Further Additions (2.,4 
 32 Letter of 25/2/97 from Mackay Conservation Group 
33 Letter of 27/2/97 from Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 
(Proserpine/ Whitsunday Branch) 
34 Letter of 25/2/97 from Cairns and Far North Environment Centre Inc. 
Dugong Management in Hie - 
-..Torthern Great Bi4i.er Reef (by J. Phillips, 
GBRIvIPA) 
Notes on seagrasses and seagrass-dugong interactions in the 
Hinchinbrook Region (by W. Lee Long and R. Coles, QDPI) 
.0.0. 
1 
Catching Fish for Everyone! 
CFO 
11 February 1997 
Mr Tony Stokes 
Senior Planning Officer 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
PO Bzx1379 
TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810  
Suite 12, CI ayfiel d Courtyard 
699A-713 Sandgate Road, Clayfield 04011 
P.O. Box 392, CI ayfiel d 04011, Australia 
Telephone: 07 3262 6855 International: 61 7 3262 6855 
Fax: 07 3262 7650 International: 61 7 3262 7650 
t 
• 
Dear Mr Stokes 
Please find enclosed the QCFO Proposal for the Implementation of the QCFO Dugong 
Conservation Strategy. 
This comprehensive proposal again clearly illustrates the commercial fishing industry's 
commitment to taking all necessary steps to eliminate as much as possible its impact on 
dugong. 
QCFO appreciates the opportunity which has been extended by the Board of the Great 
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to briefly address them on 14 February and we will 
ensure that relevant QCFO personnel are present. 
However, QCFO President, Ted Loveday, who has personally managed the development 
and implementation of this strategy, will not be available for that meeting as he will be 
overseas with the Minister for Primary Industry's trade delegation to South-East Asia. Mr 
Loveday will return to the office on 25 February 1997 and would welcome any opportunity to 
brief relevant personnel, individually or collectively, on the details of our proposal. 
Yours sincerely 
Annick Kennedy 
A/State Secretary 
Coninietecial Fishermen - Catching Fish for Everyone! 
Industry Proposal for the Implementation 
of the 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy 
1 
	
1 	 Emergency Measures Designed by the Commercial Net Fisherman 
in response to the 
	
--)\ 	
Urgent Need for an Immediate Response 
to 
Protect Dugongs on the East Coast of Queensland 
February 1997 
ii 
1.0 Introduction 
In November 1996 the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation (QCFO) 
prepared a Dugong Conservation Strategy (refer to Appendix 1). In support of this 
strategy the fishing industry recognises and accepts its obligation to mitigate and 
wherever possible eliminate its impact on dugongs. 
QCFO has since conducted an extensive consultation program where over 900 net 
endorsement holders throughout Queensland were invited to participate in the 
implementation of the QCFO Strategy. During these meetings initiatives were 
strongly supported to that will go a long way to eliminate the impact of mesh netting 
on dugong. These initiatives significantly modify current net fishing operations along 
the coast, particularly within, but not restricted to the dugong conservation zones 
recommended by the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council (GBRMC). 
In addition to the areas listed by the GBRMC many other areas habitated by 
dugongs were identified by fishers as being appropriate for review in relation to 
interaction with mesh netting and dugong. QCFO has already decided to undertake 
a process to review these areas as soon as the process currently underway is 
complete and resources become available. 
The initiatives and outcomes that were suggested by the fishers, and which are 
contained in this report, reflect genuine concern for dugong protection and a 
determination by fishers to minimise the impact of their activities on dugongs 
throughout Queensland. The measures outlined in this report will have a significant 
adverse impact on net fishing operations, however, with the exception of Shoalwater 
Bay the Industry puts forward these measures on the basis that compensation will 
not be sought by industry to offset the losses to commercial fishers. However, it 
should be made quite clear that it is critical that each fishing area be treated as a 
completely separate entity due to the unique fishing practices and methods within 
each area, and that should any measures over and above the measures outlined in 
this report be considered the industry insists that provision for compensation for 
fishers be a fundamental element of those deliberations. 
2.0 Implementation of QCFO Strategy 
To comprehensively implement the QCFO Strategy QCFO held 5 meetings with net 
fishers along the coast. To adequately address the areas within the tight time frame 
allocated for this process meetings were held close to the Christmas period. The 
Cairns and Townsville meetings were held on 20 and 21 December respectively and 
the Mackay, Rockhampton, and Hervey Bay meetings were held on the 6, 7 and 8 
January. Over 150 fishers attended these meetings which for an industry meeting of 
this type and at this time of year, is an extremely high attendance rate, indicating the 
high level of importance given to this issue by fishers. - 
Following are the detailed arrangements agreed to by fishers at these meetings. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 1 
2.1 Education and Awareness Strategy 
As described in section 3.1 of the QCF0 Strategy, QCF0 is preparing an 
Endangered Species Awareness Course which has a dugong component 
incorporated. This program will be fully implemented during 1997. The final draft of 
the syllabus is currently being reviewed prior to its integration into the Queensland 
Trainee Master Fisherman's Course, which is a pre-requisite for obtaining a 
Queensland Master Fisher license. Further to this, it is expected that by the end of 
1997 all existing commercial fishers in charge of mesh net operations will have 
achieved accreditation in the course prior to using mesh nets in waters adjacent to 
Queensland. 
Commercial fishers strongly support education and training as a powerful tool for the 
long term protection of dugong and other listed species. Further to the current 
elements of the Endangered Species Awareness Course (ESAC), net fishers agreed 
that local modules within the course which require knowledge of specific rules in 
specific areas will further eliminate the impact of mesh netting on dugongs. These 
extra modules will be developed after the current syllabus is completed and 
implemented. Accreditation in the local modules will be an essential component for 
a net fisher to operate in the respective area. 
QCFO RECOMMEND that: 
The GBRMC note: 
The implementation of the Endangered Species Awareness Course as 
outlined in the QCFO Strategy is progressing well. 
Localised modules will be developed for the Course as soon as the current 
course is implemented and resources are available. 
2.2 Legislation and Compliance Strategy 
2.2.1 Legislation 
QCF0 believes it is critical that all legislative changes relating to fisheries 
management arrangements and fisheries practices must be implemented under the 
provisions of the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994. The "new" Fisheries Act 1994 has 
been developed specifically to incorporate the recommendations of the Ecologically 
Sustainable Development Report on Fisheries. Of particular significance here is: 
the requirement for an ecosystems approach to fisheries management 
whereby the impacts of fishing on target and non-target species is taken 
into account when developing fisheries management arrangements; 
the requirement for flexibility in the legislative process to accommodate the 
rapidly changing needs of fisheries and associated resources; and 
the requirement for proposed management changes to be developed in full 
and meaningful consultation with the fishing industry to ensure the 
proposed changes will have the desired effect. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 2 
Where legislative change is required to mitigate or eliminate the impact of fishing 
practices on dugong, QCFO is committed to ensuring any proposed changes have 
the highest possible priority to ensure a speedy and effective result. 
Further, the inflexibility and long drawn out process •for amending zoning 
arrangements makes the Marine Parks Legislation not only inappropriate but 
ineffective. This is particularly so given advice from fishermen that the precise 
locations of dugong populations varies over time depending on the location of 
seagrasses. 
QCFO RECOMMEND that: 
The GBRMC agree that all legislative arrangements relevant to dugong 
protection with regard to fisheries be implemented under the Queensland 
Fisheries Act 1994. 
2.2.2 Compliance - 
As recognised in the QCFO Strategy, QCFO is of the very strong view that 
implementation of the education and monitoring strategy will significantly reduce the 
impact of fishing practices on dugong. However the issue of `Cowboy' fishers 
remains a major concern to mesh net fishermen. 
Net fishers strongly support severe penalties for instances of dugong deaths or 
mortality caused by intentional actions or gross neglect. 
 Whilst suspensions and 
heavy fines were largely supported, loss of licence was received with mixed 
reactions. There was a strong fear of wrongful loss of endorsement and extreme 
care must be taken in developing the process for which a licence or an endorsement 
can be suspended or cancelled. It was felt that to overcome this problem the 
penalties should match the intensity of the crime, not impede or override natural 
justice, and when blatant disregard for rules designed specifically to protect dugongs 
occurs the punishment should be in three tiers with regard to repeat offences: 
First Offence - Heavy fines 
Second Offence - Heavy fines and suspended endorsement, then 
C) 	 Th;r:i__Offence - Loss of endorsement. 
This tiered concept needs to be developed between QCFO, QFMA and the relevant 
Management Advisory Committee's (MAC's). 
QCFO RECOMMEND that: 
The GBRMC support the development of a system of harsher penalties, 
designed to purge the cowboy element from the fishing industry, by QCFO, 
QFMA and the relevant Management Advisory Committees. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 3 
2.3 Monitoring and Research Strategy 
2.3.1 Incident Reporting 
The system of incident reporting for fishers as per the QCFO Strategy (section 3.2) 
was universally supported by the fishers. 
To compliment the information reported by fishers to QCFO, it was widely agreed 
that autopsy reports of the carcasses found should be made available to QCFO. 
This would ensure a comprehensive information gathering strategy would be 
coupled with the data already collected and feedback could be offered to those 
participating. 
Also, whilst every precaution is being taken to prevent dugong deaths from all 
anthropogenic impacts, deaths may still occur and carcasses will still be found. 
Currently, the carrying of a dugong carcass is prohibited and therefore clear 
guidelines need to be developed for the handling of dugong carcasses. These 
guidelines would need to be developed in conjunction with QCFO and Queensland 
Boating and Fisheries Patrol. 
QCFO RECOMMENDS that: 
The GBRMC note the industry support for the incident reporting program, 
and the need for QCFO to receive all autopsy reports. 
The GBRMC support the recognised need for clear guidelines for the 
management and handling of dugong carcasses. 
2.3.2 Research 
Strong anecdotal evidence from fishers suggests major issues and short falls 
regarding the knowledge of dugongs and their habitat. Research focused on these 
issues is critical to ensure the long term viability of dugong and to ensure that 
irrelevant and unnecessary restrictions are not imposed on the fishing industry. 
Priority research issues include: 
1 Loss of Critical Habitat including Sea grass 
At all meetings fishers provided strong evidence of significant changes to and 
disappearance of seagrass beds, in particular intertidal species, which were 
important to dugongs in the past (specific details are under the relevant sections in 
this report). Collectively this information provides strong evidence of a major 
environmental catastrophe having occurred along the Queensland coast over the 
last 10 to 15 years. QCFO believes that research aimed at quantifying the level of 
seagrass die back, identifying the causes of the dieback and assessing the impacts 
this has had on dugong populations, must be an extremely high priority. 
QCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 4 
Such research should be commenced by commissioning an independent researcher 
to discuss with fishers throughout the state, changes they have observed to 
seagrass beds over the last 10 to 20 years and the causes the fishers believe are 
responsible for the changes. An assessment of the changes of dugong population 
can then be undertaken. 
II Migration Patterns and Paths 
Recent research has indicated that dugongs are able to travel considerable 
distances in relatively short periods of time. Anecdotal information from fishers 
suggests that in many areas dugongs consistently travel through specific paths. 
The major reason for the implementation of the 'at the net' attendance rule for 
offshore set nets is because of the incidents of travelling dugong interacting with 
these nets. However, in the absence of knowledge regarding migration paths, the 
'at the net' attendance is being applied mostly in areas where there is no dugong 
migration. It is therefore critical that precise migration paths are urgently established 
so that unnecessary impediments to industry can be relieved. 
QCFO RECOMMENDS that: 
The GBRMC agree with the following research priorities: 
I Loss and causes of critical habitat including seagrass and its impact on 
dugong populations 
11 Migration Patterns and Paths 
41 The GBRMC agrees that when dugong migration paths are identified, 'at the 
net' attendance for offshore set nets be reviewed. 
3M Risk Identification and Mitigation Strategy 
3.1 Region Non-Specific Measures 
3.1.1 Offshore Set Net Attendance Ruling 
The implementation of the 'at the net' attendance rule for offshore set nets (within 
100m of the net) will have a significant impact on some fishers' livelihoods. 
Impacts on Industry 
Net Fisher Safety 
Fishers in Halifax Bay and Cleveland Bay (near Townsville) and in the Mackay 
region raised issues of concern over safety. These areas of exposed waters and 
high tidal variation often experience very large seas. As most net fishing operations 
are carried out with small open vessels, anchoring at the net for prolonged periods 
of time would be the only option for operators with an 'at the net' attendance rule. In 
so doing the fishers will have to undertake dangerous practices or make 
considerable extra capital investments in larger vessels for operations to remain 
viable. 
QCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 5 
111111.• f 
Emergency Breach 
Fishers coming to the immediate aid of another fisher, such as to assist at the time 
of a dugong entanglement, may be in breach for leaving nets temporarily 
unattended. 
Suggestions for Solutions 
Despite the hardships that at the net attendance rule will cause the net fishing 
industry, commercial fishers have agreed with the implementation of the GBRMC 
Agenda item 2(d)(i) recommendation of November 30, except for the specific areas 
outlined above and subject to the following minor amendment regarding who can be 
in attendance. 
Alternative Attendance 
A lot of hardship to fishers could be prevented by allowing a trainee master fisher or 
an assistant master fisher who has been accredited with the ESAC, to satisfy the 
attendance requirement in place of the master fisher. This would not allow fishers 
under the crew/block licence to satisfy the attendance requirements. 
While a trainee or assistant master fisher is attending the nets, the master fisher in 
charge of the operation would not be permitted to engage in any other fishery and 
would only be able to process product or undertake an activity directly related to the 
particular operation. The ESAC accredited assistant/trainee should also be 
permitted to work the net the same as a master fisher can when in attendance and 
therefore be able to take all measures necessary to avoid dugong entanglements 
and mortality. 
800 Metre Attendance Rule 
Commercial fishermen from the Halifax Bay and Repulse Bay regions require an 
attendance rule of 800 metres when in specific areas of exposed waters during the 
months between November and July. The fisher would be required to remain in 
sight of the net. 
The 'at the net' attendance would be acceptable through August, September and 
October as this is the time of maximum potential for dugong and fishing interaction in 
the region. 
The specific regions identified which require the 800 metre attendance are: 
Halifax Bay (near Townsville), west of the line drawn between Albino Rock 
light (18 ° 46 - 
 S, 146 °43' E) to Cape Cleveland (19° 10'9" S, 147° 1' E). 
Repulse Bay (near Mackay), west of the line drawn between Cape Conway 
(20°32'20" S, 148 °55'45"E) to Cape Hillsborough (20°54'20" S, 149 ° 3' E). 
QCF0 RECOMMENDS that: 
The GBRMC request the Queensland Government to amend the Queensland 
Fisheries Regulations 1995 so that a trainee master fisher can fulfil the 
attendance rule. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 6 
• The GBRMC agree that the Queensland Government implement 'at the net' 
attendance for offshore set nets in all Queensland waters except: 
Halifax Bay (near Townsville), west of the line drawn between 
Albino Rock light (18 046 S, 146 '43' E) to Cape Cleveland 
(19 °10'9" S, 147 °1' E). 
Repulse Bay (near Mackay), west of the line drawn between 
Cape Conway (20 '32'20" S, 148 055'45"E) to Cape Hillsborough (20 05420" S, 149 °3' E). 
3.1.2 Identification of Nets 
Commercial fishers unanimously agree that a system is required to identify all illegal 
nets and the owners of nets that are not being used in accordance with the 
regulations. 
Whilst a system which requires the ownership of all nets to be clearly identified is 
seen by many fishers as imposing extra requirements on those people already doing 
the right thing, fishers also recognise that such a system is the only way that people 
who use nets while unlicensed, and commercial fishers who set nets while not 
complying with conditions of use can be identified and breached. 
Given that illegal nets have been attributed to a significant proportion of the dugong 
mortality, the industry is strongly committed to developing such a system. 
Options to be considered include: 
Registering and/or tagging of nets 
Increased identification such as names on corks and weights etc. 
There are some concerns in industry that the introduction of a poorly designed 
system may simply facilitate nit picking by the Boating Patrol. 
QCFO RECOMMENDS that: 
The GBRMC note that QCFO, through its Net Committee, will develop 
systems to facilitate ease of identification and thereby eliminate illegal 
netting practices. 
3.1.3 Reporting Illegal Netting 
Fear of reprisals from illegal operators is another issue of concern to many fishers 
leading to the level of reporting to local Boating and Fisheries Patrol being limited. 
Therefore there is a distinct need for a method to facilitate reporting to the patrol 
without the fear of retribution. 
QCFO RECOMMENDS that: 
That the GBRMC agree to the urgent development of a system whereby 
fishers can report illegal operations without fear of retribution. 
QCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 7 
3.14 Displacement of Effort and Compensation 
QCFO is very strongly of the view that should any displacement of fishing effort 
occur, such as in Shoalwater Bay, the arrangements must be accompanied by 
adequate compensation to offset the impacts of that displacement of effort into other 
areas. Compensation should include: 
compensation to individual fishers for loss of income; and 
funds to purchase fishing licences from the region so that displaced effort 
does not simply cause increased problems elsewhere. 
The Queensland Government is currently developing a major policy dealing with 
industry restructuring which could provide the mechanism to take the necessary 
action required to offset displacement of effort. This policy will include a mechanism 
to purchase excess fishing licences with the funding being provided by a range of 
beneficiaries. 
It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the fishing industry to contribute to the 
cost of purchasing licences required to offset the impact of displaced effort. It is 
therefore absolutely critical that the issues of funding for compensation and 
minimising the effects of displaced fishing effort be entrenched in any further 
discussions on any proposed closures. 
QCFO RECOMMENDS that: 
The GBRMC agree that any arrangements that causes any displacement of 
fishing effort must be accompanied by adequate compensation to offset 
the impacts of that displacement of effort into other areas including: 
compensation to individual fishers for loss of income; and 
funds to purchase fishing licences from the region so that displaced 
effort does not simply cause increased problems elsewhere. 
4.0 Region Specific Measures 
4.1 
	 Introduction 
Industry closely examined a wide range of issues and options to reduce impact on 
dugong in each of the 11 areas including: 
the geography of an area 
seasonal changes to the areas 
types of apparatus used in each area and the times it is used 
where and when dugong activity exists in the areas 
possible interaction between net fishing activity and dugongs in each area. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 8 
12. 
Specific measures were then designed within those areas utilising the above 
information. These measures include: 
modification of conditions of use for each type of net impacting on dugong 
lighter ply strength of nets 
prohibiting specific nets in specific areas 
hands on attendance of foreshore nets in specific regions. 
QCFO staff and members have dedicated significant time and resources to exploring 
all possible options to resolve this issue. It is important for the reader to appreciate 
that a significant amount of detailed measures have been developed as a result of 
this process, which included 5 well attended industry meetings, each of which met 
for between 8.5 and 11 hours. 
It is therefore critical that no changes are made to the outcomes of this report, as 
even minor changes may result in a significant impact on industry while doing little or 
nothing to help protect dugong. 
Please Note: This report lists only those changes proposed to existing 
Regulations and practices regarding certain nets. The reader should 
recognise that all conditions of use of other nets would remain unchanged. 
Further, where specific sections of the Fisheries Regulation are referred to in relation 
to changes required to conditions of use of particular nets, changes may also be 
required to other sections under other endorsements to fully implement the particular 
recommendation. The full extent of the changes required will need to be determined 
through the normal fisheries legislative review process which includes consultation 
with QCFO. 
QCFO RECOMMENDS that: 
That the GBRMC request the Queensland Government to amend the 
Queensland Fisheries Regulations 1995 to incorporate the changes to net 
operations as outlined in Section 4 of this report. 
That the GBRMC give consideration to undertaking the following actions 
which do not relate directly to net regulation changes. 
4.1.2 Conditions of Use of Foreshore Set Nets 
Current conditions of use of a foreshore net require that not more than one third of 
the net may extend out to sea beyond low water. This condition has caused 
confusion and hardship for many years and now needs to be reconsidered in the 
context of proposals in this section to restrict the length of foreshore set nets to 50 
metres in some areas. 
QCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 9 
QCFO proposes that where a foreshore net is restricted to a maximum length of 50 
metres, the above condition be changed to require one end of the net to be fixed 
above the low water. Failure to include this amendment will make the proposals 
restrict foreshore set nets in some areas to 50 metres unworkable, and as- such 
would unnecessarily impede industry's initiatives to minimise it's impacts on dugong. 
QCFO RECOMMENDS that: 
• That wherever a maximum length of foreshore set nets of 50 metres 
applies, the condition of use which requires that not more than one third of 
the net's length may extend out to sea of the low water be changed to 
require one end of the net to be fixed above the low water mark. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 10 
4.2 Princess Charlotte Bay, Bathurst Bay and Nearby Areas (refer Figure 1) 
Offshore Set Nets 
That the use of offshore set nets be prohibited in the following area:- 
South of the line drawn from 14 020 S; 143 ° 44' 30" E to Bathurst Heads 
(14 '17' 30" S; 144 ° 12'E). 
Foreshore Set Nets 
1. That use of foreshore set nets longer than 50m be prohibited during August, 
September and October in the following areas:- 
Between the North-Eastern bank of the Bizant River and Cape Melville 
Cape Bowen south to Cape Flattery. 
2. The use of foreshore set nets longer than 50m be prohibited all year round in the 
following area: 
Around the-Rocky Islands in Bathurst Bay. 
Please note: Fishers would still be able to use up to 6 foreshore nets at any one 
time, however the maximum length of any net will be 50 metres. 
Background 
Anecdotal evidence suggests that early in the year seagrasses recede in the above 
regions, thought by many fishers to be due to the dramatically reduced salinity from 
the large rainfall experienced at that time. Similarly, fishers have noted that dugong 
populations during this time have also been absent until mid or late in the year from 
the lack of food. Shorter nets (50m) that do not extend into the regrown seagrass 
would prevent dugong entanglement during the periods of their activity in the region. 
Rocky Islands in Bathurst Bay are recognised as a dugong migration path by most 
of the local fishers. Shorter foreshore nets will not extend into the migration path. 
Other Nets 
It is crucial that the remainder of Princess Charlotte Bay and Bathurst Bay remain 
open to all other legal netting practices. The amount of displaced effort would be 
significant should any further restrictions apply. For example, eighteen fishers would 
be forced to move to neighbouring regions. 
(i) 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 11 
These 'hot spots' of increased pressure are not desirable within sustainable fishery 
resources management. For this reason the issue of compensation must be 
considered if further restrictions ever occur. 
QCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 12 
Interim 
61 ,t-c-LPt at' 9 
egc).A 
	 Dugong Protection Areas 
Princess Charlotte Bay 
Bathurst Bay 
5 
	 0 	 5 	 10 	 15 	 20 30 
Kilometres 
Legend 
+ 1990 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Plutection Area 
.,.`., CBUMP Boundary 
I fl -H Seagrass '84 1 Land & Mangrove 
Reefs 
4.3 	 Hinchinbrook Region (refer Figure 2) 
General 
There are already considerable restrictions placed on net fishers in this area. 
Between Con Creek and Seymour River (Neams Inlet) and within Hinchinbrook 
Channel there is minimal (if any) dugong interaction and no changes are proposed. 
Offshore Set Nets 
The use of offshore set nets be prohibited inside the area of:- 
Meyunga Creek to Cape Richards to Eva Island to the northern point of 
Goold Island back to Meyunga Creek. 
l 	 , reys`fer-. Foreshore Set Nets 
	
ca 	
, 	 N
cz.96-t",ce,-Wgir 
1. The use of foreshore nets be propib1ed in the following area:- 
	 la( 
From 18 °15'S to 18- 	 °1-9' on the mainland side of Hinchinbrook Channel 217(;9'7) 
On Goold Island 
2. The "at the net" attendance requirement apply to the use of foreshore set nets in 
the following area:- 
Hecate Point to Cape Sandwich 
3. The use of foreshore set nets longer than 200m be prohibited in the following 
area:- 
Neams inlet southwards to Lady Elliot Reef. 
QCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 13 
20 10 	 15 
Brook 
stands 
1 46 ° 15'.5 
r?, 
vr-c- • 
cape sandwich 
Cardwell 
V 
Ramsay 
Bay 
Hinchinbrook 
Island 
Interim 
Dugong Protection Ma 
Hinchinbrook Region 
trt_ara.5 
hdc: • 
f 
Kilometres 
-fr-ieZ'ats 
Legend 
y 1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
A 1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
GBRNT Boundary 
Seagrass '96 
Seagrass '94 
Seagrass '84 
- Land ek Mangrove 
Reefs 
Management Plan Areas 
Planning Area 1 
Planning Area 2 
Planning Area 3 
Planning Area 4 
0 Dugong Records - 
A. Preen; GBRMPA 
No tv : Seagrass '96 
boundary in dica tive 
V A 
	 1 
dre-c2 
	
rTC—X 	 s rs.1 I ea L. cx.,e_ -1,04.."c" n•• 	
— i r 
	 nes 
	
° 	 oti.3 	 6.041  
Ad 
4.4 Cleveland Bay (refer Figure 3) 
Offshore Set Net 
Minimal (if any) dugong interaction with netting operations has been experienced 
north of the following line. 
From the eastern bank of the Bohle River (19 0 11'5" S, 146 '42'1" E); 
to 19 '5'4" S, 146 '42'1" E; 
to 1NM north of White Rocks (19 05'4" S, 146 *50'1" E); 
to east of Orchard Rocks (19 *6'8" S, 146 "54'2" E leading lights in line); 
to the No.1 Navigation Light (19 09'9" S, 146 '52'7" E); 
to Cape Cleveland (19 *10'9" S, 147 0 1 E). Caf-e.,vec(slez acZtrce 
Z4V/ 21/*94 
a-eel 
allallaliftpre set nets be prohibited in the following area:- 
South of the line between Cape Cleveland and the 
Foreshore Set Net 
1. The use of foreshore set nets longer than 400m (for a single net) be prohibited in 
the following area:- 
Cleveland Bay 
2. The use of foreshore set nets longer than 200m be prohibited in the following 
area. 
from Alligator Creek to Cape Cleveland (south eastern section of Cleveland 
Bay). 
Background 
The non-grassed area, brought about from the area completely drying with the tide, 
is known to have dramatically less dugongs than the nearby grassed area. The 
shorter nets will avoid these grassed areas and thereby avoid possible dugong 
interaction. 
General Purpose Net 
That general purpose nets in the Harbour Limits of Cleveland Bay be restricted to:- 
max length 400m 
max mesh size 115 mm (4 1/2') mesh 
max ply strength than 0.62mm diameter monofilament (line 14 ply). 
Maximum Ply Strength 
Th 	 - • • foreshore set nets, river set nets 
the use of nets with a ply rating greater than line 14 
ply (monofilament diameter 62mm) be prohibited in the following area :- 
South of the line from Cape Cleveland to the Townsville Harbour mouth. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 14 
.• 
5 	 10 
Kilometres 
A interim 
Dugong Protection Area 
Cleveland Bay 
• 
p 142-114 	 f \ 140,A,wfr 	 s or 
la1 
	 be, le5 go., 400,1, i, 	 J Ip 1 , 
Legend 
1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
GIJRMP I3oundary 
fill J Seagrass '84 
Built-up Area 
Land & Mangrove 
Reefs 
I/ 41 
4.5 	 Upstart Bay (refer Figure 4) 
The Upstart Bay area currently has considerable restrictions to netting operations. 
These include closures of the major creeks in this area, barramundi spawning zones 
and the Marine National Park 'A' area north of Windy Point. 
Offshore Set Nets 
The use of offshore set nets be prohibited in the following area:- 
south of the line from the point on the southern bank of Saltwater Creek 
(19 050' S, 147 035.5' E) to Windy Point (20 °46.2" S) inside Upstart Bay. 
Foreshore Set Nets 
The use of foreshore set nets be prohibited in the following area:- 
South of Windy Point (20 046.2" S) to Oyster Point (20 049" S) on the 
eastern side of Upstart Bay. 
Background 
In this area there is regular dugong activity and dense seagrass beds. 
From Windy Point north to Cape Upstart there is already a Marine National Park 'A' 
area which prevents the use of foreshore set nets. 
Important Notes 
The area on the eastern side of Upstart Bay, which is noted by fishers as a 
priority area for dugongs in this region, also has upwards of 700 recreational 
vessels travelling over it during weekends. It is believed that this traffic is not only 
ushering dugongs away from the area but also contributing considerably to 
dugong mortality in the region from boat strikes. 
The southern section of Upstart Bay between Molongal Creek and Oyster Point 
has been identified by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority as having 
extensive seagrass beds. Anecdotal information supplied by fishers from this 
region indicates that this area is now without seagrass. Fishers have noted that 
the decline in seagrass in this area has occurred as the intensity of land use, 
particularly for agriculture has increased. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 	 Page 15 
Rita Island 
0 
LTD 
5 
Interim 
Dugong Protection Area 
Upstart Bay 
K; ts) 	 r 
Spoy,":1 t ont  
&Cc., 
Cape Upstart 
	 (1) 
so,;, f (ad 
trIS ore._ 
0361'„ Po rr  
5 	 10 
TTi 
• 
4.• 
Peters 
Island 
Abbot 
Bay 
Kilometres 
Legend 
• 1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
A 1992 Dogong Aerial Survey 
Wrong Protection Area 
UMW Boundary 
Seagrass '84 
Lard & Mangrove 
Reefs 
1/ A 
p z) 
4.6 Newry Region (refer Figure 5) 
Barramundi is the major fishery in this region and is also subject to seasonal 
closures. This type of operation is complicated by the difficult to navigate areas due 
to large areas of shallow water, coupled with the high recreation traffic flow. To 
overcome these burdens in the Newry Region, existing commercial netters operate 
largely at night during the barramundi season to avoid incidents with the recreational 
boating activity. 
General Environment 
It is well noted by fishers in the region that, due to the boat ramp to the south 
east of Rabbit Island, there is a large volume of recreational boating traffic as 
well as a considerable amount of recreational fishing between Rabbit Island and 
the mainland. This high activity level, especially during weekends, has lead to a 
reduction of intertidal seagrass habitat in this shallow area. There is also 
anecdotal information that indicates that the increase in traffic and loss of 
seagrass has resulted in reduced dugong activity in this area. 
The major dugong area within the Newry Region is found around the seagrass at 
the mouth of Black Rock Creek as well as close to the rocky headlands around 
St Helens Bay. Dugongs have been seen in these regions 12 months of the 
year. 
Offshore Set Nets 
The use of offshore set nets be prohibited in the following area:- 
inside a line commencing 1 km from Pigeon Island (20° 46' 50" S, 148° 52' 20"E) 
to 1km off outer Brother Island (20° 47' 40"S, 148°52'20" E), to 1 km from the 
Outer Newry Island (20°50'40" S, 148°56'50" E), to 1 km off Redcliffe to 1 km off 
McBrides Point (20°53'30" S, 149°1'E). 
Foreshore Set Nets 
	
- 6rOvs,k_  
The foreshore set nets may not extend beyond the low tide line in the following 
area:- 
Jewers Point south to Finnlysons Point. 
Note: Nets will remain at existing lengths. 
Short Foreshore/Rocky Face Foreshore Set Net 
That around Pigeon Island and Brother Islands the following conditions apply to 
foreshore set nets: 
up to 3 nets may be used 
maximum length of any net be 50 metres 
one end of each net must be fixed above the low water mark of the day 
Background 
Within the Newry Region there are many small rocky islands and rocky foreshore 
areas. There is anecdotal evidence from fishers that suggests that dugongs migrate 
close to these areas but rarely closer than approximately 60 metres from the shore. 
QCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 16 
Ix 2 
It is currently not possible to use foreshore nets in these areas because of the 
condition that requires not more than one third of the net to extend to sea beyond 
the low water. Therefore fishers are forced to use offshore set nets which then 
encroach in the areas frequented by the migrating dugongs. 
If fishers were able to use short foreshore set nets with the changed condition of use 
as outlined earlier, they would still be able to operate viably and at the same time 
avoid the dugong. It is therefore essential that the use of short foreshore set nets as 
outlined above be permitted. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 	 Page 17 
Interim 
Dugong Protection Area 
Newry Region 
Legend 
y 1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
A .1992 Dugong Aerial Survey /A 
 Dugong Protection Area 
I Seagrass '84 
—•••1
Land & Mangrove 
Reefs 
5 0 5 10 
Kilometres Sandy 
Bay 
2soi) 
4.7 	 Ince Bay (refer Figure 6) 
General Environment 
Anecdotal information from fishers suggests seagrass has been considerably 
reduced compared to the data supplied by Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
for this area. The most dramatic change was the near disappearance of the large 
beds in the south eastern corner leading into Cape Creek. 
Offshore Set Nets 
The use of offshore set nets be prohibited in the following area:- 
Inside the line from Allom Point (21 '28'30" S, 149 *20'48" E) out 90 ° to 
south of Taffy Island (21 *2830" S, 149 '2310" E) to Cape Palmerstone 
(21 *32' S, 149 °29 E). 
Background 
This area has been identified as the greatest potential dugong problem within this 
bay for the offshore nets. 
Short Foreshore/Rocky Face Foreshore Set Net 
That around Allom Point, Taffy Island, Glendower Point, and Cape Palmerstone the 
following conditions apply to foreshore set nets: 
up to 3 nets may be used 
maximum length of any net be 50 metres 
one end of each net must be fixed above the low water mark of the day 
Background 
As with the Newry region, the use of foreshore nets in this area is difficult because of 
the conditions of use. Therefore offshore set nets are used causing potential 
problems with dugong interaction. The use of a short foreshore set net under the 
conditions proposed would enable fishers to operate viably and avoid dugong. 
QCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 18 
A 
Irving 
0 Islet 
Llewellyn 
Bay 
5 0 	 5 
Interim 
Dugong Protection Area 
Ince Bay aCull e n KW Islet 
Temple 
Islan 10 
Tally 
alue lslet 
..44.i.viammansurrow 
11 We. 
.90 
t, e Phillips 
Real 
Cape Palpierston 
11 1) 2,2 
1 41'2 
Kilometres 
Legend 
y 1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Protection Area 
Seagrass '84 
Buill-up Area 
Li Land & Mangrove 
Reefs 
Pit j 
1,e7. 2) 
4.8 Shoalwater Bay (refer Figure 7) 
It is well recognised that the banning of all netting apparatus in Shoalwater Bay was 
brought about by ineffective law enforcement of illegal netting operations which 
impacted on dugongs in this very remote region. The commercial fishing industry 
recognised the need for the adherence to these new regulations, however it is 
critical that the following points must be considered prior to the implementation of 
this ban which will cause all fishermen significant hardship because of the actions of 
a couple of operators who the industry have been calling to be apprehended over 
their blatant disregard of fisheries laws. 
Displacement of Effort 
Further to section 3.1.4 (above), it is necessary that an investigation be undertaken 
to develop specific methods to reduce the displaced effort from Shoalwater Bay. 
Due to the unique nature of Shoalwater Bay, brought about by the remoteness and 
number of fishers that regularly utilise this area, specific recommendations from 
fishers to remediate the displacement of effort and reduce the level of compensation 
required to offset the impacts of displaced fishing effort, were developed. These 
recommendations are: 
(i) Create a special net endorsement for Shoalwater Bay, whereby a panel 
consisting of industry, QFMA, GBRMPA and the Army would determine which 
fishers with a history of net fishing in the area would be issued with the 
endorsement. The endorsement would also be implemented under very 
stringent conditions which would allow the cancellation of the endorsement on 
any of the following grounds: 
failure to exit the area during a defence closure 
failure to comply with all fishery and other regulations at all times 
doing anything whatsoever in the area that brings the fishing industry into 
disrepute 
failure to comply with stringent reporting procedures which would require 
operators to report the commencement and end of each fishing trip in the 
area. 
Many net entitlement holders of the region also have crab entitlements. To 
offset impacts on fishers of prohibiting net fishing in Shoalwater Bay, the 
reopening of Canoe Passage to commercial crabbing must be considered. 
Set arrowhead fishtraps and portable fishtraps are dugong friendly fishing 
apparatus which have been used in Shoalwater Bay in the past and should be 
considered for future use in the bay. 
Safe Anchorage 
As the proposed net ban would apply to the use and carriage of all nets in 
Shoalwater Bay, in the instance of adverse weather conditions the safe anchorage 
offered by Shoalwater Bay would not be available to fishers. Some discretion needs 
to be exercised in the application of this rule. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy implementation 
	 February 1997 	 Page 19 
Q.) Interim 
Dugong Protection Area 
Shoalwater Bay 
Pori Clinton 
Legend 
Dugong Feeding Trails Coles '95 
1995 DOE Aerial Dugong Sightings 
y 1994 Dugong Aerial Survey 
A 1992 Dugong Aerial Survey 
EV 1987 Dugong Aerial Survey 
Dugong Sightings '75 - '92 
Various Studies 
iM
Dugong Protection Area 
Seagrass '95 
Seagrass '84 
Land & Mangrove tal 
 Reefs 
01. 5 	 0 	 5 	 10 powommi 
Kilometres 
15 
4.9 	 Port Clinton, Island Head Creek and Pearl Bay (refer Figure 7) 
General 
It is widely recognised that whilst there is dugong activity in the Island Head Creek 
and Port Clinton region, there is not the same level of activity as in Shoalwater Bay. 
This is particularly evident in Pearl Bay where dugongs are rarely observed. Fishers 
recognise peak dugong activity in the area of Island Head Creek and Port Clinton 
between the months of May to September, and particularly August and September. 
This seasonal inshore area information correlates with the information supplied from 
the Princess Charlotte Bay net fishers. 
Offshore Set Nets 
Fishers using the offshore set net in this region already voluntarily observe "at the 
net" attendance due to the considerable amount of recreational boating and high 
tidal influence in the area. 
Foreshore Set Nets 
The use of foreshore set nets longer than 200m be prohibited in the Port Clinton 
area. 
The use of foreshore set nets with a mono filament diameter greater than 0.62mm 
be prohibited in the Port Clinton area. 
An "at the net" attendance requirement apply to the use of foreshore set nets in 
Port Clinton. 
General Purpose Net 
The use of general purpose nets with a mesh greater than 175mm (seven inches) 
be prohibited in the Port Clinton. 
The maximum ply for general purpose nets in Port Clinton be 0.81 mm diameter 
or line 24 (except for the bun or bag) is attached. 
QCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 20 
4.10 Hervey Bay (refer Figure 8) 
Background 
It has been widely accepted that the measures which were implemented by the 
Hervey Bay fishers and placed into the Fisheries Regulations some years ago have 
dramatically reduced the impact of nets in this area on dugong. In over 5 years, the 
only deaths which have been attributed to fishing practices have occurred in the last 
year, and appear to have occurred from fishers using nets with an illegal ply 
strength. 
It must be recognised that the following extra concessions made by fishers from this 
region are quite significant due to the restrictions already placed on the fishers in the 
region. 
General 
Dugong protection area as described by GBRMPA, should not include the area east 
of 1530 
 E. This is as per the existing net restrictions in the Fisheries Regulations 
1995 (Refer Appendix 2). The only time that dugongs are found in this eastern area 
is after a significant flood event. 
Offshore Set Nets 
The use of offshore set nets be prohibited in the following area:- 
between the red beacon at the Burrum River mouth to the Red beacon at 
the mouth of Beelbi Creek. 
The use of offshore set nets be prohibited between the hours of 4:00pm and 5:00am 
in the following area:- 
between the bank of Theodolite Creek to the southern bank of O'Regans 
Creek and along the shore to the southern bank of Theodolite Creek. 
Background 
This is an extension of the night time closure by one hour to ensure the day break 
movement of dugongs to deeper water feeding grounds is facilitated. 
Foreshore Set Nets 
Foreshore set nets are not permitted in this region. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation 
	 February 1997 	 Page 21 
STE 
tt. 30) 
 
(7 
Interim 
Dugong  Protection Areas 
Southern Hervey Bay 
Great Sandy Strait 
• Bun baberg 
Hervey Bay 
	
_ 
Fraser 
Island 
Legend 
Dugo .0,nc. Protection Area 
GBRMED Boundary 
Land &-. Mangrove 
Reefs 
ag.4 s4,- 
	 . 
/ 
0li
,2
-74-7_z-st; 
10 	 10 	 20 	 30 	 40 
Kilo al etres 
4.11 Great Sandy Straits (refer Figure 8) 
General Purpose Nets 
1. The use of general purpose nets with a monofilament diameter greater than 0.62 
mm (line 14) and a mesh greater than 125 mm (5 inch) be prohibited:- 
south of Sheriden Flats (25 '32.5' S) to lnskip Point. 
2. The use of general purpose nets with a mono filament diameter greater than 0.70 
mm (line 18 ply) be prohibited:- 
north of Sheriden Flats (25 *32.5' S) to Dayman Point (25 0 17 20" S). 
3. The use of general purpose nets with a mesh size greater than 125mm (5inch) be 
prohibited in the following area:- 
south of Baffle Creek. 
The use of general purpose nets with a mesh less than 100mm (4inch) and ply 
greater than 0.47mm - line 8 monofilament (except for buns, flaps and bags) be 
prohibited in the following area:- 
south of Sheriden Flats (25 '32.5' S) to lnskip Point. 
The use of general purpose nets with a mesh larger than 100mm and ply greater 
than 0.62mm - line 14 mono filament (except for buns, flaps and bags) be 
prohibited in the following area:- 
south of Sheriden Flats (25 *32.5' S) to lnskip Point. 
Tunnel Net 
The use of tunnel nets with wings heavier than 0.47mm (line 8 ply) mono filament or 
la be prohibited in the following area:- 
south of Dayman Point (25 *17' 20" S) to lnskip Point. 
River set net 
The use of river set nets be prohibited in the following area:- 
Kauri Creek 
Background 
There has been no noted interaction with dugongs and river set nets throughout 
Queensland. However, due to the possible confusion over the definition of the river 
mouth in this instance a closure was recommended. 
Note: 
In the past there has been little interaction with dugongs in the Great Sandy Straits. 
Due to the species being targeted, such as the smaller mackerel and whiting 
species, fishers of this region have less of a need for heavier ply than fishers in 
other areas. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	 Page 22 
o 
5.0 Other Areas not identified 
Whilst the dugong conservation areas listed were acknowledged as areas of 
concern for dugong, there are other areas of significance which have been identified 
by fishers. QCFO is committed to ongoing meetings with fishers throughout 
Queensland to develop measures which ensure dugong protection in all Queensland 
waters. QCFO will continue investigating other actions and priority areas as soon as 
funds and resources are available. 
6.0 Conclusion 
As stated in the QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy, the commercial fishing 
industry recognises it has an obligation to mitigate and, wherever possible, eliminate 
its impact on dugong, regardless of the status of dugong populations. The QCFO 
firmly believes that the implementation of the QCFO Strategy and the above 
described initiatives will result in the immediate mitigation of the fishing industry's 
impacts on dugong populations. 
Considerable concessions have been achieved after long and comprehensive 
discussions with genuinely concerned fishers who have had extensive experience in 
the relevant areas. The measures developed represent the limit available for the 
fishers to maintain their operations and it is therefore critical that no changes are 
made to the outcomes in this report, as even minor changes may result in a 
significant impact on industry while doing little or nothing to help protect dugong. 
Should further measures be required, compensation would need to be included into 
any subsequent deliberations. 
The QCFO is committed to the ongoing consultation process with net fishers to 
ensure that systems are put in place to maximise dugong protection statewide. 
Coupled with the investigation to eliminate illegal netting operations in the state, and 
increased education and awareness through the Endangered Species Awareness 
Course, the fishing industry is ensuring the long term protection of the dugong. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy Implementation February 1997 
	
Page 23 
Appendix 1 
QUEENSLAND COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN'S ORGANISATION 
DUGONG CONSERVATION STRATEGY 
November 1996 
/-el. 3.3) 
1. 	 INTRODUCTION 
Recent research into the population status of dugong under the direction of Professor 
Helene Marsh of James Cook University, Queensland, indicates the population of dugong in 
the southern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Cape Bedford to southern boundary) has 
declined by about 50 percent between 1987 and 1994. Anthropogenic influences (human 
impacts) are seen as the prime cause of this decline and include; habitat loss through urban 
growth and related industrial and agricultural activities, commercial mesh-netting, illegal 
harvesting of dugong for trade, the shark meshing program, vessel strikes, and traditional 
hunting. 
The commercial fishing industry recognises it has an obligation to mitigate and, wherever 
possible, eliminate it's impact on dugong, regardless of the status of dugong populations. 
The Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation (QCFO) firmly believes the 
implementation of strategies outlined in this paper will result in the immediate mitigation of 
fishing industry impacts on dugong populations. 
2. 	 GOAL 
To mitigate, and wherever possible, eliminate the impact of commercial fishing on 
dugong by: 
minimising the potential of dugong becoming entangled in commercial mesh nets; 
and 
maximising the chance of survival of dugong that accidentally become entangled 
in commercial mesh nets. 
QCFO firmly believes that to be effective any strategy aimed at mitigating the impact of 
commercial fishing practices on dugong must be based on the best available knowledge and 
be delivered through an appropriate balance between prescriptive regulatory mechanisms 
and strategies aimed at modifying individual fisher attitudes and behaviour through 
education. Taking this approach, immediate and sustainable results can be achieved by 
ensuring that dugong conservation is rapidly-accepted by all fishermen as an essential part 
of their normal fishing practices. 
3. 	 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 
3.1 
	 Education and Training Strategy 
Endangered Species Awareness Course 
 
The QCFO initiated the development of an "Endangered Species Awareness Course" in late 
1995 in response to concerns over the interaction between endangered/threatened species 
(eg. turtles, dugong, etc) and commercial fishing. The course is being developed by QCFO 
in full consultation with industry, coordinated through Queensland Fishing Industry Training 
Council (QFITC) and delivered by appropriate experts in the relevant fields. 
OCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy (December. 96) 
	 Page 1 
Now that funding assistance has been secured from the GBR Cooperative Research Centre 
(Reef CRC) and the Department of Environment (DoE) Coastcare Program, development of 
the course curriculum has commenced and will be completed by late 1996. All commercial 
fishers in charge of mesh netting operations will be required to achieve accreditation in the 
course prior to using mesh nets in waters adjacent to Queensland by the end of 1997. 
Additional accreditation to operate in specific areas of "high risk" where local knowledge is 
essential in reducing that risk will also be investigated and, where necessary, implemented. 
Once completed, the course will be made immediately available to existing licensed 
commercial fishers by way of a series of regional training seminars to be held at major 
fishing ports throughout Queensland. Targeting existing commercial fishers in this manner 
will deliver immediate results by providing information to increase their knowledge of 
dugong, its conservation status and changes to fishing practices required to mitigate their 
impacts. 
Concurrent with the above approach to train existing fishers, the course will also be included 
in the Trainee Master Fisher's course which must be successfully undertaken before being 
issued with a Queensland Commercial Fisher's Licences. This will ensure the positive 
results achieved with existing fishers are sustained by those entering into the industry. 
Course development: (completion by late 1996) 
Industry contribution $17,000 
DoE contribution $17,000 
Total $34,000 
Implemented into Trainee Master Fishers course and 
available to existing fishers as individual module: (by March 97) 
Cost recovery basis 
Regional Industry Training Seminars to existing fishers: (by mid 97) 
Industry contribution 
	 $17,000 
Reef CRC contribution 
	 $17,000 
Total 	 $34,000 
Note: Costs to other agencies in developing and implementing this program have not been 
identified. 
Industry Codes of Practice 
QCF0 is developing a comprehensive industry "Code of Practice" which will clearly outline 
actions to enable fishermen to minimise the potential for their operations to impact on 
dugong. The first draft of the Code has now been developed and is based on procedures 
previously implemented by some fishers operating in areas of potential mesh net and 
dugong interaction (attached). 
Where necessary, regional or local area supplements will be developed and attached to the 
generic "Codes of Practice" to address any unique requirements of specific areas along the 
coast, particularly "high risk" areas. The objective is to ensure that all commercial mesh net 
fishers have the necessary information to enable them to adopt risk averse fishing practices 
in their area of operation in the immediate future. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy (December. 96) 
	 Page 2 
In addition, input will be sought from all available experts to further develop the "Code of 
Practice" into a more comprehensive document to better inform fishers on dugong and the 
need for dugong conservation. This document will be similar in format to the QCFO/QDPI 
Turtle Recovery Brochure (attached) and will include basic information on dugong biology, 
habitat requirements, their movements, the above "Code of Practice", quick release 
procedures and, procedures for reporting dugong incidents. The Code will be printed on 
high quality waterproof paper, be distributed to all Queensland commercial fishers, and 
included in the "Endangered Species Awareness course". 
Develop and distribute generic "Code of Practice" (completion Nov. 96) 
Industry contribution 
	 $10,000 
Total 
	 $10,000 
Develop local area "Codes of Practice" ("high risk" areas by mid 97) 
Industry contribution 
	 $3,000 per code 
Total (initial 5 areas) 
	 $15,000 
Note: Costs to other agencies in developing and implementing this program have not been 
identified. 
3.2 	 Monitoring and Research Strategy 
Incident Reportino 
There is currently little information on the frequency of dugong coming into contact with, 
becoming entangled in, or mortality from mesh nets. QCFO, in consultation with relevant 
government agencies is developing a comprehensive dugong incident reporting system for 
commercial fishers to report: 
all incidents of dugongs breaking through mesh nets; 
all incidents of dugongs becoming entangled in mesh nets; and 
all dugong mortalities observed (whether caused by entanglement in mesh nets or 
otherwise) 
A standard reporting form has been developed that will enable commercial fishers to report 
incidents of dugong/mesh net interaction to QCFO State office (attached). Information 
requested includes; date and time of incident, exact location, description of netting 
apparatus being used, species being targeted, details of the incident and description of the 
animal and its condition after the incident. The form will be distributed to all commercial 
fishers who will be requested to return completed forms or phone QCFO State office with 
details of the incident. A requirement to report all incidents is also included in the "Code of 
Practice". 
The information provided will be recorded in a "Dugong Incident Register" established by 
QCFO and will be available for integration with incident reporting procedures established in 
other government agencies including; GBRMPA, DoE and QDPI Boating and Fisheries 
Patrol. This program will also be integrated with the "Dugong Carcass Recovery Program" 
currently being established by GBRMPA. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy (December. 96) 
	 Page 3 
In addition to increasing industry awareness of the need to protect dugong, this program will 
provide individual fishers with an opportunity to do their part in protecting dugong 
populations by providing vital information on dugong movements ; factors contributing to 
dugong incidents (fishing or otherwise) and how dugong incidents may be reduced or 
avoided. 
Discussions between QCFO, QDPI and QFMA are also under way on the possibility of 
incorporating dugong sightings into the commercial fishing logbook system for the purpose 
of enhancing our knowledge of the seasonal and spatial distribution of dugong. 
Develop reporting program and advise fishers (completion Nov. 96) 
Industry contribution 
	 $3.000 
Total 
	 $3,000 
Implement reporting program and register (ongoing) 
Industry contribution 
	 $10,000 
Total per annum 
	 $10,000 
Promote reporting program (ongoing) 
Industry contribution 
	 $5,000 
Total per annum 
	 $5,000 
Note: Costs to other agencies in developing and implementing this program have not been 
identified. 
Research 
QCFO, its Branches and Members will actively encourage, financially support and 
participate in research aimed gaining better understanding of and at protecting dugong and 
their habitats, in particular, research directed at gaining greater knowledge of the 
interactions between commercial fishing practices and their potential impact on dugong. 
The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QF1RAC), of which QCFO 
is a representative, strongly supported a detailed research proposal by QDP1 to identify the 
impacts of mesh netting in Queensland on all non-target species including dugong. The 
proposal is budgeted to cost approximately $700,000 over the next 3 years and will be 
forwarded to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) for funding. 
FRDC's budget is supported by direct financial contributions from the fishing industry. 
QCFO will also be actively supporting research into identifying and quantifying other natural 
and anthropogenic impacts on dugong populations, in particular, disturbance to and loss of 
dugong habitat, factors influencing the movements of dugong along the east coast, the 
Torres Straits and Gulf of Carpentaria and, illegal mesh netting. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy (December. 96) 
	 Page 4 
3.3 	 Risk Identification and Mitigation Strategy 
QCFO has commenced the process of identifying specific areas of dugong/mesh net 
interaction, and developing specific arrangements to mitigate, and wherever possible, 
eliminate any adverse effects of mesh netting in each area. When determining the priority 
of areas to be addressed, QCFO will take into account high priority or "high risk" areas 
identified by all relevant agencies. 
The process to be undertaken in each area will involve full consultation with local fishers for 
the purpose of identifying: 
all areas of mesh net and dugong interaction; 
current mesh netting practices in dugong areas; 
specific "high risk" areas; and 
appropriate management arrangements and fishing practices to mitigate the risk 
of dugong becoming entangled mesh nets, particularly in high risk areas _ 
In addition to the "Endangered Species Awareness Course" and industry "Code of Practice" 
arrangements to mitigate and, wherever possible, eliminate the impacts of mesh netting on 
dugong may include any combination of the following: 
development of additional area or local codes of practice to cater for the unique 
requirements of specific areas, in particular, potential "high risk" areas; 
regulatory changes to the conditions of use of mesh nets on a State-wide, 
regional or area basis including changes to net attendance requirements; 
regulatory changes to mesh net specifications on a State-wide, regional or area 
basis including; number of nets, length of net, mesh size and ply size, etc; and 
regulatory changes to introduce appropriate; time, area, seasonal and total 
closures to the use of certain nets depending on the circumstances. 
Due to the need for immediate action to address this issue, potential "high risk" areas are 
currently being given highest priority. "High risk" areas are to be identified and assessed in 
consultation with local fishers with the view to developing appropriate, area specific "risk 
abatement" strategies by early to mid November 1996. The following priority areas have 
been identified to date: 
Princess Charlotte Bay/ Bathurst Bay area; 
Hinchinbrook area; 
Cleveland Bay/ Magnetic Island area; 
Upstart Bay area; 
Newry area (Pigeon Island to McBrides Point); 
Ince Bay area; 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton area; 
Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait area. 
As specific arrangements are developed for "high risk" areas industry proposals will be 
forwarded to relevant government agencies (QDPI, QFMA, GBRMPA and DoE) for 
endorsement and consideration of any necessary legislative changes and other 
arrangements required for implementation. Other "high risk" areas will be identified and 
addressed in their order of priority. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy (December. 96) 
	 Page 5 
bp. 310 
Where seasonal or area closures are being considered, the potential for displaced 
commercial fishing effort causing similar problems, or exacerbating existing problems, in 
other areas must be taken into consideration and addressed. Where closures result in 
potential impacts in other areas, the removal of affected licence packages is likely to be 
required and compensation issues must also be addressed. QCFO firmly believes the 
agency (Commonwealth or State) proposing the closures must resolve any compensation 
issues with affected fishers prior to implementation. Compensation may be in monetary 
terms or other economic incentives to offset the financial impact of fishers losing access to 
fishing grounds. 
Identify and develop measures for "high risk" areas (completion mid 97) 
Industry contribution 
	 $3,000 
	 per area 
Total (initial 7 areas) 
	 $18,000 
Note: Costs to other agencies in developing and implementing this strategy are yet to be 
identified and will depend largely on the outcome of reviews of "high risk" areas. 
Agencies likely to incur some costs (human resource and financial) are QFMA, 
QOPI, GBRMPA and DoE. Where compensation is involved, these cost may be 
significant. 
3.4 	 Legislation and Compliance Strategy 
Legislation  
QCFO believes that all legislative changes relating to fisheries management arrangements 
and fisheries practices must be implemented under the provisions of the Queensland 
Fisheries Act 1994. The "new" Fisheries Act 1994 has been developed specifically to 
incorporate the recommendations of the Ecologically Sustainable Development Report on 
Fisheries. Of particular significance here is: 
the requirement for an ecosystems approach to fisheries management whereby 
the impacts of fishing on target and non-target species is taken into account when 
developing fisheries management arrangements; 
the requirement for flexibility in the legislative process to accommodate the rapidly 
changing needs of fisheries and associated resources; and 
the requirement for proposed man
-Ayz,
-ment changes to be developed in full and 
meaningful consultation with the fishing industry to ensuring the proposed 
changes will have the desired effect. 
Where legislative change is required to mitigate or eliminate the impact of fishing practices 
on dugong, QCFO is committed to ensuring any proposed changes achieve the highest 
possible priority to ensure a speedy and effective result. Resolution of the dugong/mesh net 
problem in Shoalwater Bay late last year is a good example of the rapid response 
capabilities afforded under the Fisheries Act. 
Compliance 
While QCFO is of the very firm view that implementation the education and monitoring 
strategy will significantly reduce the impact of fishing practices on dugong, the need for 
adequate surveillance and enforcement capabilities to ensure compliance with regulatory 
requirements will also be required. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy (December. 96) 
	 Page 6 
It is well recognised that areas closed to fishing require as much, if not more, surveillance 
than areas that are open. Where additional surveillance is not provided, closures can often 
provide an ideal environment for illegal fishing activity, also recognised as having potentially 
significant impacts on dugong. 
Where additional surveillance and enforcement is required, QCFO strongly supports the 
allocation of increased funds to Commonwealth and DoE funded compliance programs. 
However, QCFO will not accept a situation where current fisheries surveillance priorities are 
compromised through a realocation of existing QB&FP resources. It is anticipated the 
appointment of marine parks officers as enforcement officers under the Fisheries Act may 
partially offset the need for additional funds and this is fully supported by QCF_O. A strategic 
approach to the compliance programs of Commonwealth and State agencies is essential if 
resources are to utilised effectively. 
QCFO will also proposes the introduction of severe penalties for anyone (commercial fisher 
or otherwise) who deliberately or through gross negligence causes dugong mortality. A 
breach of Regulations or failing to comply with the relevant "Codes of Practice" resulting in a 
dugong mortality would certainly be considered a serious fisheries offence. 
Note: Costs to other agencies in developing and implementing this strategy are yet to be 
identified and will be influenced largely by outcomes under strategy 3.3 . Any 
proposed changes to legislation and surveillance activities are likely to result in some 
costs (human resource and financial) to QFMA, QDPI, GBRMPA and DoE. These 
costs may be significant. 
4. 	 IMPLEMENTATION 
To assist the Dugong Review Group (DRG) in its role, each stakeholder group with identified 
impacts on Dugong populations should establish their own process to develop, implement 
and monitor the effectiveness of strategies aimed at mitigating that groups impacts. It is 
envisaged that each stakeholder group would report directly to the DRG on its progress. 
As a stakeholder group with identified impacts, the QCFO proposes the establishment of a 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Working Group consisting of one representative of each of the 
following agencies/groups. Conservation agency/group membership shall, where possible, 
consist of persons with appropriate scientific knowledge of dugong: 
Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation. 
Australian Marine Conservation Society. 
Queensland Fishing Industry Training Council. 
Queensland Department of Primary Industries 
Queensland Fisheries Management Authority. 
Queensland Department of Environment. 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 
The Working Group's terms of reference will be to develop, implement and monitor the 
effectiveness of strategies aimed at mitigating the fishing industry's impacts on dugong 
populations and to report directly to the Dugong Review Group (DRG) on its activities. 
Operat ion of QCFO Dugong Working Group (ongoing) 
Industry contribution 	 $6,000 	 per annum 
Total 	 $6,000 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy (December. 96) 
	 Page 7 
#0) 
QUEENSLAND COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN'S ORGANISATION 
Code of Practice to Reduce Interaction between 
Mesh Netting and Dugong 
To be complied with when net fishing in areas of potential interaction with dugong. 
	
1 	 Prior to deploying nets in unfamiliar areas, fishers to: 
obtain and become familiar with any local Codes of Practice; 
liaise with local net fishers to obtain necessary knowledge of recent dugong 
activity and actions required to reduce potential mesh net / dugong interaction. 
Fishers avoid deploying nets in areas where dugong are present. 
Fishers must comply with all Regulations and conditions of use of mesh nets they 
are using in the 
-area. 
Fishers design their nets to minimise potential dugong entanglement. 
Fishers to maintain a vigilance of their own nets and also others in the area to 
ensure a rapid response should a dugong become entangled. 
In the event of becoming aware of dugong moving into an area being fished, fishers 
should: 
immediately be on high alert and take extra precautions such as remaining at the 
net while dugongs are present; 
notify other fishers in the area about the presence of dugong in the area. 
	
7 	 In the event of a dugong becoming accidentally entangled in a net, a fisher must: 
immediately take all reasonable steps to release the dugong unharmed; 
be prepared to sacrifice netting and/or ropes to release the dugong; 
if necessary, call for assistance by radio or some other signalling method; 
if a dugong is too entangled to be freed quickly and easily, all attempts must be 
made to maintain its ability to breathe. 
	
8 	 Fishers must report the details of each incident of a dugong becoming entangled in a 
net to the nearest0,
--CF0 Office by phone or fax as soon as possible after the 
incident (standard fax forms will be provided by QCFO). 
	
9. 	 In the event of a fisher becoming aware of a dugong mortality (whether caused by 
entanglement in a mesh or not) as well as the reporting requirements outlined in 7 
above, the fisher must immediately report the mortality to the nearest Queensland 
Boating and Fisheries Patrol office or the QFMA hot line. 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy (December. 96) 
	 Page 8 
QUEENSLAND COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN'S ORGANISATION 
Dugong Incident Report 
To be completed and forwarded to QCFO State Office in the event that dugong becomes 
entangled in, or breaks through, a fishing net. 
Date of Incident: 
	 Time: 
Location (Be as specific as possible, you may wish to draw a rough map on reverse side): 
Description of fishing activity and species targeted (eg foreshore set netting for salmon with 600 
metres of net in water.):- 
Did animal break through the net or become entangled? (yes/no) 
If the animal became entangled in the net please provide the following information:- 
Estimated time the animal was trapped in the net and how was it trapped (eg. by tail for about 2 
minutes): 
When released from net what condition was animal in? (eg dead, swam away with no signs of 
damage) 
Description of animal if possible (eg large bull about 3 mdgs.
- 3- long) 
We would appreciate your views on what are the major factors causing dugong incidents (fishing or 
otherwise) and suggestions on how these incidents can be avoided. 
Contact number (optional): 
QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy (December. 96) 
	 Page 9 
A p,o01-0(o2
. 
263 
Fisheries 
SCHEDULE 13 continued) 
Division 2—Use of nets 
Use of nets in offshore waters north of Hervey Bay 
47. ( 1) A net may be used in waters north of Hervey Bay at leas: 2 m 
deep and-- 
south of a line from the southern b., ank of Baffle Creek east to 
longitude 153: east: and 
west of lonzinide 153 east: and 
(c) north of the Burnett River. 
(2) The net must not be longer than 600 m and must have a mesh size of 
at leas: SS :rim. 
(") A net used south of a line from the southern bank of the Elliort River 
east to longitude 153' east must be made of rnonofilament not more than 
0.65 7= in diameter and must not be more than 33 meshes deep. 
(4) A net must not be used in waters of Hervey Bay within the following 
bonnd -
--rv between 4.00 D.171. and 4.00 a.m. from 1 July to 31 October- 
from the southern bank of Theodolite Creek east to longitude 
1 57'40' east 
to the southern bald: of O'Re2an Creek 
along the shore to the southern tank of Theodolite Creek. 
(5) A person using a net north of a line from the southern bank of the 
Elliott River east to longitude 153' east need not be within 100 m of the net 
Use of nets in other offshore waters 
48.( 1) A net that is not fixed or hauled may be used in offshore waters 
only if the waters are at least 2 m deep and the net is not longer than 600 m 
and has a mesh size of at least 150 rrirn but nor more than 245 ram. 
(2) Two nets may be joined and used as a single  net in waters deeper 
than 20 m north of Cape Moreton if the combined length of the nets is not 
more than 1 200 m. 
QUEENSLAND COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN'S ORGANISATION 
i ‘ 6$41
4
4 
" 
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 
DATE: 	 26 February, 1997 
TO: 	 Tony Stokes GRBMPA 
Stephen Tapsall 
OUBJECT: Clarification of Areas in OCF0 Strategy 
PO Box 392, Clayfield, QLD 4011 
Ph: (07) 32626855 Fax: (07) 32627650 
; :iwhinbrook 
r;o ciion -i.hat was indicated as no dugong interaction between Con Creek and 
was indicated as the only method of net fishing in the area involves river 
Due to the method of legal operation of these style of nets interaction with 
is pr.:vented. 
ci. hGre Set Net 
The closure for offshore set that was previously in an arrowhead shape has now 
been simplified. The closure for the offshore set net is as follows, from Meyunga 
Ci .clelc to the northern point of Goold Island to Cape Sandwich then west back to 
iiieyuriga Creek. 
Forohore Set Nets 
Wilh r,.g ,nrd to foreshore set nets in the Missionary bay region, the at the net 
iri.:nce vs clegigne.d to reduce the number of nets possible to used by fishers 
in 1.11i:7. region_ In so doing it is not possible to fish with the allocated 3 nets. Fishers 
hvo flci.icated to me that using 2 nets was possible with the attendance rule and 
VIz7z:: the desired option, however in the interests of dugong protection the option of 
rc:4:li.IN:ic; the numbers of nets to only 1 net is possible. 
l'oro:Thorc; Set Nets 
Cift10:1 3. The at the net attendance suggested for the foreshore set net in this area 
ticGigned to be so that only 1 net is to be used. 
Due to tha barramundi season having already started it has been very difficult to 
coni.aci‘ fishers to Get further details on other areas. 
CiGoci 	 i.,vijh it all. 
Oci a 
Commercial Fishermen - Catching Fish for Everyone! 
TOTAL P. 01 
Peir/14) 
QUEENSLAND COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN'S ORGA SATION 
PO Box 392, Clayfield, QLD 4011 
Ph: (07) 32626855 Fax: (07) 32627650 
	
?‘") 
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 
DATE: 
	 6 March, 1997 
TO: 
	 Tony St 
	 GBRMPA 
FROM: 
	 Stephen Tapsall, QCFO 
SUBJECT: Clarifications for the QCF0 Dugong Strategy Implementation  
Foreshore Net Attendance 
Whilst most fishers utilise the foreshore set net attsindance with the intention of 
being able to work more than one net, a review is recognised as necessary to 
address the issue of distances the nets can be set apart. This review will require 
further consultation with net fishers to thoroughly address this issue in regard to 
dugong protection. 
Princess Charlotte 
The 50 metre foreshore net suggested in the Princess Charlotte Bay is not the 
Rocky Foreshore Set Net described for the Newry region and Ince Bay. The 
Princess Charlotte Bay 50 metre net is to be used in accordance with the standard foreshore set net regulations (2/3 rule applying). Note this change is to take place 
through the months of August September and October, existing regulations would apply for the rest of the year. 
Cleveland Bay 
Offshore Set Nets 
0 As stated in section 3.1.1 relating to 800 metre attendance, the use of offshore 
set nets in this region is to be 80G metres. The exception is south of the line as described in section 4.4, where it is to be at the net attendance (100m). 
The use of offshore set net L--3 prohibited in the following area:- 
South of the line between Cape Cleveland and Townsville Harbour wall. 
General Purpose Net 
This section is to be reworded to: . 
That general purpose nets from Ross Creek to Cape Cleveland be restricted to:
- max length 400m 
maximum mesh size 115 mm (4.5 ") mesh 
max ply strength of 0.62 mm diameter monofilament (line 14 ply). 
Commercial Fishermen - Catching Fish for Everyone! 
ephen Ta salt 
ENVIRONMENT OFFICER 
6 (p%4s) 
Upstart Bay 
The barramundi spawning closures that are described in the Upstart Bay map is 
detailed in the following QFIviA paper. Note this paper also highlights closures in 
other areas that are in dugong protection zones. 
Hervey Bay 
General purpose nets 
points 3 and 4:- 	 Dayman Point is to be changed to Sheriden Flats. (already 
advised) 
The use of offshore set nets be prohibited in the area west of a line between the red 
beacon at Burr= River mouth to the red beacon at BeeIbi Creek mouth. 
If further information is required please do not hesitate to contact me_ 
Yours sincerely 
Commercial Fishermen - Catching Fish for Everyone! 
TOTAL 02 
.1 .0 C- 
S h AWNING ZONES INTROLIIIC D 
FOR THE EA COAST 
ARRAMUN I 
TKE Queensland Fish Management Authority (QFMA) 
initieted a comprehensive review of the East Coast 
neeeamundi Fishery in February 1990 and subsequently 
ieiTeduced new management measures which came into 
aen-e I July 1992. 
.e.e of the major new measures was the introduction of 
MO metre "spawning zones" around the mouths of 
specified rivers and creeks along the Queensland east 
coa.ie. The use of nets capable of taking or disturbing 
tY- ii:xilundi is prohibited in these zones during the 
ekeeel ecee;on (I November to 1 February). 
Ce:elerally spawning zones encompass an area 1000 
metres eitlIer side of the river/creek mouth and 1000 
metres se4warcl. However some, due to the 
topographical features, cannot be described in the 
general .'ensc.- and therefore have been individually 
lesccibed. Most foreshore set gill nets will be prohibited 
from use in these zones during the closed season_ 
Why have Spawning Zort8s? 
A closed season oft barramundi was introduced in 1981 
to protect barramureli during thei- peak spawning time. 
is at this time when barramundi congregate around 
. iver mouths to spawn that they are most vulnerable to 
capture in large numbers. - 
Ehere is strong evidence that the closed season has been 
_esponsible for an increase in barrarnundi numbers. It 
facilitates the spawning process and is a measure which 
'early reduces fishing effort and catches for 25% of 
ach year. 
During the barramundi closed season commercial 
shers on the east coast may continue to operate certain 
Dreshore nets to target other species of fish. Of course 
any barramundi caught in those nets must be released. i-lowever the actual process of becoming meshed may 
ause female barramundi to release their eggs 
prematurely thereby reducing the potential for an 
effective spawning. Additionally some fish inadvertently 
meshed, regardless of the requirement on fishers to 
release them immediately will not survive. The removal 
of foreshore set gill nets from these important spawning 
areas will reduce the occurrence of incidental capture of 
barramundi. 
Consequently spawning zones have been introduced to 
combat that problem by prohibiting the use of nets 
capable of taking or disturbing barramundi during the 
closed season in those areas immediately adjacent to the 
mouths of rivers and creeks, areas which arc recognised 
as prime spawning sites for barramundi, Rivers and 
creeks are already closed to the use of set gill nets during 
the closed season. 
   
e .44,1 
  
 
• ,:% ' ,.** -gy. ;:; ii 2 
  
   
fJ f fJ,Je ;1 1 	 ciI • -I g 	 r u • 
i'leep Station Creek to Elarratta Creek 
I The waters within the area bounded by a line — 
starting at the north head of Sheep Station Creek 
rhen along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the west 
3ead of Barratra Creek 
_:hen in a direct line to the starting point. 
Victoria Creek 
, The waters within the area bounded by a line — 
;tailing at high water mark at the most northern point of the 
sand spit at the south head of Victoria Creek 
:hert due north to the coastline at high water mark 
:hen along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the starting 
Point. 
rwtle Annie Creek 
The waters within the area bounded by a line — 
starting at a point I km south of Gentle Annie Creek at high 
water mark 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the north 
head of Gentle Annie Creek 
then in a direct line to the nearest point of the coastal I km 
boundary line for the coastal boundary line 
then along the coastal I km boundary line 
then in a direct line to the starting point. 
?Lrinvhinbrook Channel 
. . -rho, waters within the area bounded by a line — 
starting at the FtEl board located at the east head of the 
eastern entrance to Neames inlet 
then ulong a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the east 
head of Seaforth Channel 
then due north to the coastline of Hinchinbrook Island at high 
water mark 
then along the coast of Hinchinbrook Island at high water 
mark to the Fil3 board located at Fisherman Point 
then in a direct line TO the starting point. 
lactishia Point to Forkey's Creek on 
inchinbrook 'Wand 
R. The waters within the area bounded by a line — 
starting at high water mark at the point commonly known as 
Macushla Point 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line - ) to where the 
parallel of latitude 	 I 8° I 6'50" south intersects with 
Hinchinbrook Island at high water mark (about 1km west of 
the west head of the creek commonly known as Forkey's 
Creek) 
then in a direct line to the starting point. 
hompson Point to Flying Fish Point (Johnstone 
„ivi2r) 
19. The writers within the area bounded by a line — 
starting at high water mark at Thompson Point 
than along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to Flying Fish 
Point 
then in a direct line to the starting point_ 
rinity Inlet 
20. The waters of Trinity Inlet inshore of a direct line between 
Stafford Point at hizh water mark and the southern landward 
id of the Marlin Jerry at the entrance to Trinity inlet. 
Barron River 
71. The waters within the area bounded by a line --- 
starting on the coastline at high water mark at a point I km 
south of the south head of the Ban-on River 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line-) to a point I km 
north of the north head of the Barron River 
then in a direct line to the nearest point of the coastal 500n-i 
boundary line for the coastal boundary line 
then along the coastal SOOrn boundary line 
then In a direct line to the starting point_ 
Four Mile Beach to Magazine Island 
22, The waters within the area bounded by a line - 
starting at the most northern point at high water mark of 
Four Mile Beach 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the point 
where the parallel of latitude 16'29 south intersects with the 
mainland at high water mark east of Dickson's Inlet 
then in a direct line to the most eastern point of Magazine 
Island at high water mark 
then by high water mark to the most northern point of 
Magazine Island 
then due north I km 
then due east to the intersection with the coastal Ikm 
boundary line for the coastal boundary line 
then along the coastal I km boundary line to its eastern end 
then in a direct line to the starting point. 
Mossman River 
23. The waters within the area bounded by a line — 
starting on the coastline at high water mark at a point lkm 
south or the south head of the Mossman River 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to a point 11 ,:m 
north of the north head of the Mossman River 
then in a direct line to the nearest point of the coastal 500m 
boundary line for the coastal boundary line 
then along the coastal 500m boundary line 
then in a direct line to the starting point. 
Endeavour River 
24. The waters within the area bounded by a line 
starting at the FIB board located north of Point Saunders 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the most 
northern point of Grassy Hill 
then in a direct line to the starting point. 
Definitions for the purpose of this information 
paper are — 
River/Creek mouth - between the measured coastline 
for waterways mentioned and the coastal 1 km line for 
the waterway (see diagram). 
Coastal 1 km line for a watemay means a line oi,i.114 
seaward side of the coastline each point of which is-- 
1 km from the nearest point of the measured 
coastline for the way. and 
no closer than 1 k.rn from the eoast line at high water 
Further Information 
Queensland Fish Management Authority 
10th Floor 157 Ann Street 
BRISBANE Q 4000 
Telephone; (0717,251h-19 Fax: (071 2218793 
us document is a general summary of current fisheries legislation as at the date of publication. it should not be taken as 
substitute for fisheries legislation which may be subject to change from time to time. Whenever such amendments to 
regulations are made they will be aenounced in the news media. 
Printed 28 March 1994 
TOTAL P.A1 
PPFCIFICALLV DESCRIBED SPAWNING ZONES 
we rivers and creeks have topographical features which 
a..; not conducive to the appiication of pawning zones in 
the general sense described above. The spawninsz zones 
a plied to these ztreas are defined by specific point to 
r ;nt boundaries Which are set out below. 
Middle Head to Norton Point 
1 The waters within the area bounded by a line — 
taming at the F 	 board located east of Middle Head 
,hen along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the Pi% 
board located west of Norton Point 
-hen in a direct tine to the nearest point of the oastal 1 km 
ioundary line for the coastal boundary line 
-hen along the coastal I km boundary line 
then in a direct line to the starting point. 
uth Tra9s 
2 rhe waters within the area bounded by a line 
:::r7rtinz:-, at the r'i'Ve board located east of South Trees Inlet 
then along a line the "Cieeetel boundary line") to the FIT 
oard located west of South Trees Inlet 
)en in a direct line to the nearest point of the coastal 1 km 
boundary line for the coastal boundary line 
then along the coastal 1 km boundary line 
len in a direct line to the starting point. 
:.„Itiopc... River 
The waters within the ar,-;2721 bounded by a line — 
-arting at the Ftla board located east of the Calliope River 
ien along a line (the "coastal boundary fine") to the FtEl 
-,Dard located west of the Calliope River 
then in a direct line to the nearest point of the coastal 1 km 
"Dunda ry line for the coastal boundary line 
, en along the coastal 1 km boundary line 
..,en in a direct line to the starting point. 
3raham Creek on Curtis Island 
he waters within the area bounded by a line — 
2.rting at the Feri3 board located south of Graham Creek on Curtis Island 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the F113 
nard located north of Graham Creek 
an in a direct line to the nearest point of the coastal I km 
boundary line for the coastal boundary line 
then along the coastal 1 km boundary line 
).n in a direct line to the starting point. 
...je Point to Cardigan Point 
The waters within the area bounded by a line 
— 
r-rting at high water mark at Cattle Point 
m along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to Cardigan 
_ int 
then in a direct line to the starting point. 
t Lagoon Creek on Curtis Island 
7 
 e waters within the area bounded by a line — 
starting at the F#14 8 board located east of the creek on Curtis 
Island commonly known as First Lagoon Creek 
t n along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the F TB 
,rd located west of First Lagoon Creek 
then in a direct line to the nearest point of the coastal 1 km uoundary line for the coastal boundary line 
n along the coastal I km boundary line 
:1 n in a direct line to the starring point 
?cond Lagoon Creek on Curtis Island 
waters within the area bounded by a line — :( ring at the 
	 board located east of the creek on Curtis 
s 	 commonly known as Second Lagoon Creek hen along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the FtEi )rvArd located west of Second Lagoon Creek I- 
 1 in a direct line to the nearest point of the coastal I km 
rtdary line for the coastal boundary line )en along the coastal I km boundary line 
-len in a direct line to the starring point,-  
South Bluff to Coconut Point 
8. the waters within the area laciune2db 1i -- 
starting at high water mark at South Bluff 
then along a fine (the "coastal boundary line.") to Coconut Point 
4 then in a direct line to the starting point. 
Island Bluff to Charon Point 
9. The waters within the area bounded by a line — 
starting at high water mark at Island Bluff 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to Charon 
Point 
then in a direct line to the starting point. 
Little Cape Creek to Shag Creek 
10. The waters within the area bounded by a line — 
starting at the north head of Little Cape Creek 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the north 
head of Shag Creek 
then in a direct line to the starting point. 
Constant Creek 
It. The waters within the area bounded by a line — 
starring at the F IS board located east of Constant Creek 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to the PIS board located north of COnStant Creek 
then in a direct line to rhe nearest point of the coastal I km boundary line for the coastal boundary line 
then along the coastal I km boundary line 
then in a direct fine to the starting point. 
Alobbies Inlet 
12_ The waters of Nobbies Inlet inshore of a line — 
starting at a point 200m north-east of the north head of Sandy 
Creek at high water mark 
then due north to the northern bank at high water mark of Nobbles Inlet. 
Burdekin River Anabranch 
13. The waters within the area bounded by a line — starting 
at a point 500m south of the south head of the 
Burdekin River Anabranch at high water mark 
then along a line (the "coastal boundary line") to a point I km north of the Burdekin River Anabranch then in 
a direct line to the nearest point of the coastal 1km 
boundary line for the coastal boundary line 
then along the coastal !km boundary line 
then in a direct line to the starting point. 
I COOm ICOOm 
Examples of the application of Spawning Zones 
Example 1 
OC3o m 	 00OM 
01111.5.5 
- =Vet. ...a.n.4,-,14-4i4 
Erampie 2 
allftm 
re° 
N\sce 
-vrri 
IMMO WPM 
FIN
ER
/C
RE
EK
 
igoom 
Jot s not permitted in Spawning Zone 
The following nets are prohibited from use in the 
spawning zones during the closed season- 
East Coast Foreshore Set Gill Net 
* River Entrance Foreshore Gill Net 
'ishers should refer to Fishing Industry Organisation 
nd Marketing Regulations 1991 for descriptions of the, 
aboveInentioned nets. 
its pormitted in Spawning Zone 
The following nets are permitted within the spawning 
DneS during the cloz:ed season 
— 
General Purpose Nets Serial 3, Serial 4, Serial 6 and 
Commercial Bait Nets Serial 8, Serial 9. 
Offshore Set Gill Net or Drift Net (Serial - 1 7 ) 
permitted in waters deeper than two metres, 
provided that the net has a maximum line strength of 40 ply. 
ishers should refer to Fishing Industry Organisation 
wld Marketing Regulations 1993 for descriptions of the 
abovementioncd serial numbers. 
SPAWNING ZONES 
The area around the mouths of the following rivers an 
creeks have been designated as barramundi spawning 
zones. It is important to appreciate the definition ()- 
river/creek mouth described later in this inforrnatioi 
paper. Waters to a distance of 1000 metres either side oi 
the mouths of rivers and creeks and to a distance of MOO 
metres seaward are closed to the use of the east coas 
foreshore and river entrance foreshore set gill net 
during the period midday I November each year to 
midday 1 February of the next year. 
Bunclaberg, Giodstone and Rockhampton 
regions 
Deepwater Creek 
Jenny Lind Creek 
Boyne River 
Auckland Creek 
Middle Creek (The Narrows) 
Boat Creek (The Narrows) 
Montecristo Creek 
Munduran Creek 
Badger Creek 
Mosquito Creek 
Barker Creek 
Mackay zegion 
Carmilla Creek 
Louisa Creek 
Pioneer River 
Saziforth Creak 
Victor Creek 
Blackrock Creek 
Burdekin, Townsville and Ingham regiong 
Elliott River 	 Ross Creek 
Rocky Pond 	 Creek Ross Rivcr 
Groper Creek 	
--2,ohle River 
Yellow Gin Creek 	 Cattle Creek 
Naughton River 	 Palm Creek 
Crocodile Creek 	 DzIrriper Creek 
Alligator Creek 
lnnisfail region 
Meunge Creek 	 Tully River 
Wreck Creek 	 Hull River 
Daliachy Creek 	 Moresby River 
Murray River 
Cairns and Port Douglas regions 
Russell/Mulgrave River System (Mutchero inlet) 
Daintree River 
Annan River 
Maria Creek 
Seahill (Pacific) Creak 
Causeway Creek 
West Water Creek 
Island Head Creek 
East Creek 
Head Creek 
Mistake Creek 
Georges Creek 
Shoalwater Creek 
Styx River 
Hervey Creek 
Dempster Creek 
O'Connell River 
Repulse Creek 
Dingo Creek 
Inlet Creek 
TOTAL P.03 
Catching Ash for Everyone! 
1 
BEENSLAND COMMERCIAL 
Suite 12, Ci 	 - • Courtyard 
699A-713 Sandgate Road, Cla) "a141.0 4011 
P.O. Box 392, Clayfield 0401 ,tralia 
 
Telephone; 07 3262 6855 International: 61 7 32.1855 
Fax: 07 3262 7650 international: 617 3262 
10 Mar 1997 
1 Yr7„ Appleton Executive Officer 
eensland F 	 ries Management Authority 
P 0 
Faptitude Valley Old 4006 
Dear Mr Appleton 
Further to your recent letter requesting further information relating to the Industry's Proposal 
for the Implementation of the OCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy, QCFO has the 
following comments relating to the points raised by you. 
The large amount of attention that has been focused by the fishing industry towards the 
offshore set net is largely due to the fact that without an attendance ruling in the previous 
fisheries regulations. The river set net and the foreshore set nets all have an effective 
attendance rule. Therefore the offshore set net operation was viewed as having the 
greatest potential for dugong fatalities. It is for this reason that with the introduction of 
attendance rules to the offshore set net these concerns are eliminated. 
Your observations that concerns the travelling fisher is of considerable concern to the 
QCF0 is correct. This issue has been largely addressed by a multitude of measures 
within the implementation of the QCFO Strategy. I am however unclear of your further 
concern on this issue 
 
  
Whilst most fishers utilise the foreshore set net attendance with the intention of being 
able to work more than one net, a review is necessary to address the issue of distances 
the nets can be set apart. Review dealing with this specific issue will require further 
consultation with net fishers to thoroughly address this issue in regard to dugong 
protection. 
With relation to the suggestion that dugongs travel and feed in rivers and creeks, this 
may be the case, however I question whether there has ever been any evidence of 
dugongs being killed in river set nets. From anecdotal evidence by fishers all along the 
Queensland coast, dugongs are under no threat from fishing operations using this 
apparatus legally. 
Commercial rishermeti Catchilig Fish for rveryone! 
ii 
6"1) 
• The Questions that related to other areas such as Princess Charlotte Bay, Cleveland 
Bay, Upstart Bay, Newry Region, and Hervey Bay were sent directly to Tony Stokes at 
GBRMPA by fax prior to receiving your letter. A .copy of that fax is enclosed for your 
information. 
Since providing this information and due to the amount of re_quests from GBRMPA and 
;•'°°s., yourself for more measures in the Newry region and Ince Bay, the local net fishers have 
gone back for another meeting to detail tighter controls in these regions. Once this 
,A'abN 	 information becomes available it will be forwarded to you. 
Generally speaking for the level of resolution that is requested by you for the GBRMPA it 
has been suggested that further meetings with our organisation may be necessary prior to 
implementation. This is suggested as the detail that is being sought is overlooking the 
reason for the implementation which were designed by fishers to prevent dugong deaths, 
and thereby protect their industry. 
The ()CFO appreciates the QFMA's input into this process and look forward to a positive 
outcome. 
Yours sincerely 
Ted Loveday 
PRESIDENT 
QUEENSLAND INC. 
 
  
P.O.Box 212, Margate Qld 4019, Phone/Fax (07) 3284 5977 
DUGONG MORTALITY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RECREATIONAL ANGLERS  
IN QUEENSLAND.  
SUNFISH'S view is that at the present time there is none or 
negligible damage done to dugong by recreational angling in 
Queensland waters. 
Having said that, I would like to make it perfectly clear that 
SUNFISH do acknowledge that there could well be 
.a problem with 
dugong disturbance in the foreseeable future- by recreational 
anglers and the boating public in general. 
I have made extensive inquiries within the Sunfish membership, 
including the Boating Industry Association of Queensland 
affiliate and also the QDPI and DEO. None of these 
organisations or Departments have any records of Dugong 
strikes or any Dugong injuries by small boat traffic, although 
there is some evidence of serious injuries to them by heavy 
boat traffic such as the barge type shipping which ply the 
Bay. 
Sunfish have, however, some concerns for the future protection 
of dugong in areas such as the Hinchinbrook Channel where 
there are indications of development which will, in the long 
term, encourage a significant increase in boat traffic in 
these confined areas. 
Sunfish have prepared a report, in conjunction with the QFMA, 
for GBRMPA, and this has been forwarded to the appropriate 
people. 
I shall outline briefly here, the contents of that report to 
this meeting.: 
SUNFISH will undertake to include in their education program, 
with both junior and senior angler groups and the recreational 
angling boat owners, an awareness section to include the need 
to be very cautious when boating or fishing in or near dugong 
habitat areas. 
	 This awareness program will include both 
dugong and turtles. 
In relation to the possibility of implementing speed limits 
for areas of known dugong grazing or calving, Sunfish does not 
have any objection in principle but a number of matters need 
to be taken into account. 
These include - 
The safety of people in recreational boats, or any boats 
for that matter is paramount. For example, in Moreton 
Fish/III for fh,e Fllq 
Bay in the Rous Channel, which is a defined waterway 
(Channel) with access to the open sea, changed sea 
conditions can create safety problems for .boats if 
slow boat speed limit were to be introduced. A speed 
limit may be implemented but it would need to take into 
account all sea conditions and how it may impact on 
boating safety. 
In restricted waterways such as Hinchinbrook Channel, the 
heavy boat traffic may justify a slow boat speed, 
provided sea conditions are analysed, and may only be for 
a defined distance, say 1-2 nautical miles. This defined 
distance would obviously be associated with the threat of 
dugong safety. 
Any Analysis of measures to limit boat speed would need 
to take into account the type and size of boats, eg. a 
displacement hull vis a speed boat (tinny with 30-40hp 
outboard). 
If an area is identified which requires absolute 
protection for dugong ie no boat traffic allowed, 
Sunfish 	 would support the closure in principle but 
would want to have consultation and obtain the evidence 
supporting the proposal for closure. 
In these cases it would be assumed that if the area is 
closed to recreational boating then it would be closed to 
all boats and vessels unless authorised by the 
appropriate authorities. 
In terms of consultation for any proposed speed limit or 
closure (permanent or seasonal) it would be appropriate 
to approach the Sunfish regional Branch people as they 
would know the local conditions better. It would be 
appreciated if either the Executive officer or Chairman 
of Sunfish Central was advised of these conditions as 
they could then ensure that the whole organisation is 
advised. 
It is assumed that other major groups ie tourism 
(charter boat operators) and commercial fishers would be 
approached to obtained their views on any proposal. 
Sunfish would appreciate any information, from time to 
time, on dugong protection measures so that this 
information can be disseminated to members and the public 
through both the Sunfish network and its magazine. 
Sunfish 	 believe 	 that 	 the 	 recreational 	 angling, 
population are responsible for minimum dugong disturbance 
but are willing to co-operate in any reasonable way with 
the GBRMPA to reduce dugong mortality. 
SUNFISH HAVE DEVELOPED A DRAFT CODE OF CONDUCT FOR SMALL 
BOAT OPERATORS TO REDUCE THE IMPACT OF BOAT TRAFFIC 
OPERATION ON DUGONG. 
This Draft Code of Conduct has to' be ratified by the 
Sunfish State Council but that is expected to be achieved 
in the near future. 
THE FOLLOWING CODE OF CONDUCT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN 
CONJUNCTION WITH A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE AND AN 
APPRECIATION OF THE RIGHT FOR DUGONG TO EXIST IN A 
PEACEFUL AND PROTECTED MANNER. 
Before entering an unfamiliar area take steps to 
ascertain details of Dugong habitat areas most 
frequented by them. 
Observe all protected and NO GO areas. 
Maintain observation for Dugong presence at all times 
Reduce speed to a reasonable rate in recognised 
feeding areas or on identification of a Dugong in 
close proximity. 
Avoid disturbing feeding Dugong 
Assist net owner/operators where possible to release 
entangled Dugong and ensure every effort is made to 
enable extangled or injured Dugong to breathe. 
Report all contacts with dead, injured or entangled 
animals as soon as possible to Department of 
Environment or Boating and Fisheries Patrol and record 
details with SUNFISH. 
Educate others to protect Dugong. 
John Doohan 
Chairman 
Sunfish Qld Inc. 
QUEENSLAND INC. 
 
  
P.O.Box 212, Margate Qld 4019, Phone/Fax (07) 3284 5977 
DUGONG SHOALWATER BAY 
There is one more area I would like to address, and that is 
the removal of commercial fishing from Shoalwater Bay! 
Sunfish do not necessarily have any brief for commercial 
fishing in Shoalwater Bay, however, we are concerned as to 
what happens to those who are displaced from this area. 
Is the Commonwealth Government going to close commercial 
netting in the Bay and ignore the problem of where those who 
are being displaced go to fish? 
Sunfish will not be impressed if the C/W Government have a 
warm and fuzzy feeling that they have somehow saved the Dugong 
in this area, and having spent no money in doing so, walk 
away without addressing the transfer of fishing effort by the 
fishermen being displaced from the region As I have stated 
Sunfish are not holding the torch for these commercial 
fishermen, however, we are being pragmatic, because we see 
severe pressure being placed on adjacent fishing areas by the 
very people you are displacing. The adjacent commercial 
fishing areas cannot absorb a further influx of commercial 
fishing effort without severe disruption to the fish stocks. 
The Commonwealth Government have to bite the bullet and make 
funds available to by out the licences of these displaced 
fishermen. 
I know there will be frowns and lip biting over this 
suggestion - but - there are eight or nine other areas which 
will be up for discussion for removal of commercial fishing 
effort in the GBRMP and SUNFISH are not going to be impressed 
if you close all or some of these areas and just transfer the 
fishing effort to adjacent areas. 
As I stated earlier in this address, Sunfish agree with most 
of the measures contained so far in GBRMPA proposals. It has 
however, been a very inexpensive exercise (except for the 
paper work generated) and that is fine. But you have to look 
carefully at providing the funds to the State to buy out those 
who you intend to remove from the commercial fishery, if not, 
you will meet some stiff opposition in the future from Sunfish 
and also probably the commercial sector although I cannot 
speak for that industry. We cannot have the fishery 
throughout the area of influence of the GBRMPA, being put 
under the threat of excess pressure. This will occur if all 
we do is transfer commercial effort from one area to another, 
and the Commonwealth Government through GBRMPA washes its 
Fishin4 far the Future 
hands of any responsibility towards the solution. 
	 That 
solution would be, in the main, to provide the funds to the 
State to buy out the effort within the areas which will be 
targeted for commercial fishing removal. 
J.D. 
• Ca 
1:0.* 
DEPARTMENT Of 
PRIMARY INZUSTatiiS 
X,166564*•145,-e-GZA",'Ve."6.Z.t=taitTS : 
r dX I .1•UP1 	 • 01 I L.Z.LPLI.1. -1 ,1-1 
1 	 1 	 1— 	 1 	 1 ka, • 	 1 1, ,./11 
	 4,1-1 	 1 
	
1 	 C-1 
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 
DA'i: 14 February 1997 
TO: 
	 Tony Stokes, GBRIVLPA 
FACSIMILE NO.: 	 077 726 093 
it ROM: 
	 Dan Curley, General Manager, Fisheries Re-source Protection 
NO. OF PAGES 
(INCLU)ING COVM): 2 
MESSAGE 
Dear Tony 
LA:MST SITUATION - NETS - SHARK CONTROL PROGRAM 
QDPI has been asked to investigate two issues associated with the Shark Control Program as part of ti 
measures believed necessary by the Dugong Review Group to overcome threats to dugong. 
1- Review the ts f nes in the Shark Control Program. 
A review to consider this and other issues was initiated last year. 
While the Department is committed to finalising 
 this review, the absence of Dr H Marsh Over= 
for some months has prevented any further consideration of issues by the Review Team. 
This matter is now =laxly to be finalised until mid year. 
2. Consider removing shark nets from Magnetic Island beadles. 
At the first meeting of the Review Group assessing the impact of the Shark Control Prognim, a 
recommendation was made that shark nets off Magnetic Island be removed. 
The Minister for Primary industries, the Honourable T J Perrett, MLA, referred the matter to the 
Townsville Shark Control Program Focus Group in January 1997, for their comment. 
Enquiries to: Dan Currey Our Ref. 
Floor 5, Forestry House, 160 Mary Street, GPO Box 46, Brisbane Q 4001 
Telephone: (07) S22 42161 Facsimile: (07) 322 98146 0,-v bckfrthvipcnnabite%,...-yuctisignstok.....doc 
FISHERIES GROUP 
• 1.../ 	 I 	 I \ 
	 I I 	 I 	 I I 	 IN 11 II IS \ I 1 I 1 
	 VC 
Al A, 
	
. 4161, 
	 ap 
L." V 	 I I I Vf L.. • ri) 
LAI:* 1= ::2-3 now decided th,lt 
 the net at Nellie Bay can be replaced by six drum lines but that the Iltt, at 'Alma Bay will remain. This decision was made after consideration of comments of all 
si4a:/holciiers and is considered to mainain bather safety at existing levels. 
ca-rzeztly over=. I expect his decision to be formally announced when he retunas 13t,.../Lraaa.y. 
ID VI 
-"7.7 :7 '733MC.Lre PROTECTION) 
T i  
Ii 
^ 
IAN DELANEY 
	 46117,7 •I 
ATSIC COMMISSIONER 
	
) 
QUEENSLAND METROPOLITAN ZONE 
Address: 
	 PO Box 87 
	 Telephone: 
	 (07) 3229 8277 
Albert Street P.O. 
	 Facsimile: 
	 (07) 3220 0191 
BRISBANE QLD 4002 
Statement by Commissioner Delaney to the February Meeting of the 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
I would like to read and table the attached statement on co-management. 
The statement and process would, I am sure, be refined during a process 
of negotiation, but I have set down the basic minimum, that is that co-
management is not negotiable from our point of view. 
I acknowledge that Ms Evelyn Scott has been appointed a member of the 
Authority and I welcome this appointment and would like to congratulate 
her, but the policy process remains far removed frorri
-
-t.oe hands of 
traditional owners. For significant reasons of traditional practice and 
customary law we require a major say in policy and planning in 
management of the Great Barrier Reef. Although we are currently 
involved to some degree, I believe that it is not enough. 
I would now like to turn to the matter at hand, that is the issue of 
Dugong protection. 
First, let me say that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 
understand the necessity to manage and conserve the remaining Dugong 
populations and that we are pleased to be part of this process. We 
know that we have the knowledge and skills which are critical to the 
management of Dugong; our cultural and spiritual practices (which differ 
amongst coastal people) place us in a unique position to be the major 
partner in the process. The Dugong is so important to our people 
because it is an integral part of our culture. In coastal areas a great deal 
of cultural practice revolves around the Dugong and therefore our 
continuing association with it is important to our cultural survival. We 
therefore support the conservation of Dugong for two reasons. The first 
is for the very survival of the species; the second, and equally important, 
is that the survival of the species ensures the survival of important 
cultural practices. 
	 Our management of the Dugong then is intimately 
tied up with our cultural survival. 
	 Any management plans that we 
support will need to take this into account. 
This occasion appears to me to be the proper one to raise a few 
questions of principle in relation to Dugong management conservation. 
(I) any curtailment of hunting or use will not be acceptable if this 
diminishes native title in any way; 
(ii) any Dugong management scheme must embody the principal of 
co-management; 
if compensation is to be paid to OCF0 members as proposed 
because of cessation or curtailment of an activity, then 
compensation must be paid to all members of the community who 
have had their rights curtailed; 
any voluntary agreements entered into with traditional owners 
must be negotiated direct with those owners; negotiations must be 
between equally well informed parties, accordingly the traditional 
owners may need assistance/funding in their negotiations. 
sufficient resources must be provided to ensure that the 
protection of Dugong is achieved in the Dugong Protection Areas 
(DPAs) 
Any demands made to restrict important cultural practices 
must be supported by commitments of other interest groups and 
relevant authorities to positively contribute. This includes seagrass 
protectioP, boating activities, gill netting and other threatening 
processes or activities. 
Whilst we acknowledge and accept our role in the main, there are some 
Aboriginal people who do not agree with the curtailment of our rights 
because they see it as a lessening of our rights. There is a strong 
feeling in the communities that equally tough measures should be applied 
to all parties, and that enforcement should be a priority. ATS1C has 
asked the Authority for a statement from the Minister to this effect,. It 
would help if an unequivocal statement was made by the Minister. 
Several short term partial solutions have been suggested, based on 
different views as to what is the principal cause of the Dugong decline. 
These include a moratorium on traditional hunting and use; the banning 
of gill nets in some areas, and the requirement to have a constant watch 
over some nets when in use; a total ban on fishing in DPAs; speed limits 
and a possible ban on boating in certain areas and so forth. Any 
immediate action must be supplemented by long term strategies; both 
methods must be under the umbrella of a co-management approach. 
Arguments put forward by the QCFO in relation to the manning of nets 
on a full time basis are : 
that in certain areas it is dangerous and therefore should not be 
enforced; 
manning should only take place, in the long term, where there are 
known migration pathways and only after these have been established. 
We have sympathy with the latter, but precise knowledge of corridors or 
pathways would require research in the medium term and in the 
meantime in common with the QCF0 we support "at net attendance" for 
all off-shore netting operations. I would suggest that traditional owners 
would be able to assist with this research. 
t 
There is argument put forward by others that all forms of fishing and 
other activity in the Dugong sanctuaries should cease. In principle we 
would support this, but we would want to examine the detailed proposals 
before committing ourselves. We will defend the right for the traditional 
owners to hunt and fish within Dugong sanctuaries so that they can fulfil 
cultural needs and household needs, the latter refers to food and 
subsistence requirements. 
We support the educational approach to implementing change, but there 
will also be a need for a regulatory regime running side by side, We see 
implementation of a regulatory approach as very much a partnership 
between the authorities and the traditional owners. I would like to 
inform the Authority that there are trained Aboriginal rangers along the 
East Coast who would be able to assist with implementation of policy. 
Vessel strikes are an acknowledged source of Dugong mortality. 
	 The 
movement of vessels in Dugong sanctuaries needs to be strictly 
monitored. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are at loss to 
understand the reasoning behind the approval of development in and 
around known Dugong habitats which encourage greater boat usage, and 
also the possibility of increasing sedimentation. Sunfish have declared 
that in the event of an area being declared out of bounds to recreational 
boat traffic, they would agree to this restriction provided that all vessels 
were banned. We would find it unacceptable that co-owners who have 
social, cultural and spiritual ties to an area should also be banned. 
We are of the opinion that the illegal trade in Dugong should be stamped 
out and we would support any moves to this end. 
Finally, I would like to pose a question to both the State Government and 
the Authority. To the State Government - I seek clarification about how 
the DPAs outside the GBRMPA area will be managed. Under what Act 
will co-management be authorised. How will the principle of co- 
management co-exist with the current legislation. If there needs to be 
changes to facilitate co-management when can we expect these? The 
same question can be asked of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 
Authority, is co-management permissible under the various Acts, or are 
changes needed, if so when will these occur? 
alvt, 
Ian Delaney, 
Commissioner, 
ATS1C Queensland Metropolitan Zone. 
19th February, 1997. 
gbrwha 1 b 
.6V). 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
Co-Management 
The Great Barrier Reef area including the waters and almost all the 
islands would have co-existing ownership and rights. These rights, and 
their exercise belong to the State and the Native Title Holders (there is 
legal argument that common law rights extend offshore). These are the 
two basic interests in the Reef, thus all other users are interested third 
parties. The rights that third parties possess in the past have been 
granted by the State, generally through regulatory processes and are not 
grounded in common law ownership. 
	 Co-management, with the 
recognition of Aboriginal property rights, will require Aboriginal 
	 and 
agreement in the decision making process relating to the granting of 
rights. 
Thus it follows that decision making in relation to the reef should be 
exercised in equity by representatives of the co-owners that is the Crown 
and the Native Title Holders. The structure of decision making within 
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's area of control then needs 
to be on a shared basis. This is particularly so when it comes to 
planning and management of the various zones. 
A very clear distinction needs to be drawn between the advice function 
and the decision making function. 
	 Advice can be tendered by any 
individual or organisation to the decision makers. 
	 Policy and its 
implementation is the prerogative of the decision makers. This becomes 
particularly important when there is a need to marry the expertise of the 
traditional owners and the scientific community. This is a problem, and 
research will be needed to resolve the issue as there are times when both 
sorts of expertise will be required. 
Decision making groups would need 50% Aboriginal membership with 
the chairperson being from the traditional owners. There are a number 
of examples of traditional owners being in the majority on policy boards 
involving co-management of resources, of which Uluru and Kakadu are 
the most well known. It must be borne in mind that some Aboriginal 
people have common law ownership of the area and, as such, have a 
right to exercise their ownership rights. 
It is acknowledged that intially there may be legislative complications 
with implementing such management processes, but these could be 
overcome in time. 
17th February, 1996. 
gbrwhal 
TESAG 
JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY 
) 
Phone: 077 81556 I 
Fax: 077 814020 
E-mail: 
tgpic@cathar.jcu.edu . 
au 
 
Facsan. 
To: 	 Peter McGinnity 
@Fax: 726093 
From: Peter Corkeron 
Date: Tuesday, 11 February 1997 @ 11:17 
Re: 
Pages: 8, including this 
Ui 
Dear Peter 
Please find attached my submission to the Minister, Department of Primary Industries 
on the issue of replacing the shark nets off Magnetic Island with drumlines. 
Yours Sipcerely 
Peter Corkeron 
JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY 
OF NORTH QUEENSLAND 
d.F) 
TOWNSVILLE Queensland 4811 Australia Telephone: (077) 81 4111 
'THE DEPARTMENT OF TROPICAL ENVIRONMENT STUDIES 
AND GEOGRAPHY 
Telephone: (077) 81 4521 
(077)81 4325 
Facsimile: (077) 81 4020 
(077) 81 5581 
  
24 January 1997 
The Minister 
Department of Primary Industries 
per the attention of 
Mr Tom McNamara 
District Officer, Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol 
P 0 Box 2239 
TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810 
Dear Sir 
As requested at the meeting held on 14th January 1997 to discuss the issue of the fate of the 
Queensland Shark Control Programme (QSCP) nets off Magnetic Island, this submission outlines my 
analysis of the evidence and issues related to the use of nets and drumlines to control shark numbers. 
It is my strongly held view that the nets under the jurisdiction of the QSCP remaining in the waters off 
Magnetic Island should be removed and replaced with dnimlines. This conclusion has three bases. 
There are beaches elsewhere in Queensland which rely solely on drumlines, and no fatal attacks 
have occurred there. 
Nets catch an unacceptably high number of non-target organisms. This is reduced by using 
drurnlines. 
There is no evidence to suggest that changing from a mixed strategy of using nets and drumlines to 
drumlines only will result in reduced bather protection. Drumlines may provide increased bather 
protection. 
The number of baited hooks required to replace the nets should be estimated by the QSCP, as they 
have the best data available on the relative efficiencies of the two methods. 
I suggest that to further increase bather protection in the Townsville region, the QSCP should consider: 
Installing signage at popular beaches, incorporating information on ways in which people can 
reduce the likelihood of shark attack, such as that contained in the "10 commandments of avoiding 
sharks", as outlined in the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol booklet "Sharks and beach 
safety". This approach is taken in the Northern Territory, and to a lesser extent in Queensland, to 
minimise danger associated with crocodiles. 
Producing-television or radio advertising incorporating information on ways in which people can 
reduce the likelihood of shark attack, such as that contained in the "10 commandments of avoiding 
sharks", as outlined in the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol booklet "Sharks and beach 
safety". 
Experimenting with setting baits on drumlines as late in the afternoon as is practicable, allowing for 
weather and sea conditions. 
Contracting or encouraging research on the biology of sharks of particular concern to the QSCP, 
particularly Tiger and Bull sharks. 
I suggest that in order to assess the ecological impact of the programme in the Townsville region, the 
QSCP should consider: 
Campuses at - 	 TOWNSVILLE 	 CAIRNS 	 MACKAY 
if '3) 
Requiring as a condition of contract that all bycatch retrieved dead (cetaceans, dugongs, turtles, fish 
and rays) be kept for biological examination. 
Liaising with biologists with relevant expertise to develop and implement population assessments 
of those species affected by the QSCP. 
This morning (24th January) 1 was contacted by Mr Steve Brown of the Queensland Boating and 
Fisheries Patrol, Townsville, who informed me that consideration was being given to installing 
"dolphin alarms" to the net at Alma Bay. I do not recollect discussion of the issue of "dolphin alarms" 
at the meeting on 14th January. There is no evidence that "dolphin alarms" work from any study to 
date. 
The people swimming off Magnetic Island will be as safe with the protection of dnnnlines as they were 
with nets. The dugongs, dolphins and turtles swimming off Magnetic Island will be safer. 
In the pages below I discuss in greater detail my reasons for drawing these conclusions. 
Dr Peter Corkeron 
Postdoctoral Fellow 
cc members of the Townsville QSCP Focus Group 
4t) 
Why the nets under the jurisdiction of the OSCP remaining in the waters off Magnetic Island 
should be removed and replaced with drumlines - background information.  
There are beaches elsewhere in Queensland which rely solely on drumlines, and no fatal attacks 
have occurred there. 
In the 19 years since 1977, the QSCP programme off Bundaberg has relied entirely on drumlines. 
No fatal attacks have occurred there in this time (CRSMO 1992). 
In the 17 years since 1979, the QSCP programme off Point Lookout, North Stradbroke Island, has 
relied entirely on drumlines. No fatal attacks have occurred there in this time (CRSMO 1992). 
In the 4 years since 1992, the QSCP programme off Rockhampton has relied entirely on 
drumlines. No fatal attacks have occurred there in this time (Gribble et al., in preparation). 
Summary 
If the incidence of fatal shark attack is considered the appropriate measure of shark control 
effectiveness, as implied by the QSCP (CRSMO 1992), then drumlining has proved effective in 
providing bather protection from fatal shark attack. 
Nets catch an unacceptably high number of non-target organisms, which can be reduced by 
using drumlines. 
Dugongs 
One of the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef Region is that it "provides major feeding 
grounds for large populations of the endangered species Dugong dugon" (GBRWA 1981, p7). 
Between 1963 and 1995, 299 dugongs were taken (either animals that died or were recorded as 
"unknown") in QSCP nets off Townsville (Paterson 1979, CRSMO 1992, B. Lane personal 
communication). The population of dugongs in the vicinity of Townsville was estimated in 1987 and 
1994 to be approximately 360 and 340 animals respectively (360 + 92 and 340+ 82 (population 
estimate + standard error), Central Section Blocks 8 and 9, Marsh et al. 1996). 
The take of 28 dugongs by the QSCP between 1988 and 1995 (CRSMO 1992, B. Lane pers. comm.) 
in the Townsville region represents approximately 1% of the local population per year. Due to their 
life history traits, it is unlikely that dugong populations can sustain human-related mortality levels of 
more than 1-2% (Marsh et al. 1984). The Townsville region is one of the only areas on the 
Queensland coast between Cairns and Brisbane where dugong numbers are stable. However, 
numbers are not increasing, and as dugongs along much of the Queensland coast can be classified as 
critically endangered (Marsh et al. 1996), all methods to reduce dugong deaths must be sought. 
Dugongs are almost never caught on drumlines, the only case being one off Bundaberg (CRSOM 
1992). 
Dolphins 
Between 1974 and 1995, - 65 dolphins were caught in QSCP nets off Townsville, of which 15 were 
released alive (CRSOM 1992, B. Lane pers. comm.). Based on specimens provided to the Queensland 
Museum (Paterson 1994), it appears that the catch is (approximately 60% Irrawaddy River dolphins, 
30% humpback dolphins, and a few 10% bottlenose dolphins (Paterson ref). No population estimates 
for any dolphin species in the Townsville region is available. At a rate of 2-2.5 dolphins per year, 
these takes may seem trivial, however dolphins have reproductive patterns and life histories similar to 
dugongs. Consequently, these takes may represent a significant proportion of the possible sustainable 
mortality of dolphins in the region ,and should be stopped. For comparison, only two dolphins have 
been caught on drurnline.s off Point Lookout over the past 17 years, and both were released alive. 
Turtles 
Of the six turtle species found in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef, five are listed as "Endangered" 
or Vulnerable" by the World Conservation Union (Marsh et al. in press). Two hundred and 
twenty-nine turtles were caught by QSCP equipment off Townsville between 1974 and 1995 (CRSOM 
1992, B. Lane pers. conun.), of which 98 are listed as being released alive. No data are available to 
assess the regional significance of this take. Drumlines take fewer turtles than do nets (Gribble et al. 
in preparation). 
Summary 
Shark netting by the QSCP results in significant bycatch of rare and threatened species in the Great 
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Drumlining would eliminate almost all mortality of dugongs, 
dolphins and turtles. 
There is no evidence to suggest that changing -from a mixed strategy of using nets and drumlines 
to drumlines only will result in reduced batii -z- protection. 
The evidence from the QSCP to date is that drumlining has proved effective in providing bather 
protection from fatal shark attack. At the meeting to discuss the removal of nets from Magnetic 
Island beaches on 14th January 1997, staff from the Northern Fisheries Centre of the Queensland 
Department of Primary Industries presented information suggesting that drtunlines were less effective 
than nets at catching Bull sharks, a dangerous species found in Queensland waters. Dr N. Gribble 
and Messrs G. McPherson and B. Lane graciously allowed me access to their draft paper reviewing 
this information. From the available data, I conclude that replacing nets with drumlines in the waters 
off Magnetic Island is likely to result in increased bather protection, as outlined below. 
Tiger sharks 
Drumlines are clearly more efficient than nets at catching Tiger sharks, the other dangerous species in 
reef waters (Simpendorfer 1993, Gribble et al. in preparation). 
Bull sharks 
Bull sharks are less likely to occur off Magnetic Island than of mainland beaches. 
As Gribble et al. note, referring to Horseshoe Bay and Alma Bay "(t)he probability of encountering 
Bull sharks should be lower at such beaches than at coastal beaches, given known behaviour 
patterns of this species". 
Nets are not effective than drumlines at catching bull sharks off Magnetic Island. 
In the two years between 1992 and 1994 (the only years when Bull sharks were identified 
conclusively), dnunlines at Horseshoe Bay caught 5 Bull sharks (Table 10a, referring to the table 
in Gribble et al. in preparation), while the nets and dnunlines at Alma Bay caught 0 Bull sharks 
(Table 1 la). Prior to 1992, the only sharks which could have been Bull sharks off Townsville 
were identified as "Whaler". Between 1990 and 1992, drumlines off Horseshoe Bay took 10 
"Whalers" while nets took 11 (Table 8a), and in Alma Bay, drumlines took 5 Whalers and nets 
took 2 (Table 9a). Acknowledging these small sample sizes, the most reasonable and conservative 
interpretation of these data is that nets are not more effective than drumlines at catching Bull 
sharks off Magnetic Island. Indeed, nets may be less effective. 
(p-c) 
Evidence elsewhere is equivocal on the relative efficiencies of nets versus drumlines at catching bull 
sharks. 
Gribble et al. compare catches off Rockhampton (where nets were replaced with drumlines in 
1992) and Mackay (where a mixed fishing strategy was maintained) between 1990 and 1994. 
They conclude "(t)he level -of risk (in Rockhampton) may have increased, however, due to the 
decrease in the catch of Bull sharks....". This is because the catch of Bull sharks off 
Rockhampton 1992-1994 (on drumlines only; 21 Table 4a) was less than the catch of "Bronze 
Whalers" off Rockhampton 1990-1992 (on nets and drumlines; 34, Table 2a.. Over the same time 
periods a similar "reduction" in the take of Bull sharks versus "Bronze Whalers" occurred in 
Mackay, where a mixed strategy of nets and drumlines was continued (1990-1992, 109 sharks, 
Table 3a; 1992-1994 , 48 sharks Table 5a). The data do not allow for the conclusion that the 
change to drumlines at Rockhampton was the reason for the decline in catches. It may also be 
due to confusion as to species identity, or to changes in the ecology of Bull sharks on the central 
Queensland coast. 
Summary 
It is apparent that: 
drumlines are more efficient at catching tiger sharks than are nets; 
bull sharks may be uncommon off Magnetic Island; 
drumlines off Magnetic Island appear at least as efficient as nets at catching bull sharks, and 
evidence elsewhere on the relative efficacy of nets versus drumlines at catching bull shark is 
equivocal. 
Consequently, replacing nets with drumlines off Magnetic Island is more likely to increase than 
decrease bather protection. 
There is no evidence from any study to date that "dolphin alarms" work. 
The idea of increasing the acoustic detectablility of nets which catch cetaceans has a relatively long 
history, a review of which is beyond the scope of this submission. Two recent reviews are those of 
Reeves et al. (1996) and Dawson (1994). Only two studies have provided any evidence that "pingers" 
might possibly work. These two experiments to assess the efficacy of "pingers" to reduce harbour 
porpoise bycatch in gillnet fisheries, demonstrated a significant reduction in bycatch (Reeves et al 
1996, Anon 1996a). However, when one experiment was repeated, no significant reduction in bycatch 
was observed (Anon 1996b). This may have been due to habituation, pinger malufnction, improper 
useage of pingers or foraging -relatwde changes to porpoise behaviour (Anon 1996b). The second 
experiment has not been repeated, and changes in porpoise abundance over the course of the 
experiment may have introduced bias (Anon 1996b). At best, the results of these experiments are 
equivocal. The first run of the first experiment cost $500,000 (US) to conduct (Anon 1996a). 
Also worth considering are that : 
Bottlenose and humpback dolphins appear to be behaving differently when caught in nets 
(Cockcroft 1994). "Pingers" may attract one species and repel another. 
No sounds within human hearing have been recorded from Irrawaddy River dolphins. The only 
sounds recorded for this species are ultrasonic sonar clicks (Marsh et al. 1989). Can they hear 
over the range that dolphin "pingers" transmit at? We simply don't know. 
Responses of dugongs to acoustically modified nets are completely unknown. Conducting 
experiments on the efficacy of "pingers" to reduce dugong entanglements would require the deaths 
of many dugongs. Given the decline of the dugong population along most of the Queensland 
coast, this is totally inappropriate. 
The statistical power of any test to determine the impact of "pinger" use will be practically zero 
- (see Reeves et al. 1996 pp 33-37). In other words, if "pingers" are attached to a net at Alma Bay, 
we'll never know if it works or not. 
One of the principal findings of Reeves et al. (1996, p50) is particularly appropriate. "Other 
management strategies, not involving the introduction of artificial sound into the underwater 
environment, should always be sought, even after an acoustic solution appears to have beeri found" 
Summary 
Available evidence indicates that placing "pingers" on nets is unlikely to result in reduced mortality of 
dolphins. No data are available for dugongs, but there is no reason to suppose that dugongs would be 
more likely than dolphins to avoid nets with "pingers" in place. As drumlines off Magnetic Island 
should provide at least the same level of bather protection as the current nets, there is absolutely no 
reason to .consider the use of "pingers". 
References 
Anonymous 1996a . Reports of the International Whaling Commission. 46: 170. 
Anonymous 1996b . Reports of the International Whaling Commission 48: 52-54. 
CRSMO (Committee to Review Shark Meshing Operations) 1992. Review of the operation and 
maintenance of shark meshing equipment in Queensland waters. Report of the Committee of 
Enquiry. Published by the Department of Primary Industries, Queensland. 84pp. 
Cockcroft V. G. 1994. Is there a common cause for dolphin entanglements in gillnets? A review of 
dolphin catches in shark nets off Natal, South Africa. Reports of the Scientific Committee of 
the International Whaling Commission. Special Issue 15: 541 - 547 
Dawson S. M. 1994. The potential for reducing entanglement of dolphins and porpoises with acoustic 
modifications to gill
-nets. Reports of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling 
Commission. Special Issue 15: 573 578. 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 1981. Nomination of the Great Barrier Reef by the 
Commonwealth of Australia for inclusion in the World Heritage List. Unpublished report to 
the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO. 14pp. 
Marsh, H, Arnold P. W., Limpus C. J., Birtles A., Breen B. , Robins J., and Williams R. in press 
Endangered and charismatic megafauna. in Proceedings of the Great Barrier Reef Conference 
Marsh H., Corkeron P., Lawler I., Lanyon J., and Preen A. 1996. The status of the dugong in the 
southern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
research publication 41. 8Opp. 
Marsh, H., G.E. Heinsohn, and L.M. Marsh 1984. Breeding cycle, life history and population 
dynamics of the dugong Dugong dugon Sirenia: Dugongidae. Australian Journal of 
Zoology. 32: 767-788. 
Marsh, H., R: Lloze, G. Heinsohn and T. Kasuya. 1989. Irrawaddy dolphin Orcaella brevirostris Gray, 
1866. pp. 101-118. In S. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds) Handbook of marine mammals, vol 4. 
Academic Press, Sydney. 
Paterson R. 1979. Shark meshing takes a heavy toll of harmless marine animals. Australian Fisheries 
38 (10): 17 -23. 
Paterson R. 1994. An annotated list of recent additions to the cetacean collection in the Queensland 
Museum. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 35: 217 - 223. 
(I) 
Reeves R. R., Hofrnan R. J., Silber G. K. and Wilkinson D. 1996. Acoustic deterrence of harmful 
marine mammal- fishery interactions: proceedings of a workshop held in Seattle, Washington 
20-22 March 1996. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-10. 70 pp. 
Simpendorfer C. 1993. The Queensland Shark Meshing Program: analysis of the results from 
Townsville, North Queensland. pp 71-85 in Pepperell J., West J. and Woon P. (eds) Shark 
Conservation. Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales, Sydney. 
tax from ; t3G 	 .1.f47 
1 - 
	 C33 : bzi-P Humane socle -ty Int." I 	 1 / 
.G.Le OZ,./ 7 f 
	 .14t • .3.3 1-9 • 
	 .1 
LJ 1 
(P 
 
Humane Society International Incorporated 
Australian Office 
P 0 Box 302 
Avalon NSW 2107 
Phone: (02) 9973 1728 
Fax (02) 9973 1729 
Email: 100231.2133@compuserve.cpm 
 
FACSIMILE MESSAGE 
TO 	 : Dr Ian McPhail 
COMPANY 
	 : GBRMPA 
FAX NUMBER 
	 : (077) 726 093 
FROM 
	 : Bill Foster 
DATE 
	 : 21.2.97 
SUBJECT 
	 GBRMPA Dugong conservation meeting 20.2.97 
NO. OF PAGES :2 
 
MPnIlinm 
Dear Dr McPhail, 
As a result of yesterdays meeting in Brisbane, we would ask that the GBRIVIC take 
the following observations on board: 
The objective of the meetings is to establish 'Emerggricy 
 measures for Great Barrier 
Reef and adjacent area Dugong recovery and conservation. We do not consider the 
proposals put forward by ()CFO and endorsed by AMCS and VVPSQ to constitute 
anything like emergency measures, as they will inevitably lead to a further 
population decline of dugong; 
HSI and the other organisations who signed the nomination of gill-netting as a key 
threatening process, consider that the total removal of gill-netting from the entire 
dugong range is an appropriate and necessary emergency measure; 
These organisations represent the views of hundreds of thousands of Australians 
concerned about marine conservation and with the case of HSI and Greenpeace 
alone, millions of concerned global citizens - many of whom will be awaiting the 
outcome of this process with interest. For as you stated yesterday, if the dugong 
cannot be saved from extinction in the Great Barrier reef Marine Park and World 
Heritage Area, what chance has it anywhere else ? 
It should also be noted that although they endorsed the AIVICS and therefore the 
QCF0 proposals yesterday, WPSO are also a signatory to the key threatening 
process nomination; 
: 31729 
Human Nco -ty 	 1 
L_Le tlGe 7 	 .1•1 • JO) 
U2 !J3I 	 if 
a 
     
7 4 • ---- 
%MD 
	
e 	
r- 
 surprised at how 'little debate had 
taken 
Place on the subject of 
over the next seven clays. 
compensation for the removal:of 
gill 
net /icences. We 
hope that this. wilt be rectified Yours sincerely 
	
,---:42 • 
	
-cfg-. 
, - , „. 
Bill Foster 
Executive Officer 
Dr Ian McPhail  
Chairperson, GBRMPA 
PO Box 1379 
Townsville 
Q4810 
19 February, 1997 
Dear Dr McPhail 
Report from HSI on views raised by GBR Ministerial Council, 
Brisbane 30/11/96 
HSI welcomes the opportunity to comment on the above views and are 
pleased to see recognition that we are past the need for more data and 
voluntary management initiatives for these critically endangered animals 
and that the need to take action is immediate. 
Re (c) 
HSI supports the 10 sanctuaries proposed by Tony Preen and Nina 
Morissette in their interim report of 31/1/97. 
Re (d) 
FIST considers gill netting to be a significant factor in dugong mortality. 
Indeed, based on Hervey Bay data, gill netting accounts for around 90% of 
stranded dugong carcasses. Fisher attendance and other management 
measures will not be sufficient to reverse the population decline. 
A voluntary moratorium on dugong hunting by indigenous people is also 
unlikely whilst gill netting, even with restrictions, is still permitted. 
In order for the dugongs to be able to travel between the sanctuary areas 
which allows exchanges between populations and ensures genetic 
diversity, safe corridors will be required. Dugong mortalities are likely to 
occur outside sanctuary areas whilst they are travelling up and down the 
coast if gill netting is permitted outside these areas. 
Australia is privileged to support the last relatively healthy population of 
dugong. As such, and as the only developed mega biodiverse country on 
earth; we have an obligation and responsibility to ensure that the 
precautionary principle is applied and every effort made to immediately 
halt the decline in dugong numbers. 
HSI and_ other organisations have therefore nominated gill netting as a key 
threatening process under schedule 3 of the Endangered Species 
Protection Act 1992. 
HSI and AMCS have nominated the Dugong for listing under schedule 1, 
part 1, of the Endangered Species Protection Act 192, in order that a 
recovery plan is implemented throughout its range in Australia. 
HSI urge the GBR Ministerial Council to address, as a matter of urgency 
before their final report on February 28th 1997, the issue of compensation 
for the removal of gill net licences, both active and latent. 
A practical, financial solution involving the Federal and State governments 
and the fishing industry has to be formulated by this date if this threat to 
dugong populations is to be eliminated. 
HSI also consider shark netting to be a major source of dugong mortality, 
with 837 recorded fatalities between 1962 and 1991. HSI is therefore 
compiling a nomination for shark netting as a key threatening process 
under the above legislation. 
HSI proposes an immediate moratorium on large scale coastal 
developments in and adjacent to critical dugong habitat. 
HSI also considers that there should be a prohibition on underwater 
explosives in ALL dugong habitats, including Shoalwater Bay. 
HSI considers there should be strong and enforceable controls on 
motorised vessel speeds in dugong habitat. 
HSI further considers that a far greater degree of urgency and seriousness 
needs to be given to carrying out necropsies on stranded carcasses. 
Re (f) 
HSI recognises that no recovery of the dugong population will be possible 
without a similar recovery of seagrass beds. HSI therefore supports 
increased research into the as yet unknown causes of seagrass decline and 
to eliminating known anthropogenic factors leading to seagrass loss, such 
as sedimentation, nutrient enrichment and trawling. 
Yours sincerely 
Bill Foster 
Executive Officer 
..i.JMANE SOCIETY 
INTERNATIONAL 
7 100 L Street, NW 
ashington, DC 20037 
01) 258-3010 LI( (301) 258-3077 4,111111 
Dr Peter Bridgewater, CEO 
Australian Nature Conservation Agency 
P 0 Box 636 
Canberra ACT 2601 
3rd October, 1996 
Nomination of Gill-Netting for Schedule 3 of the Endangered Species 
Protection Act, 1992 
Dear Peter 
Please find enclosed nomination for "Gill-Netting" as a "Key Threatening Process" 
and listing in Schedule 3 of the Endangered Species Protection Act, 1992. 
The organisations listed below declare that the information in this nomination is 
true and correct to the best of our knowledge. 
We look forward the early deliberations of ESSS in regard to this important 
conservation matter. 
sincerely 
Michael Kennedy 
on behalf of 
Australian Conservation Foundation 
Cairns and Far North Environment Centre 
Conservation Council of Western Australia 
Humane Society International 
Greenpeace Australia 
Mackay Conservation Group 
Northern Territory Environment Centre 
North Queensland Conservation Council 
Queensland Conservation Co -uncil 
Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland - Capricorn Branch 
Yeppoon Environment Centre 
iul G. Irwin 
asident 
Janet D. Frake 
Executive Director 
GIONAL OFFICES 
e.ustralian Office 
Michael Kennedy, Director 
inadian Office 
chael O'Sullivan, Director 
European Office 
Betsy Dribben, J.D., Director 
Itin American Office 
taro Posada-Salazar, Director 
OFFICERS 
rTgif,n Wiseman 
t.;lin of the Board 
Paul G. Irwin 
President 
n A. Hoyt 
ecutive Vice President 
G. Thomas Waite III 
?asurer 
iriaugh S. Madden, Esq. 
2.:.-.cretary/General Counsel 
--,kFF VICE PRESIDENTS 
tricia A. Forkan 
nior Vice President 
Michael W. Fox, D.Sc., Ph.D., 
;et.Med., M.R.C.V.S. 
ethics and Farm Animal 
—tection 
John W. Grandy, Ph.D. 
dlife and Habitat Protection 
Humane Society International Inc. 
Australian Office 
PO Box 302, Avalon, 2107, NSW, Australia 
PHONE (61) 2 9973 1728 FAX (61) 2 9973 1729 
E-mail: 100231.2133@compuserve.com 
 
P.inted on rercycled paper 
	 "Incorporation Registration No: Y19617-04" 
NOMINATION OF "GILL NETTING" FOR SCHEDULE 3 OF THE 
"ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT, 1992"  
The following information follows the requirements for nominations specified in the Endangered Species 
Protection Regulations 1993, Part 2, s. 6., and under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act: 
(a) a description of the threatening process that is sufficient to distinguish it from any other 
threatening process by reference to its biological components and its non-biological components, and 
the interactions of those components, that are known to the person or persons making the 
nomination: 
This submission refers only to gill netting conducted around Australia's tropical and subtropical coast, 
from Moreton Bay in the east to Shark Bay in the west. This is the range of the dugong in Australia 
Gill nets are square-meshed nets that are now almost universally made from monofilament (like fishing 
line) or multi-monofilament. The nets are typically structured with a lead-line along the bottom of the net, 
which pulls the net down, and a float-line along the top of the net, which pulls the net up. Tension on the 
net is determined by the depth of the net(number of meshes), the depth of water and the amount of lead 
and buoyancy. 'Set nets' are gill nets that are anchored at one or both ends. They are generally angled 
across the current flow. Such nets may remain set for several days at a time, and are usually cleared on 
slack tides. 'Drift nets' are gill nets deployed in deeper water and are not anchored, although one end may 
be attached to the fishing boat. They drift with the currents. 
Fish are caught in gill nets when they try to swim through the mesh. Mesh size is used to determine the 
size of fish caught - small fish swim through the mesh, larger fish get caught by their gill-covers (hence 
the name). The larger the mesh, the more likely that large species, such as dugongs will get caught. This 
is because large mesh nets allow flippers, noses and tips of tails to go through meshes, and because 
large meshed nets are made of stronger monofilament. Gill nets that threaten dugongs and inshore 
dolphins are generally large with a mesh size of at least 88 mm (but often 150-170 mm) and a 
monfilament diameter of >0.5 mm and usually <1.17 mm. Target species are usually barramundi and 
associated species (salmon, jewfish etc) and mackerel. States and Territories have different regulations 
governing net lengths, mesh sizes, monofilament size, number of meshes and mode of operation. 
See also Kailola et al., 1993 "Australian Fisheries Resources" Pages 46 - 48 for detailed description of all 
forms of gill netting. 
Why gill net mortality matters 
Internationally, the dugong is listed as Vulnerable (IUCN, 1990). However, the status of the dugong has 
not been reviewed for several years, and the database on the dugong, and the criteria for assessing 
threatened species have now changed substantially. A revised status assessment, using IUCN's new 
criteria (IUCN 1994), would significantly elevate the dugong's conservation status. 
Dugongs are believed to be facing extinction throughout most of their range, largely due to the 
proliferation of synthetic gill nets. Although dugongs are still widely hunted in Australia (Marsh and 
Lefebvre 1994), Papua New Guinea (Hudson 1981) and Palau (Marsh et al. 1995b), hunting has declined 
in the eastern Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf (Preen 1989) and east Africa (Jarman 1966; Wamukoya et al. 
1995), largely because dugongs are now too rare to justify the effort. Despite an apparent overall decline 
in hunting pressure throughout the dugong's range, there is no suggestion that mortality rates have 
declined. This is because synthetic gill nets are now extremely abundant in coastal waters throughout the 
dugongs range. Synthetic gill nets are now standard fishing apparatus not only for commercial fisheries, 
but also for artisanal and traditional fisheries. Deliberate or incidental netting of dugongs has been 
1 
ipt 
reported from Mozambique Hughes and Oxley-Oxland 1971; Cockcroft et al. 1994; Dutton 1994), Kenya 
(Jarman 1966; Cockcroft et al. 1994; Wamukoya et al. 1995), Djibouti (Robineau and Rose 1982), Sudan 
(Vine and Schmid• 1987), Egypt (Gohar 1957), Israel (Lipkin 1975), Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, 
Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (Preen 1989), India (Nair et al. 1975; Lal Mohan 1976; Jones 1980), 
Sri Lanka (Jones 1980; Leather.wood and Reeves 1991) and Australia (Heinsohn 1972; Marsh 1985; 
Marsh et al. 1996; Paterson 1990; Preen 1994). The abundance of gill nets in dugong habitats around the 
world means that it is unlikely that dugongs will survive in the wild outside Australia Dugongs appear to 
have been exterminated from a number of archipelagos, including the Mascarene, Laccadive, Chagos, 
Nicobar, Barren, Narcondom, Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Islands (Husar 1978; Snow 1970; Stoddart 
1972). 
The gill net bvcatch problem in Australia 
Australia is fortunate in that only professional fishers are legally allowed to have and use gill nets. This 
may be why dugong numbers in Australia are still relatively high, compared with other parts of their 
range. It is becoming increasingly apparent, however, that the incidental take of dugongs in gill nets in 
Australia is ecologically unsustainable and socially unacceptable. Gill net mortality has been recorded 
from all parts of the dugongs range in Australia (Marsh et al. 1996). 
The gill net problem is not new. In the early 1980's Marsh (1985) assembled some reliable data an dugong 
deaths in gill nets. She wrote: 
"Dugongs are killed incidentally in the inshore gill-net fisheries of northern Australia. 
Reports of this incidental take give cause for concern, but it has not been possible to obtain 
precise figures. An informant involved in fisheries research, who interviewed fishermen along 
the west coast of Cape York in 1980, reported that 17 professional barramundi fishermen each 
caught between five and ten dugongs per year. One operator working on a seagrass bed in a 
river estuary allegedly accidentally caught 23 dugongs in one net before he removed his nets. 
Mr Rod Garrett (Northern Fisheries Research Centre) reported that in the first 19 days of the 
1982 commercial barramundi netting season, five of 40 operators at Karumba in the Gulf of 
Carpentaria had each caught one dugong; two of these five animals drowned. Over the period 
March 1979 to March 1983, Queensland Fisheries Research Branch personnel set gill nets over a 
total of 135 nights in the Princess Charlotte Bay, Bathurst Bay, Ninian Bay region. Eleven 
dugongs were caught 
	 When one considers this anecdotal information in the perspective of the 
recent growth of the barramundi fishery, the implications for dugong populations are extremely 
worrying." (Marsh 1985, p 497-8). 
In more recent times there have been a couple of events that have focussed attention on the gill netting 
problem. In 1995 some 36 dugongs were drowned in one gill net being operated by commercial 
barramundi netters near the mouth of the Wearyan River near Borroloola in the southwest Gulf of 
Carpentaria This carnage occurred over approximately 10 days. Photographs and video of these animals 
are available. This incident recently went to court in Darwin. Although the fishers admitted killing some 
dugongs in the net, and the magistrate found a prima facie case, the case was thrown out on a technicality. 
This event received regional and national media coverage in the press and on radio. 
In response to this event, and local outrage, the Northern Territory Fishing Industry Council proposed a 
netting closure in the area to minimise dugong mortality. Recognising that this proposal was primarily a 
public relations exercise because it proposed to close areas that are not used by commercial barramundi 
fishermen, the Traditional Owners of the area have proposed a much more extensive and meaningful gill 
net closure, which has been endorsed by dugong experts (Northern Territory News 20/9/96). 
Also in 1995, there was a spate of gill net related dugong deaths in Shoalwater Bay (100km north of 
Rockhampton). Some 13 carcasses were found over a short period. Some stranded, some were found tied 
to mangroves up small creeks and some evisceratedcarcasses were actually found on the bottom of the bay 
2 
in clear water. Shoalwater Bay is the most important dugong habitat along the central Queensland coast 
and the dugong population had fallen by approximately 350 animals (47%) in just eight years (Marsh et al 
1995a). As the Shoalwater area has no major catchments draining into it, has no grazing and no industry, 
and as there has been no Aboriginal hunting of dugongs in the area for 100 years, it was difficult not to 
conclude that commercial gill netting, which is common in the area, has been responsible for this 
population decline. Consequently, as a result of public reaction and media coverage, a partial ban on gill 
netting was implemented under the Queensland Fisheries Act. 
The listing of gill netting as a key threatening process will require a Precautionary approach, as in most 
situations it is difficult to prove, beyond doubt, that gill netting is threatening dugong populations. There 
are two reasons for this: there are insufficient data on dugong population trends, and; there are few data 
on dugong mortality in gill nets. 
Approximately 65% of the dugongs range in Australia has never been surveyed or has been surveyed only 
once (Marsh et al. 1996). In this huge region (from Torres Strait to Exmouth Gulf in WA), it is impossible 
to know whether dugong populations are stable or in decline. Only in Shark Bay and Ningaloo/Exmouth 
(Western Australia), Moreton Bay (southeast Queensland) and perhaps off eastern Cape York Peninsula 
have repeat aerial surveys indicated tii elagong populations are not declining (Preen et al. in press; Preen 
and Marsh 1995; Marsh et al 1993). In the region between Cooktown and Hervey Bay (approximately 
75% of the length of the Great Father Reef Marine Park), where three surveys have been conducted, the 
dugong populations have declined by 50%-80% in less than eight years (Marsh et al. 1995a). Dugongs in 
this region are now considered to be Critically Endangered (Marsh et al. 1995a). Gill nets were 
identified in this study as one of the factors most likely to be responsible for this decline. Evidence from 
Aboriginal elders along the coast, and from shark meshing records suggest that these surveys have 
only measured the tail-end of the decline, and that the decline actually started about 20 years ago. Some 
commercial fishermen have attributed the decline to the replacement of cotton and twine gill nets with 
much stronger and less visible synthetic gill nets 15-16 years ago. 
There are few data on gill net mortality because gill net fishers do not report bycatch mortality and most 
netting operations in dugong habitat occur in relatively to very remote areas where there are no people to 
report carcasses that strand or are seen in nets. 
Furthermore, fishers take active measures to dispose of carcasses. Fishers typically eviscerate dugong 
carcasses to release the buoyant guts. With the guts removed the carcasses sink and do not refloat. This 
practice is widely known and is admitted by fishers. On some occasions, however, the evisceration is 
incomplete and mutilated carcasses do come ashore. The proportion that does eventually strand is 
unknown, but it is expected to be very low.  Hence, any statistics on gill net mortality that are based on  
stranded mutilated carcasses are likely to greatly underestimate the problem.  
This nomination of gill netting as a key threatening process is likely to be criticised by fishing industry 
organisations and fisheries management agencies, especially in the Northern Territory and Western 
Australia where there are relatively few data. It is a fact, however, that these organisations cannot even 
begin to assemble credible estimates of marine mammal mortality in inshore gill nets. 
The best data set on dugong mortality probably comes from Hervey Bay, in southeast Queensland, where 
reasonable records have been kept since 1983. There are good data from this location because (1) it had a 
large dugong population in a relatively discrete area (Preen and Marsh, 1995); (2) the coastal morphology, 
relative to the dugong habitat and winds, is favourable for the collection of carcasses; (3) the area has 
a very vigilant local human population that reports carcasses (see later); and (4) the local Queensland 
Boating and Fisheries Patrol office has, until recently, been required under law to investigate and record 
carcasses reported to them. Even in Moreton Bay, with the nearby population of Brisbane, does not have 
comparable data as the dugongs are on the opposite side of the Bay to the people, and many 
carcasses wash out to sea. In Townsville, where biologists have been salvaging dugong carcasses for 25 
3 
Tfr' it) 
years, most records come from urban beaches. Carcasses that strand along most of the coast have a very 
low chance of being reported. 
In Hervey Bay 67% of all stranded dugong carcasses can be attributed to gill nets (based primarily on 
mutilations such as slit bellies, cut-off tails etc). These data exclude carcasses related to the 1992-3 die-off 
that resulted from the loss of 1000 km2 of seagrass (Preen and Marsh, 1995). Of the 33% of stranded 
carcasses that resulted from unknown causes, it is likely that a significant proportion were also due to gill 
nets, as the signs of gill-nets only last a matter of hours post-mortem (unless the carcass is mutilated). It is 
possible to further resolve this possibility because in November 1988 the gill netting regulations in Hervey 
Bay were amended in an effort to reduce dugong mortality (see below). The rate of gill-net related deaths 
(number/month) fell by 53% following the change in regulations (see below), suggesting that the changes 
were beneficial. However, the rate of deaths due to unknown causes also fell by 49% over the same 
period. These data strongly suggest that in the order of 88% of carcasses that strand in 
Hervey Bay are attributable to gill nets. 
Over the past three months (June-September 1996) 11 dugongs, are known to have died in the 
Townsville-Mackay region. Eight of these deaths can definitely be attributed to gill nets. Annualizing this 
rate of gill net mortality suggests that gill nets are killing 8.3'iO
- ufthe dugong population in this region 
(total population of approximately 385; Marsh et al. 1995). Although it is possible that this three month 
mortality rate may not continue all year, it is certain that only a small proportion of netted dugongs 
are ever reported, and that more than eight of these 11 cases were related to gill nets. Hence, the estimate 
of 8.3% mortality is likely to be very conservative. Due to their low reproductive potential, dugong 
populations are likely to decline if human-induced mortality exceeds 1-2% of females (Marsh et al. 1984). 
Gill netting in this region is clearly not ecologically sustainable and threatens the very survival of this 
dugong population. 
Despite the evidence that gill netting is a threat to dugong populations, some fishing industry 
representatives continue to deny that gill netting mortality of dugongs is anything but a rare occurrence. 
The most recent example occurred on 26/9/96 on ABC radio. The Vice President of the Queensland 
Commercial Fishertnans Organisation maintained that dugongs rarely get caught in gill nets, and T;vh e n 
they do they are usually released alive. He also suggested that a recent dugong carcass found on Magnetic 
Island with knife gashes to the stomach had been hit by a boat. On the same day a gill net fisher admitted 
that he had drowned and subsequently slashed this dugong (Townsville Bulletin 27/9/96). 
a name for this threatening process: 
Gill-netting 
any species listed in Schedule 1 to the Act and any ecological communities listed in Schedule 2 to 
the Act that are considered by the person or persons making the nomination to be adversely affected 
by the threatening process: 
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) (E) 
Pacific Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) (V) 
Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) (V)) 
Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) (V) 
Leathery Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) (V) 
any species or ecological communities, other than those referred to in paragraph (c) that could 
become endangered or vulnerable, as the case may be, because of the threatening process: 
Dugong (Dugong dugon) 
Irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) 
Humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis) 
4 
Estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) 
Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus) 
(e) the reasons why the preparation of a nationally co-ordinated threat abatement plan is considered 
to be an effective and efficient means of abating the threatening process by the persons making the 
nomination: 
This submission deals primarily with the threat of gill netting to dugong populations. It is believed that 
gill nets pose an equally serious threat to tropical inshore cetaceans. However, there are virtually no data 
on the populations of these species and evidence of their decline is anecdotal. In addition, turtles are 
known to be caught and sometimes drowned in such nets, though for the purposes of this submission, our 
evidence is primarily anecdotal. 
What can and can't be done 
Most fishing-related marine mammal mortalities in the US occur in gill nets (MMPA 1995). Under the 
Marine Mammal Exemption Program, which was established by a 1988 amendment to the Marine 
Marlin-al Protection Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service is required to classify fisheries according 
to their interactions with marine mammals. The NMFS publishes an annual List of Fisheries which lists 
the classification of each fishery. The classification is based on the rate, in numbers of animals per year, 
of serious injuries and mortalities due to commercial fishing relative to the Potential Biological Removal 
level (PRD) for each marine mammal stock. PRO is defined as the maximum number of animals that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum 
sustainable population. The classification of fisheries relies on data collected from observer programs, 
from fisher's logbooks and from stranding data. Of these the observers provide the most reliable data 
(MMPA 1995). 
It would be impossible to manage Australia's gill net fisheries along these lines. Although we have good 
data on the PRD for dugongs (1-2%), the data on mortalities comes only from strandings. Any 
expectations that improved data could be obtained by requiring fishers to record marine mammal bycatch 
are naive. Fishers know the implications of the mortality they are causing. Hence, any logbook data on 
marine mammal bycatch, that are not independently validated, are likely to be misleading (Robbins, 
1995). An observer program is required to validate such data and to get accurate estimates of dugong and 
tropical dolphin mortality. However, an observer program will never be feasible in the Australian fisheries 
that catch these species. There are two reasons for this: 
1. 	 The barramundi and mackerel fisheries that catch dugongs are more akin to artisanal 
fisheries than to the large industrial fisheries of the US. The fishing is generally done 
by individuals or small teams of 2-3 fishers. Most operators have a low level of 
capitalisation and operate from small boats. They operate independent of one and other. They 
operate out of a large number of ports, towns and hamlets, and they operate over most of the vast 
tropical coastline of Australia. To quote the Chairman of the Queensland Fisheries Management 
Authority: "In many respects it is one of the State's most exotic fishery (sic) characterised by 
harsh climatic conditions, independent yet community minded people and stretching 
remoteness." (QFMA 1996a, p V). Net fishers are generally allowed to fish anywhere they 
choose, when they choose. In this sense there is virtually no management. To get meaningful 
data from an observer program would require a large number of observers if a statistically 
meaningful number of operators are to be sampled. Observers would need to be attached to an 
operator for an extended period if typical fishing activity was to be sampled. Observers would 
often need to provide their own boat as many operators would not have room in their small net 
boats for an observer. 
5 
(p , 
2. 	 The gill net fisheries do not have the financial value to justify the expense of an observer 
program. Tropical gill net fisheries are worth relatively little money. For example the 
Queensland Gulf Fishery has an annual value of $5.7M which gives an average annual gross 
income of only 51,800 to the 110 licensed netters. There is no fat in this fishery to support an 
observer program. In the Northern Territory, where the fishery is better managed (excluding 
bycatch considerations), the number of netters has been reduced to 28, but still the fishery is 
worth only $3.5M/year. 
The combination of these factors - the large number of dispersed individual fishers operating in remote 
areas, and the low value of the fishery - seems to have resulted in a history of minimal management and 
enforcement. Many of these fisheries have been conducted in the absence of basic data on the target 
species, let alone impacts on bycatch species. To quote the Queensland Fisheries Management 
Authority's recent discussion paper on the Queensland Gulf of Carpentaria Inshore Finfish Fishery: 
"Without exception, biological information is lacking about the condition of Gulf populations of 
any fish species, and whether or not fish stocks truly can sustain the demands being imposed by fishery 
harvest." (QFMA 1996a, p 17). Under such a management regime, management agencies could hardly 
justify a large and expensive enforcement capacity. Consequently, enforcement of netting regulations is 
not known for its rigor or frequency. This is a product not only of the dispersed and individualist nature of 
the fishery, but also because most netting occurs at night and in shallow inshore waters. The need to work 
at night in small boats in shallow, unfamiliar waters, in the presence of crocodiles and mosquitos tends to 
be a disincentive to many enforcement officers. Combine this situation with the fact that it is not illegal to 
catch dugongs and dolphins in nets, no matter how threatened they may be, and it is not hard to see 
that efforts to enhance enforcement are unlikely to solve the problem of gill nets and dugongs. Other 
approaches are required. 
In some locations overseas the solution has been the outright banning of gill nets. Gill nets are banned in 
Florida and Texas, while in California, Louisiana and Mississippi there are partial bans or there are 
initiatives for full bans. These bans have resulted from public disquiet with the level of bycatch associated 
with gill nets. 
There is only one small location along the Australian coastline where gill nets have been banned because 
of their dugong bycatch. In Shoalvvater Bay gill nets are no longer allowed to be set on the seagrass banks 
adjacent to the shore. However, nets are allowed to be set in the creeks and mangrove channels, and drift 
nets are allowed in the deeper water of the bay (Gibbs 1995). In the 12 months since this ban was enacted, 
surveillance by the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol and Marine Parks has be unprecedented. 
However, this has not deterred fishers and illegal nets continue to be set and dugongs continue to die in 
gill nets in Shoalwater Bay. 
There is only one location where gill netting practices have been changed by regulation in an effort to 
reduce dugong mortality. In the late 1980s local outrage at ongoing dugong deaths in gill nets forced the 
Department of Primary Industries to enact specific fisheries regulations for Hervey Bay. The mesh size 
and monofilament strength of nets was reduced to increase the likelihood that dugongs could break 
through nets, and the hours when fishers could set nets were altered to prevent netting in the late 
afternoon and night when the dugongs move into shallow water to feed (Fisheries Regulations 
1995). In the 63 months from September 1983 to December 1988, when the regulations were changed, 
there were 30xecorded dugong deaths in Hervey Bay. Of these 23 were attributable to gill nets and 7 were 
due to unknown causes. In the 57 months from January 1989 to October 1983 (by which time most 
dugongs had left the bay due to the loss of seagrass [Preen and Marsh 1995]) there were 13 recorded 
deaths (excluding those related to the seagrass die-off), of which 10 were attributable to gill nets. Hence, 
the rate of gill net deaths (number/month) decreased by about 53% following the change in regulations. 
This is a significant rate reduction, and the change in regulations can claim some success. However, 
 there 
are three im..rtant ..ints that rule out the ..ssibili of these chan es bein more universall • !Plied to 
solve the dugong bycatch problem.  
6 
Vw(p. /a) 
Throughout the dugong's range in Australia there is no location where the general public keeps 
vigilant watch over the commercial fishers as in Hervey Bay. There are several small 
communities around the edge of southwest Hervey Bay where the main dugong habitat occurs. 
These communities are populated primarily by retirees who spend a lot of time on the water 
fishing or walking the beaches. Hervey Bay is also a mecca for recreational fishers from 
southeast Queensland and beyond, so there are always lots of people on the water. These people 
form a very efficient surveillance network. Hence, there is little scope for commercial fishers to 
disregard the fisheries regulations, so there is a uniquely high level of compliance. No other 
significant dugong habitat in Australia can boast surveillance comparable to Hervey Bay, and this 
surveillance has nothing to do with the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol. 
The netting in Hervey Bay is for mackerel and smaller fish. Hence, it is possible to use smaller 
mesh, lighter strain nets (mesh size as small as 88 mm with a monofilament diameter of not 
more than 0.65 mm [Fisheries Regulations 1995]). However, most of the netters in most of the 
dugong's range primarily target barramundi, and they require much larger, stronger nets. The 
Queensland Gulf net fishery mandates a mesh size of 162.5 mm (QFMA 1996b) while the 
Northern Territory Barramundi Management Plan dictates a mesh size of not less than 150 mm 
with a monofilament diameter of not more than 1.17 nun (Dept. Primary Industries and Fisheries 
1991). 
The dugong population of the Hervey Bay region decreased from 2206 (+1-420) in 1988 to 600 
(+1-126) in 1993 due to the loss of seagrass habitat (Preen and Marsh 1995). If this population is 
to recover, all human related mortality must be minimised. Hence, the ongoing dugong deaths in 
gill nets in Hervey Bay, although half what they were, are unacceptable. Given that dugong 
populations throughout 75% of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park have suffered a decline of 
50-80% (Marsh et al.1995a), the survival of every dugong is important and any gill net mortality 
is unacceptable. 
 The stated management aim of the GBRMPA in this region is to "reduce 
unnatural loss to zero" (GBRMPA briefing notes for conservation group forum, April 1996). 
The solution to the gill net bycatch problem will rest with the large-scale banning of gill nets. As a matter 
of urgency large sanctuary areas must be created where dugongs and inshore dolphins will be protected 
from netting and other threats. However, this may not be enough. The very large home ranges of dugongs, 
plus the fact that dugongs move along the entire tropical coastline of Australia will mean that 
large-mesh gill netting must be banned throughout the dugong's Australian range. 
It is encouraging to see that this has been realised in some sections of the industry, and that alternatives to 
gill nets are now being considered. In response to media about the death and mutilation of a large healthy 
lactating female dugong on Magnetic Island in September 1996, the fisherman responsible pointed out 
that fish traps would be an ecological alternative to gill nets. The Chairman of the Queensland Fisheries 
Management Authority was quoted as being supportive of this idea, saying "I think that the point he's 
making is perhaps we should look at environmentally-friendly apparatus, which Shows a bit of lateral 
thinking and being positive. ... if someone wanted to put in an exploratory permit to undertake the 
activity, we'd have a look at it." (Townsville Bulletin 27/9/96). 
All efforts of management agencies should now be directed at rationalising gill net fisheries (the East 
Coast Queensland Fishery has ridiculous latent potential, with over 1,000 licensed operators) while at the 
same time developing ecologically acceptable alternatives to gill nets. 
Final comments 
There can be no doubting that gill netting is a key threatening process to dugongs along the 2,000 km 
coastline of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park south of Cooktown. There are few data to establish the 
extent to which gill netting is currently 
 a key threatening process in other areas. Logically, however, 
7 
events in the central and southern section of the Great Barrier Reef coast, where pressures on dugong 
populations are greatest (due to greater human population) should be viewed as a harbinger of 
events in other areas. 
If Australia is to maintain large and viable dugong populations, and it is apparent that this may only 
happen in Australia, then a precautionary approach to their management will be required. It is just too 
difficult to collect the data to do otherwise in an appropriate time-frame. The first action should be to 
declare gill netting as a key threatening process. 
Gill nets, as operated by the Australian fishing industry, threatens, at minimum, the species listed in 
sections (c) and (d) above. Only through nationally coordinated efforts of Commonwealth and state 
agencies responsible for both marine conservation and the fisheries management, can programs be 
implemented to reduce, and eventually eliminate, dugong, sea turtle and other marine species bycatch. 
The preparation and implementation of a nationally coordinated threat abatement plan is, in the view of 
the nominating organisation, a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process of decline. 
(0 references to any scientific literature that supports the other information given in the 
nomination: 
Cockcroft, V. G., R. V. Salm, and T. P. Dutton. 1994. The status of dugongs in the western Indian ocean. 
In First International Manatee and Dugong Research Conference, 11-13 March 1994. Gainesville, 
Florida_ 
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. 1991. Northern Territory Barramundi Fishery 
Management Plan. Fisheries Division 1 February 1991. 
Dutton, P. 1994. Past and present status of dugong, Dugong dugon, in the Bazaruto archipelago and other 
known habitats on the Mocambique coast. In First International Manatee and Dugong Research 
Conference, 11-13 March 1994. Gainesville, Florida. 
Fisheries Regulation 1995. Queensland Subordinate Legislation 1995 No. 325. Fisheries Act 1994. 
Gibbs, B. 1995. Goverment protects dugongs in Shoalwater Bay. Media release by the Minister for 
Primary Industries issued on 22 September 1995. 
Gohar, H. A. F. 1957. The Red Sea dugong. Publications of the Marine Biological Station Al Ghardaqa 
(Red Sea) 9:3-49. 
Heinsohn, G. E. 1972. A study of dugongs (Dugong dugon) in northern Queensland, Australia. 
Biological Conservation 4:205-213. 
Hudson, B. E. T. 1981. Interview and aerial survey data in relation to resource management of the dugong 
in Manus Province, Papua New Guinea. Bulletin of Marine Science 31:662-672. 
Hughes, G. R, and R. Oxley-Oxland. 1971. A survey of dugong (Dugong dugon) in and around Antonio 
Enes, Northern Mozambique. Biological Conservation 3:299-301. 
Husar, S. L. 1978. Dugong dugon. Mammalian Species 88:1-7. 
IUCN. 1990. 1990 IUCN Red list of threatened animals: IUCN-World Conservation Union, Gland, 
Switzerland, 192 pp. 
IUCN. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, 21 
pp. 
Jarman, P. J. 1966. The status of the dugong Dugong dugon (Mueller); Kenya, 1961. East African 
 
Wildlife Journal 4:82-88. 
Jones, S. 1980. The dugong or the so-called mermaid, Dugong dugon (Mueller) of the Indo-Sri Lankan 
waters - problems of research and conservation. Spolia Zeylanica 35:223-260. 
Lal Mohan, R. S. 1976. Some observations on the sea cow, Dugong dugon from the Gulf of Mannar and 
Palk Bay during 1971-1975. Pages 1-6 in Proceedings of the 63rd All India Science Congress, 3-7 
January 1976, Waltair, India. 
Leatherwood, S., and R. R. Reeves (eds.). 1991. Marine mammal research and conservation in Sri Lanka 
1985-1986, Marine Mammal Technical Report Number 1, 2nd ed. United Nations Environment 
Program, Nairobi, Kenya,138 pp. 
8 
(p 
) 
Lipkin, Y. 1975. Food of the Red Sea Dugong (Mammalia: Sirenia) from Sinai. Israel Journal of Zoology 
24:81-98. 
Marsh, H. 1985. The importance of marine parks for the management of dugongs in Australian waters. 
Pages 495-502 in Proceedings of a Symposium on Endangered Marine Animals and Marine Parks, 
January 1985, Cochin, India. 
Marsh, H, P. Corkeron, B. Breen and N. Morissette. 1996. The Dugong Dugong dugon. An Action Plan 
for its Conservation in Australia. Draft report to ANCA. 
Marsh, H., P. Corkeron, I. R. Lawler, J. M. Lanyon, and A. R. Preen. 1995a. The status of the dugong in 
the southern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 
Authority. 
Marsh, H., G. E. Heinsohn, and L. M. Marsh. 1984. Breeding cycle, life history and population dynamics 
of the dugong, Dugong dugon (Sirertia:Dugongidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 
 32:767-788. 
Marsh, H, D. Kwan, and I. Lawler (1993). The status of dugongs, sea turtles and dolphins in the northern 
Great Barrier Reef region. Report to GBRMPA. 
Marsh, H., and L. W. Lefebvre. 1994. Sirenian status and conservation efforts. Aquatic Mammals 
0.3:155-170. 
Marsh, H., G. B. Rathbun, T. J. O'Shea, and A. R. Preen. 1995b. Can dugongs survive in Palau? 
Biological Conservation 
 72:85-89. 
MMPA Bulletin. 1995. Bulletin of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. February 1995. 
Nair, R. V., R. S. L. Mohan, and K. S. Rao. 1975. The dugong Dugong dugon. Bulletin of the 
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute 
 26:1-43. 
Northern Territory News. 1996. Gulf dugong plans start war of words. 20/9/96 
Paterson, R. A. 1990. Effects of long-term anti-shark measures on target and non- target 
species in Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation  52:147-159. 
Preen, A. 1989. Dugongs Vol. 1. The status and conservation of dugongs in the Arabian Region, Report 
No. 10 MEPA Coastal and Marine Management Series. Meteorological and Environmental 
Protection Administration, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 200 pp. 
Preen, T. 1994 Mutilation of dugongs hurts fishermen. The Queensland Fisherman January1994, p 32. 
Preen, A. R., and H. Marsh. 1995. Response of dugongs to large-scale loss of seagrass from Hervey Bay, 
Queensland, Australia Wildlife Research 
 22:507.-519. 
Preen, A. R., H. Marsh, I. R. Lawler, R. Shepherd, and R. I. T. Prince, in press. Winter distribution and 
abundance of dugongs, turtles, dolphins and other megafauna in Shark Bay, Ningaloo Reef and 
• Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. Wildlife Research. 
QFMA. 1996a. Queensland Gulf of Carpentaria Inshore Finfish Fishery. Discussion Paper No. 1. 
Queensland Fiseries Management Authority. 
QFMA. 1996b. New management Plans for Gulf Fishery. Queensland Fiseries Management Authority 
Media Release 31/7/96. 
Robbins, J. D. 1995. Estimated catch and mortality of marine turtles from the East Coast Otter Trawl 
Fishery off Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 74: 157-167. 
Robineau, D., and J. M. Rose. 1982. Le dugong (Dugong dugon (Mueller, 1776) Sirenia, Dugongidae) en 
Republique de Djibouti. Biological Conservation 24:233-238. 
Snow, D. W. 1970. The eastern Indian Ocean islands: a summary of their geography, fauna and flora. 
IUCN Publ. N.S. Morges 17:212-223. 
Stoddart, D. R. 1972. Pinrtipecis or sirenians at western Indian Ocean islands? Journal of Zoology 
167:207-217. 
Townsville Bulletin. 1996. Fish traps seen as dugongs' life saver. 27/9/96. 
Vine, P., and H. Schmid. 1987. Red Sea Explorers. Immel Publishing, London, 206 pp. 
Wamukoya, G. M., J. M. Iviirangi, and W. K. Ottichillo. 1995. Aerial survey of sea turtles, marine 
mammals and fishing activities within the Kenyan marine environment. Report by the Kenya 
Wildlife Service, 59 pp. 
9 
Declaration to accompany nominations: 
The nominees declare that the information included in this nomination is correct to the best of our 
knowledge. 
10 
7-0), 16) 
Nomination of the Dugong (Dugong dugon) for Schedule 1, Part 1,of the 
Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 
The following information follows the requirements for nominations specified in 
the Endangered Species Protection Regulations 1993, Part 2, s.4(1), under the 
provisions of Section 25 of the Act. 
the scientific name (if any) of the species: 
Dugong dugon 
any common name, or names, by which the species is known to the person or 
persons making the nomination: 
Dugong 
not applicable 
in the case of an animal species - whether the species is a vertebrate or a non-
vertebrate animal: 
Vertebrate 
not applicable 
the Part of the Schedule for which listing of the species is nominated: 
Schedule 1, Part 1 - Species that are Endangered 
the reasons why the species is considered to be endangered, vulnerable or 
presumed extinct within the meaning of section 6, 7 or 8 of the Act by the person 
or persons making the nomination: 
Internationally, the dugong is currently listed as Vulnerable (IUCN,
- 1990 &1994), 
although its status has not been reviewed for several years, and the data base on the 
dugong, and the categories of threatened species have now changed substantially. 
The dugong's range spans the tropical and sub-tropical rim of the Indian Ocean and 
extends into the south-west Pacific: from Mozambique and Madagascar to the head of 
the Red Sea and east to Brisbane and Vanuatu (Husar 1978; Nishiwald et al., 1979; 
Nishiwaki and Marsh 1985). Over much of this range dugongs are now believed to 
occur as isolated populations separated by large areas where they are all but extinct 
(Husar 1978; Nishiwald and Marsh 1985). Dugongs appear to have been exterminated 
by hunting from a number of Indian Ocean archipelagos, including the Mascarene, 
Laccadive, Chagos, Nicobar, Barren, Narcondom, Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas 
Islands (Husar 1978; Snow 1970; Stoddart 1972). 
1 
7-) 
The abundance of dugongs has been determined by quantitative aerial surveys along 
the Saudi Arabian coast of the Red Sea and the western and southern areas of the 
Arabian Gulf (Preen, 1989), Shark Bay and Ningaloo/Exmouth in Western Australia 
(Preen et al.,1995a), the Northern Territory (Bayliss and Freeland, 1989), around the 
Wellesley Islands area Tories Strait (Marsh and Lefebvre, 1994), the northern (Marsh 
and Saalfeld, 1989) and southern (Marsh et al., 1995a) Great Barrier Reef and Hervey 
Bay and Moreton Bay in southern Queensland (Preen and Marsh 1995). Population 
estimates sum to approximately 85,000 in surveyed areas of Australia, and 8,000 in the 
Arabian region. Systematic surveys have also been conducted along the Kenyan coast 
(Wamukoya et al., 1995), in part of Mozambique (Dutton 1994), and in Palau (Marsh 
et al., 1995b), although the low number of sightings, or the survey design prevent the 
calculation of population estimates. Although dugongs are legally protected in many 
countries, there is generally little enforcement and dugongs are still widely hunted and 
netted. Hunting is still common in Australia (Marsh and Lefebvre 1994), Papua New 
Guinea (Hudson 1981) and Palau (Marsh et aL, 1995b), but has apparently declined in 
the eastern Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf (Preen 1989) and east Africa (Jarman 1966; 
Wamukoya et al., 1995), largely because dugongs are now too rare to justify active 
hunting. In most areas direct hunting now seems to be less of a threat than the take of 
dugongs in gill nets, which are extremely abundant in coastal waters throughout the 
dugong's range. 
Deliberate or incidental netting of dugongs has been reported from Mozambique 
(Hughes and Oxley-Oxland 1971; Cockcroft et al., 1994; Dutton, 1994), Kenya 
(Jarman 1966; Cockcroft et al., 1994; Wamukoya et al., 1995), Djibouti (Robineau and 
Rose 1982), Sudan (Vine and Schmid 1987), Egypt (Gohar 1957), Israel (Lipkin 
1975), Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (Preen 
1989), India (Nair et al., 1975; La! Mohan 1976; Jones 1980), Sri Lanka (Jones 1980; 
Leatherwood and Reeves 1991) and Australia (Heinsohn 1972; Marsh 1985; Paterson 
1990). Large trawl nets also take dugongs in some areas (Wamukoya et al., 1994). 
Due to their low reproductive potential, dugong populations are likely to decline if 
human - induced mortality exceeds 1-2% of females (Marsh et al., 1984). On this basis, 
over-hunting is occurring in Torres Strait (Marsh and Lefebvre, 1994) and in Palau 
(Marsh et al., 1995b). Similarly, gill-net mortality, estimated from interview surveys of 
fishermen, is a threat to dugong populations in the southern Red Sea (south-west 
Saudi Arabia and Yemen), and the southern Arabian Gulf (Qatar and the United Arab 
Emirates; Preen, 1989). Although gill net mortality has not been quantified in 
Australia (but see Marsh, 1985 for some alarming data), gill netting is seen as a threat 
to dugong populations (Marsh et al., 1995a). 
This nomination of the dugong as an Endangered species is guided by IUCNs recent 
and detailed analysis of threatened species categories (IUCN, 1994). Those new 
threatened species categories are the result of more than five years of continual 
drafting, consultation and validation by IUCNs world-wide network of scientists and 
managers, including its Species Survival Commission, which is comprised of 
specialists actively working on nearly all taxa. 
One of the strengths of the IUCN categories, which is not explicitly reflected in the 
Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, is that they take into account life history 
characteristics. This is particularly important in the case of the dugong, which is a 
2 
7(p. le) 
long-lived (Marsh, 1980), slow-breeding species (Marsh et al., 1984). While declines in 
this species can occur rapidly due to hunting, netting or other causes of mortality 
(Marsh et al., 1995a; Preen and Marsh, 1995), any recovery will inevitably be very 
slow. The IUCN categories can accommodate this slow response by assessing the 
conservation status of a species in terms of its generation time. 
Using the IUCN criteria, a taxon can be considered Endangered when it has suffered 
an observed, estimated, inferred or suspected reduction of at least 50% over the last 
three generations (or 10 years, whichever is longer). Furthermore, a taxon can be 
considered Endangered if a decline of 50% is projected or suspected during the next 
three generations. 
Dugongs do not become sexually mature until they are 9-17 years old and can live to 
at least 70 years of age. They are likely to have a generation time (average age of 
parents in th?_population; IUCN, 1994) of about 40 years. Hence, three generations 
will span a period in excess of 100 years. 
While there are few hard data on dugong population sizes, and fewer on trends, 
virtually every author to assess the status of the dugong over a substantial part of its 
range has concluded that its conservation prospects are bleak. In so doing, they have 
inferred or implied a decline equivalent to 50% over the previous 100 years (Baldwin 
and Cockcroft, 1995; Bertram and Bertram, 1973; Cockcroft, 1995; Husar, 1978; 
IUCN, 1990; Jones, 1980; MarsCand Lefebvre, 1994; Marsh et al., 1995a; Nishiwald 
and Marsh 1985; Nishiwaki et al., 1979; Preen, 1989; Wamukoya et al., 1995). 
Population reduction can be based on a number of factors other than measured 
population decline (IUCN, 1994). Other parameters include a decline in the extent of 
occurrence (range) or a decline in the area of occupancy (occupied area of range; 
IUCN, 1994). The extinction of dugong populations from many island regions (see 
above), and their impending extinction in Palau (Marsh et al., 1995b) is graphic 
evidence of a reduction in their extent of occurrence. The very extensive recent survey 
of Kenya (Wamukoya et al., 1994) has demonstrated a substantial reduction in the area 
of occupancy, compared with the dugong's previous distribution. 
Only in parts of Australia have repeat aerial surveys been able to establish some trend • 
data on dugong populations. In the area where most data are available (three surveys), 
a population decline of more than 50% has occurred along 2,000 km of the 
Queensland coastine in less than eight years (Marsh et al., 1995a). Over most of this 
area, the decline has been in the order of 80%. Furthermore, there is evidence from 
other sources that this decline commenced many years before the surveys started, so 
the actual decline is likely to be considerably greater. Dugongs in the Great Barrier 
Reef region south of Cooktown are now considered to be Critically Endangered 
• (Marsh et al., 1995a). In Hervey Bay, the dugong population dropped from 
approximately 2,200 in 1988 to 600 in 1993 (Preen and Marsh, 1995) following the 
large-scale loss of seagrasses (Preen et al., 1995b). In Torres Strait the number of 
dugongs killed each year (>1200 in the early 1990's; Harris et al., 1994 cited in Marsh 
and Lefebvre, 1994) is almost certainly unsustainable. In contrast, the dugong 
populations in Shark Bay/Ningaloo (Preen et al., 1995a) and Moreton Bay (Preen and 
Marsh, 1995) appear to be stable. However, the majority of the Australian coastline 
that is within the dugong's range has not been surveyed, or has been surveyed only 
3 
once. There is evidence that dugong populations in some of these areas are under 
considerable pressures from gill nets and hunting (Marsh, 1985; Sullivan, 1995). 
Although catastrophic environmental change can have a serious impact on dugong 
populations (Preen and Maish, 1995), gill nets and hunting are the factors most 
, commonly implicated in dugong deaths in Australia (Marsh et al., 1995a). It is difficult 
to imagine that mortality resulting from these factors is likely to decline in the future. 
Commercial fisher's organisations in Queensland and the Northern Territory deny that 
significant numbers of dugongs are killed in nets and are not prepared to make serious 
concessions to conservation. Ironically both the Queensland Commercial Fishermans 
Organisation and the Northern Territory Fishing Industry Council have, by their 
actions conceded their role in dugong declines. The QCFO voted to partially ban set 
gill nets in Shoalwater Bay following a spate of dugong deaths and bad publicity in 
1995 (Gibbs, 1995). The NTFIC released a strategy to minimise the capture of 
dugongs in gill nets following the charging of two commercial fishermen in relation to 
the deaths of some 36 dugongs over a short period in the south western Gulf of 
Carpentaria in 1995 (Palmer and NTFIC, 1996). This strategy makes much of a 
proposed barramundi netting closure to reduce the accidental capture of dugongs. The 
area proposed for closure, however, is not fished for barramwidi, which cast a question 
mark over the sincerity of the effort. 
In Queensland there are over 1000 licensed gill net fishers along the eastern shoreline, 
and over 100 along the western coast. These fishers can use up to 14 different types of 
nets and can roam all over the State at will. Consequently, there is virtually no 
management of netting activities. Furthermore, much netting occurs in remote areas 
where there is virtually no surveillance, and even in areas where patrols are routine, 
they do not work at night or in the shallow waters where set netting occurs. As a 
result, it seems that the strategy may be more about public relations than about 
reducing dugong mortality. Experienced netters eviscerate dead dugongs (to release 
gases) and sink them in deep water, so relatively few carcasses are ever found. Even if 
there is some concession from the fishing industry and the amount of gill netting is 
reduced, at least in important dugong habitat (and there is NO reason to believe that 
this will happen), then it is likely that any reduction in gill net mortality will be 
exceeded by an increase in Indigenous hunting. Section 211 of the Native Title Act 
(1993), which overrides other Commonwealth legislation, allows indigenous peoples 
to hunt. There is no provision in that Act to limit hunting where threatened species are 
involved, or to limit the areas where hunting can occur. Hence, Torres Strait Islanders 
living along the Queensland coast (where half the population lives) are free to hunt 
dugong, despite a lack of traditional association with the area, and despite the 
Critically Endangered status of dugongs in that area. With the exception of a few areas 
where dugongs are now so rare as to not justify the effort of hunting (eg Bowen, 
Mossaman), Indigenous hunting in Queensland is increasing. 
Of the 50 countries that claim part of the dugong's range, only Australia is developed. 
Australia is viewed as the dugong's stronghold, and critical for the survival of the 
species (Bertram and Bertram, 1973; Marsh and Lefebvre, 1994). Dugong populations 
have suffered a catastrophic decline in eastern Queensland in recent years. To date no 
action has been taken to arrest that decline. Because the main factors contributing to 
the decline are believed to be gill netting and hunting, and because of the very real 
4 
difficulties in modifying practices in both these areas, the future of dugongs in eastern 
Queensland is indeed bleak. These dugongs are already considered to be Critically 
Endangered. Even in the nrilikely 
 event that the decline could be stopped immediately 
then it will take several decades for these populations to recover. In reality, the 
mortality rate may be reduced over the next 5-10 years, in which case dugongs in this 
region may become extinct in the wild before conservation measures bite. It must be 
remembered that gill netting and hunting occur throughout the dugong's range in 
Australia. Factors affecting the eastern Queensland populations will already be 
affecting most other populations. Due to the nature of dugongs and their habitat, aerial 
surveys have low power at detecting population trends. This was demonstrated in 
eastern Queensland, where the number of dugongs had been reduced by 50% before a 
statistically significant change could be detected. 
Mindful of these factors, ESSS is beholden to adopt a precautionary approach in the 
listing of the Dugong. In this regard guidance from the IUCN (1994) criteria may be 
useful, including comments on data quality and uncertainty. "... the absence of high 
quality data should not deter attempts at applying the criteria, as methods involving 
estimation, inference and projection are empahsised to be acceptable throughout." 
(pg. 6). " Given that data are rarely available for the whole range or population of a 
taxon, it may often be appropriate to use the information that is available to make 
intelligent inferences about the overall status of the taxon in question. In cases where 
a wide variation of estimates is found, it is legitimate to apply the precautionary 
principal and use the estimate (providing it is credible) that leads to listing in the 
category of highest risk." (pg. 6). 
(h) the best estimation that is available to the person or persons making the 
nomination: 
the distribution of the species in 1788: 
Shark Bay (WA) to Moreton Bay (Qld) 
the current distribution of the species: 
as for 1788. However, there may be changes in the area of occupancy (sensu 
IUCN, 1994). Aerial surveys indicate that we are on the cusp of a serious 
decline in the area of occupancy in eastern Queensland (Marsh et al., 1995a). 
the current population of the species: 
Approximately 85,000 in surveyed areas in Australia. This estimate includes 
calves and sub-adults. The IUCN criteria consider the number of mature 
individuals only when assessing the size of a population (IUCN, 1994). Based 
on the lengths of dugongs in samples from Townsville and Momington Island 
(Marsh 1980) and relationship between body length and sexual maturity (Marsh 
et al., 1984), it is apparent that 30-40% of a dugong population are immature 
5 
If(p. 2i) 
(assuming no bias in the samples). Hence, this estimate may be reduced to 
approximately 55,000 mature dugongs. A bias in the aerial survey methodology 
means, however, that this could be an underestimate (Marsh et al., 1995a). 
(I) references to any scientific literature that supports the other information 
given in the nomination: 
Baldwin, R., and V. G. Cockcroft. 1995. Is the world's second-largest population of 
dugong's safe? Sirenews (Newsletter of the IUCN/SSC Sirenia Specialist Group 
24:11-13. 
Bayliss, P., and W. J. Freeland. 1989. Seasonal patterns of dugong distribution and 
abundance in the western Gulf of Carpentaria. Australian Wildlife Research 16:141- 
149. 
Bertram, G.C.L., and C.K Bertram. 1973. The modern Sirenia: their :listibution and 
status. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 5: 297-338. 
Cockcroft, V.G.R. 1995. The status of dugongs in the Western Indian Ocean, Red Sea 
and Arabian Gulf In Mermaid Symposium First International Symposium on Dugong 
and Manatees November 1995, Toba, Japan. 
Cockcroft, V. G., R. V. Salm, and T. P. Dutton. 1994. The status of dugongs in the 
western Indian ocean. In First International Manatee and Dugong Research 
Conference, 11-13 March 1994. Gainesville, Florida. 
Dutton, P. 1994. Past and present status of dugong, Dugong dugon, in the Bazaruto 
archipelago and other known habitats on the Moambique coast. In First 
International Manatee and Dugong Research Conference, 11-13 March 1994. 
Gainesville, Florida. 
Gibbs, B. 1995. Government protects dugongs in Shoalwater Bay. Media release by 
the Minister for Primary Industries issued on 22 September 1995. Gohar, H. A. F. 
1957. The Red Sea dugong. Publications of the Marine Biological Station Al 
Ghardaqa (Red Sea) 9:3-49. 
Heinsohn, G. E. 1972. A study of dugongs (Dugong dugon) in northern Queensland, 
Australia. Biological Conservation 4:205-213. Hudson, B. E. T. 1981. Interview and 
aerial survey data in relation to resource management of the dugong in Manus 
Province, Papua New Guinea. Bulletin of Marine Science 31:662-672. 
Hughes, G. R., and R. Oxley-Oxland. 1971. A survey of dugong (Dugong dugon) in 
and around Antonio Enes, Northern Mozambique. Biological Conservation 3:299- 
301. 
Husar, S. L. 1978. Dugong dugon. Mammalian Species 88:1-7. IUCN. 1990. 1990 
6 
2a) 
IUCN Red list of threatened animals IUCN-World Conservation Union, Gland, 
Switzerland, 192 pp. 
IUCN. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN - The World Conservation Union, 
Gland, Switzerland, 21 pp. 
Jarman, P. J. 1966. The status of the dugong (Dugong dugon Miler); Kenya, 1961. 
East African Wildlife Journal 4:82-88. 
Jones, S. 1980. The dugong or the so-called mermaid, Dugong dugon (Miler) of the 
Judo- Sri Lankan waters - problems of research and conservation. Spolia Zeylanica 
35:223-260. 
Lal Mohan, R. S. 1976. Some observations on the sea cow, Dugong dugon from the 
Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay during 1971-1975. Pages 1-6 in Proceedings of the 
63rd All India Science Congress, 3-7 January 1976, Waltair, India. 
Leatherwood, S., and R. R. Reeves (eds.). 1991. Marine mammal research and 
conservation in Sri Lanka 1985-1986, Marine Mammal Technical Report Number 
1, 2nd ed. United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi, Kenya,138 pp. 
Lipkin, Y. 1975. Food of the Red Sea Dugong (Mammalia: Sirenia) from Sinai. Israel 
Journal of Zoology 24:81-98. 
Marsh, H. 1980. Age determination of the Dugong (Dugong dugon (Muller)) in 
northern Australia and its biological implications. Report of the International 
Whaling Commission (Special Issue 3): 181-201. 
Marsh, H. 1985. The importance of marine parks for the management of dugongs in 
Australian waters. Pages 495-502 in Proceedings of a Symposium on Endangered 
Marine Animals and Marine Parks, January 1985, Cochin, India. 
Marsh, H., and L. W. Lefebvre. 1994. Sirenian status and conservation efforts. Aquatic 
Mammals 20.3:155-170. 
Marsh, H., G. E. Heinsohn, and L. M. Marsh. 1984. Breeding cycle, life history and 
population dynamics of the dugong, Dugong dugon (Sirenia:Dugongidae). 
Australian Journal of Zoology 32:767-788. 
Marsh, H., P. Corkeron, I. R. Lawler, J. M. Lanyon, and A. R. Preen. 1995a. The 
status of the dugong in the.southem Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Report to the 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 
Marsh, H., G. B. Rathbun, T. J. O'Shea, and A. R. Preen. 1995b. Can dugongs survive 
in Palau? Biological Conservation 72:85-89. 
Marsh, H., and W. K Saalfeld. 1989. Distribution and abundance of dugongs in the 
northern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Australian Wildlife Research 16:429- 440. 
7 
Nair, R. V., R. S. L. Mohan, and K. S. Rao. 1975. The dugong Dugong dugon. 
Bulletin of the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute 26:1-43. 
Nishiwaki, M., and H. Marsh. 1985. Dugong: Dugong dugon (Miler, 1776). Pages 1- 
31 in S. H. Ridgway and Sir R. Harrison (eds.) Handbook of Marine Mammals Vol 
3. Academic Press, London. 
Nishiwald, M., T. K.asuya, N. Miyazaki, T. Tobayama, and T. Kataoka. 1979. Present 
distribution of the dugong in the world. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research 
Institute 31:133-141. 
Palmer,M. and the Northern Territory Fishing Industry Council. 1996. Media release, 
29 February 1996. 
Paterson, R. A. 1990. Effects of long-term anti'-hark measures on target and non-
target species in Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 52:147-159. 
Preen, A. 1989. Dugongs Vol. 1. The status and conservation of dugongs in the 
Arabian Region, Report No. 10 MEPA Coastal and Marine Management Series. 
Meteorological and Environmental Protection Administration, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 
200 pp. 
Preen, A. R., and H. Marsh. 1995. Response of dugongs to large-scale loss of seagrass 
from Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. Wildlife Research 22:507-519. Preen, A. 
R., H. Marsh, I. R. Lawler, R. 
Shepherd, and R. I. T. Prince. 1995a. Winter distribution and abundance of dugongs, 
turtles, dolphins and other large marine fauna in Shark Bay, Ningaloo Reef and 
Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. Report to the Department of Conservation and 
Land Management. 
Preen, A. R., W. J. Lee Long, and R. G. Coles. 1995b. Flood and cyclone related loss, 
and partial recovery, of more than 1000 km2 of seagrass in Hervey Bay, Queensland, 
Australia. Aquatic Botany 52:3-17. 
Robineau, D., and J. M. Rose. 1982. Le dugong (Dugong dugon (Miler, 1776) Sirenia, 
Dugongidae) en Republique de Djibouti. Biological Conservation 24:233-238. Snow, 
D. W. 1970. The eastern Indian Ocean islands: a summary of their geography, 
fauna and flora. TUCN Publ. N.S. Morges 17:21.2-223. 
Stoddart, D. R. 1972. Pinnipeds or sirenians at western Indian Ocean islands? Journal 
of Zoology 167:207-217. 
Sullivan, R. 1995. Protection fails timid dugong. Townsville Bulletin 5 August 1995. 
Vine, P., and H. Schmid 1987. Red Sea Explorers. Immel Publishing, London, 206 
PP. - 
k 
8 
(p. 24) 
Wamukoya, G. M., J. M. Mirangi, and W. K. Ottichillo. 1995. Aerial survey of sea 
turtles, marine mammals and fishing 
 activities within the Kenyan marine environment. 
Report by the Kenya Wildlife Service, 59 pp.n 3:299
- 301.Husar, S. L. 
(j) not applicable 
Declaration to accompany nominations 
Humane Society International and the Australian Marine Conservation Society 
declares that the information included in this nomination is correct to the best of 
our knowledge. 
9 
20 February 1997 
Australian Marine Conservation Society 
DUGONG CONSERVATION POLICY  
AMCS believes that sufficient data exist to conclude that dugong are critically 
endangered in the southern Great Barrier Reef Region. 
AMCS supports the measures for dugong recovery and conservation announced at the 
GBR Ministerial Council Meeting on 30 November, 1996. 
3, AMCS believes that the extinction of dugong in the southern Great Barrier Reef Region 
will be averted only by effectively eliminating all major human-induced threats to dugong. 
The calculations by Professor Helene Marsh of what may be a sustainable human-induced 
dugong mortality (cited by Preen & Morissette, 1997, p.7.) suggest that drastic new 
measures are necessary to prevent dugong extinction in the southern Great Barrier Reef 
and Hervey Bay. Consequently, continuation of activities that lead to dugong mortality 
must mist just be prohibited, but also must be enforced through a greatly increased effort by 
GBRMTA and Queensland Government agencies to ensure that activities that lead to 
dugong mortality do not continue. 
Commercial Net Fishing 
It is clear that all net fishing does not lead to dugong mortality. Dugong numbers in 
Moreton Bay do not appear to be in decline despite the fact that it is the most intensively 
net fished area in Queensland and that dugong feeding and much of the net fishing 
activities take place in close proximity. Consequently, AMCS does not support a total ban 
on net fishing. 
It is equally clear that net fishing along the Great Barrier Reef coastline and in Hervey 
Bay has led to some of the dugong mortality which now makes the species critically 
endangered. We believe that this has been due primarily to staked nets of both licensed 
and unlicensed fishers being left unattended. 
AMCS supports the efforts that QCFO has undertaken to determine from its members, 
on an area by area basis, the best way to eliminate dugong mortality from net fishing. We 
are not optimistic about the future for dugong -in the southern Great Barrier Reef and 
Hervey Bay, but we believe the best hope for dugong survival rests with a commercial 
fishing industry that is doing everything possible to ensure the survival of dugong. We 
know many commercial net fishers and believe that some will do this because it is the 
socially responsible thing to do, while others will do it simply because the survival of their 
own industry is now linked to the survival of the dugong. 
We propose that net fishing should be restricted in the Dugong Protection Areas 
proposed by Preen & Morissefte (1997) in line with the industry proposal for the 
implementation of the QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy (except 4.8 i & ii, see below). 
We propose that QCFO should be given three years to demonstrate that it can reduce 
dugong mortality resulting from the activities of licensed fishers to "insignificant levels 
approaching a zero value. Independent observer checks need to be built into the QCFO 
proposals to validate that dugong mortality is not continuing. If mortality does continue, we 
advocate total closure of the net fisheries within the Dugong Protection Areas as proposed 
The United States Marine Mammal Protection Act requires that
- the level of 
incidental take be at "insignificant levels approaching a zero value". To AMCS this seems 
an appropriate standard for a critically endangered species within the Great Barrier Reef 
World Heritage Area. 
by Preen & Morissette (1997). 
We do not support the fishing industry suggestions for Shoalwater Bay outlined in 
Section 4.8 i & ii of their proposal, and we have inadequate data to assess 4.8 iii. 
However, our Society strongly supports the QCFO viewpoint (Section 3.14) on the need to 
avoid displacement of effort to other localities for the same fishery or to other fisheries by 
providing compensation and buy-backs for the Shoalwater Bay fishers who have been 
displaced to ensure dugong survival. 
We believe that it is crucially important that GBRMPA participate with Queensland 
Government agencies in current efforts to develop policies for providing fair compensation 
and for avoiding displacement of fishing effort to other parts of the fishery in any 
Queensland fishing industry restructuring. 
This issue is relevant to GBRMPA not just on the topic of dugong recovery, but also in 
attaining a representative system of IUCN Categories I and II Marine Protected Areas 
within the Great Barrier Reef Region, as agreed by all parties who participated in the 
development of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Strategy. 
We strongly urge GBRMPA to consult closely with the commercial fishing industry on the 
potential compensation/buy back funds that would be required to close any one of the 
proposed Dugong Protection Areas to net fishing. One scenario that should be considered 
is that the QCFO proposals for preventing dugong mortality will work in some of the 
Dugong Protection Areas, but not others. 
We are alarmed that GBRMPA and the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council have 
progressed the idea of Dugong Protection Areas where net fishing might be excluded, 
without having looked closely at the economic and social implications of such actions. We 
are reminded of the huge and largely unnecessary controversy that arose over 
compensation to the rainforest logging industry in the Wet Tropics because the Federal 
Environment Minister of the day and his Department failed to heed the warning of 
environment group leaders that the issue could not be resolved without both early and 
prolonged discussions between all parties and a detailed planning strategy to deal with the 
issues. 
It appears from the calculations of Professor Marsh (cited by Preen & Morissette, 
1997, p.7.) that dugong numbers could continue to decline in the southern Great Barrier 
Reef just through mortality of the small populations that remain outside the proposed 
Dugong Protection Areas or are in transit between those areas. The
- obvious implication 
for commercial fishers is that detailed strategies for preventing dugong mortality also need 
to be developed for the areas between the Dugong Protection Areas as a matter of 
urgency. 
Indigenous Hunting 
AMCS commends indigenous groups that have imposed voluntary moratoria in relation 
to indigenous take of dugong. Our Society can not condone hunting of endangered 
species. We believe that all humans have a moral obligation to ensure the survival of 
other species. Clearly dugong survival is particularly important to Aborigines and Torres 
Strait Islanders because of their long cultural associations with dugong. 
AMCS, is concerned that not all indigenous hunters and fishers will comply with the 
voluntary moratoria. We seek the advice of indigenous groups as to how dugong mortality 
by non-complying indigenous hunters and fishers can be effectively prevented. 
e Opt a) Illegal Net Fishing 
13. AMCS believes that illegal net fishing has been one of the significant factors 
contributing to the rapid decline in dugong numbers in the southern Great Barrier Reef. 
We urge GBRMPA and QDoE to give high priority to work with the appropriate 
Queensland Government agencies to develop within six months a more effective program 
of fisheries surveillance and enforcement to ensure that offenders are caught and severe 
penalties imposed. One or two million dollars additional expenditure here may be far more 
effective for dugong conservation than paying many more million dollars closing down 
licensed fishing operations. We agree with QCFO that there is an urgent need to develop a 
system that will allow fishers to report illegal operations without fear of retribution. 
Shark Meshing 
AMCS is strongly of the view that all shark meshing should cease as a matter of 
urgency in Queensland. The mortality of dugong and other harmless marine life caused by 
shark meshing is unacceptable. 
Carcass Monitoring 
The current system for determining the cause of dugong mortality is inadequate. If 
dugong continue to die, it is crucially important to know why. A more rapid response 
capability must be developed to examine carcasses before they decompose. This requires 
a co-operative approach by GBRMPA and the Queensland agencies, and should also 
involve QCFO, aboriginal communities, Sunfish and environment groups. 
Loss of Seagrass Habitat 
We strongly support the QCFO proposal (pp. 4-5 of the industry submission) for an oral 
history survey of seagrass decline along the Queensland coast. Once this method has 
been used to identify probable localities where seagrass decline is likely to have occurred, 
aerial photographs can be examined to quantify changes in seagrass area over time. 
Extensive aerial photography is available for much of the Queensland coastline. Intertidal 
and even some shallow subtidal seagrass beds are readily identifiable on most 1:12,000 
and 1:25,000 colour airphoto sets, and several runs have been flown for most areas over 
the last decade. 
References 
Anonymous (1997). Industry proposal for the implementation of the QCFO Dugong 
Conservation Strategy. 
Preen, T. & Morissette, N. (1997). A system of dugong sanctuaries for the recovery and 
conservation of dugong populations in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and 
adjacent southern waters. 
_ 
(P 
Queensland Conservation Council 
QCC Environment Centre: Second Floor, Brisbane School of Arts Building, 166 Ann Street, Brisbane 
Postal Address: P.O. Box 12046, Elizabeth St., Brisbane, Australia, 4002 
Telephone: (07) 3221 0188. Fax: (07) 3229 7992. Email: qccOpeg.apc.org  
Dr Ian McPhail 
Chair 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
PO Box 1379 
TOWNSVILLE Q 4810 
Dear Dr McPhail, 
Following on from yesterday's meeting of the GBR Marine Park Authority in Brisbane, QCC asks 
that you note the following comments at the next meeting of the GBR Ministerial Council. 
QCC, which is the peak umbrella body,of conservation groups in Queensland, is extremely 
concerned that two environment groups represented at the meeting, the Australian Marine 
Conservation Society and the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, threw their support 
behind the QCFO proposals for dugong conservation. The QCF0 submission does not comprise a 
package of emergency measures, as requested by Senator }El. 
The status of the dugong is well recopised as critical and requires an emergency response, not one 
that will take three years to test, and where the compensation regime will take at least two years to 
develop (as recommended by AMCS). 
Anything less than the removal of gill-netting throughout the dugong's habitat and range will not 
result in dugong recovery. To continue to allow gill-netting in the 11 identified dugong Sanctuaries 
would make a mockery of the whole exercise of identifying and mapping Dugong Priority Areas. 
QCC also calls on the parties involved in 'the development of the emergency package to stress the 
critical importance of developing a comprehensive compensation regime. All fishing licences that 
allow for gill netting must be bought out and governments must ensure that displacement of effort 
does not occur, thereby creating problems elsewhere in waters of the GBR. 
Finally, funding for monitoring and enforcement continues to be seliouslylacking. A package of 
emergency measures must include recommendations for increased funding in order for these two 
activities to be carried out effectively. 
YOurs sincerely, 
Iraogen Zethoven 
Coordinator 
21 February 1997 
QCC represents over 60 noâ-government conservalion and environment organications throughout Queensland 
Printwi nn IRPtrelPd PanPr 
TOTAL P.01 
9-0).12) 
Queensland Conservation Council 
()CC Environment Centre: Second Floor, Brisbane School of Arts Building, 166 Ann Street. Brisbane 
Postal Address: P.O. Box 12046. Elizabeth St.. Brisbane, Australia, 4002 
Telephone: (07) 3221 0138. Fax: (07) 3229 7992. Email: qcc@  peg.apc.org  
Presentation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
Recovery of the Dugong 
20th February 1997 
Conservation Requirements 
With regard to the proposed interim Dugong Protection Areas, the Queensland Conservation 
Council (QCC) support the implementation of large scale dugong sanctuaries, not more than 
200 km apart, in the GBRMP on the eondition that human activities in them are - severely 
limited and controlled. We also wish to put on record - that the entire GBR Marine Park 
should provide a sanctuary for these animals which have been exterminated throughout most 
of their range elsewhere in the world. Ensuring protection of the dugong in the entire GBR 
World Heritage Area is the only appropriate protection of the dugong and the appropriate 
method of living up to our World Heritage obligations. 
Due to the time constraints, I am unable to list all of QCCs concerns with regard to human 
induced mortality of dugongs. I understand that the Authority have had access to our of 
submissions to the Draft Emergency Measures where these concerns have been articulated. 
Rather, I will focus on actions necessary to eliminate or, where this is not possible, minimise 
the key threats to dugongs. 
These threats are gill netting, hunting, coastal development, boat traffic and defence force 
activities. Loss of senrass beds is also important. 
The immediate removal of gill netting operations in the interim Dugong Protection Areas 
(sanctuaries) and throughout the dugongs range 
I quote from the Ministers respective press statements, "fishing practices which may result in 
dugong mortality will not be permitted in dugong sanctuary areas." We agree with Ministers 
Hill and Littleproud and believe this statement unequivocally commits the Ministers to 
prohibit gill netting in the dugong sanctuaries. However, we do not think that this action 
alone will ensure the RECOVERY of the dugong. 
Gill netting must be prohibited throughout the ENTIRE dugong range because it is 
demonstrably ecologically unsustainable. The banning of gill netting from Shoalwater Bay 
had the support of the commercial fishing industry. In this case, the industry acknowledged 
that they were responsible for the dugongs which were found dead, gutted, mutilated and tied 
up in mangroves or sunk to the bottom of the Bay. 
With regard to the rest of the GBR, during 1995 and 1996 gill netting accounted for 
approximately 66% of reported ducr.ong . strandings. It is possible that some of the remaining 
33% of dugongs were net related mortalities. These reports were not all from proposed 
sanctuary areas which is why the entire GBRMP should be a sanctuary for dugongs. 
Why QCFO's Dugong Conservation Strategy will not work 
Primarily the goal is flawed. It reads, "To mitigate, and wherever possible, eliminate the 
impact of commercial fishing on dugong". It should read, "To eliminate the impact of 
commercial fishing on dugong." Clearly QCFO understand if netting continues fishers will 
not be able to eliminate mortality. This fact is reflected in their following proposals. 
The Endangered Species Awareness Course, Industry Codes of Practice and legislating for  
fisher to attend nets. 
It takes 4-8 minutes for a dugong to drown. Reaching and releasing a dugong within that 
time frame, even with the bestof knowledge about how to release the animal, is difficult at 
best. It assumes that solii -t..ene is constantly watching the net which is highly unlikely as 
fishers move between nets they have set, have breaks during netting and would find it 
difficult to observe iiets set at night. 
It also assumes that fishers will value and treat dugongs with care, ignoring the fact that 
historically dugongs have been a nuisance to netters who have mutilated them to salvage their 
nets. Most telling is the fact that a Code of Practice for Fishers was in place for Shoalwater 
Bay DURING the dugong population decline. 
Where fishers flout net attendance laws, it is unlikely that they will be caught because 
adequate resources are not available for monitoring and enforcement, netters set at night and 
they set in remote coastal areas. Even enhancing surveillance and enforcement is a reactive 
measure and, at best, may help monitor a continued decline. 
A primary concern is that if these dubious measures are adopted as a means to reduce 
mortality, netters will become more effective at gutting and hiding dugong carcasses. This 
will give the fishing industry reason to claim that fewer dugongs are being caught in nets 
because education programs and net attendance requirements are working. 
It is already too late to monitor changes in dugong populations in the vast majority of the 
GBR because numbers are too low. The population decline data has provided a limited 
opportunity to turn around the decline : An opportunity that if lost now, will not come again. 
Net specifications and netting times In Hervey Bay, net types and times of operation were 
specified by regulation, yet gill net mortality was reduced by only 50% (based on stranded 
dugongs). This was despite the best available information on the movements of dugongs in 
the Bay being made available. This information does not exist for most of the coast. 
Anyway even if it did a further 50% decline in any area in the southern GBR is unacceptable. 
is 
f6P.4) 
Dugong Incident Reporting Scheme This measure is reactive and,
- at best, may help monitor 
a continued decline. The data pro‘7ided will be suspect because it is unlikely that. all fishers 
will accurately report dugong caught in nets. For this reason QDPI scientists are skeptical of 
the turtle mortality data from trawlers. 
Perhaps the Authority should listen to some words of wisdom from Ted Loveday on this 
issue: "Remember you will not have to worry about your impact on dugong if net fishing is 
banned like it has been in Shoalwater Bay" (The Queensland Fisherman, February 1997). We 
say to you, ban it and you won't have to worry about it. 
Permitted traditional hunting of dugong only where ecological sustainability of the population 
hunted can be demonstrated 
Because dugong populations have been reduced to such low numbers, hunting is now a major 
threat and ecologically unsustainable in the southern Great Barrier Reef. Management 
agencies should reach agreement with Aboriginal communities to suspend hunting until 
dugong numbers recover and hunting can be conducted on an ecologically sustainable basis. 
An immediate moratorium on large-scale development in and adjacent to critical dugong 
habitats & strong and enforceable controls on vessel speeds on dugong habitats 
Vessel traffic is a difficult issue. Not even Senator Hill in his "Statement of Reasons" for 
allowing the proposed development at Oyster Point to proceed could address this issue. The 
only way to prevent displacement is to restrict the number, size, shape and speed of vessels in 
important dugong habitat. Equally important is to prevent the construction of marinas in 
areas adjacent or near dugong sanctuary areas. 
An immediate prohibition on under water explosives and military activity in all dugong 
habitats 
• The Shoalwater Bay closure to gill nets will not ensure the survival of the Shoalwater 
dugongs for two reasons: 1. gill netting will continue in Port Clinton and nearby coastal 
waters which the Shoalwater dugongs frequent and 2. because of planned military exercises. 
Tandem Thrust is perhaps the most extreme example of the inappropriate use of an area that 
requires protection. Over 25 000 personnel, hundreds of warships, supersonic aircraft, bomb 
dropping, amphibious landings, underwater detonations, all being allowed without any 
quantified idea of the extent to which noise effects dugongs or the expected activities in 
Shoalwater Bay. The Draft Shoalwater Bay Management Plan makes it clear that noise has 
the potential to prevent dugongs from feeding, can results in their being driven from their 
range and can result in their death due to starvation. 
Compensation 
Without compensation, all the good measures in the world wont be implemented. 
Compensation is the oil to make things happen. Compensation must be provided to 
Aboriginal communities as well as to gill netters, as a matter of equity. There is $5 million 
within QDPI to facilitate the restructuring of the fishing industry. This needs to be 
supplemented with Commonwealth assistance. A compensation regime must be holistic to 
ensure that the potential for displaced effort is not actualised. 
Australian 
Marine 
Conservation 
Society 
FROM : RUST MARINE CONSER SOC 
	
PHONE NO. : 
	 Feb. 21 1997 08:46PM 3. 
/0 
FACSIMILE TRANSACTION 
AUSTRALIAN MARINE CONSERVATION SOCIETY Inc 
PO Box 3139, YERONGA 0 4104 
1st Floor, 92 Hyde Road, YERONGA CI 4104 
Ph: 07 3848 5235 fax: 07 3892 5814 
e-mail: hegerl@ozemait.cormau 
 
Feb-rTuary 21, 1907 
Dr. Ian McPhail, 
Chair, 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
Dear Ian, 
We did not have time to discuss all the papers distributed to organisations attending the 
Authority meeting yesterday. The "Report on Vessel Use in the Interim Dugong Protection 
Areas" was an interesting summary on vessel use, but the section entitled 'Main Issues" 
certainly felt short of what we in AMCS regard as the main issues. 
There is a lot of literature on the boat strike problem with manatee in Florida that could 
have been reviewed and may have proved instructive. Unfortunately, I do not think we can 
make a direct comparison, because manatee generally are found in more confined waters 
than dugong, so there is probably a greater risk of being hit by a boat. I have only seen 
manatee in estuaries in Florida. I also am left with the impression that dugong are faster 
and better at "ducking" boats than manatee. 
I think the key question is "At what'speed do boats become a threat to dugong?" The issue 
is undoubtedly more complex, because if the vessel is large and has a lot of hull under the 
surface, the dugong has further to duck, or if the water is very shallow, the animal has 
nowhere to duck. For speedboats, [suspect that a vessel travelling at less than 20 knots 
in 5+ metres of wetter poses little threat to dugong (unless they are very sick or injured 
animals). 
Certainly the AMOS boat which does up to 38 knots (in very calm water) has never come 
even close to hitting a dugong, at least as far as I am aware_ We sometimes see them 
when we do wetlands research off Moreton Island and North Stredbroke Island in Moreton 
Bay and we frequently transit the areas where Tony Preen's aerial surveys have shown 
them to be most abundant. I have only seen one dugong with propellor cuts on its back. 
Helene Marsh with all her vast amount of field time in dugong country only has seen one 
with propellor cuts. 
=ROM : RUST MARINE CONSER SOC 
	
PHONE NO. : 	 Feb. 21 1997 08:46PM PO. 
1 0 (p, 
However, John Doohan from Sunfish said that there are reports that a Stradbroke Island 
vehicle ferry, which probably travels.at 
 less than ten knots, hits one occasionally.. It is a big 
boat with a lot of hull under the surface. A substantially improved carcass monitoring 
program could give us a better understanding of the significance of boat strikes as a cause 
of dugong mortality. We need-to get people in the field fast, before the dead dugong turn 
into goo. 
The issue that does concern me most about boats impacting on dugong relates to 
disturbance rather than collisions. There is a large amount of potential dugong habitat on 
the western side of Moreton Bay that historically is known to have supported dugong, but 
where today they are rarely seen, such as around Green Island. Boat traffic is moderate to 
heavy in these areas. I really do not know if diminished water quality is part of the 
problem. It could be, but I am more inclined to think disturbance by boats really is a 
significant issue. 
I have no idea how you could study the problem. GBRMPA and the CRC do not need an 
Ethics Committee to realise that chsising dugong with boats to see how much boat traffic 
causes them to abandon areas would be far less acceptable to the community than your 
previously most unpopular researditproposals. I suspect you would even get protest 
letters from the governments of Niheria and Afghanistan. 
I support the comments on p. 5 of the Gilbert & Benzaken report about anchoring and 
dredging damage to seagrass beds. However, I believe the remarks on p.7 about the 
"degradation" of deep seagrass beds by otter trawls are merely speculation. If anyone in 
QDOE does know something about the topic, their name should at least be cited in the 
report. I would have thought that the people in QDPI who are actually studying deep 
seagrass beds, like Warren Lee Long, would have been able to offer a more informed 
opiniOn, rather than clutching at straws. I think that the impact of both otter and beam 
trawls on seagrass beds should be studied. However, at the end of the day, it may not 
prove to be anything like as significant as many people currently believe_ We still need to 
know, and I believe that the industry should help fund the work. 
Yours sincerely, 
Eddie Hegeri 
Director 
cc. Imogen Zethoven - OCC 
Pat Comben - WPSQ 
Bill Foster - HSi 
.a lad, a a •••••• 
oz./ r 
	 • 'lb 	 : 1 
47-11,2 
( Op, 
•-• • 
	 al-1, 	 II Cr 
Wildlife 
 Queensland 
 
Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 
Proserpine/Whitsunclay Branch Inc: 
21/02/97 
facsimile 
Brian Littleprouncl 
The Tv'finister for Environment 
Dear Minister, 
I nterim protection of dugongs 
We are greatly concerned that recent plans lot the protection of dugongs are 
inadequate. 
It would appear that the proposed dugong sanctuaries oiler no more protection than 
the inadequate measures that already exist, 
The research clearly shows that without strong and decisive action, dugongs 
on the southern GDR will becimie extinct in the near future. 
Our branch fully endorses the.WRSQ Head Office stance on the poposed measures (see enclosure). 
Furthermore, we would suggest that encouraging pi oiessional fishermen to adopt 
protection measures through "voluntary compliance" will not work in time to save 
these creatures. (Just as voluntary compliance has been totally ineffective in protecting 
turtles through the introduction of turtle excluder devices on trawlers.) 
Gill netting in all sanctuary areas should be banned forthwith and stronger measures 
to detect illegal fishing activities intioduced. 
Because dugongs are in immediate danger of becoming extinct we call on you to act 
now, and then consult further with community groups. 
Ian Sutton 
Branch Coordinator 
, 	 f 
. 1 	 r4 	 , 
: ) 	 i 	 f „./... --•....:-. ..,=-..- 
/ / 
.. i•-•6" t...2..., , 	 . 	 . „ 
./. \ . 
•••n 
r 
n •nn • 
P.O. Box azre,14FtesERRNE-7e7-41.700 
100.2_ A k 
+CCyCiF:13 I 'apty 
AINIMMIn11, 
VUOariel 
	 1:9CMC 
A cartoon from ECOPRESS 
Mackay Conservation Group 
 
 
Fax from 	 079 464 170 
22/02/9? 1Z : 4113 rg ; 4 
.n (p2) .
WHITSUNDAY 
WILDLIFE 
Newsletter of the Wildlife Preservation 
Society or Qinlaud 
ProserpineWhitsunday Branch Inc. 
Number 16 	 December 1996 
Our Dugongs Face Extinction in New Plan 
7^- 
The. welfare of Whitsunday Dugongs has been sacrificed in 
the latest Draft Program of Emergency Measures for 
Dugong Recovery and Conservation in the GBRWIIA and 
Adjacent Waters. 
Eight areas are to be declared Interim Dugong Protection 
Arcas, but none of these areas, where gill netting will become 
illegal, are in the Whitsunday region. It seems likely that with 
gill netters leaving the interim areas, the survival pressure on our 
dugongs will actually increase. This appalling prospect; despite 
the Repulse Bay region being a major dugong habitat So much 
so that a commercial dugong fishery was pursued here 100 years 
ago. 
Reaction from WPSQ Central Office in Brisbane has been 
swift: 
In 3 response to the Drat), Program for Emergency Measures 
they conclude: 
"It appears that relevant agencies are either inept or 
politically restrained from initiating the measures required 
to save the dugong. It goes without saying Lila we are very 
disappointed with the relevant agencies and individuals 
involved in the Working Group. We should all be ashamed 
that we have once again demonstrated our preoccupation 
with the. caploitation of Ira:I:re, rather than ing with IL" 
The report also states that: "It is the responsibility of the 
fishing industry to demonstrate it is capable of operating without 
causing environmental harm to the dugong or its habitat. 
Therefore, the fishing industry must be immediately precluded 
from critical dugong habitat and sea grass beds until such stage 
it can: 
• Prove fishing operations are not detrimental to dugongs or 
their habitat. 
- prove that it can effectively deal with its members who 
continue to cause environmental harm to dugongs and dugong 
habitat. 
- Prove that its members comply totally with their proposed 
code of practice_ 
Those in the industry Which suffer income loss from this 
preclusion will need to be adequately compensated_ Assistance 
should be given to QUO to finalise and implement their code 
of practice." 
Looking at the world picture, the future of dugongs looks 
bleak, and the future of manatees, a close relative looks even 
worgo. 
This group of animals, commonly known as Sea Cows, have 
already had one of its representatives become extinct from 
in impact Stellat's Sea Cow was last recorded in 18th 
- 
Mgrateeg alt.' also slipping towards their fmal fate: Depleted 
through habitat destruction, gill netting and boat strike, large 
numbers have also died recently, poisoned by red tides, no doubt 
exacerbated by nutrient enrichment from land runoff_ 
As for dugonE,s, their last hope appears to be Australia, as 
numbers have been decimated throughout South East Asian and 
African waters. But here, decimation from fishing nets, habitat 
loss and boat strikes are already a facts of life. Only poisonings 
from algal blooms remain to be recorded here! 
If this Claytons weak proposal for protection is not 
significantly strengthened, the fate of dugongs living in the 
whitsuadays will be sealed. Likely, it will also eventually lead 
to the demise of all dugongs in the southern and central sections 
of the GI311. 
,
• 
311.; h1 	 , • 1 ••• 	 .j.• 	 .1 4g 14q 	 1 PO  
:1;0 1 	 — Tr,. 
fT, 
The Wildlife Preservation Society  of  Queensland 
Townsville Branch Inc. 	 P.O. Box 857, Aiticenvale, Qld 4814 
URGENT 
Dr. Ian McPhail, 
Chairperson, 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? 
PO Box 1379, 
Togikatiliti-gads-M1. 22 February 1997 
Dear Dr, McPhail, 
The Townsville Branch of the Wildlife Preservation Society of 
Queensland wishes to convey to you unequivocally its position 
on the practice of gill-netiing as it affects the health of dugong 
populations , 
We support public Ministerial statements that fishing, 
activities which may harm dugong will be prohibited in 
dugong protection areas (sanctuaries) 
It follows that we strongly support an immediate ban on 
the practice of gill-netting within the sanctuaries and its 
speedy removal from othercriticaLdugong habitat 
'6  We believe that to i delay implementation of such bans in 
order to allow fOr further periods of monitoring or.  
QCP 0 self -regulation trials is likely to be catastrophic 
for the dugong. In view of the known status of the 
dugong in the southern Great Barrier Reef, there can be 
no lustification for further delay. 
* We refute, as naive and misleading ,  an argument that 
because dugons, _are apparently able to co-exist with 
gill-netting in Moreton Bay, a total ban is unnecessary 
elsewhere ,  It is known that the situation at Moreton 50.5 Is exceptional because nets are set high up on sand and 
seagrass banks where dugong do not usually go. The 
situation elsewhere along the coast is quite different 
and gill-Rettinkis known to be a major zwase of dirgvng 
death. 
I arp. 2) 
In a recent letter to Senator Hill we also called for the 
Implementation of the following measures : 
a Trawling to be ended across sea-grass beds 
a Strict controls on speed and numbers of vessels in the _ 
DPAs, and other habitat areas 
14. 
 A moratorium on large-scale development in, or 
adjacent toithe protected areas and other critical dugong 
habitat 
Allan an underwater explosives in dugong habitat 
s' Traditional hunting tabs permitted only where _ _ 
ecological sustaina.bility can be demonstrated 
3‘ Shark-meshing to be replaced by alternative methods 
such as drumlines, wherever possible, throughout the 
dugongs' range. 
We strongly encourage GBRMPA to advocate the strongest and 
most immediate measures to halt the shocking decline in dugong 
numbers. 
Yours sincerely, 
Liz Downes- - 
Secretary 
- ••• • - 
. 	 . 
-.•••n•-• ••• • 	 • 
- 
_ 
  
Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc_ - 
PO Box 281 CardweIVQ 4849 
44..1c:D7 
Dr Ian MoPh 
Chairman 
Great 
	 3.2r Ra.L1f awino Park Aut:1;rry 
PO 	 J7c3 
TONS LLE L 4310 
Dear Or McPhail, 
Our concerns continue to inc,ra&u: : ao,lut the thrt-tn dt4;ongs in 
. their world range, but mon.; p,:irticularly in th 	 uthern Gr:3at Barrier Ref. 
14,8 strongly support thu moves to discontinue sill netting in the 
11 identified du6ung Fianoi.uaries and feel that th4s,shou1d be the first - ctien 
and be impli:mented iAthout further delay. Z;ompn$ation, even if considerable now, 
in the long run .c17uld be less costly than postponing this action, thon finding later 
that much mon.= drtic end Ax7,um:5ive metlaurcc are heeded to zvort utter catastrophe 
for the du6ong and shame for our country. 
Amonc other 1.1.11nts of conc . xn Erz. boot traffic and spuud. We Feel 
that in the ident_fied scl.nctuaries that boat numbers and spied be kept at a 
reasonable levul. enet strike is always e denoer, but displacemunt from feeding 
seagra33 meedown nnd disruptions to life pettorns are even more serious threats. 
.e can no longair p1ci irinnrance for inoction. However if wise 
docisions cru made now thD rapid declinu of the dugong will be arrested. Professor 
HQ1ene Marsh's rassage of six years ago — AwstrLdian Geographic 19:31 	 has become 
evnn more urgztnt : "If wR choose now to close our. uars to the siren's call we run 
the risk of b.lnishing hr for ever t6 the fadcd pads:s of a story book." 
We urge you to tak2 thF ncsry ictton to protect the dugonq. 
th good winos, 
(Mrs MarGs.rA Thors;horne) 
r'S 
:BJ 	 ?I:AA AA/ZA/W 	 vin.717ion II-22A • Mir4_Tir vioN 
eremy 
Coordinator 
 
North Queensland Conservation Council inc. 
Townsville Environment Centre, 340 Flinders Malt 
P.O.Box 364 Townsville 4810 
Phone (077) 716226 Fax (077) 211713 nqcc©ozemail.com.au 
 
Robert Hill 
Minister ft the Environrnen 
c/o Par. ent House 
Cans rra ACT 2601 
By facsimile 
23rd February 1997 
Dear Minister Hill 
1S, 
We are writing to reaffirm our support for your commitment to ensure the recovery of dugongs in 
the southern Great Barrier Reef region. 
The best available scientific evidence shows that gill netting is ecologically unsustainable primarily 
because of its impact on dugong populations. Subsequently it is our position that gill netting should 
be prohibited throughout the dugongs range, especially in the proposed GBR dugong sanctuaries. 
Yours sincerely 
cc: Ian McPhail 
Chair 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
I !BA' 	 77!AA AA/7A/177 	 PTJTT7JJTO • WOJI )CPT 
e-A-le C.34., 7 t 	 J.0 • G. 	 rs • 
	 .1 ( 
p• 1 
Department of Tropical Environment Studies 
and Geography 
James Cook University 
	 Telephone No.; (077) 81 5575 
Townsville QL_ID 4811 
	 Rox No.: 	 (077) 81 4020 
AUSTRAUA 
	 email; tpreen@cathar.jciledu.au 
 
To: 
	 Peter McGinnity, Director, Planning 
	 Fax: 726093 
From: Tony Preen 	 Date: 24 February 1997_ No. pages: 5 
Dear Peter, 
I have prepared some -comments on AMCS's Dugong Policy, and am sending a Copy for 
your information. I doubt AMOS will change their policy, but I'm confident that the Wildlife 
Preservation Society will - at their State Council meeting tomorrow. 
cheers 
.164-10, 1...• a.. 	 • • 	 VIP a. 41•••••••n•• n• 
Comments on the• 
.
Dugong Conservation Policy 
of the 
Australian Marine Conservation Society 
Tony Preen 
24 'Februaay 1997 
The Director of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Mr Eddie Hegerl, presented the AMCS 
Dugong Conservation Policy to the 165th meeting of the Great Bather Reef Marine Park Authority in 
Brisbane on 20 February 1997. That meeting was held. to receive submissions from. industry, science, 
ATSIC, recreational fishers and conservation groups on the management of the system of dugong 
sanctuaries previously proposed by Senator Hill and Mr LittIeptcaid. Both Environment Ministers had 
released statements saying that fishing practices that may harm dugongs would not be allowed in the 
sanctuaries. 
T attended the meeting and presented the case, based on the scientific knowledge of dugongs, for stringent 
management of the sanctuaries. As a scientist with more than ten years of dugong research experience 
around Australia and overseas, and as a past member of the Executive of the Australian Littoral . Society 
(more recently known as AMCS) I was astounded by the AMCS policy, and attitude. Consequently, I 
have prepared the following brief analysis of the AMCS policy so that its flaws, and the risks that it 
advocates are clearly understood_ 
AMCS acknowledges that dugongs in the southern GBR are critically endangered (Policy point 1); is not 
optimistic that dugongs in this region can be saved from extinction (point 7); and believes that all ma- or 
human-induced threats to dugongs must be eliminated (point 3). Despite this, .AMCS policy advocates 
the continuation of what is widely accepted as the major threat to dugong populations. AMCS is 
proposing an extremely high-risk strategy for dealing with the catastrophic decline in dugongs. This is the 
antithesis of a precautionary approach to a very critical situation. 
Major criticisms 
Ample evidence that mesh netting (commonly referred to as gill netting) is the major cause of human-
related dtigong mortality has been presented in numerous submissions to the GBRMTA, to the Dugong 
Review Group, and to the Interagency Dugong Working Group (the organisations that have been 
addressing the dugong decline). As AMCS is represented on the Dugong Review Group, it has received 
all of this infomiation. 
Despite this, AMCS policy states; 
"7. We propose that net fishing .  should be restricted in the Dugong Protection Areas proposed by 
Preen and Monssette (1997) in1ine with the industry proposal for the implementation of the 
QCF0 Dugong Conservation Strategy..." 
The essence of the QCF0 proposal (C)C70, 1997) is to tinker with the detail of the fisheries reg,alations, 
based on fishers perceptions of dugong habitat use, movement patterns and behaviour. It proposes that 
gill netting will continue in all the dugong 'sanctuaries' and that there will be no reduction in fishing 
effort. 
At the 20/2197 meeting, Mr Hegerl proposed that fishers, scientists and Indigenous people should 
collaborate and share their knowledge of dugong activity along the near 2000 km coastline where 
dugongs have declined. The outcome of such collaboration being site.-specific fisheries regulations that 
have the potential to reduce dugong deaths in nets. This approach would require consultation with 
virtually every gill -netter along the coast . (approximately 900 [QCFO, 1997]); consultation with 
Indigenous groups, some of which have not been prepared to make their knowledge of dugong activity 
available; and critical analysis of the beliefs of these groups (fishers and hunters) in the context of the 
scientific knowledge of dugong biology and ecology. Such a process, if possible, would take a long time. 
GS' g 	 JLEJ • )Cfr% ri)a 2 
AMCS policy (point 7) continues: 
"We propose that QCF0 should be given three years to demonstrate that it can reduce dugong 
mortality resulting hum activities of licensed fishers to Insignificant levels approaching zero..." Given that the consultative pmcess advocated by AMCS could not be completed until at least the end of 
1997 (but most likely much later), the three-year trial period proposed by AMCS would then last at least 
until the end of the year 2000. The extent of the dugong decline has 
 been known since the last ctugong 
population survey, which was done in 1994. It is now 1997 and no actions to address the issue have been 
implemented (save a partial ban on gill netting in Shoalwater Bay). Under AMCS's proposal, no firm 
actions would be taken to address the main cause of the dugong decline for at least six yews (1994 - 2000). In the preceding seven years (1987-1994), dusonta,,, populations declined by 80-90% along most of 
the southern Great Barrier Reef coast and by more than 50% overall. Another six years without action 
could allow a further 90% decline of the depleted populations. Dugongs would then be so rare along 
most of the coast that unexpected and unmanageable events (such as cyclones, seagiass die -backs, 
diseases, boat strikes etc.) could cause regional extinctions, Given the extreme consequences of the failure 
of the industry's proposal (and they presented no compelling evidence that it would be successful), it is 
extraordinary that AMCS should be prepared to wait another 3-4 years before assessing the situation. The 
current situation is too critical to allow a 3
-4 year trial period. AMCS essentially concede this when they 
say 
"We are not optimistic about the future for the dugong in the southern Great Barrier Reef and Hervey 
(AMCS Policy, point 6). 
Of course the AMCS policy presumes that at the end of the year 2000 we will be able to assess the 
success or failure of the QCFO etTorrs. This will only be possible if they failed and dugongs had become 
virtually extinct over large areas. Unfbrtimately, there are now so few dugongs in the southern Ci-'13R that 
it is not possible to monitor the population size. Short of near extinction, it will not be possible to 
determine, with statistical rigor, whether the dugong population is increasing or decreasing for a long 
time - probably at least a decade. 
At the meeting on 20/2/97 Mr Hegerl suggested that the success the QCFO measures could be judged by 
the incidence of dugong carcasses showing characteristic signs of gill net entanglement. As was explained 
in previous submissions to the tsig,ong Review Croup etc., this will not work. Already fishers take active 
measures to hide dugong carcasses. This has 
 involved tying carcasses to trees up small mangrove creeks 
and actively burying carcasses on beaches. Most commonly though, fishers slice open the belly of the 
dugongs to allow the gaseous guts to escape. When this is done properly, the carcasses sink and do not 
re-float. There is little doubt that, from now on, many fishers will be taking extra measures to dispose of 
dugong carcasses. To expect a cotrelatiOnfbetween the number of net-marked carcasses and the incidence 
of dugong deaths in gill nets is to demonstrate an ignorance of the history of byeatch issues in this 
fishery. The incidence of stranded net-marked carcasses cannot be used to assess the success or failure of 
the QCF0 measures. 
AMCS policy also proposes that: 
"Independent observer cheeks need to be built into the QCFO proposals to validate that dugong 
moitality is not continuing." (Point 7). 
This sounds fine, but in fact it highlights, again, a lack of understanding of the nature of the gill-net 
fisheries. Observer programs are a standard way of assessing compliance to regulations in many fisheries 
around the world. Typically, these are industrial fisheries, like trawl fisheries, that are conducted from 
substantial boats, and which generate hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue each year. The gill-net 
fisheries in northern Australia are not like'this.These are essentially artisanal fisheries conducted by 
individual operators, using stnnil boats, all working in different, often very remote areas, and generating 
very modest revenues. Although there are practical reasons why observer programs are not concluded in 
these types of fisheries (try to picture a government observer, with clipboard in hand, crouched in the 
bow of a 14 foot tinny with rain tumbling down and mosquitos swarming, as the owner-operator fisher driving the boat works his 
 nets, at night;wound a crocodile-inhabited mangrove-lined shore a hundred 
kilometers or so. from the nearest town)-;.qbey would also be uneconomical. A significant proportion of the 
900-odd netters in eastern Queensland would need to be observed_ Observation of each fisher would have 
to run over an extended period, and the program would have to nm all year - to cover seasonal
. changes. 
I 	 11.1, • Z. 	 ru • 	 -2 
irtp. 4). 
3 
Thc cost of the observer program would probably approach or even exceed the value of the fishery. 
Artisanal fisheries, like our tropical gill-net fiz.;:beries, are monitored not by observers but by monitoring 
the points where the fishers return to offload their catch. But when the catch of interest is dugongs, and 
these are disposed of at sea, then this approach cannot work. It is not feasible to devise a cost-effective, 
unbiased, and independent check of the incidental take of dugongs in gill nets. 
Minor ccisms 
re The AMCS policy assumes that fshers,will behave responsibly in relation to the QCF0 proposal, and 
that consequently, the number of dugongSlilled in gill nets will decrease (point 6). The situation in 
Shoalwater Bay demonstrates the problem with this faith. In Shoalwater Bay, just two commercial netters, 
who are well known to QCFO, Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol, Dept. of Environment, Atmy, 
and GBRMPA were, apparently, responsible for the bulk of the approximately 50% decline in the dugong 
population over a 7 year period. There is no doubt that the vast majority of netters will behave 
responsibly, but the tragic fact remains that just a small percentage of "cowboys" amongst the gill 
- 
netting fraternity will still be able to drive dugongs in the southern GBR to extinction. 
The AMCS policy maintains (point 10) that based on calculations of Potential Biological Removal 
(PBR) presented in our report (Preen and Morissette, 1997, p7), the number of dugongs in the southern 
GDR. could continue to decline due to net mortality outside the sanctuary areas. After the meeting on 
20/2/97, Mr Hegerl put it more strongly, stating that banning gill netting in the sanctuaries would not 
prevent extinction, because the PER would be reached anyway, as a result of mortality in nets outside the 
sanctuaries. This stance comes from a misunderstanding of what PBR actually is. As stated in our report: . 
"The Potential aiologioal Removal is defined as the maximum number of animals, not including natural 
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or 
maintain its optimum sustainable population." (Preen and Morissette, 1997, p7). Even if the PBR is 
accounted for by the number of dugongs that die in nets outside the sanctuaries, this does not mean the 
population will continue to decline. Of course it depends on the extent of out-of sanctuary mortality. But. 
as our proposed system of sanctuaries wotild contain in the order of 99% of the dugongs (Preen and 
Morissette, 1997), the level of between-silictuary mortality should be relatively low. Furthemiore, as the 
populations of protected dugongs increase; the PBR increases, thus further reducing this problem. 
al Catching and successfully prosecutingvillegal netters (paint 13) is not as simple as may be implied in 
the AMCS policy. Illegal netters are often commercial netters who illegally set extra nets. All they have 
to do. is take their identification off the net and they can't be prosecuted, even though they may be caught 
right beside the net. 
m The AMCS policy uses the fact that gill nets and dugongs are not necessarily incompatible in Moreton 
Bay to show that gill netting is not a problem everywhere, and hence should not be banned (point 4), 
What is not stated, although I have explained it to Mr Hegerl before, is that the situation in Moreton Bay 
is exceptional. The gill nets and dugongs arc spatially separated in Moreton Bay. The netting occurs high 
on the sand and seagrass banks - higher than the dugongs go under nonnal circumstances. Consequently, 
dugongs are not often caught in nets. Furthermore, the targeted species are small, like whiting and bream, 
so th6 nets are fine meshed and relatively 'weak. A caught dugong may be able to break free. North from 
the Great Sandy Strait, however, the target species in gill net fisheries are ban-amundi, salmon, mackerel, 
and shark. These are large fish, which ne4ssitate the use of large and strong nets. Furthermore, these 
nets arc often set on the seagrass banks Where the dugongs feed. 
At the conclusion of the meeting on 20/2/97 Mr Heger/ challenged the veracity of the data on dugong 
deaths in gill nets. According to Mr Heieti, it had been claimed that five dugongs died in gill nets in 
Hervey Bay in 1996, but he knew from. AMCS members that the number was fewer than this. The 
inference was that if the Hervey Bay data were incorrect, then there is no reason to believe any of the 
data. Had Mr Hegerl carefully read the report that is cited in the AMCS policy, he would be aware that 
only one definite gill-net death was recorded from Hervey Bay in 1996: "In the southern 0,131Z in 1996, 
35 dead dueon,gs were recorded, of which there is evidence that 16 died in gill nets. In Hervey Bay, at 
least one of seven dead dugongs died in a gill net (Preen, unpubl. data)." (Preen and Morissette, 1997, p. 
-L G1 • 	 bl • 
4 
7). No other organisation, not even the QCFO, has questioned these data, which are compiled from the 
records of GBRMPA, Department of Flivironment and James Cook University. 
References 
Preen, T. and Morissette, 1997. A system of dugong sanctuaries for the recovery and conservation of 
dugong poprinrions in the Crreat'Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent southern waters. 
Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, February 1997_ 
QCFO, 1997. Industry proposal for the implementation of the QCFO Dugong Conservation Strategy. 
Emergency measures designed by the commercial net ftshennan in response to the urgent need 
for an immediate response to protect dugongs on the east coast of Queensland. Report to the 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, February 1997. 
— 
c_S
• • •.7 	 • 	 s • 	 • • 
••.• 	 • ,. n • 	 • • ' 
	
I • • 	 • 	 . 
44F.° !'s lar110:;,i) kik! ' 
t'fit 
.144 
rg ; 
' 	 • 
.„ . 
- 
• 
: 
' 
• 
' 
. •• 
• 
2 !. 
: 
tre.,...• 2 f 	 .I.2 • OL. 
; 1••••••;r :F..4 -47:3t..771..1c* 
; 	 • 	 . 	 „ 	
— • 	 • . 	 . 
!. . 
. 	
• 	
• :... _.___..„=,......___-___. 
THE WILDLIFE PR ESERVATION 5Oggity.0 
irtyLi i_sy .4% . DISTRICT. BRANCH *  .•!. p . a . • BoX 771  - _ 
.• 
. 	 _ .„. 
f • 	 • :•'•:— •-1.! 
.. ,• 	 . 	 . 	 . 
- 	 *:.. 	 • ' 
., '• .0i 
.• 
• 
. .;••••;•. 
. 	
• 	 • •• 
. 	
• 
• 
4. 8 5.4, 
. Dr Jan McPhail, 
' - 	 Chairperson, 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 
PO. Box 1379, 
TOWNSVICIE Q. 4810 
• 
24* February 1 
• • 
. 
. Dear Dr. MTh* 	 s 
, 
Tully and District branch of the -Wildlife Preservatio4 SOcktY,. of 
Queeensland is most concerned over the implementation of mess** to bait OW de.6140- 
dugong munbers along the Queensland coast We strongly .feel that rec,onimendaticitt* 
. document to establish Dugong protection areas or sanctuaries should be ***nen* 
We support Ministerial statements that fishing activilieS.Which 
dugong would be prohibited inthese sanctuarii:s. It is therefore esSentisl Ihat' hum 
-known to be a major cause of dugong deatkis hnmediately banned in the.seitinektaFis, 
:suliport a range of Other measures which are also needed to conserve ihe:sPecieiOn 
We feel that GBIZ/v1PA 's report on the DraftErnargency.Measures ShOukl. 
recommendations to end trawling across sea-grass beds,controls on 1ioat . spee4s in 
. .ban on underwater explosives in habitat, alternative shark protection methods and a 
any large-stale developments in or adjacent to critical dugong habitat: 	 : 	 :••• 	 .);;;,„. 
• We are actively promoting the Dugong and Dolphin Sighting Rccoi* 
put out by Dr.Tory Preen, as that is the most pertinent 'way that the publk: canhelpino ur  
This research is critical to the recovery of the dugong and has our *111111094, .• 	 • 	 • 
• Cessation.of gill-netting in the nominated Siiitt**.li 
immediate measure needed fothe recovery plan to have any worth. • 	 " • • 
..• 
Yours faithfully, 
„ 
          
          
          
JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY P NORTH QUEENSLAND 
TowNsviuz Queensland 4811 Australia lelephone: (077) 81 4111 
THE DEPARTMENT OF TROP/CAL ENVIRONMENT STUDIES AND GEOCRAPHY 
    
Telephone: (077331 4521 
(077)z 4325 Facs im Ile_ (077) 81 4020 
1077) al 5581 
17 February 1997. 
Dear Ian, 
i have read the reports that nave been prepared for the Dugong Review Group and noted the titles of the additional reports that are expected_ 
As a result of my inquires in the United State about the history of dealing with 
endangered speciesibycatch issues (attached), I conclude that history is repeating itself. 
States: 
The same mistakes are being made that were made 
with the turtic-TF) issue in the United 
GBRIVIPA is setting itself up for a protracted war with the fishing industry whic.h will threaten its capacity to tackle other fishing impacts such as the bycatch or turtles in trawls and the effects of trawls on the benthos. 
There are several anomalies in the approach to date 
concentration on the technical aspects of the problem investigate JR.22.Luget the akehok1eroi whose 
comply with the proposed solutions, 
Despite the repeated calls of members of the lingong Rcyiew Group for the closure of %gong Protacteil areas to 
mesh netting there is no paper outlirt" = o lions as to how This nil -1,—..AA-USLQ113 e* 
At worst, this oversight could increase the overall number of dugongs' 'killed by mesh nets in marine park. Fishers with netting endorsement are legally entitled to lisla anywhere on the east coast of Queensland. There is 
anecdotal evidence that fishers who are unfamiliar with an 
area are most likely to catch dugongs. If the mesh netting effort is 
simply displaced, fishers will be forced into new areas with which Ley- ate unfamiliar. Adoption 
of the comprehensive system of Dugong Protectiou Areas suggested by 
Preen and Morissette (1997) (which I support) will mit' iimise the chance of this happening in the southern Great Barrier keel, However, such substantial closures south of Cooktown increase the risk of displacing fishing effort, at least seasonally, _lathe 
 remote 
 northern regions where most of the dugongs are. In addition, squeezing the same number of fishers into a smaller area will 
compromise their livelihoods which will increase the chances of conflict and political interferen ce 
If mesh netting effort is to be reduced as a consequence of closures, there are several major policy issues that need to be addressed as a matter of urgency: 
Will there be a reduction in fishing, licences or 
endorsements? If the latter, how will effort be controlled in af,s lated fiherjs _such - - crabhin- 
Campu;;e:i at - 
	 T0wr,[5vILLE 
	 cA1RN5 
	 MACKAY 
but the most serious is the 
at the expense of the need to 
livelihoods are threatened to 
17(ptz) 
Nitrhat is the policy on 
 comocosidip.p? The QCF0 submission indicates that 
organisation still expects compensation to be offered. If a transparent, public 
coaxpensation policy is not developed as a matter of .urgency, history has shown 
that the government is likely to respond to political pressure from the fiRhiug industry by 'offering compensation which is not based on economic principles. This 
could set An expensive precedent if GBRAVA wishes to ilgot-iate additional hawk 
closures to protect the benthon... 
Thy measures advocated by the_QCF0 are very unlikely reduce mesh nettinp by-catch to a  
level which will allow dugong numbers to recover. I do not believe that it is appropriate 
to allow lower standards for endangered species by-catch in a World Heritage Area than 
those which .are applied routinely in all US waters (see attachment). In addition, the 
measure:s proposed by the QCF0 are too complicated for effective impIementatidn and 
enforcement 
Experience in the US suggests that bycatch problems arc most effectively addressed in the ()verge 
 context of fisheries rnanagement..If this is to be done in the OBRWITA, urgent 
action is required as management plans for the inshore mesh net fisheries and for the trawl 
fishery are in preparation. 
Many of these issues, especially the issue of emnpensatiQn,  have also been raised by jsa,pis .eoples in anticipation of a reduction in the areas in which they are allowed  to 
bunt. i aru also concerned that Mission Bay next to Yarrabah has not been included in the 
list of proposed Dugong Protected Areas. Has that community been formally consulted 
about this? 
My concern about these issues is based on my experience on the Great Barrier Reef 
Consultative Committee and the Board of the Queensland Fisheries Management Authority 
and my discussions with managers and conservation groups in the United States. I believe that if these issues are not dressed as a 
 i 
 er of tirceri that GBRMPA's relationshi 
with the fishing industry! 
 Indigenous peoples and the public: at large will deteriorate. 
I look forward to discussing these issues with you tbis afternoon. 
Yours sincerely, 
Helene Marsh 
cc. 	 Tony Stokes 
ii 
Ii 
ii 
Attempts at . nxinhnising the bycatch
- 
 of endangered species in 
commercial fishing operations in the United States: lessons tor the Great Barrier Reef region. 
Helene Marsh, CRC Reef Research and Department of Tropical Environment Studies and 
Geography, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia, 4811. 
The current management 'arrangements in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area 
(QBRWHA) have failed to prevent declines in the endangered inegafauna. Declines have been 
documented for breeding female loggerhead turtles (Limpus and Reimer 1994; Hcepel 
et fa. 1996) and for dugongs (Marsh et al. 1996). There are indications of declines in nesting green and hawksbill turtles ((Arnim*: e al. 1996), These declines am caused by multiple impacts both inside and nntside the .GBRWRA including habitat loss, bycatch in fishing operations and the 
Queensland Shark Protection Progrdm, and directed catches. Directed catches include traditional hunting in the GBRVVRA and the commercial harvest of green turtles in Indonesia. The 
relative importance of impacts is unquantified but varies spatially within the GI3RWIIA. The declines 
indicate the need for new management arrangements to protect the endangered meg,afaun
a in the GBRWHA. 
Dugongs;- dolphins and sea turtles arc drowned in gillnets (Marsh et al. 1996) and sea turtles are drowned in trawls (Robins 1995). Although the development of Dugong Protection Areas should 
significantly reduce bycatch in the inshore mesh net fishery, I believe they are unlikely to reduce 
the overall mortality to levels which would be acceptable under United States legislation (see 
Attachment 1) and which are designed to promote recovery. Aotioris also need to be taken to reduce the turtle bycatch. 
During ray recent visit to the United States, I had the opportunity • to talk with the following 
people about their experience with the attempts to minimise the bycatch of endangered species 
in commercial fishing operations: 
Dr Karen Bjorndahl, University of Florida, former Chair lUCN Sea Turtle Specialist 
Group and Member of US Academy of Science, National Research Council, Committee for Sea Turtle Conservation. 
Dr Deborah Crouse, Centre for Marine Conservation, Washington DC. 
Mr Mark Gosliencr, Environmental lawyer, US Marine Mammal Commission_ 
Ms Barbara Schroeder, National Sea Turtle Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, Washington, DC. 
Mr Dean Swanson, Chief, International Fisheries Division, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, Washington, DC. 
• 
	
	
MI John Twiss, Executive Officer, US Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, DC. 
Ms Nina Young, Centre for Marine Conservation, Washington DC. 
The attempts to control these impacts in the. US date from the 1970s. They are marked by a 
history of controversy, acrimony, 
-delay and denial. I hope that we can achieve at least 
as much as they have in the United States, but much more quickly. I believe we can learn from their 
experience as outlined below. 
TIrc US situation is exacerbated by the way fishing is managed in that country. Fisheries are open 
access. For some fisheries (such as the shrimp fishery), the Rational Marine risheries Service 
does not even how how many vessels are operating. Further obscuring the picture is the 
patchwork of state fishery regulations and thc proprietaly natttre of much of the information 
about fishing 1 
 landings and vessel operatio.us is state waters. In addition, most Esher ies legislation does not include ecosystem protection.and ESD in its objectives. 
Another complication is the size of the fleets. For example, in the commercial shrimp fishery in 
the Gulf of Mexico, an estimated 13,000 vessels and boats landed 249.5 million pounds (113,171 
tonnes) of shrimp in 1990 valued at ITS $398.6 million (A$533 million) along a coast comparable is length to the east . 
 coast of Queensland. The offshore fleet which is most comparable to the 
Queensland fleet comprises 5,000 vessels. In comparisons, the latest figures for the Queensland 
east coast prawn fishery indicate that 823 otter trawls and 222 beam-trawls land 5800-7200 tonnes of prawns valued at $A10(J milliOrt each year (Q1 71VIA 1995). 
The situation in the GBRWHA, in the 1990s has several advantages over that in the US: A strong legislative basis for ecosystem management through Commonwealth and Queensland Marine Park legislation_ 
A Fisheries Act 1994 (Q1d) with the primary objective of 'ensuring that fisheries 
resources are used in an ecologically sustainable way'. 
Limited entry fisheries. 
Compulsory log books provide data on who has been fishing, where they have fished and the effort since 1988. 
	 . 
This situation is certainly much more conducive to solving the endangered species bycatch 
problem than the situation in the United States, but we should take note of their experience. 
I think the following are 
-worth noting: 
1. 	 Because of the unmanaged status of many US fisheries, the endangered species byeatch problem has been addressed solely under the Endangered Species Act (1)5 ESA) (turtles) 
or the Marine Mammal Protection. Act (US lvIMPA) (marine mammals). This approach 
has several problems: 
The only mechanisms available to solve the problem are changing gear or fishing practices. It is generally not possible to use ecovstem level measures such as Spatial closures. 
Fishers (justifiably) believe they are being singled out for attention as the ecosystem level impacts on endangered species are not being addressed. 
Lesson 1 
Address the byeatch problem in the overall context of ecosystem management with 
particular atterxtion to other impacts on the endangered species. 
2. 	 Attempts to solve the bycarch problem have been indegendent of attempts to rationalise the fisheries_ Thus the fishers see Adc3itional restrictions- 
 on their activities (resulting in. higher operating costs) being imposed on them 
while the economic problems of the fishery are being neglected. The fishers then light the increased restrictions as a perceived threat to their livelihood, while the real problem is that there are too many fishers. 
This is a major problem for the shrimp fishery. Shrimp are seen as an afinual crop, so the 
sustainablity of the fishery is not in question and it is believed that the number of fishers should be rationalised by market forces. Turtle Bx.cluder Devices 
 Lib S) have been used as a scapegoat for the economic problems of the fishery_ This, of course, has been 
capitalised on by local politicians to polarise the situation. 
	
3. 	 Another effect of addressing the bycatch problem in isolation is that the 
only options for bargaining have been the fishery operations per se. Thus most of the negotiations over ways to solve the turtle bycatch problems in the shrimp fishery have been over details such as when - 
 and where TEDS are to be used, tow times etc. inevitably, these 
negotiations over the turtle.bycatela resulted in a watering down of the effectiveness of 
the management measure. Focus groups with the fishers have indicated that they would 
have liked to negotiate over incentives to comply with the rules. Economic incentives 
e.g. a substantially reduced licence fee for using a TED, were obviously not an option in an open entry fishery which was supposed to be managed by competition between fishers. 
	
4. 	 Another unfortunate by-product of this bargaining process was in increase in the 
complexity of the management rules. The fishers were inebrisistent 
about this. The 
complexity arose at their request as a result of the bargaining process. Then the fishers 
complained that the rules were too complicated! The effectiveness of these complicated 
rules in reducing turtle bycatch was also questionable, especially given that several species of sea turtles, all with different biologies, were being caught. 
Lesson 2 
Address the byeateh problem in the overall context 
of fisheries.m.anagement. (11 this is to be done in the GBRWHA, urgent action is required as management plans for the inshore 
mesh 
net fisheries and for the trawl fishery are in preparation). 
Lesson 3 
Educate the staff of local politicians about the problem_ 
3 
Lesson 4 
Keep management actions as simple as possible despite pressures from fishers to complicate them as part of the bargaining process. 
5. 	 Much of the legislative responsibility for the byeatch problem rests wiat the National Marine Fisheries Service. This agency took a long while to take the problem seriously. The agency mgarded the welfare of the fishing industry as its major responsibility and 
endangered species' bycatch issues as low priority. I suspect that greater attention 
wag paid to -marine mamtual bycatch problems than sea turtle bycatch problems because the US .MMEPA has higher standards for incidental take than the ITS ESA: 
The US ESA requires that the take not jeop.ardise a species survival or recovery. The US MMPA requires that the level of incidental take be at insignificant levels 
approaching a zero value. 
Also the US MMPA has sfringent reporting requirements. If the Marine Mammal 
Con3mission writes to a federal agency asking theni to take an *action, that agency is 
required by the US MMPA to explain in writing if they decide to ignore this 
request. 
Lesson 5 
The problem of incidental take of endangered species cannot be left to fisheries rilanagement 
agencies alone. At the very least, there should be a transparent reporting requirement to an agency with conservation responsibilities. 
6. 	 Social science research conducted relatively late in the sea turtle/LLD saga indicates that 
there was a disproportionate effort spent on fine-tuning the technical information about th.c impact of incidental take on sea turtles and the benefits of using TEDS in the belief 
that more information would alter the position of the opponents of TEDS. Of course, this - did not happen and the need for more technical information was used as a delaying tactic 
by opponents of TEDS. The research showed that scientists and managers (who tend to 
come from a science background) do not appreciate that information alone will 
not change attitudes: It is now recognised that much more effort should have been spent on 
education of the fishers and the development of incentives for thew to comply. Scientists 
and fisheries managers assume that compliance can only he achieved by enforcement but 
the experience in the US shows that education and incentives are also very important and 
that compliance was higher among ifi-!2ps exposed to education programs than groups that were- not_ 
Lesson 6 
DA not concentrate on the technical aspe.cts of the problem at the expense or the need for incentives and education. Educate not only the fishers hut the fisheries managers and the 
enforcement officers as well, 
4 
  
• 'b. 
   
      
      
      
      
7. 	
In the early 1980s, the National Marine Fisheries Service promoted the voluntary use of 
TEDS with a target of 50% of fishers using TEDS by the end of 1.986. This apiroach was 
supported by environmental groups. However, voluntary compliance failed and regulations has to be adopted from 1987. By this time, of eourse, the envirnumental groups were up 
in arms as the stocks of Kemp's ridleys, the sea turtles of most concern, had declined • ftuther. 
Lesson 7 
htdustry self-regulation alone is ulilikely to work. 
8. 	 As cfforts to rninimiSe 
 the incidental take of marine mammals and reptiles in commercial fisheries ia the US has concentrated on gear modifications and changes in fishing 
practices rather than changes in effort, compensation to fishers Lib nut 
really been an issue. The exception ig the net ban in Florida which was effected by a change to the Florida State Constitution in 1994. Concern about glib:letting first arose in 1989-90 as a result of netting being implicated as the cause of death of juvenile green turtles stranding in a local area in.southeast Florida. There were several attempts at modifying fishing 
practices (soak times, net length, mesh .SUB, 
night closures etc). Trammel nets were banned. The issue was then taken up by the recreational fishers who 
comidered that gilinetting was competing with their activities. The recreational fishers succeeded in getting the issue on the 1994 state ballot. As a result, IML fishing (not just gillnelling) was banned in the state waters of Florida. The fishers were compensated for the values of their . 
nets via a buy back scheme. A.,s the information on commercial fishers in Florida is poor, 
I understand that the compensation process was abused and that many claims were made based on nets which had not been used for years, 
Lesson 8. 
If compensation is going to he offered; it needs to be based on transparent 
criteria and logbook evidence of fishing effort, 
9. 	
There is anecdotal evidence (Dr S. Wright, Coordinator Florida manatee carcass 
salvage program 1997) that more manatees were caught (riot drowned) in crab lines after the Florida net ban as fishing effort moved from netting to crabbing. 
Lesson 9 
If effort is reduced in one component of a fishery in which_ fishers have multiple 
endorsements, it is important to consider the impacts of a resultaiifincrease in effort in other fisheries.. 
Recommendations 
The GBRAIP Act be rnodzyied to require: 
that, within the GRIMI1A, anthropngezric impacts on endangered and 
threatened species be rethiced within a specified time frame to levels which 
Rfp. irr 
will allow recovery of the stocks, and 
that, lit particular, the level of incidental take of endangered and 
threatened species be at insignificant levels approaching a zero value 
within that tirnefrarne. 
• 
(These levels have been defined under the US MIYIPA see Attachment 1). 
The .Great Buniar Req . Ministerial Council require the relevant agencies to 
prest.-nt an annual report on their progress in solving the endangered species 
bycatch problems in the GBRWHA. . 
Agencies could be required to develop a take. reduction plan for the. gill net fishery 
and the prawn fishery and to report progress on the implerueutution of this plan 
each van A model for such reporting under the US MIVEPA has been developed 
(see Attachment 1). 
If this approach were ;41:Jopted, there would presumably have to he some funding 
to Queensland for this purpose. 
it is important to view these recommendations in the context of the following question: 
• 	 Should the standards for the hvelitch of eudangered species in the GERWITA be less than those routinely applied in ITS waters? 
Literature Cited 
deppell, S., C.J. Limpus, D. Crouse, N. Frazer, and L. Crowder, 1996. Population model analysis for loggerhead sea turtle, Caretra caretta., in Queensland_ Wildlife Research 23,143-59. Lirnpus, C. J. and D.Reim.er. 1994. The loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in Queensland: a population in decline. pp. 34-48_ In Russell James (compiler) Proceedings of the Marine 
Turtle Conservation Workshop. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service; Canberra. 
Limpus, C. Y., M. Hamann, and C. French. 1996. Queensland Turtle Research Raine Island Study 1995-1996. Unpublished report to Department of Environment and Raine island Corporation_ pp. 1-23. 
Marsh, I-1., P.J. Corkeron, I. Lawler, J. Lanyort, and A. Preen 1996, The status of dugongs in the 
Great Bather Reef region, south of Cape Bedford. Research Publication No. 41. Great 
Barrier Reef Marine Park Author1ty.80pp. 
QFMA 1996. Queensland trawl fishery, Discussion Paper No. 5. 
Robins, Jr. B. 1995. Estimated catch and mortality of sea turtles from the East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery of Queensland, Australia. Biol. Conserv. 74:157-67. 
6 
Ku. 10 
Attachment 1: 
Significant changes to the US Marine Manamai Protection Act provisions concerning marine marrunal-fishery interactions enacted in 1994 
based on: Marine Mammal Commissiont 
 Annual Report to Congress 1994. 
Section 117 requires the preparation of marine mammal 
stock assessments to constitute the scientific basis for the new regime to govern the taking of niarine manunals incidental to commercial fisheries. 
	
• 
Section 118 sets forth •the requiremerits of a new incidental take regime which focuses priority on reducing the incidental mormlity and serious injury of maliue mammals from strategic stocks. i.e. Thoce. that are listed as endangered on threatened under the US 
_ESA or declining and likely to be listed in the foreseeable future, those designated as depleted Under the US IVMPA, and those for which human rated mortality exceeds the estimated replacement yield. 
Stock Assessments 
Section 117 requires 
the Secretary of Commerce, in consultatiorn. with an appropriate scientific 
review group consisting of individuals with expertise. in marine mammal biology and ecology, population dynamics and modelling, 
commercial fishing technology and practices, and stocks. taken by Alaskan natives, to prepare a draft stock assessment for 
each marine mammal that occurs in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the US. These reports are to be made 
available for public comment leading to the development of a final stock assessment for each species. Each stock assessment has to: 
pro-vide a minimum population estimate, the stock's current and maximum net productivity rates and current population trend including a description of the information on which these are based; 
estimate the annual 
human caused mortality and serious injury, by source; 
and for stocks determined to be strategic stocks. describe the factors that may 
be causing a decline or impeding recovery; 
describe the commercial fisheries that interact with 
the stock including an estimate of the 
number of vessels in each fishery, fishery specific estimates of mortality and serious 
serious injury rate; injury, and an analysis of whether mortality levels are approaching a zero mortality and 
assess whether the level of human-caused mortality and 
serious injury is not likely to cause the stock to be reduced below irs optimum sustainable populatiou or alternatively whether the stock should he categorised as a strategic stock; and 
used to calculate it. 
estimate the potential biological removal level for the 
stock and describe the in.formation 
describe the geographic range of the stock: 
7 
Stock assessments are ta be reviewed at least annually for strategic stocks. 
Potential Biological Removal (FDA) 
The US /4iMPA defines PEA to mean: 
the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, th;it 
 may be removed from a marine mammals stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its optimum smstainable population. The potential biological removal level is the profluct of the following factors: 
the minimum population estimate fo the stock (defined a.s the 20th percentile of a log-normal distribution based on an ‘egriniates of an emit-flak: 
 of the number of animals in that stock); 
one half 
 of the maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock smatl 
 population size; the default values for r. are 0.04 for cetaceans and manatees; 
a recovery factor of between 0.1 and 1; (0.1 for 
endangered species including the manatee; 0.65 for threatened or depleted cetaceAns). 
An insignificant removal was defined as 10% of the potential biological removal. 
Take Reduction Plan 
The US IvIIVIPA requires that a take reduction plan be developed for each strategic stock (including all those that are endangered, threatened or depleted). These plans are to include =commended regulatory Or voluntary measures designed to 
reduce incidental mortality or serious injury and recommended dates for achicving-specia objectives. The immediate goal of a take reduction plan for 4, strategic stock. is to reduce within six months, incidental mortality and serious injury to levels less than the potential biological removal level in the stock assessment. 
The long-term goal of the take reduction plans is to reduce incidental mortality and 
serious injury to insignificant levels approaching zero rate within five years taking into 
account the economics of the fishery, existing technology, and applicable State or regional 
fishery management plans. 
17-040 
0 
13 (p% u) . 
 
Applying the PIM concept to the GB.R. and Hervey Bay. 
Scut ern 
GBR 
Northern 
Gl3R 
JUJU& 
8190 
Late s t population 
estimate 
1172 
S.C. 
0 
0.14 
0.14 
3 
1668 
8120 
Nmit, 
0.02 
0.0-) 1 
0.5 RThitx 
•n• 	
0.1 4 
Recove I Potential 
rY 	 Biological 
Factor 
	 Removal 
1_003 162 
105.3 
- 3.3 
Hervey Bay 
1.6 
- 'default value for manatees in US (probably high for dugongs as manatees breed earlier and faster than dugongs). 
2
assuming stock is considered threatened 
'assuming stock is classified as within its optimum population range 
4stock meets ILTC_N criteria for critically endangered 
These l'esults indicate that virtually any anthropogenic mortality of dugongs in the Great Barrier 
Reef south of Dunk Island or Hervey Bay will exceed the potential biological rernoval level as defined in the US. The known net
- 
 related mortality in the Southern GDR in 1996 (at least 15 dugongs, J. Slater pers Comm.) is more than four times the
. PBR. The total PBR for the Great Barrier R.L-gion north of Cooktown (Indigenous Like plus traditional harvest) is between 
. 105 and 
Or 'threatened'. 162 dugongs per year depending on whether the stock is classified as 'within its optimum range' 
If the PBR approach is used to determine catch quotas for dugong in Australia, it 
win. be important to ensure the accuracy of the population estimates, which at present are likely to be underestimates because the correction for dugongs which are iayisiblc due to water turbidly is conervative. Improving the accuracy of these estimates (which were designed to detect trends 
rather than to calculate quotas) will be technically. difficult and .probably expensive. 
807 151 
	 0.1S 
7 
795 
	 0.02 0.0 
	 • 	
 I I 
9 
JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY 
OF NORTH QUEENSLAND 
TOVVNSVILLE Qtmenstand 4811 Australia 'Telephone! (077) $1 4111 
THE DEP,ARTMENT OF TROPICAL ENVIRONMENT STUDIES 
AND GEOGRAPHY 
Telephone: (077) $1 4521 
(077)81 4325 
Facsimile: (077)81 4020 
(077)815581 
C14/ 7 f 10 • OD 
26 February 1997 
Dri McPhail 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
P 0 Box 1379 
TOWNSVILLE OLD 4810 
Demr Jan 
Dugong Conservation !Mies 
obtained additional figures on meih . netting effort from the OFMA database for a paper I am 
writing. 1 report the following statistidt for 1994: 
Area No, of 
vessels 
No_ of netting 
days 
Netting days/vessel 
Cooktown to Cape York 20 1220 61 
Southern boundary of 
GBRNIP c;nd Cooktown 
338 10476 31 
Shmlwater Bay 29. 526 18 	 . 
Herny nay - Great Sandy 
St (including east coast of 
Fraser IS) 
97 3354 34.6 
These figures indicate that, if more than 5% of vessels are displaced to Cape York from the 
region between Hervey Bay and Coektown, the number of vessels operating in the Cape York 
region (where dugong demities - areliigher than in the southern GBR) would double. 
I note that the Tropical Finfish MAC is concerned about displacement from the east coast 
mesh net fishery to the Gulf of Carpentaria fishery. 
The fishers are also confused at the fact that many important dugong areas on the east coast 
of Queensland have not been declared interim Dugong Protection Areas. This inconsistency is 
anomalous in view of the areas which were closed to mesh netters in the Far Northern Section 
zoning in the 1080s to protect dugongs and should be rectifed. 
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further queries on these matters. 
Yours sincerely 
YYLv%-iki 
Helene Marsh 
0.0. 
	 Tony Stokes 
Campuses at 	 TOWNSVILLE 	 CAIRNS 
	 MACKAY 
TOTAL P.02 
ii 
efr. 
A system of dugong sanctuaries 
for the recovery and conservation 
of dugong populations in the 
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area 
and adjacent southern waters 
Report to 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
Tony Preen and Nina Morissette 
Department of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography 
James Cook University 
7 February 1997 
Executive Summary 
Dugong populations along the Queensland coast between Cooktown and the Sunshine 
Coast have collapsed by 50 to 90% in seven years to 1994. The implications for such a 
decline for a species with the life history traits of the dugong are very serious. Dugongs 
in this vast region are now Critically Endangered. 
The Dugong Review Group has committed itself to urgent action to ensure the recovery 
of these dugong populations. The Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council has adopted 
proposals from the Dugong Working Group that include a system of dugong sanctuaries 
along the Queensland coast. 
It is apparent that the decline in dugong populations commenced well before the first 
quantitative aerial survey in 1986-7 that established a population baseline against which 
to monitor change. 
Recovery of the dugong populations will require the protection of all significant dugong 
habitats, not just those areas where dugongs were abundant in 1986-7. 
A variety of independent data that provide infonnation on dugong distribution was 
assembled in an effort to identify those areas that should be included in the sanctuary 
system. Only the transect aerial surveys were essentially free of bias. The low survey 
intensity (approximately 10% coverage repeated three times since 1986-7), however, 
means that these surveys provide an incomplete picture of dugong distribution, at the 
scale required to deteimine the boundaries of sanctuaries. Fortunately, the additional data 
derived from other sources were in general agreement with the transect survey -data, and 
the combination of all data sets provided the best available picture of dugong distribution. 
A review of this data suggested the modification of the boundaries of some of the interim 
sanctuaries, plus the addition of three new sanctuaries: near Gladstone, Bowen and Port 
Douglas. 
Nine sanctuaries are recommended for the Great Barrier Reef region between Cape 
Bedford and Bundaberg. These sanctuaries would contain approximately 99% of the 
dugong population (based on 1986-7 population estimates) and 79% of coastal seagrass 
meadows while enclosing only 34% of nearshore coastal waters (out to 3 nm). Thus, the 
vast majority of dugong habitat could be protected while leaving two-thirds of coastal 
waters available for gill net fishing and other activities incompatible with dugong 
conservation. 
A single sanctuary is recommended for southern Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Strait. 
It would have contained 92% of the regional population in 1988, and 86% in 1994. 
The dugong sanctuaries in this system are separated by distances of 65-240 km (as the 
dugong swims), with an average separation of 132 km. Satellite tracking has 
demonstrated that dugongs regularly make hops of 40-50 km, often make movements of 
up to 100 km and occasionally travel distances of 200-500 km. Hence, the system of 
sanctuaries should allow for the exchange of dugongs and genes between populations. 
2 
Background 
The decline in dugong populations in the southern Great Barrier Reef (GBR) was first detected in 
• 1993, following a November 1992 aerial survey (Marsh et al., 1994): That survey repeated the 
original 1986-7 survey of coastal waters between Tin Can Bay and Cape Bedford which had 
established the first estimate of dugong populations in the southern and central GBR (Marsh and 
Saalfeld, 1990) and in Hervey Bay (Marsh et al., 1990). The extent of the dugong decline was 
confimied after a third survey was conducted in November 1994. The number of dugongs in the 
Southern and central GBR had declined by approximately 50% since 1986-7 (Marsh et al., 1996). 
Along much of the coast the decline exceeded 80%. A number of factors may be responsible for 
the decline, although there is strong evidence that incidental take in mesh nets is the most 
important factor (see below). 
Dugongs in Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Strait, which is immediately south of the Great 
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) have also declined. The population collapsed from 
approximately 2,200 in 1988 to approximately 600 in 1993, a decline of 73% (Preen and Marsh, 
1995). Partially as a result of immigration, the population estimate had increased to 807 (+1-151) 
by November 1994 (Marsh et al., 1996). Unlike the decline in the GBR, the Hervey Bay decline 
was precipitous and followed two floods and a cyclone in 1992. Those events resulted in the near 
total loss of seagrass from Hervey Bay, followed by the death and emigration of emaciated 
dugongs (Preen et al., 1995; Preen and Marsh, 1995). 
Using the latest World Conservation Union criteria (IUCN, 1995), dugongs in the GBRWHA south 
of CooktoWn and dugongs in the Hervey Bay area are classified as Critically Endangered. 
A meeting of the Great Bather Reef Marine Park Authority's (GBRMPA) Dugong Review Group 
--was convened in Townsville on 4 October 1996 to discuss the dugong decline. In opening the 
meeting Senator Hill requested the Group to "identify emergency measures designed to eliminate or 
at least substantially reduce, dugong mortality in the Great Barrier Reef area." (Hill, 1996). 
Subsequently, the Group committed itself "to the recovery and conservation of dugong populations 
over the entire Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent waters" and agreed that urgent 
and immediate action was required to reverse the recently detected declines (Dugong Review 
Group, 1996). 
On 20 November 1996 the GBR Ministerial Council considered a package of emergency measures 
delivered by the Dugong Working Group (a group of government agency and ATSIC 
representatives extracted from the Dugong Review Group). Ministerial Council agreed to. the 
formation of a sanctuary system, the basis of which were nine interim Dugong Protection Areas in 
the region south of Cape Bedford, plus a possible two more off eastern Cape York (Ministerial 
Council, 1996). Details of permitted and prohibited activities in the dugong sanctuaries are to be 
negotiated by 28 February 1997. Significantly, however, Ministerial Council stated "that fishing 
practices that may result in dugong mortality will not be permitted in those areas". 
As part of the process of refining the sanctuary proposals, the GBRMPA commissioned us to 
collate existing data on dugongs and seagrasses along the GBR coast and adjacent waters south of 
Cape Bedford; to assess the appropriateness of the proposed boundaries of the interim sanctuaries; 
and to consider the need for additional sanctuaries. 
Data sources 
Within the limited time frame, all available sources of data on dugong and seagrass distribution 
were accessed. These included the existing databases of dugong sightings made on transects during 
standardised aerial surveys conducted by Helene Marsh and associates at James Cook University 
and the existing seagrass distribution data based on Queensland Department of Primary Industries' 
(QDPI) surveys. While being an excellent resource, these data provide only a limited picture about 
dugong habitats because: 
only three dugong surveys have been conducted along most of the coast; 
survey transects are mostly 2.5 or 5 rim apart, and as the same transects are flown 
each survey, most habitat has never been viewed; 
the dugong surveys commenced in 1986 and there is evidence that the dugong 
decline commenced many years before then. Hence, the transect surveys do not 
necessarily indicate all of the most important dugong habitat, as some areas may 
have been depleted before the surveys commenced; 
the seagrass surveys are ofl-resolution and are biased towards shallow areas 
(except for the Hinchinbrook and Shoalwater Bay areas). 
To supplement these data sets information from the following sources was also assembled: 
Dugong carcasses: The dugong group at James Cook University has collected data on dead 
dugongs in the Townsville area since the early 1970s. Essential information from datasheets from 
1981 to the present were computerised, although data sheets were missing for the periods August 
1988 and September 1992, and July 1995 and January 1996. A substantial data set also exits for 
Hervey Bay. These data cover the period 1986 to present and were compiled from the records of 
the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol and T. Preen. There are relatively few data available 
1 f(P• S2 
from remainder of the coast, although the situation improved in 1996, when GBRMPA began 
collating Department of Environment (DoE) records. Further data were also available from the 
catches of dugongs in shark nets. Some 837 dugongs were caught in shark nets set in Queensland 
for bather protection between 1 November 1962 and 30 June 1991 (QDPI, 1992). Site specific data 
on dugong captures were extracted from Paterson (1979) and QDPI (1992). 
Shoreline aerial surveys: George Heinsohn conducted some shoreline aerial surveys along the 
Queensland coast in the 1970's and some of the results had been collated by Peter Spencer 
(Spencer, 1989). In addition we conducted two shoreline surveys along most of the coast between 
Townsville and Rodd's Bay in December 1996. Two 1992 shoreline surveys of the Great Sandy 
Strait were also available (T.Preen, unpublished data). 
Whale surveys: Hervey Bay has been surveyed for Humpback whales during a number of whale-
watching seasons. From August through October 1991 the then Department of Environment and 
Heritage conducted 13 transect surveys of the eastern two-thirds of Hervey Bay. Observers also 
recorded dugong sightings and these data show the general distribution of dugongs in the bay the 
year before the seagrass die-off that affected the dugong population (see below). 
Satellite tracking: Seventeen dugongs have been tracked by satellite in the southern and central 
GBR and Hervey Bay. The locations derived from these animals were plotted to provide 
information on habitat use by dugongs in Upstart Bay (one dugong), Shoalwater Bay (11 dugongs) 
and Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait (five dugongs). Shoalwater dugongs also travelled to Hervey 
Bay, Clairview and Hay Point. 
Incidental sightings: Spencer (1989) compiled a list of incidental sightings of dugongs collected 
between 1973 and 1988. These sightings were comprised of Coastwatch records and sightings made 
by the general public a3 forwarded to James Cook University as part of its Marine Mammal 
Sighting Program coordinated by H. Marsh, G. Heinsohn and P. Arnold. We extended this data set 
by including incidental records collected by T. Preen as well as dugong sightings from Marine 
Parks surveillance flight's. Specific requests were also made to DoE staff at Rockhampton, Mackay, 
Whitsundays, Townsville and Cairns for incidental records that may have been collected in those 
offices. Some members of the public with an interest in dugongs were also contacted in attempt to 
collect more incidental sightings. 
Information from Indigenous groups: Recognising that there are very few data available for many 
areas of the coast, and that dugong hunters may have the best available information for some areas, 
indigenous groups in Gladstone, Mackay, Bowen and Mossman were contacted. Unfortunately, the 
very short period available to collect dugong information, plus a justified suspicion in some cases 
that the information may be used to restrict hunting has been an impediment to the provision of 
Indigenous knowledge. Nevertheless, some very valuable data were provided. The recollections of 
hunters about those areas that used to be important for dugongs are Particularly valuable as this 
data pre-dates any scientific data by 1-2 decades. 
Most of the data listed above was georeferenced and entered into a GIS to produce maps that 
indicate the relative importance of different areas for dugongs. There are a number of qualifications 
that must be borne in mind when these maps are viewed. With the exception of the standardised 
transect aerial surveys, different data sets are not directly comparable. This is because they are all 
biased in different ways and they are all very incomplete. Incidental sightings may reflect where 
people tend to be most common, not just where dugongs are most common. The carcass data 
reflects this phenomenon as the majority of records come from within about 2 km of human 
settlements. Some areas have much more dugong information because of the research that has been 
conducted there. Hence, we know a lot about dugongs in Shoalwater Bay and Hervey Bay. Had 
similar research been conducted in other areas, data-dense maps may have been created for those 
areas also. Despite these qualifications, this assemblage of data from a diversity of sources provides 
a particularly useful summary of dugong habitats along the GBR and Hervey Bay coasts. 
Some of these databases contain errors, not all of which have been corrected. 
Recovery to what? 
The aim of the sanctuary system is to facilitate the recovery of the dugong populations, particularly 
south of Cooktown. When addressing the issue of recovery it is important to realise that the 50- 
80% declines recently detected do not represent the full extent of the decline. The measured 
decline covers the period 1986-7 to 1994. All available evidence suggests that "die decline started 
much earlier, and consequently, is much greater. In the region from Cape Bedfo- rci to Dunk Island 
(including Cairns), for example, the number of dugongs seen on the standardised aerial surveys has 
been so low that it has never been possible to calculate a population estimate (Marsh et al., 1994). 
Hence, no decline has been detected in this region. Bertram and Bertram's (1973) paper on dugong 
distribution, however, tells a different story. Under the title 'Cairns and Yarraba' they wrote: 
'An enquiry in 1952/3 had apparently concluded that [dugongs were] abundant locally and 
not being depleted by the large numbers being taken at nearby Yarraba Settlement for 
Aborigines. At the time of our visit in 1956 some 200 were being taken by half a dozen 
fishermen from the settlement, one (Police Sergeant John Maloney, our informant) having 
taken 64 in a single year. A herd of 100 had recently been seen. There was thought to be 
as many as 40 years ago. There was a local anecdote of the "Bay being full of dugongs", 
but there was seemingly much variation from year to year, and in 1966 there were reported 
to be almost none. Shark nets at Cairns took 42 animals between 1964 and 1969, ranging 
from 4 ft 2 in. to 11 ft.' (Bertram and Bertram, 1973, p 313) 
The greatest shark-net captures of dugongs at Cairns occurred between 1969 and 1974 (Paterson, 
1979; QDPI, 1992). In this 5-year period 55 dugongs were caught. Subsequently very few dugongs 
were caught (QDPI, 1992). 
It is clear that in the Cairns region dugongs were abundant in the mid- to late-1960's, but that by 
the mid-1980's when the first standardised aerial survey was conducted, they were very rare. 
Aboriginal Elders believe that dugongs have been in decline for the past 20 years throughout the 
southern GBR (Ross Williams, pers. comm.) suggesting that the situation in Cairns is more likely 
to be the norm, rather than the exception. 
Comparing the density of dugongs off Cape York north of Cape Bedford, where dugong numbers 
have remained stable between 1985 and 1995 (Marsh and Corkeron, unpubl. data), with dugong 
density in the southern GBR may give some indication of the decline in dugong numbers that 
occurred in the southern GBR before the first aerial surveys. In 1985 the density of dugongs north 
of Cape Bedford was 0.26 dugongs/km 2 
 (Marsh and Saalfeld, 1989), while in 1986-7 in the GBR 
south of Cape Bedford it was only 0.09 dugongs/km' (Marsh and Saalfeld, 1990). There are no 
obvious topographic or geomorphological features that might suggest that either the northern or 
southern GBR is inherently better dugong habitat, and the abundance of dugongs in Hervey Bay 
(0.51 dugongs/km2 
 in 1988; Preen and Marsh, 1995), south of the GBR suggests that latitude is not 
a significant determinant of dugong abundance over this region. The aim of dugong conservation 
measures should be to allow dugong stocks to reach or maintain their optimum sustainable 
population. The population levels measured during the 1986-7 survey should not be used as a 
recovery objective. 
The need for a system of sanctuaries 
The main direct threats to dugong populations, especially in the southern GBR, appear to be gill 
nets and hunting. Unless these issues are adequately addressed dugongs will go extinct locally 
along much of the Queensland coast (and throughout most of their world range). 
In Hervey Bay, where there is very little hunting, gill netting is the main cause of dugong 
ffr 8)7 
mortality. Between September 1983 and September 1996, 57 dead dugongs were reported from the 
Great Sandy Strait and Hervey Bay (excluding the dugong deaths associated with the 1992-3 
seagrass die-off [see Preen and Marsh, 1995]). Of these, 68.4% had physical signs that they had 
died in gill nets (eg. net marks or mutilations). In Hervey Bay alone; where 51 of the carcasses 
were reported, 66.6% were clearly gill net related, while 33.3% were due to unknown causes. In an 
effort to reduce dugong mortality, gill net regulations were changed in Hervey Bay in November 
1988. Comparing the rate of gill net mortality in the 63 months prior to the change (the period for 
which data are available), with the rate of gill net mortality in the 57 months after the change 
(until most of the dugongs had left the area in 1993), it is apparent that the changed regulations 
decreased mortality by 53%. However, the rate of dugong deaths due to unknown causes also fell 
by a similar proportion (49%). This suggests that about half of the dugongs that die of unknown 
causes may in fact die in gill nets (pressure marks from nets last less than 24 hours post mortem). 
Using this assumption, the Hervey Bay data indicate that 88% of all dead dugongs that strand (an 
unknown proportion are gutted and sunk and do not strand) die as a result of gill nets. There is no 
reason to suggest that Hervey Bay is in anyway unique, so this figure is likely to be applicable 
throughout most of Queensland. 
Helene Marsh has used the guidelines of the US Marine Mammal Protection Act to estimate the 
Potential Biological Removal for dugong populations in the southern GBR and Hervey Bay. The 
Potential Biological Removal is defined as the maximum number of animals, not including natural 
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its optimum sustainable population. The Potential Biological Removal from the 
southern GBR is estimated to be 3.3 dugongs/yr, while in Hervey Bay it is 1.6 (H. Marsh, unpubl. 
data). In the southern GBR in 1996, 35 dead dugongs were recorded, of which there is evidence 
that 16 died in gill nets. In Hervey Bay, at least one of seven dead dugongs died in a gill net 
(Preen, unpubl. data). Clearly the level of mortality in these critically endangered dugong 
populations must be reduced. 
The Hervey Bay example demonstrates why the modification of fishing practices will not result in 
an adequate reduction in dugong mortality. Queensland Commercial Fisherrnans Organisation 
(QCFO) supported changes to attendance rules, net specifications and permitted hours of operation 
resulted in a reduction in gill net mortality (based on stranded carcasses) of only about 50%. 
Shoalwater Bay demonstrates why a gill-netter's Code of Practice will not result in an adequate 
reduction in dugong mortality. Despite the presence of a Code of Practice that required that 'all 
nets are to be attended at all times, and that nets are not to be set in areas frequented by dugongs 
when dugongs are present' (letter from QCFO dated 27 July 1995) the size of the dugong 
le rp 
population fell by about 50% over eight years The continuing high rate of gillnet related dugong 
deaths forced the closure of most of Shoalwater Bay to netting in 1995. 
In reality, the types of nets that are strong enough to catch barramundi, salmon and mackerel (the 
target species in most net fisheries from Hervey Bay north), are strong enough to catch and drown 
marine mammals such as dugongs and coastal dolphins. Most netting is conducted in areas used by 
these species. It is difficult to see how changes in attendance rules or setting patterns can achieve 
an adequate reduction to the level of dugong mortality. 
While gill netting continues in dugong habitat, it is unlikely that voluntary moratoria on hunting 
will be embraced by most Indigenous hunters. Consequently, dugong recovery and conservation 
will best, and possibly only, be effected by establishing a network of sanctuaries where gill netting 
is banned and where hunting controls are incorporated into locally generated hunting management 
plans. 
Sanctuary characteristics 
To allow dugong populations to recover to their optimum sustainable level all significant dugong 
habitat, both past and present, should be protected in sanctuaries. Protection of only a subset of 
dugong habitats, like those that still contain substantial dugong numbers may prevent dugong 
extinction in the southern GBR, but it will not allow for recovery. 
Dugongs are relatively mobile and utilise large home ranges. Six dugongs tracked in the Gulf of 
Carpentaria occupied partial home ranges (based on minimum convex polygon) of 61, 172, 215, 
274, 416 and 1,938 km2
. Five dugongs tracked in northeast Queensland occupied an average home 
range of 79 km2, while 13 dugongs in Moreton Bay used a mean home range of 85 km 2 (Preen, 
unpubl. data). Consequently, dugong sanctuaries must be relatively large if they are to be 
effective. If the sanctuaries are small, then most dugongs Will move in and out of protected waters 
and the population could still decline rapidly. Furthermore, large protected areas can be more 
effectively policed as the boundary areas, where some illegal netting may continue, will be smaller 
relative to the area of the sanctuary. 
The sanctuaries need to extend to the high water mark as much seagrass, often favoured seagrass, 
occurs in the inter-tidal region. The sanctuaries also need to extend into the mouths of estuarine 
streams. Satellite tracking in Shoalwater Bay (Preen, unpubl. data) and near Starcke (Marsh and 
Rathbun, 1990) has demonstrated that dugongs occasionally use these areas. 
The dugong sanctuaries must fonn a network that facilitates the movement of dugongs between 
populations. Dani Tikel's DNA analysis of dugong populations suggests that interbreeding only 
occurs between neighboring populations, so the distance between populations must be small enough 
to allow for adequate mixing. The greater the distance between sanctuaries, the lower will be the 
exchange rate of dugongs between populations, and the greater the likelihood of eventual genetic 
isolation. Of the ten dugongs tracked in Shoalwater Bay, two moved some 460 km to Hervey Bay, 
one travelled about 200 km to Hay Point and then returned, and one travelled about 100 km to the 
Clairview area and returned. Six dugongs tagged in the western Gulf of Carpentaria made 10 non-
stop movements of 30-50 km, two of 70-90 km and one of 374 km (Preen, unpubl. data). 
Taking the above factors into account we have made a number of amendments to the boundaries of 
the interim sanctuaries and we have proposed an additional three sanctuaries south of Cooktown. In 
all we recommend a series of 10 sanctuaries between Cape Bedford and the Sunshine coast (Fig. 
1). Figure 2 (A-I) shows the boundaries of the original interim sanctuaries and those 
recommended in this document. These figures also show the location of major seagrass meadows. 
The nine sanctuaries that are within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area would enclose 
most of the dugongs within the GBR south of Cape Bedford (Table 1). Some of the proportions of 
the population that may be contained within each sanctuary (Table 1) are over-estimates because 
the survey blocks used to estimate regional population sizes are often larger than the sanctuaries 
(most of the sightings, however, occurred within the sanctuaries). 
Figure 3 shows the proportion of the dugong population (1986-7), between Cape Bedford and 
Bundaberg, that would have been contained in each sanctuary, relative to the proportion of the 
coast (nearshore coastal waters out to 3 nm, and the length of the mainland coastline) that would 
also occur within each sanctuary. Generally, the more coastal waters or mainland coastline 
occupied by the sanctuaries, the more dugongs that would also be protected. The system of nine 
GBR sanctuaries would enclose approximately 99% of the 1986-7 dugong population and 82% of 
the 1994 estimated population (Table 1). They would also enclose 79% of coastal seagrasses. This 
level of population protection would require 34% of nearshore coastal waters and 44% of the 
mainland coastline to be within dugong sanctuaries. This arrangement would leave two-thirds of 
coastal waters available for gill net fishing and other activities incompatible with dugong 
conservation. 
The ten sanctuaries, which range in size from 193 km 2 to 126S km2, are separated by distances of 
65 km to 240 km (average = 132 km; Table 1), which should ensure adequate interchange of 
dugongs between populations. 
The proposed network of dugong sanctuaries 
The compilation of all dugong records (Fig. 4A, B) demonstrates the clustering of most sightings in 
a limited number of areas. These clusters, when interpreted in terms of historic and recent changes 
in dugong abundance, form the natural units of the sanctuary network. 
Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait sanctuaiy 
Prior to the seagrass die-off of 1992, Hervey Bay contained approximately 24% of the known area 
of seagrass along Queensland's eastern coast (Preen et al., 1995) and Hervey Bay and the Great 
Sandy Strait supported the largest dugong population surviving south of the Starcke region of Cape 
York Peninsula (Preen and Marsh, 1995). Following the seagrass die-off, the dugong population 
decreased by 73% (see Background, above). 
A dugong fishery had been conducted in the south-western corner of Hervey Bay until 1965, when 
dugongs were protected. Department of Harbours and Marine Annual Reports (cited in Marsh, 
1984) show 240 dugongs were taken in 1941 and 1942, although annual takes of 30-60 were 
more common. Earlier dugong fisheries had been conducted in the Great Sandy Strait, where local 
depletions of dugongs forced the regular movement of operations. 
• Standardised and shoreline aerial surveys have established the southern half of Hervey Bay and the 
southern half of The Great Sandy Strait as the most important areas of dugong habitat (Preen and 
Marsh, 1995; Fig. 5A). Dugong sightings from multiple whale surveys of the eastern two thirds of 
Hervey Bay suggest that while dugongs occurred throughout the full extent of the bay, they were 
most abundant in the southern half (Fig. 5A). The locations received from satellite tracked dugongs 
that were tagged at the north of the Great Sandy Strait demonstrated the use of that region as well 
(Fig. 5A). At the time of that tracking (1992-3) there was no seagrass and virtually no dugongs in 
Hervey Bay. The locations received from two dugongs that were tagged in Shoalwater Bay in 1996 
and that travelled to Hervey Bay showed that dugongs were again using their favoured areas in the 
south-west of Hervey Bay (Fig. 5A). The dugong carcass data further reinforces the importance of 
southern Hervey Bay, as the majority of carcasses for the region come from this region (Fig. 5A). 
The interim sanctuaries of Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Strait are physically contiguous and 
constitute a single dugong habitat. Hence, they have been amalgamated into a single sanctuary 
(Fig. 2A). The appropriate management of this sanctuary will ensure the eventual recovery of this 
important dugong population. 
e(p. 
Rodd's Bay/Gladstone sanctuary 
Dugongs were once abundant in this area. An early report describes herds of dugongs, in Rodd's 
Bay in 'almost incredible numbers' (Brisbane Courier, 1869 cited in Marsh, 1984) . By the 1970's, 
shoreline aerial surveys indicated that dugongs were common, but not abundant, in the area 
(Heinsohn, 1975; Heinsobn and Marsh, 1980). Between 1986-7 and 1994 the regional population 
fell by 65% (from 301 +1-95 to 104 +1-56), based on the results of the transect aerial surveys 
(Marsh et al., 1996). Carcass data suggests that this decline was buffered, to some extent by 
immigration of dugongs from Hervey Bay, following the loss of seagrass there in 1992. 
A pilot who flew one of us (TP) for work in Shoalwater Bay described how he used to practice his 
aerial mustering skills on the dugongs in Rodd's Bay. He said that groups of dugong in shallow 
water responded to the plane in the same way that cattle do, but there were no trees or hills to 
dodge. He added that the dugongs seem to be gone from that area now (Greg Clark, pers. comm.). 
Figure 5B indicates that dugongs are most frequently seen in two areas in this region: from the 
southern end of The Narrows through to the southern end of Facing Island (including the Gladstone 
shoreline) and Rodd's Bay. Local Aborigines are concerned that the reclamation of dugong feeding 
areas at Gladstone is jeopardising the declining dugong population (Wally Ingra, pers. comm.). 
The dugong habitat of the Rodd's Bay/Gladstone area stands mid-way between the important 
dugong populations at Shoalwater Bay and Hervey Bay. As those areas are approximately 400 km 
apart, the Rodd's Bay/Gladstone sanctuary will be important in maintaining the interchange of 
dugongs between central and south-east Queensland. This sanctuary would support approximately 
8.7% of dugongs in the GBR south of Cape Bedford, based on 1986-7 population estimates (Table 
1). 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton sanctuary 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton supports the largest dugong population between Hinchinbrook and 
Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait (Marsh et al., 1996). Both the seagrasses communities of the area 
(Lee Long et al., 1996) and the dugong population (Preen, unpublished data) are particularly well 
known as a result of recent research. The results of the satellite tracking of ten dugongs (Fig. 5C) 
provides the best information on habitat use in the area. The dugongs did not differentiate between 
Port Clinton and Shoalwater Bay as they moved freely between the two areas. Dugongs moved 
throughout the bay, although it became apparent that there are a number of preferred areas where 
dugongs 'tend to spend most of their time. Some of these results would not have been predicted 
Mfr. 1?) 12 
 
from the seagrass data, demonstrating the need to be cautious in deducing information about 
dugong distribution and habitat use from seagrass maps. 
Four of the dugongs made trips out of the bay. Two travelled to Hervey Bay, to the proposed 
Hervey Bay sanctuary. One travelled to Hay Point (near Mackay) and Cape Palmerston, in the 
proposed Cape Palmerston sanctuary. Another travelled to near Clairview, also in the proposed 
Cape Palmerston sanctuary. These movements provide useful information on the scale of 
movements that dugongs undertake and the appropriate locations of other sanctuaries. 
The current boundaries of the Shoalwater sanctuary are appropriate except for a need to 
amalgamate it with the Port Clinton interim sanctuary by including a swimway around the top of 
the Peninsula Range (Fig. 2C). This sanctuary would contain approximately 22% of dugongs in the 
GBR south of Cape Bedford, based on the 1986-7 estimates (Table 1). 
Cape Palmerston sanctuary 
There has been a particularly rapid decline in dugong numbers in Ince Bay aerial survey block 
(area south of Hay Point and including Sarina Inlet, Llewellyn Bay, Ince Bay, all waters to 
Clairview, Broad Sound and north and east of Stanage Bay). The number of dugongs in this area 
has collapsed from 542 (+1-293) in 1987 to 82 (+1-60) in 1994: a decline of 85% (Marsh et a., 
1996). This decline may be due to a combination of netting and hunting. There has been a recent 
spate of gill-net deaths in the Cape Palmerston-Sarina Beach area, and Indigenous groups hunt out 
of Clairview and Sarina Beach. 
Although the aerial survey data indicate that dugongs are now rare in this area, the facts that 
significant numbers are still caught in nets, and that hunting continues, suggests that a meaningful 
number of dugongs still survive there. In the absence of active management, however, it is unlikely 
that dugongs, other than those visiting from Shoalwater Bay, will continue in the area. 
The aerial survey, carcass, incidental and tracking data indicate that there are two coastal areas 
where dugongs tend to occur in this region (Fig. 5D). They are between Sarina Beach and Cape 
Palmerston (including Sarina Inlet, Llewellyn Bay and Ince Bay) and between West Hill Island and 
Clairview Creek. The interim Ince Bay sanctuary does not encapsulate most of the important 
dugong habitat in the region and, as initially draw, is too small, relative to the scale of dugong 
movements, to be of any practical conservation value. Consequently, we have substantially 
extended the interim sanctuary and suggest that it be referred to as the Cape Palmerston sanctuary. 
1 
ii 
I 
Newry/Repulse Bay sanctuary 
Dugongs were abundant enough in this region to support two dugong fisheries; one at Newry 
Island, which operated until the 1920s (Mackay Daily Mercury, 10 August 1983, cited in' Marsh, 
1984) and one at Repulse Bay (Saville-Kent, 1900). Dugong populations in these two areas have 
suffered dramatic declines in recent years. In the Newry area dugong numbers have been reduced 
by about 84% between 1986 and 1994 (240+/-104 to 38+/-37; Marsh et al., 1996). In nearby 
Repulse Bay it appears that the decline in dugong numbers may have occurred well before the start 
of systematic aerial surveys. A the time of the first aerial survey in 1986-7, the population estimate 
for the whole area was only 31 (+1-35). During 1992 the estimate was 70 (+1-59), but in 1994 no 
dugongs were seen (Marsh et al., 1996). 
Although there are now very few dugongs surviving in the Newry/Repulse Bay area, it is likely 
that the population could recover if it was afforded adequate protection. We propose that the 
interim Newry sanctuary should be extended to include Sand Bay to the south and Repulse Bay to 
the north. The available data (Fig. 5E) indicates that most dugong records occur in the vicinity of 
the Newry Islands and in the north of Repulse Bay. It is also known that hunting is conducted out 
of Midge Point (southwest corner of Repulse Bay) indicating the continued presence of dugongs in 
this area. The Newry/Repulse sanctuary would encompass approximately 21% of the 1986-7 
population estimate of dugongs between Cape Bedford and Bundaberg (Table 1). 
Edgecumbe Bay sanctuary 
The number of dugongs in Edgecumbe Bay has fallen by 88% between 1986 and 1994; from 173 
(+1-77) to 20 (+/-17) in 1994 (Marsh et al., 1996). These figures are in agreement with peoples' 
recollections. John Locke recalls regularly seeing herds of 15-20 dugongs off the northern edge of 
Bowen when he was a youth, 20 years ago (John Locke, pers. comm.). Another informant saw a 
herd of 30 dugongs in Sinclair Bay, in the south-east of Edgecumbe Bay in about 1985 and a herd 
of 10-12 in the same area as late as 1995 (Dorothy Paul, pers. comm.). Today there are few 
dugong in the Bay although there are regular sightings made by Aborigines hunting turtle in the 
southern half of the Bay (John Locke, pers. comm.). There has been very little hunting of dugong 
in the area since the early 1950s and the Girradalla Council of Elders has recently imposed a 
moratorium on dugong hunting in the area to ensure no dugong are taken (John Locke, pers. 
comm.).. 
The location of a sanctuary at Edgecumbe Bay should facilitate the recovery of this dugong 
population. The available data (Fig. 5F) indicates that all of Edgecumbe Bay should be included. 
/040.4 
The recovery of dugong populations at Repulse Bay and Edgecumbe Bay should eventually result 
in an increase in the number of dugongs residing around the Whitsunday Islands. Edgecumbe Bay 
contained 5% of the southern GBR dugongs in 1986-7 (Table 1). 
Upstart Bay sanctuaiy 
The transect aerial• surveys indicate that the number of dugongs in Upstart Bay has declined by 
some 89% between 1987 and 1994 (171+/-87 to 19+1-19; Marsh et al., 1996). Despite this, a heal 
of up to 30 dugongs was seen there by Artie Jackobson as recently as 1993 (John Locke, pers. 
comm.). The movements of a dugong tagged in Cleveland Bay, which spent most of its time in 
Upstart Bay (Fig. 5G; Marsh and Rathbun, 1990), demonstrated a link between the dugongs in 
these two areas. 
The western shore of Cape Upstart is lined with an estimated 100 huts and houses. These appear to 
be within the boundary of the Cape Upstart National Park . The only access to these houses is by 
boat and it appears that they are used primarily as fishing retreats by people from the Burdekin 
delta. Illegal gill netting may be a potential management problem in this sanctuary. Five percent of 
the 1986-7 dugong population of the southern GBR was located in Upstart Bay (Table 1). 
Cleveland Bay/Bowling Green Bay sanctualy 
The shark net data alone demonstrates the importance of the Cleveland Bay region as a dugong 
habitat. At least 289 dugongs have been caught in shark nets set at Townsville and Magnetic Island 
(Fig. 5G). This figure far eclipses the capture rates of shark nets in other areas (Paterson, 1979; 
QDPI, 1992). The number of stranded dugong carcasses recorded in the Townsville area (Fig. 5G) 
also demonstrates the apparent abundance of dugongs in this area. It must be noted, however, that 
the abundance of dugong carcasses in the Townsville area, relative to other areas, is due 
substantially to the active recording of this data by James Cook University researchers since the 
early 1970s. 
A recent shoreline survey (December 1996), which inspected most of the coast and all of the 
interim sanctuaries between Townsville and Rodd's Bay highlighted the current importance of 
Bowling Green Bay as dugong habitat. Thirty-one dugongs were seen in Bowling Green Bay. This 
compares with just 32 dugongs seen in all other areas combined (excluding Shoalwater Bay/Port 
Clinton). 
The proximity of Cleveland Bay and Bowling Green Bay argues strongly for the expansion of the 
I . 	 ,„„ 	 . 	 • 
• 
IerP.16)5 
Cleveland sanctuary to include Bowling Green Bay. It is also suggested, primarily on the basis of 
carcass data, that the western boundary of this sanctuary should be extended to the mouth of 
Bluewater Creek (Fig. 2G). 
The population of dugongs in the Cleveland/Bowling Green region has fared better than most, 
decreasing by 52% between 1987 and 1994 (down from 496 +/-151 to 237 +1-48; Marsh et al., 
1996). This sanctuary would contain approximately 14.2% of the 1987 estimated dugong 
population of the GBR south of Cape Bedford (Table 1). 
Hinchinbrook sanctuary 
The transect surveys indicate that the Missionary Bay/Goold Island area at the northern edge of 
Hinchinbrook Island is the most important dugong habitat in this region (Fig. 5H). Incidental 
sightings and darcass records show that the Cardwell coast, the Lucinda coast, and the east coast of 
Hinchinbrook Island are also used by dugongs. It is suggested, therefore, that the boundary of the 
Hinchinbrook sanctuary should be amended to include the Cardwell coast to north of Meunga 
Creek, and the Island's east coast (Fig. 2H). 
The population estimate for the Hinchinbrook region actually increased between 1987 and 1994: up 
from 284 (+1-131) to 484 (+/-170; Marsh et al., 1996). This increase must be due, in part, to 
movement of dugong into this area. The Hinchinbrook sanctuary contained approximately 29% of 
all dugongs between Cape Bedford and Bundaberg in 1994, but just 8.2% in 1986-7 (Table 1). 
Low Isles sanctucuy 
No population estimates exist for the region between Dunk Island and Cape Bedford, indicating the 
relative rarity of dugongs in this large ri12, at least since the mid-1980s. The relatively high 
number of dugongs caught in shark nets set at Cairns (92; Fig. 51), together with the infonnation 
published by Bertram and Bertram (1973), however, demonstrate that dugongs were abundant in 
the Cairns region in the mid-1960s (see above). The establishment of a dugong sanctuary in this 
region should encourage the recovery of this dugong population. It will be important that a 
sanctuary is established in this region if genetic continuity is to be maintained between the 
important dugong populations at Hinchinbrook and Starcke, 500 km to the north. 
Based on the historical information and some undocumented anecdotal records, it would seem 
apparent that the Yarrabah area would be the strongest candidate for a sanctuary. At present, 
however, hunting pressure may prevent the recovery of dugongs here. An alternative area, off 
916 
Mossman, appears to be a very viable alternative. Transect surveys and Marine Parks surveillance 
flights have identified dugongs on Batt and Tongue Reefs (Fig. 51), supporting strong Aboriginal 
belief that these reefs are an important nursery area for dugongs (Buddy Swindley, pers. comm ) 
In addition there are many recent and old records of dugong groups along the adjacent mainland 
coast. These records come from local Aborigines and from Port Douglas-based ultra-lite and 
parasailing operators that maintain a log of sightings. These data establish that dugongs are 
commonly seen in the area between White Cliffs and Rocky Point (Fig. 51). These data may over-
represent the number of the dugongs in the area, as some of the records come from similar 
locations on consecutive days, suggesting possible recounts of the same animals. Despite this 
qualification, records of herds of 27 and 19 dugongs (possibly the same herd) just west of Port 
Douglas in 1994 and 20 dugongs at Agincourt Reef in 1996 demonstrate that significant numbers 
occur in this area at times. 
It is suggested that the Low Isles sanctuary should extend along the mainland coast between 
Dayman (Rocky) Point and White Cliffs and out around Batt and Tongue Reefs (Fig. 21). The 
Kuku Yalanji Marine Resource Management Committee has, since 1994, imposed a moratorium on 
dugong hunting in this area. Pending agreement by local stakeholders it would be desirable to 
extend the dugong sanctuary to include the waters from False Cape around Yarrabah and south to 
the mouth of the Russell River. 
Dugong populations north of Cape Bedford 
Dugongs on the east side of Cape York Peninsula have not shown the widespread decline that was 
detected south of Cape Bedford (Marsh and Corkeron, unpubl. data). Two of the interim 
sanctuaries covered Bathurst and Princess Charlotte Bays in this region. A close analysis of the 
data should be undertaken before deciding on sanctuary. boundaries. There are some very important 
dugong areas thai should be included in any sanctuary system. The Starcke coast, between Lookout 
Point and Cape Melville is particularly significant. Although some of this area already has high 
conservation zoning, there are some anomalies. The inshore waters, from low water mark out 100 
m is apparently zoned to allow gill netting. Other important areas are Port Stewart to Colmer 
Point, Cape Sidmouth, Temple Bay, Shelbume Bay, and possibly Lloyd Bay. Management of 
sanctuaries in this region would, to a large extent, need to be instigated by the local Aborigine 
groups. 
When considering planning for dugong conservation in Cape York Peninsula, the western . coast 
should not be ignored. This area has never been surveyed, but anecdotal information on the 
incidence of gill net take and hunting suggests that the dugong populations in this region could be 
V WW717 
in severe decline. In the absence of a base-line population estimate, however, it may never be 
possible to establish this. 
Acknowledgements 
Thanks to QDPI and Helene Marsh for allowing access to =published seagrass . and dugong survey 
databases. Many people helped with the provision of unpublished data for this report, often at very 
short notice. DoE officers Grahame Byron (Rockhampton), Rob Buck (Mackay), Meredith Hall 
(Whitsundays), Mark Burnham (Ingham) and Linda Craig (Cairns) made particular efforts to collect 
and record dugong sightings in their regions in recent years. Ian Sutton (WPSQ, Whitsundays) and 
Dorothy Paul (resident Sinclair Bay) did the same. Ben Cropp and the operator of the parasailing 
business at Port Douglas provided many sightings through the Cairns DoE office. John Locke, from 
the Bowen Council of Elders, Buddy Swindley from the Kuku Yalanji Marine Resources 
Committee at Mossman and Wally Ingra from the Local Aborigines Employment Promotion 
Committee at Gladstone collected and provided infoimation from Aborigines in their regions. Ross 
Williams, GBRMPA, provided some useful records and provided contacts to Indigenous 
community groups. Jeff Sherrin transfered numerous data from GBRMPA's GIS. Janet Slater 
extracted the Marine Parks observations of dugongs from that GIS. Thanks to Clive Grant for his 
expertise with computers. 
0)%18 
References 
Bertram, G. C. L. and Bertram, C. K. R. (1973). The modem Sirenia: their distribution and status. 
Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 5, 297
-338. 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J. and Squire, L.C. (1985). Seagrass beds and prawn nursery grounds 
between Cape York and Cairns. QDPI Information Series QI185017, Northern Fisheries 
Research Centre, Queensland Department of Primary Industries. 
Coles, R.G., Mellors, J.E., Bibby, J.M. and Squire, B (1987a). Seagrass beds and prawn nursery 
grounds between Bowen and Water Park Point. QDPI Infonnation Series QI187021, 
Northern Fisheries Research Centre, Queensland Department of Primary Industries. 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., Squire, BA., Squire, L.C. and Bibby, J.M. (1987b). Distribution of 
seagrasses and associated juvenile commercial penaeid prawns in North-eastern Queensland 
waters. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res., 38: 103-119. 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., Helmke, SA., Bennett, R.E., Miller, K.J. and Derbyshire, K.J. 
(1989a). Seagrass beds and prawn and fish nursery grounds between Cairns and Bowen. 
QDPI Infonnation Series QI187021, Northern Fisheries Research Centre, Queensland 
Department of Primary Industries. 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., Miller, K.J., Vidler, K.P. and Derbyshire, K.J. (1989a). Seagrass beds 
and prawn and fish nursery grounds between Water Park Point and Hervey Bay. QDPI 
Information Series QI187021, Northern Fisheries Research Centre, Queensland Department 
of Primary Industries. 
Fisheries Research Consultants (1993). A study of the marine and intertidal habitats of the Great 
Sandy Region. Report to Marine Parks, Queensland Department of Environment and 
Heritage.144pp 
IUCN (1994). 'IUCN Red List Categories.'. (IUCN - The World Conservation Union: Gland, 
Switzerland.) 
Lee Long, W.J., McKenzie, L.J. and Coles, R.G. (1996). Seagrass communities in the Shoalwater 
Bay region, Queensland - Spring (September) 1995 and Autumn (April) 1996. Queensland 
Department of Primary Industries Infonnation Series QI96042, QDPI, Brisbane. 36 pp. 
Heinsohn, G. E. (1975). Report on aerial surveysa of dugongs in northern Australian Waters. 
Unpublished report to Department of Environment, Canberra, Sept 1975. 
Heinsohn, G. E. and Marsh, H. (1980). Ecology and conservation of the dugong, Dugong dugon, in 
- Australia.Unpublished report to Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. 
Marsh, H. (1984) Summary of available information on dugong distribution, abundance and 
mortality in Queensland waters. Unpublished report. 
Marsh, H. (1989). Biological basis for managing dugongs and other large vertebrates in the Great 
ig (0.2019 
Barrier Reef Marine Park. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Publication Series No. 
21. Vol. 5. 
Marsh, H. and Rathbun, G. B. (1990). Development and application of conventional and satellite 
radio tracking techniques for studying dugong movements and habitat use. Aust. Wildl. • 
Res. 17, 83-100. 
Marsh, H. and Saalfeld, WK. (1989) The distribution and abundance of dugongs in the northern 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Aust.Wildl. Res., 16: 429-440. 
Marsh, H. D. and Saalfeld, W. K. (1990). The distribution and abundance of dugongs in the Great 
Barrier Reef .Marine Park sciuth of Cape Bedford. A ustralian Wildlife Research 17, 511-24. 
Marsh, H., Saalfeld, W. K., and Preen, A. (1990). The distribution and abundance of dugongs in 
southern Queensland waters: implications for management. Report to the Queensland 
Department of Primary Industries. 
Marsh, H., Kwan, D. and Lawler, I (1993). The status of dugongs, sea turtles and dolphins in the 
northern Great Barrier Reef region. 
Marsh, H., Bollard Breen, B. and Preen, T. (1994). The status of dugongs, sea turtles and dolphins 
in the Great Barrier Reef region south of Cape Bedford'. (Report to GBRMPA) 
Marsh, H., Corkeron, P., Lawler, I. R., Lanyon, J. M. and Preen, A. R. (1996). The status of the 
dugong in the southern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.'. Research Publication 41. Great 
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 
Ministerial Council. (1996). Record of Decisions 22nd Meeting of the GBR Ministerial Council, 
Brisbane 30/11/96 
Paterson, R. (1979). Shark meshing takes a heavy toll of harmless marine animals. Australian 
Fisheries 38, 17 -23. 
Preen, T. (1996) Submission to the Dugong Working Group. 
Preen, A. and Marsh, H. (1995). Response of dugongs to large-scale loss of seagrass from Hervey 
Bay, Queensland, Australia. Wildlife Research 22, 507-19. 
Preen, A. R., Lee Long, W. J. and Coles, R. G. (1995). Flood and cyclone related loss, and partial 
recovery, of more than 1000 lcm 2 of seagrass in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. 
Aquatic Botany 52, 3 - 17. 
QDPI (1992). 'Review of the operation and maintenance of shark meshing equipment in 
Queensland waters. Report of the Committee of Enquiry'. 114 pp. (Queensland Department 
of Primary Industries) 
Saville-Kent, W. (1900). The Great Barrier Reef of Australia; its products and potentialities.'. (A. 
H. Allen: London.) 
Spencer, P. (1989). 'Incidental sightings of dugongs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park'. 
(Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) 
„0 
z 
CC1 
CD _5 
"P:
2 
 CC1 0 
0 CD -= 
(// 
TS RS CD 
0 
a) 
"E) ca. CD CD E 
"6  
.r. 
o CtS U) 46 CD 0 
V) CD . = C) 	 -o 
co c cf) CtS & 
1 	
- ctS 
5 0 •  
cl) E C 
Ci) 0= (1) 
u) 	 -c 
0 cs) 
.C= 0 
"CI as 
-a 22 E 
co L.- 73 
w 	 ai 92 
Cfl C.) a) 
 
Tts 	 ccs 
c.) pr. a) o 
e) 
Q. CD (75 
0 CCS 	 CD 
7- 	 Tts 
U) as 
ctscucucDo 
I—cacLoc.) 
LC) Lr) co cm Lt) Lo CD c) LC) 11? 
	
dr, 	 (-6 Lri Lri Lri 	 (-6 
	
CD 	 CD si; ) 	 s r N CO (.0C° LO coC° 
	
> 	 (7 c 	 Le. 	 CO cm 
	
C) 
	 c, 
	
ca) 	 r., 	 co cx, co 4 
T.• 	 N N 
0 
ca 4 4 	 ai 	 c j` C\J 	 CO 
Nu" 
CO  
	
N N 	 Cr) 
CC! 71. N: 	 . 	 0 (0. 
CO CO 	 N N CO 0 CO 0 CD 
CD 	 N 
co • 	 cr) izt CO CM CO 0 . 
11: 	 Lri 	 Lri 4 ,— 
He
rv
ey
  B
ay
/G
SS
  
in
  s
a
nc
tu
a r
y  
in
  s
an
c
tu
ar
y  
s
e
a
g
ra
ss
  
%
  c
o
as
ta
l w
at
er
s  
%
  c
o
as
tli
ne
  
in
  s
a
nc
tu
ar
y  
CNI 
E 
< 
ne
xt
  s
a
nc
tu
ar
y  
%
  o
f s
ou
th
er
n  
G
BR
 
Di
s t
an
ce
  (k
m
)  to
  
po
p u
la
tio
n  
es
tim
a t
e  
ig(7k2Z) 21 . 
List of Figures 
Figure 1. Location of 10 dugong sanctuaries proposed for the southern GBR and Hervey Bay 
Figure 2. Original and amended boundaries of the interim dugong sanctuaries and the boundaries of 
the newly proposed sanctuaries 
Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
Rodd's Bay/Gladstone 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 
Cape Palmerston (Ince Bay) 
Newry/Repulse Bay 
Edgecumbe Bay and Upstart Bay 
Cleveland Bay/Bowling Green Bay 
Hinchinbrook 
Low Iles 
Figure 3. Relationship between potential proportion of the southern GBR dugong population (1986- 
7) protected in dugong sanctuaries, and the proportion of nearshore coastal waters (A) and 
mainland coastline (B) enclosed by the sanctuariesDugong records from the Hervey Bay 
region 
Figure 4A. All dugong records between Tin Can Bay and Repulse Bay 
B. All dugong records between Repulse Bay and Cape Bedford 
Figure 5. Dugong records from the region of each sanctuary 
Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait. 
 
Rodd's Bay/Gladstone 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 
Cape Palmerston (Ince Bay) 
Newry/Repulse Bay 
Edgecumbe Bay 
Upstart Bay and Cleveland Bay/Bowling Green Bay 
Hinchinbrook 
Low Iles 
100 100 
	
200 oo 
'C .: , Bedford 
Cooktown , 
4, 
Port 
Douglas 
Calms 
Innisfail 
1 
TI 
11 
Kilometres 
it0).23) 
Figure 1: Location of the 10 Dugong Sanctuaries proposed for 
the southern Great Barrier Reef and Hervey Bay 
I v p. 24) 
r>s) ) V 
I 11('x24) 
10 
Scale: 
0 10 • 
5. 
Cape 
Palmerston 
\ 
CIairview 
Data Source for seagrass meadows: 
Coles et al. (1985; 1987a; 1987b; 1989a; 1989b) 
go 
• 
411 
Locality Map 
Legend: 
Interim Dugong Sanctuary 
Proposed Amendment to Dugong 
Sanctuary 
Seagrass Meadows 
Kilometres 
lerft2f) 
Figure 2D: Original and amended boundaries of the dugong sanctuaries: 
Cape Palmerston (Ince Bay) 
10 10 
Legend: 
Interim Dugong Sanctuary 
Proposed Amendment to Dugong 
Sanctuary 
Seagrass Meadows 
Scale: 
0 
Proserpine 
Data Souree for seagrass meadows: 
Coles et al. (1985; 1987a; f987b; 1989a; 1989b) 
Kilometres 
1g (p.285 
Figure 2E: Original and amended boundaries of the dugong sanctuaries: 
Newry/Repulse Bay 
(14 2 9) 
'kJ?' 
• 
crcd'-71 
0 
f
• 
a. 
al. 
sa.,r11 0  
CD 
CPC? g 
z 
CD 
▪ 
2 
t:Ci 0 
ctDP crq' 
fa. 
CIS 
Crq 
Pcip 
Zr(7)"'  
ED 
CID 
is 
z 
6-3  
071 
CM . 
CD 
1•.) 
Ci 
Crol3 
CD 
• 
C 
 
• 
(1) C19
—n 
0 
5' 
Cg" 
cnCD  0 
ca. 
(Pa 
Pc') 
C;P') 
7\7 
DI+ 
.71 6 crq. 
CD 
t•-) 
0 
cr 
n-t 
o 
o 
P5" 
cf) 
0 
CIA 
CIQ 
0 
Crq 
cp 
/I p,31) 
is p.IP) 
SW8 
New 
CP 
Clev 
Rod 
 
Up 	 Edg 
Low 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 1
9
8
6
- 7
 p
o
p
u
la
t i
on
  e
s
t i
m
a
te
  
0 
itr(p.33) 
Fig. 3 Relationship between potential proportion of the southern GBR 
dugong population (1986-7) protected in dugong sanctuaries, and 
the porportion of nearshore coastal waters (A) and mainland 
coastline (B) enclosed by sanctuaries. 
1 
	
2 	 3 	 4 	 5 	 6 
	
7 
% nearshore coastal waters (to 3 nrn) 
A. 
30 
25 0 
cl) 20 
      
   
New 
SWB 
B. 
  
CP 
Clev 
   
Low 
Edg Up 
Rod . HIn 
   
0 
	
2 
	
4 
	
6 
	
8 
	
10 
	
12 
% mainland coastline 
• 
4 
At• 
aairview 
Rockhampton • 
Gladstone 
Data Soi.;zce 
No. 	 Transect Shoreline 
	 Whale Survey/ 
Dugong Survey 
	 Survey Carcasi Satellite Incidental 
1 	 A 	 0 	 A 
Sharlmet F-ntRnglement 
(Number Shown) 
Scale: 
50 	 0 	 50 	 100 	 150 
Kilometers 
f(p34-) 
Figure 4A: All dugong records between Tin Can Bay and Repulse Bay 
	
2-9 
	
A 	 0 	 N/A 	 N/A 	 cil3 
	
10-49 	 il 	 ID 	 N/A 	 N/A 	 1:03 
	
50-100 N/A 
	 El 	 N/A 	 N/A 	 1(13 
	
>100 N/A 
	 11 	 N/A N/A 
 
Data sources: 
Transect Survey: Marsh (1989); Marsh et 
	 Maryborough • 
al. (1993, 1994); Marsh & Corker= (unpublished); 
Marsh & Saalfeld (1990) 
Shoreline Survey: Spencer (1989), Preen (unpublialsed) 
Carcass: Heinsolm, Preen, Marsh, Sbter (unpublished) 
Sharicnet Paterson (1979); QDPI (1992); Preen (unpublished) 
Satellite: Preen (unpublished) 
Incideniat Spencer (1989), Preen (unpublished) DoE (unpubliShed) 
Whale Survey: Plzen & Marsh (1995) 
• 
Legend: 
Data Source 
Shoreline 
Survey 	 Carcass 
0 	 0 
Satellite 
Z 
Incidental 
0 
0 N/A N/A 1:03 
0 N/A N/A cal 
0 N/A N/A I:23 
0 N/A N/A I:23 
Sharknet F.utnnzlement 
(Number Shown) 
Scale: 
50 	 0 	 50 	 100 
Kilometres 
No 	 Transect 
Dugong Survey 
1 	 A 
2-9 
	
A 
10-49 	 6. 
50-100 N/A 
>100 	 N/A 
ifipaS) 
Cookto 
Figure 4B: All dugong records between Repulse Bay and Cape Bedford 
" 
A Cape 
Data sources: 
Transect Survey: Marsh (1989); Marsh at al. (1993, 1994); 
Mash & Corkeson(unpublisbecl); Marsh & Saalfeld (1990) 
Shoreline Survey: Spencer (1989), Preen (=published) 
Carcass: Heinsohn, Frees Marsh, Slater (unpublished) 
Sharknet Paterson (1979); QDP1 (1992); Preen (unpublished) 
Satellite: Preen (unpublished) 
Incidental: Spencer (1989), Preen (unpubli shed) 
 
Doll (unpublished) 
Mackay .  
C> 
. 	 0 0 0 G E 0 
. 	
V o ,..c) Y 	 =. 	 , ...-: F 	 4 	 g 
o 	 tM 	 E (D CO PD 	
cn 	 2 
g 	 al 	 cr -* Z •Z 	 Z 	 Z 	 0 8 r° 1 g g gl > 
	 > 	 > 	 --: w 	 9. 	 ria 
• 
Azi z z z z 
o 
= 	 FD" E 
C23 E23 0 c23 0 a) g E.. 0 0 
,.< 
th
e
 regio
n
 of 
 th
e
 H
ervey B
ay/G
reat 
A
n n
p u
u
s  
it
u
As
  
IT (r1C) 
• 
cra. 
CD 
C.) • • 
w 0.Q 
0 
o GM 
" 0 CD 0 Ca. 0 
CZA •-t 
td 
° 
0 CD 
 
E' 
CD 
9 
o 
ISrp-31) 
Z 	 c> D. (>0' 
0 i 
	
41 
a. P DDD o tj 
1 8 2 A II z z z. 0 P m 
I 1  : Z Z 
cn g 	
0 0 6. 	 g i 	 §  
to 
ff TA
•-li 
E 
i 	 g 
4. 	
r23 0 r23 o 	 r 0-. 6- 	 g, R 
[7>. . 4 
.4 
 
ut 
Z 
op 
Lrz tf4'  .i. 
/10.3t) 
0 
0.+3 
0 10 10 20 
• 	 /8(•?4,) 
Figure 5D: Dugong records from the region of the 
Cape Palmerston Sanctuary 
ZI 
A 
Data sources: 
Trammel Survey: Marsh (1989); Marsh at al (1993, 1994); 
Marsh & Corkeron(unpublished); Marsh & Saalfeld (1990) 
Shoreline Survey: Spa:leer (1989), Preen (unpublished) 
Carcass: Heinsobn, Preen, Mar* Slater (unpublished) 
Sharluset Paterson (1979); QDPI (1992); Preen (unpublished) 
Satellite: Preen (unpublished) 
Incidental: Speacta- (1989), Preen (unpublished) 
DoE (unpublished> 
Locality Map 
Legend: 
Data Source 
No. 	 Transect Shoreline 
Dugong 	 Survey 	 Survey Carcass Satellite Incidental 
1 	 A 	 0 
 
2-9 
	
A 	 0 	 N/A N/A 
	
0 
10-49 A 	 El 	 N/A N/A 
	
di) 
50-100 N/A 
	 El 	 N/A 	 N/A 	 1:23 
>100 N/A 
	 1:1 	 N/A 	 N/A 	 C1J:1 
Sharlmet Entanglement 
(Number Shown) 
N Proposed Dugong Sanctuary Boundary 
Scale: 
Kilometres 
/ 440 
Figure 5E: Dugong records from the Newry/Repulse Bay Sanctuary 
Proserpine • 
Legend: 
Data Source 
No. 	 Transect Shoreline 
Dugong 	 Survey 	 Survey Carcass Satellite Incidental 
1 	 A 	 0 
2-9 
	
A 	 D 	 N/A N/A 
	
0 
10-49 .6. 	 0 	 N/A N/A 
	
01 
50-100 N/A 
	 El 	 N/A 	 N/A 	 1:23 
>100 N/A 
	 El 	 N/A 	 N/A 	 11:23 
0  Sharknet Entanglement (Number Shown) 
A/ Proposed Dugong Sanctuary Boundary 
Scale: 
10 	 0 	 10 	 7.0 
Kilometres 
Data sources: 
Traraect Survey: Marsh (1989); Marsh at al. (1993, 1994); 
Marsh & Codwron(iinpublished); Marsh & Saalfeld (1 
Shoreline Survey: Spencer (1989), Pie= (unpublished) 
Carcass: IleiUsohn, Preen, Marsh, Slater (unpublished) 
Shark:net Paterson (1979); QDPI - (1992); Preen (unpublished.) 
Satellite: Preen (unpublished) 
Incidenta Spencer (1989), Preen (unpublished) 
DoE (unpublished) 
Mackay 
8 
0 
o rA 
canca 
yi-4111. 10 
td tk'gn Fa a 
— 1 tapc°.g 
81 	 g rL1 F:4 .12 r 
gii" elf! $1::$ 
tj UgE%-.- 
,I:r z1.01 
L2 1 —E M T 
F.: g 
tv 	 w 
g 
13, 
r•-• 
p. 
• y. 
n 
0 
-- 	 > 	 > 	 c. r (95 
. 	 gi  
al 
P P 0 D 0 ° 11 
0. A zr §.f-.. 	 z 	 .._ 	 z 	 z 
 
<7 
:4 te a 
	 8 t,3 til 0 q g (97 L fi 
0 	 Z 
0 =	 0 H. 
0 
i  
CD 
is (17.44) 
017 
to 
• 
CD 
tit 
n 
o 
CD 
• 
CM' 
t-i 
0 CD 0 
0 
E '3 cm, 
CD (V CD 
01 
tP:1 
A7 5 
0 
CD 
rn 
itOme3) 
Figure 51: Dugong records from the region of the Low Isles Sanctuary 
Legend: 
Data Source 
No. 	 Transe-ct Shoreline 
Dugong 
	 Survey 	 Surrey Carcass Satellite Incidental 
1 	 A 	 El 	 (=> 	 Li 	 0 
2-9 	 d 	 0 	 N/A 	 N/A 	 433 
10-49 A 	 0 	 N/A 	 N/A 
	
1:23 
50-100 N/A 
	 E.:1 	 N/A 	 N/A 	 CrIP 
>100 N/A ID 
	
WA N/A Cal 
0  Sharknet Entiinglement (Number Shown) 
At Proposed Dugong Sanctuary Boundary 
Scale: 
10 	 20 
Kilometres  
Cairns • 
Data sources: 
Trarsect Stavey: Marsh (1989); Marsh at at (1993, 1994); 
Marsh Sc Codmron(unplablished); IVIarsh & Saalfeld (1990) 
Shoreline Survey: Spencer (1989), Preen (tmpublished) 
Catcam: Heinsolm, Preen, Marsh, Sister (unpublished) 
Sharkaet Paterson (1979); QDPI (1992); Preen (=published) 
Satellite; Preen (urigmblished) 
hicidernal: Spencer (1989), Preen (unpublished) 
DoE (unpublishexi) 
Figure 5H: Dugong records from the region 
of the Hinchinbrook Sanctuary 
A A in a A 
AAA 
Legend: 
Data Source 
No. 
	 Transect Shoreline 
Dugong Survey 
	 Survey Carcass Satellite Incidental 
1 	 A 	 .0 	 CD 	 LI 	 0 
2-9 	 A 	 O 	 N/A N/A 
	
0 
10-49 A 	 El 	 N/A 	 N/A 	 1:23 
50-100 N/A 
	 0 	 N/A N/A 	 C23 
>100 N/A 
	
N/A 	 N/A 
 
O Sharknet Entanglement (Number Shown) 
N Proposed Dugong Sanctuary Boundary 
Scale: 
10 
	 0 	 10 	 20 
Kilometers 
‘‘t. 
Data sources: 
Transect Survey: Marsh (1989); Marsh et al. (1993, 1994); 
Marsh & Corkeron(unpublisSed); Marsh & Saalfeld (1990) 
Shoreline Survey: Spencer (1989), Preen (unpublished) 
Carcass: Heinsohn, Preen, Marsh, Slater (unpublished) c;)d) 
Sharknet Paterson (1979); QDPI (1992); Preen (unpublis 
Satellite: Preen (unpublished) 
Incidental: Spencer (1989), Preen (unpublished) 
DoE (unpublished) 
Presentation to the 165th meeting of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
ga(P4r) Brisbane, 20/2/97 
Tony Preen 
A system of dugong sanctuaries for the recovery and conservation of dugongs In the 
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent southern waters. 
OHP 1 (Sanctuary cartoon from Mackay Mercury) 
The situation for dugongs is critical 
Available information indicates that dugong are in decline throughout their range. 
The risk of extinction, within my lifetime is real. 
OHP 2 (Kenya situation) 
—> microcosm of world pattern; extinct by 2000 
OHP3 (Cairns situation) 
—> strong parallels 
—> decline started well before 1986/7 
—> decline is much greater than 50-80% -recognised 
Now that it is recognised, population recovery must be of highest priority 
2 Must establish the level of recovery 
—> 1986/7 level clearly not appropriate UNLESS 
we are to accept very substantial (>80%), avoidable reduction in the size of the 
population of a species of unusual and high biodiverstty value and that is recognised as 
a threatened species internationally, under state law and soon under federal law. 
Given, among other things the World Heritage context; not an option? 
Substuntial recovery will in my view require the establishment of a comprehensive 
sanctuary system where, among other things, netting is excluded. 
Nina Morisette and I have looked at the available data on dugong habitats and 
distribution and have recommended 10 sanctuaries in the southern GBR and Hervey Bay 
regions 
—> cover most of the important habitat 
—> several are quite large and will support large resident populations 
—> form a navigatable chain to facilitate the movernent of dugongs & genes 
—> there are enough, and the spread is great enough to provide insurance 
against unforeseeable catastrophes, such as what happened at Hervey Bay 
—> would have enclosed 99% of 1986/7 dugongs 
--> enclose only 34% of nearshore (3nm) waters 
	 e(p4i) 
Rather than work through the detail of each proposed sanctuary, which is provided in 
the report, I want to use the brief time available to address some of the management 
issues crtticl for effective functioning. 
Main threats to dugongs are (in order) 
nets and hunting 
habitat loss 
boats 
Hunting 
very serious threat to some populations 
legal situation unclear: 
Sect 211 Native Title Act allows ATSIs to hunt in marine parks with or without 
permits in the absence of a specific law in relation to wildlife hunting. Arguably, Sect 93 
NCA is such a law, but as tt is not proclaimed it does not qualify Sect 211. 
So, Under Sect 211, all hunting is legal in a marine park, but in the absence of the 
proclamation of Sect 93 all hunting in other Qld waters is illegal! 
Irrespective of these complications, there are practical reasons why control of hunting 
will have to be, substantially, a local initiative. 
GBMPA and DoE must convince local groups of the seriousness of the situation (in this 
they have a long way to go) and must encourage self regulation, including -10 yr 
moratoria, through formal management plans. 
This will only be successful if other tats, particularly netting, are dealt with. 
Netting 
Our report gives some indication of the seriousness of the threat posed by netting 
activities 
OHP4 (Marsh quote) 
Our report also gives some 'case studies' that show (1) that attempts to deal with this 
issue are not new; and (2) why changes in regulations and codes of conduct will not 
reduce the rate of mortality to anything near the required level. 
Helene Marsh has done some calculations on acceptable human-related mortality in 
etp*?)3 
the southern GBR using the formula for calculating the Potential Biological Removal that 
is part of the US Marine Mammal Protection Act. 
—> 1994 PRD = 3.3 
--> 1996 dugong carcasses = 35. Evidence 16 died in gill nets 
I thought the message on netting in the dugong sanctuaries was clear. 
OHP5  (Senator Hill Press Release) 
OHP 6  (Mr Littleproud Statement to Parliament) 
Despite this, QCFO have in their report, proposed the most extraordinary and complex 
set of site-specific regulatory changes 
This has been - done without any compelling evidence that anything like the 
appropriate level of mortality reduction could be achieved. 
The reality is that the industry is, and will remain, poorly policed and compliance will 
always be a problem. 
SWB shows how just two 'cowboys', well known to QCFO, QBFP, DoE, Army can, 
apparently, be responsible for the bulk of a 50% population decline in 7-8 yrs. 
It does not matter how good the complex regulations are, just a small percentage of 
'cowboys' amongst the gill-netting fraternity will still be able to drive dugongs in the 
Southern GBR to extinction. 
Now is not the time to go through the QCFO report in detail, but I want to make one 
point on it. 
The report puts great store in the local knowledge of fishers to justify the proposed 
regulatory changes. I do not question this local knowledge at all, except to point out 
that because of the way it is collected, this knowledge con be biased and very 
,incomplete. 
For example, in Port Clinton, fishers recognise peak dugong activity to be betwr.) 
May and September, but mostly August and September. Last year I did aerial surveys of 
the area in March, April, May, July, September and early and late December. Dugongs 
were present on all surveys except April. The largest count (154) occurred in May. 
Dugongs seem to use the area all year. Significantly though, the number of dugongs in 
Port Clinton can change dramatically overnight. 
This brings me to my second point: dugongs are constantly moving between SWB and 
Port Clinton, As well as overnight changes in the number of dugongs present, 5 of the 10 
dugongs tagged in the region moved between the two areas, and most of them did it 
several times. My point is that all these movements occur through the Pearl Bay area. 
Yet, according to the QCFO report, Pearl Bay is an area 'where dugongs are rarely 
e (p-0)4 
observed" 
Fishers are not aware of all the so-called "migration paths" of the dugongs, and to 
design a netting regime around their perceptions would be imprudent in the extreme. 
I agree strongly with QCFO, however, that netting effort from sanctuary areas must not 
be displaced into adjoining areas, the northern GBR or GoC. It is imperative that licences 
are bought out and the fishers adequately compensated. 
OHP 7 
 (Courier Mail Cartoon - dugongs and Oyster Point) 
My final point is that addressing the the dugong decline should not be considered as a 
problem but as a great opportunity to achieve a lot of major conservation actions. 
Currently there is unprecedented public awareness of dugongs: being featured in 
cartoons in large newspapers; and protesters chained to the Prime Minister's office 
chanting "Save the Dugong' are graphic evidence of this. 
Dugongs are what Reed Noss calls Flagship species: charismatic megafauna that can 
be a symbol for major conservation efforts 
But they are also what he calls Umbrella species: species that have such large range 
requirements that the protection of their habitat will afford protection to a suite of other 
species as well. 
In the dugong's case these include 
Irrawaddy (Qld: listed as rare) 
Humpback (Qld: listed as rare) 
Green Turtle (Internationally listed as Endangered) 
Loggerhead turtle (regionally critically endangered) 
Esuarine Crocodile (?) 
So dealing with the dugong problem will allow the Authority to take active measures 
to protect this suite of species; species that are 
long lived 
relatively rare (compared with most marine species) 
patchily distributed 
that the GBRMP has failed to protect under its zoning plans and actions. 
Noss OHP 
recognises 5 categories of species 
Dugongs clearly fulfil the requirement of warranting extreme protection 
ofi e 
;11 
s:s; 
• 
qçAAe‹i 
Wilwatfays the . aockleptolllettin• -of 0 
y fair Outtveigths the 0u/1'0g:of:the 
or snam is coth at /00,0.11evelve-00014.Yeptik 
11947)001 .11,0 
Service co ndliCted detailed aerial 
including 1 calf in Siyu Channel behind 
p•tober 1996: email from colleague: 
"... since then, three of the four (including the young 
one) have drowned in gill nets in Siyu channel* 
grp, ref e 
nya 
ie(pcow, 
The demise of dugongs around Cairns 
'Cairns and Yarraba 
An enquiry in 1952/3 had apparently concluded that (dugongs 
were) abundant locally and not being depleted by the large 
numbers being taken at nearby Yarraba Settlement for 
Aborigines. At the time of our visit in 7956 some 200 were being 
taken by half a dozen fishermen from the settlement, one 
(Police Sergeant John Maloney, our informant) having taken 64 
in a single year. A herd of 100 had recently been seen. There 
was thought to be as many as 40 years ago. There was a local 
anecdote of the "Bay being full of dugongs", but there was 
seemingly much variation from year to year, and in 7966 there 
were reported to be almost none. Shark nets at Cairns took 42 
animals between 1964 and 7969, ranging from 4 ft 2 in. to 11 ft.' 
(Bertram and Bertram, 1973. The modern Sirenia: their distribution and 
status. p 313) 
In the '5-year period between 1969 and 1974, 55 dugongs were 
caught in shark nets set at Cairns. Subsequently few dugongs have 
been caught (Paterson, 1979; QDPI, 1992) (QDPI, 1992). 
Since 1987, the number of dugongs seen on the standardised aerial 
surveys in the region from Cape Bedford to Dunk Island (including 
Cairns) has been so low that it has never been possible to calculate a 
population estimate (Marsh et al., 1994). 
is(p4re) owP4 
"Dugongs are killed incidentally in the inshore gill-net fisheries of 
northern Australia. Reports of this incidental take give cause for 
concern, but it has not been possible to obtain precise figures. An 
informant involved in fisheries research, who interviewed fishermen 
along the west coast of Cape York in 7986, reported that 77 
professional barramundi fishermen each caught between five and 
ten dugongs per year. One operator working on a seagrass bed in a 
river estuary allegedly accidentally caught 23 dugongs in one net 
before he removed his nets. Mr Rod Garrett (Northern Fisheries 
Research Centre) reported that in the first 79 days of the 7982 
commercial barramundi netting season, five of 40 operators at 
Karumba in the Gulf of Carpentaria had each caught one dugong; 
two of these five animals drowned. Over the period March 7979 to 
March 7983, Queensland Fisheries Research Branch personnel set gill 
nets over a total of 735 nights in the Princess Charlotte Bay, Bathurst 
Bay, Ninian Bay region. Eleven dugongs were caught 
(Marsh 1985, p 497-8). 
- 
A 1991 aerial survey of the Karumba region sighted no dugongs 
(Marsh and Lawler, unpubl. data) 
• Over a 10-day period in 1995 some 36 dugongs were drowned in 
one gill net being operated by commercial barramundi netters near 
the mouth of the Wearyan River near Borroloola in the southwest Gulf 
of Carpentaria. 
 Ityp.53) 
ia Release nor the Hon Robert Hill. . - s.er of the Government in the Senate stet- for the Environment 
URGENT ACTION TAKEN 
	 DEcLIE  
Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill has unveiled a new rescue strategy aimed at 
arresting and reversing the alarming decline in dugong numbers on the Great Barrier 
Reef. 
The historic strategy will establish a dugong sanctuary system along the Queensland 
coast. 
Senor filll says the strategy represents the turning point in the battle to save the 
clggong. 
"Dugongs are beautiful and graceful mammals 
- recognised as a world heritage value on 
the Great Barrier Reef. This government is committed to taking urgent action to protect the dugong." 
The number of dugongs which inhabit the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area south 
of Cooldown has fallen by 50-80% in the last ten years. Gillnetting, along with habitat loss. 
shark meshing and indigenous hunting, represent the greatest threats to dugong. 
The strategy builds on the Government's recent announcement of a draft management 
plan for Shoalwater Bay which will prohibit all forms of gillnetting in the Bay. 
Senator Hill says he has gained support from the Queensland Government for the listing 
	
of nine Interim Dugong Protection Areas intended to form the basis of a sanctuary 
	 4r system. g 
"The dugong sanctuaries ificlude the Hinchinbrook region, Cleveland Bay, Upstart and 
Ince Says, the Newry Region and Hervey Bay. A further two areas are to be considered for 
listing shortly. 
"The Cornrnonwealth and QueenSland Governments have endorsed the principle that 
there should be dugong ,Sanetuaries'at approximately 200km intervals along the 
coast. 
Senator Hill has also directed the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GB RMPA) to 
report on the threats posed to dugongs in the nine identified sanctuaries by certain 
fishing practices. 
Al want GBRMPA to report by February 28 1 
	 n what action is necessary to ensure no 
Further dugong mortality in the nine dugong 
	 ctuarie". 
";:"
-ishing practices which may result in dugong mortality will not be permitted in these 
efr.s" qPc 
 
Minister for Environment 
Hon. Brian Littleproud, MLA 
160 Ann Street • Brisbane Queensland • PO Box 155 • BRISBANE ALBERT STREET QLD 4002 
Telephone (07) 3227 8819 • Facsimile (07) 3221 7082 
PARLIAMENTARY STATEMENT BY 
HON, BRIAN LITTLEPROUD, MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT 
ON PLAN FOR DUGONG CONSERVATION 
Mr Speaker, on Saturday, a meeting of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council was held in 
Brisbane. 
An important item on the agenda was emergency measures needed for dugong recovery and 
conservation for the Great Barrier Reef and adjacent areas. 
The Ministerial Council adopted a recommendation that included confirmation that urgent action is 
required to ensure recovery of dugong populations in the Great barrier Reef and adjacent waters. 
The council agreed to a list of nine interim Dugong Protection Areas (DPAs) and to consider listing 
a further two areas as the basis of a sanctuary system. The principle of having such areas at 
approximately 200 ldlometre intervals was recognised. 
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, in co-operation with the Queensland departments of 
Environment and Primary Industries, and Queensland Fish Management Authority, is to report to both 
governments by February 28 next year on what action is necessary to ensure no further dugong 
mortality occurs as a result of commercial and recreational fishing practices in each of the protection 
areas. 
. ;The aim is to ensure that fishing practices which may result in dugong mortality will not be permitted 
in these areas. The report will be prepared in consultation witb the fishing industry. 
Other measures include: 
Legislation to require attendance at offshore set mesh nets;= 
Enhanced surveillance and enforcement targeting areas of high dugong risk; 
- Restrictions on the use of explosives by the Department of Defence; 
Addressing the issues of Aboriginal and Islander involvement in taking of dugong; and 
Asking for a report on the status of research into the health and distribution of seagrasses. 
Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House to table the resolution of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial 
Council with regard to dugong and a map showing the interim Dugong Protection Areas. 
• 
• 
•••• 
. • • ,;,•• 	 4." 
' Os 4 .• 
a 
• 	 dr 
ab. 
ler 
ml 
-1,44444 i;4';•`7' 
or. 
• 
'•:•:•:•‘ 
• 
• 
••=110 
•.• , 
••‘.• 
. 	 „ . 	 - 
cZb 
• 
• 
4 
r=:11 "" • 
1 
<:31 
• " 
•••• 
• 
	 p. cc 0 61'i 
INa ie ainer9 Vay illE5aer&. 
, 
e 
5 cc...v:6 
- 
a? 6/76 
 
*Two 	 Vairo (14. 
Brief comments on comparison of sanctuary proposals 
Int °,1 etb 61k% . r 
/1 .0rn55e/A_ 
Table 1 of Preen and Morrissette records 99% of 1986\7 dugong population and 83% of 
the 1994 population estimate being contained in the sanctuaries. The estimates dugong 
!icii-ifincia in each sanctuary in the attached table are different. The previous estimtes 
used the population estimates from the associated survey block. These were 
acknowledged to be overestimates "Some of the proportions of the population that 
may bo contained within each sanctuary (Table 7) are over-estimates because the 
survey blocks used to 'estimate regional population sizes are often larger than the 
sanctuaries (most of the sightings, however, occurred within the sanctuaries).' (P 8c M, pg 
9). 
The now table, comparing interim and modified sanctuaries, could not use this 
approach bocause some of the interim sanctuaries were far too small, relative to the 
survey blocks. Hence we compared on the basis of the actual number of dugongs seen 
in each sanctuary version. This is more precise, but arguably not more accurate, as it 
does not acknowledge the scale of movement dugongs routinely undertake_ 
Some of the interim sanctuaries (ihoe, newry) were too small to be of any value 
SOMO of the new sanctuaries are necessary to, amongst other things, to reduce the gaps 
botween sanctuaries. 
Dai*a on incidental sightings excludes transect surveys, carcasses and scrtelltte locations. 
These data are number of records not number of dugongs is. a record of a herd of 30 
dugongs counts as 1 record, as does a sighting of 1 dugong. 
•":‘ 
Sheet1 
I 
Comparison of deiafts of Interim and modified du. on. sanctuaries in the southern GBR 
1 
___J 
I 
I 	  
% Incidental Dislance (im) to next Area % coastal waters Sanctuary name  % dugong sightings 
on transact surveys 	  
190e2 1s9t 
d 	 s!ghtings  
Interim 
	 P&IVI 
sanctua . 
/nterim 
to north  
Preen E: Ell 
Mil-12 In sanctuary  
Interim NM  Interim 	 preen 84. Morissette 1906a 
HBIGSS 396 
HeiGSS V 190 
None 	 V 0 0 0 0 0 
Roddis Bay 4 4 7 3.4 190 510 3.5 
.0 
SVVB+PC 	 V 	 V 21 31 31 14.4 	 . 160 1050 
SWBMC V 21 ' 	 31 31 19.3 ' 100 1000 5.5 
Ince Ba 	
V 
0 0 1 0.3. 99 BO 0.7 	  
Cp Palmerstone 5 1 1 2.6 75 BOO 5.6 
Newry 0 1 2 1.6 143 150 1.2 
Newry/Repulse  11  ,3  2 	 
	  3.7 	  100 	 752 	  5.2  
None 0 0 0 Q V 0 
Edgecumbe  8 	 3 1  
	  2.9 
	  80 	 412 	  25  
Upstart Bay 4 3 2 4.2 124 193 1.5 
upstart Bay  4 3 	 2 	  
	  42 	  65 	 193 1.5  
Cleveland Bay 
ClevelanctiBowlirkg Bey 
7.8 
, 	 13 
4  
7 
18 
21  
2.1 80 646 2.4 	  
	 11.2 	  80 	  
' 
1160  6.3  
Hinthinbrook 8 8 24 	 V 11.7 473 694 2.6 
Hinchinbrook , 23 13.8 240 815' 
None 0 
Low Isles 15.9 210 1268 1.5 
Total  401 	 48 79 	 34.3 ' 	 211 average j 	 13.4 
	 Tota l 74 	 66 89 • 77 (averaie • 	 132 34.5 
07
.0
17
T
8
 4
4
 T9
 
4 6
/Z
8 /
9Z
 
Pag 
Sheen 
1 
% coastline 1% coastal seagrass  
in sancluary In sanctuary 
Interim 
 MI inter! Fil P & Itii 
0 0 
4.3 3.6 
9.7 21.4 
10.4 21.4 
1.5  2.5 
I  5.4 6.7 
2.6  0.8 
7.3 2.1 
0 0 
2.4, 2.4 
3.3 3.5 
3.3 1 	 3.5 
1.8 19.3 
 	 5.2 20.9 
4.5 18.6 
4.8 18.6 
, 
0  
1 0 
23.4 66.1 
44.1 79.21 
Page 2 
(pi) 
MESFI NETS USED IN WATERS OF QUEENSLAND±S,EAST COAST: 
The_Risklo Dugongs in the Proposed 
Interim_Dugong Protection Areas 
Final Report 
Version 2.0 
Prepared by 
Martin Russell 
Effects of Fishing 
Research and Monitoring 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
February 1997 
(Document not to he sighted without permission from GBRMPA) 
i 0 2) 
Contents 
Executive Summary 
	 i 
Introduction 	 1 
Mesh Nets 
	 1 
2.1. Mesh Nets 
	 1 
2.2. Set Mesh Nets 
	 1 
2.3. Seine Nets 
	 2 
2.4.Tunnel Nets 
	 2 
2.5. Set pocket Nets 
	 2 
2.6. Ring Nets 
	 2 
2.7. Cast Nets 	 2 
Mesh Net Gear Specifications 
	 2 
3.1. Mesh Size 	 2 
3.2. Hanging Ratio 	 3 
3.3. Twine Diameter 	 3 
Mesh Net Selectivity and Efficiency 	 3 
4.1. Selectivity 	 3 
4.2 Efficiency 
	 4 
Mesh Net Selectivity for Dugongs 	 6 
Queensland Mesh Net Regulations 	 6 
Interim Dugong Protection Areas 	 8 
Conclusion 	 8 
References 
	 33 
1 0) 
List of Figures and Tables 
Figure 1. Mesh size diagram 
	 2 
Figure 2. Mesh net selectivity curve for fin fish 
	 4 
Figure 3. Selectivity curve for animals larger than the mesh size that are 
entangled in a mesh net 
	 4 
Figure 4. Vector force applied to a twine strand 
	 5 
Figure 5. Location of Interim Dugong Protection Areas 
	 10 
izble la. Summary of all net specification ranges for each IDPA 
	 iii 
Table lb. Summary of the net design, the number of QFMA fishing 
symbols and the IDPAs that a fishery symbol can 
be used in 
	  iii 
Table 1. 
	 Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995, Schedule 13, Net Fisheries 
(Commercial) summary for the Queensland east coast 
	
 11 
Table 2. 
	 Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995, 
  Schedule 13, Net Fisheries 
(Commercial) summary for each IDPA by 'location' 
	
 20 
Table 3. 
	 Summary of all net specification ranges for each IDPA 
	 32 
Table 4. Summary of the net design, the number of QFMA fishing 
symbols and the IDPAs that a fishery symbol can 
be used in 
	 32 
Mesh Nets in Waters of Queensland's East Coast:  
The Risk to Dugongs in the Pro • osed Interim Du on. Protection Areas 
Executive Summary 
Prepared by 
Martin Russell 
Effects of Fishing 
Research and Monitoring 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
Introduction 
The mesh net fishery in Queensland waters comprises of many different gear designs 
depending on the fishery symbol, the target species and location of fishing operation. The gear 
design is regulated under the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994 by the Queensland Fisheries 
Regulation 1995, in which the net specifications that can be used in a specified location and how 
these nets are handled are described per fishery symbol. The purpose of this report is to 
provide information on the design principles of a mesh net, and the types of nets allowed to be 
used in the waters of Queensland's east coast and the proposed Interim Dugong Protection 
Areas (IDPAs). From basic design principles of these mesh nets an assessment of the risk a net 
design may pose to a dugong is given. 
Mesh Nets in Waters of Queensland's East Coast and the Proposed Interim Dugong 
Protection Areas 
The classification of gear can be defined as being a panel of net held vertically in the water 
column and either in contact with the sea bed or suspended from the sea surface. The nets are 
often made from almost invisible monofilament nylon strands. Target and non-target species 
passively encounter these nets and are either gilled, entangled or enmeshed. There are seven 
different mesh net designs identified in the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995 for commercial 
use in Queensland waters: 1) Mesh Nets; 2) Set Mesh Nets; 3) Seine Nets; 
4) Tunnel Nets; 5) Set Pocket Nets; 6) Ring Nets; and 7) Cast Nets. 
Mesh Net Risk to Dugongs in the IDPAs 
There must be a spatial and temporal overlap between the mesh nets and dugongs for capture 
to occur. A dugong must encounter the net before being caught in the mesh, and then retained 
in the net. When considering the capture of dugong, the only way of retaining an animal in a 
net is by entanglement. Mesh nets appear to be difficult for dugongs to detect, as they rely on 
eyesight at close range and touch sense to locate seagrass and obstacles. Dugongs appear to 
become entangled in mesh-nets by their appendages such as the tail and flippers, which shows 
that entanglement occurs after the dugong has encountered the net and attempts to pass 
through, around, under or over the net, ie an avoidance response. 
For each of the IDPAs, there can be a variety of net designs used according to the location of 
fishing operation and the fishery symbol. Table la is derived from the Queensland Fisheries 
Regulation 1995. This table provides an indication of the specification 'ranges' of net design 
specifications for each IDPA. The mesh size will determine whether or not an appendage can 
pass through the mesh and become entangled. As shown in table la, a mesh net can range in 
mesh size from 25 mm to 245 mm depending on location of fishing operation and fishery 
19 (1". 5P) 
symbol. A 245 mm mesh size may allow a dugong's flipper to pass through the mesh. In 
addition to this, the twine diameter and therefore the breaking strain will determine if an 
animal is able to break sections of the mesh and either break free or cause further 
entanglement. If a mesh size is too small for an appendage to pass through, only the breakage 
of the twine will allow the appendage to pass through the net and facilitate escape or cause 
further entanglement. Most importantly, the hanging ratio is a major determinant of capture 
and retention of an animal larger than the mesh size. A mesh net with a low hanging ratio (E 
<0.5) will be slack while set in the water column, and a mesh net with a high hanging ratio 
(E>0.5) will be taut. An encounter with a net by an animal larger than the mesh size, will result 
in entanglement more easily in a slack net than a taut net. A mesh net designed to not capture 
a dugong would therefore need to have a very high hanging ratio of close to 0.7. In addition to 
this the net should break easily during an avoidance response by the dugong, and therefore 
would need a very fine twine diameter and a large mesh size (this 'may' facilitate breakage of 
the twine, as a net with a small mesh size such bait nets used in Queensland waters would 
pose a greater barrier against breakage even with a fine twine diameter and high hanging 
ratio). Such a net described above would be very inefficient at catching most fin-fish species 
targeted by the Queensland net fishery. 
The mesh net gear designs are relatively non destructive to the environment, and any measure 
to make them further environmentally friendly is seen to be very difficult. The gear design can 
be varied according to the target species, and also to reduce by-catch, but due to the 
effectiveness of entangling large animals such as dugong, it would be very difficult to eliminate 
dugong as a by-catch from a particular mesh net design. 
The IDPAs that a fishery symbol can be used in are given in table lb. A fisher with an symbol 
of N1, N6, or N7 may operate in all tidal waters of any IDPA. These symbols are held by 90% 
of the licensed net fishers in the Queensland east coast net fishery. 
The capture and retention of a dugong in a mesh net is determined firstly by the nets location 
relative to dugong distribution secondly by the usage of the net and thirdly by the nets 
resistance to the avoidance response movements by the dugong after the encounter with the 
net. In conclusion, any mesh net or set mesh net used in an area inhabited by dugong pose a 
threat of capture to those animals. These net designs are efficient at entangling animals larger 
than the mesh size, and the degree of entanglement depends on the hanging ratio of the net as 
well as the breaking strain and the mesh size. Any seine net, tunnel net, set pocket net or ring 
net used in an area inhabited by dugong pose some threat of capture to those animals 
depending on the method and location of use. A dugong encountering these net designs will 
react with an avoidance response which may cause capture similar to that of the target species, 
ie being guided into the net. A cast net due to the small size and minimal soak time poses little 
or no threat of capture to dugong. Therefore it is the spatial and temporal overlap between 
mesh nets and dugongs that is of concern rather than the net design and specifications. 
if(p6) 
Table la. Summary of all net specification ranges for each IDPA. A net, depending on the design, 
location of fishing operation and symbol can be used within these specification ranges in a IDPA. 
_... 
IDPA Net Length Range (m) 
All Net Designs 
Mesh Size Range 
(mm) 
All Net Designs 
Twine Diameter 
max (mm) 
All Net Designs 
(if given) 
Great Sandy Strait 120 to 800 (1700 tunnel) 25 to 245 0.65 
_ 
Southern Hervey Bay 120 to 800 12 to 245 0.65 
Port Clinton 120 to 600 12 to 245 
Shoalwater Bay 120 to 600 12 to 245 
Ince Bay 120 to 600 12 to 245 
Newry Bay 120 to 600 12R245 
Upstart Bay 120 to 600 12 to 245 
_ 
Cleveland Bay 120 to 600 12 to 245 
Hinchinbrook Region 120 to 600 12 to 245 
Table lb. Summary of the net design, the number of QFMA fishing symbols and the IDPAs that a 
fishery symbol can be used in. 
Symbol Net Design QFMA 
Fishery 
Symbols 
IDPA Area 
Ni Mesh/ Seine Net 1022 All All tidal waters 
N2 Mesh Net 272 All but not 
Great Sandy Strait 
All tidal waters 
N4 Seine Net 70 Great Sandy Strait Within 400 m of h.w.1 
N5 Mesh/ Seine Net 4 Great Sandy Strait; 
Southern Hervey Bay 
All tidal waters 
N6 Mesh/ Seine Net 1965 All All tidal waters 
N7 Mesh/ Seine Net 9 All All tidal waters 
NS Mesh Net 2 All but not 
Great Sandy Strait 
and some of 
Hinchinbrook Region 
Out from 3 nm line 
INTRODUCTION 
Mesh-nets have been identified as a major cause of dugong population decline in waters of the 
southern Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). Nine Interim Dugong Protection 
Areas (IDPAs) have been proposed to eliminate potential causes of dugong mortality in the 
GBRWHA. The mesh-net fishery in Queensland waters comprises many different gear designs. 
The type of gear employed depends on the target fish species. The gear design is regulated 
under the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994 by the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995, in which the 
types of nets that can be used in a specified location and how these nets are handled are 
described. 
The purpose of this paper is to provide information on the design principles of a mesh-net and 
the types of nets allowed to be used in the GBRWHA and the IDPAs. A mesh-net design in 
Queensland waters can vary in specification according to the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 
1995. From basic design principles of these mesh-nets and their efficiency at capturing target 
and by-catch species, an assessment of the risk a net design may pose to a dugong is given. 
TYPES OF MESH-NETS 
The classification of gear can be defined as being a panel or panels of net held vertically in the 
water column and either in contact with the sea bed or suspended from the sea surface. The 
nets are often made from almost invisible monofilament nylon strands. The netting or mesh is 
the actual panel of mesh that fish will encounter and be retained in. Fish passively encounter 
these nets and are either gilled (the strands lock behind the opercula of bony fish or the gill slits 
of sharks), entangled (the fish are held by the teeth, maxilla and other projections, not 
necessarily caught by the gill covers) or enmeshed (held tightly around the body by a mesh). 
The net is held open by a combination of floats on the headline and weight on the ground line. 
Schedule 13 of the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995 details usage of nets in Net Fisheries 
(Commercial) for Queensland waters. There are eight fishery symbols or endorsements 
included in Schedule 13, seven of which are for the Queensland east coast. The following fish 
may be taken under this schedule: black or spotted jewfish; blue salmon; grey mackerel; jewel 
fish; king salmon; queenfish; spotted grunter bream; barramundi (certain restrictions); other 
fish taken while taking fish mentioned. 
There are seven different mesh-net designs identified in the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995 
for commercial use in Queensland waters. Each design can have many different specifications 
depending on the target species and area of use. The seven designs are as follows: 
2.1 Mesh-Nets  
A mesh-net is set with the float line on the sea surface (positively buoyant) or suspended sub-
surface by weights on the lead line(negatively buoyant), and is not fixed to a place or hauled. 
2.2 Set Mesh-Nets  
A mesh-net is set with the float line on the sea surface (positively buoyant) or suspended sub-
surface by weights on the lead line (negatively buoyant). The net is used to take fish by 
anchoring or fixing it to a place. When this particular net is set as a surface set mesh net, a 
rapid sink rate of the lead line is not required, so the weight is kept to a minimum. This 
minimal weight on the lead-line allows a mesh greater selection by size of species taken, with 
larger sized fish tangling easily in the slack net. 
/ rp- 
2.3 Seine Nets  
In its simplest configuration consists of a long panel of netting which is dragged around 
shoreline schools of fish (King, 1995). The net is weighted to keep the lead-line in contact with 
the sea floor, and has floats to keep the float line at the sea surface. Some nets have a central 
panel of loose netting which forms a bunt or codend to retain fish. 
2.4 Tunnel Nets  
The net is constructed of 2 long wings and a central pocket or 'tunnel'. An area in which fish 
concentrate, or a school of fish, is located at high tide and the net is staked in position to form a 
large arrow shape with the wing ends circling inwards to lead escaping fish back into the net. 
The net relies on fish encountering the net as they move with the receding tide. The fish 
become concentrated in the tunnel, which remains in the water at low tide. The tunnel section 
is finally lifted onboard a dinghy and emptied (Kailola, et al 1993). 
2.5 Set Pocket Net  
The gear resembles a small mesh prawn trawl and can be set in two ways. The first has the net 
staked by the wing ends across the current, using the current to open the net and direct the 
target fish into it. The second has the net set into the current with stakes along the net to hold it 
open. The net is set close to the shore. 
2.6 Ring Nets  
Also called an encircling net, is a net shot from a boat to encircle fish by hauling one end of the 
net around the other to form a figure six. 
2.7 Cast Nets  
This form of net is circular and can be up to 6 metres in diameter (Queensland Fisheries 
Regulation 1995). The net is thrown onto the surface of the water and sinks rapidly with the 
assistance of weights on the outer edge. This form of net is not set in the water, and is attended 
constantly. 
3. MESH-NET GEAR SPECIFICATIONS 
3.1 Mesh Size :  
The mesh size is measured as the distance between the centre of two knots in the same mesh 
when the netting is fully extended or stretched, and is called the stretched mesh length (figure 
1). Mesh sizes can vary according to the species of fish targeted. 
a = stretched mesh size 
b = hung distance 
c = depth of mesh after hanging 
c = (a 2 - 1, 2 ) 
Figure 1. Mesh size diagram 
2 
3.2 Hanging Ratio (E) :  
The hanging ratio determines how taut or slack a net is while fishing. The formula for 
calculating the hanging ratio (E) is as follows: 
E = Float Line Length/ Stretched Length of Net 
(Where the stretched length of net = Number of meshes x stretched mesh size.) 
The maximum E value that can be achieved is 0.7071, which achieves the maximum selectivity 
of target species by size. An example of how the E value can be varied is for Hinchinb rook 
Channel: 
120 m float line (maximum allowed, Qld Fisheries Regulations 1995) 
1200 meshes 
150 mm stretched mesh size (minimum allowed) 
E = 120/ (1200 x 0.15) 
E = 0.66 (a high E value, close to the maximum selectivity E of 0.7071) 
e0a 2 . for Hinchinbrook Channel 
120 m float line (maximum allowed) 
1200 meshes 
215 mm stretched mesh size (maximum allowed) 
E = 120/ (1200 x 0.215) 
E = 0.46 (a low E value, less than 0.5) 
When E is less than 0.5, it is regarded as an entanglement net. 
Another method for working out E is: 
E = b/a (figure 1) 
3.3 Twine Diameter:  
The twine diameter used for mesh-nets can vary according to the target species and the mesh 
size. The Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995 does not state the maximum or minimum 
allowable twine diameter for all Queensland mesh-net symbols. The only stated regulation is 
for fishery symbol Ni, N5 and N8, in waters south of Elliot River, where the maximum twine 
diameter is 0.65mm. The twine diameter dictates the breaking strain of a net, and a general rule 
of thumb for twine breaking strain is: 
0.05mm => breaking strain approx. 1 to 2 kg. 
2.5 mm => breaking strain approx. 200 to 300 kg. 
4. MESH-NET SELECTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY 
4.1 Selectivity :  
For an animal to be captured in a mesh-net, the animal must: 
overlap in the net range (space and time); 
- encounter the net; 
gill, entangle or enmesh in the net; and then 
be retained in the net. 
19 	
. 
The selectivity (S) of a mesh-net = the proportion of animals captured and retained divided by 
those encountering the net. The assumption for this is the probability of encounter does not 
vary with animal size. 
Therefore the selectivity of fish being gilled 
in a mesh-net is given in figure 2. The highest 
selectivity occurs at the optimum fish length. 
Curves are traditionally bell-shaped and 
multi-modal. The right hand side could be 
large fish caught by the head while the left 
side could be smaller fish wedged by their 
body. Fish Length 
Figure 2. Mesh-net selectivity curve for 
fin fish 
The effect of the hanging ratio on any selectivity curve will be to flatten it as the E value 
decreases. As the E value drops below 0.5 it becomes a tangle net and thus becomes less 
selective. The only way an animal larger than the mesh size can be retained in a mesh-net, is to 
be entangled. The lower the E value, the greater the probability of entanglement. The selectivity 
curve for animals larger than the mesh size will not be a bell shape as for fish, but a curve 
approximately as shown in figure 3. As the E value is increased (net becomes more taut), the 
number of animals retained in the net decreases. 
Hanging Ratio 
Figure 3. Selectivity curve for animals larger than the mesh size that are entangled 
in a mesh-net. 
4.2 Efficiency:  
The best net for capturing a species of fish is a design with a specific combination of twine 
diameter, hanging ratio and mesh size. Whether the fish is to be caught by gilling or 
entanglement will depend mainly on the hanging ratio. The following net specifications are a 
guide to the capture: 
• Twine Diameter: 
If the mesh-net has a very fine twine diameter of 0.05, the strands have a breaking strain of 
around 1 to 2 kg, and if the mesh-net has a heavy twine diameter of 2.5 mm, the strands 
have a breaking strain of around 200 to 300 kg. If the vector force required to break the 
twine is applied at <60°, the twine will break, but if applied > 60°, the twine will not break 
(figure 4). As in mesh-net designs, the vector force will increase in angle with the decrease in 
hanging ratio. Secondly, the meshing of twine in a net creates added resistance to breakage, 
and therefore a greater than normal vector force is required to break through the twine. 
Vector force (x) 	 Vector force (x) 
(a) 	 (b) 
0 
Therefore the strength of a net is not only gauged by the twine diameter, but also by the 
hanging ratio. The lower the E value (the more slack the net), the higher the mesh strength. 
Figure 4. (a) Vector force applied to a twine strand at less than 600 and (b) greater than 60°. The strand 
shown in (b) should break given the vector force required to break that twine diameter. 
Hanging Ratio (E): 
The lower the E value, the more flexible or loose a net will be. A loose net will entangle an 
animal easier than a taut net. 
High E => low capture probability for animals larger than mesh size. 
Low E => high capture probability for animals larger than mesh size. 
Mesh Size: 
There are two categories of size that effect the selectivity of a mesh-net: 
Mesh size allows an appendage or body part to pass through the mesh. 
Mesh size does not allow an appendage or body part to pass through the mesh. 
If either 1) or 2), the retention of the animal will depend on the twine diameter and the E 
value, but most importantly the E value. 
The following is a guide for net design and the corresponding strength and capture efficiency, 
given a force needed to break a particular twine diameter: 
High E + Large Mesh Size = 
	 Should Break 
High E + Small Mesh Size = 
	 Should/ May Break 
Low E + Small Mesh Size = 
	 May Entangle 
Low E + Large Mesh Size = 
	 Will Entangle 
From this the following can be deduced: 
- any net with Low E value may or will entangle a broad size range of animals; 
- any net with High E value but Small Mesh Size may break; and 
- any net with High E value and Large Mesh Size should break. 
Therefore as King, (1995) states 'The main advantage of mesh-nets is that they are highly 
selective; that is, they usually have a mesh size designed to catch fish of a specific size range, 
and do not gill very small fish and very large fish. The main determinant of the range of 
lengths of fish caught by mesh-nets is the hanging ratio. If the hanging ratio is low, say less 
q(p. 14) 
than 0.5, the net will hang slack in the water rather than taut. In this case the net becomes less 
selective, as it will entangle fish as well as gill them. Some nets, referred to as tangle nets are 
deliberately made this way.' 
MESH-NET SELECTIVITY/ RISK FOR DUGONGS 
There must be a spatial and temporal overlap between the mesh-nets and dugongs for capture 
to occur. A dugong must encounter the net before being caught in the mesh, and then retained 
in the net. When considering the capture of dugong, the only way of retaining an animal in a 
net is by entanglement. Mesh-nets appear to be difficult for dugongs to detect, as they rely on 
eyesight at close range and touch sense to locate seagrass and obstacles. A mesh-net will only 
capture a dugong if that dugong attempts to swim through the net. Dugongs appear to become 
entangled in mesh-nets by their appendages such as the tail and flippers, which indicates that 
entanglement occurs after the dugong has encountered the net and attempts to pass through, 
around, under or over the net, ie an avoidance response. As discussed in section 3, the mesh 
size will determine whether or not an appendage can pass through the mesh and become 
entangled. In addition to this, the twine diameter and therefore the breaking strain will 
determine if an animal is able to break sections of the mesh and either break free or cause 
further entanglement. Most importantly the hanging ratio is the major determinant of capture 
and retention of an animal larger than the mesh size. A mesh-net with a low hanging ratio 
(E<05) will be slack while set in water column, and a mesh-net with a high hanging ratio 
(E>0.5) will be taut. An encounter with a net by an animal larger than the mesh size, will result 
in entanglement more easily in a slack net than a taut net. A mesh-net designed to not capture 
a dugong would therefore need to have a very high hanging ratio. In addition to this the net 
should break easily during an avoidance response by the dugong, and therefore would need a 
very fine twine diameter and a large mesh size (this may facilitate breakage of the twine, as a 
net with a small mesh size such as a bait net used in Queensland waters would pose a greater 
barrier against breakage even with a fine twine diameter and high hanging ratio). 
A mesh net, surface set mesh-net or bottom set mesh-net are efficient at entangling animals 
larger than the mesh size, and the degree of entanglement depends on the hanging ratio of the 
net as well as the breaking strain and mesh size. A seine net, tunnel net, set pocket net or ring 
net used in an area inhabited by dugong poses some threat of capture to those animals. This of 
course will depend on where and how these nets are used. A seine net may be regarded as a 
high activity net, which can cause enough 'noise' to scare any dugongs in the area away from 
the net, but if fish are successfully herded into a seine net, then there is also the possibility of a 
dugong being herded into the net. A tunnel net, a set pocket net and a ring net may be 
regarded in the same way, and still pose some threat to a dugong encountering the net and 
triggering an avoidance response which causes capture similar to that of the target species, ie 
being guided into the net. A cast net due to the small size and minimal soak time would pose 
very little if not no threat to a dugong. 
Therefore the capture and retention of a dugong in a mesh-net is determined firstly by the nets 
location relative to dugong distribution, secondly by the method of using the net and thirdly 
by the nets resistance to avoidance movement by the dugong after the encounter. 
QUEENSLAND MESH-NET REGULATIONS 
Schedule 13 of the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995 describes each fishery symbol for waters 
of Queensland. Table 1 summarises the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995 for the Queensland 
east coast net fishery in 'fishery symbol' order. As the table is a summary, not all details of the 
regulations are included, only the relevant information for net design and fishing practice. The 
type of apparatus for use under a fishery symbol can be summarised as follows: 
6 
All tidal waters on the east coast of Queensland: 
Ni - mesh/ seine/ tunnel/ set pocket nets 
N2 - mesh-net, 800 metre attendance rule 
N6 - mesh bait/ seine bait nets 
N7 - mesh bait/ seine bait nets 
All tidal waters within 400 metres of high water on ocean beaches between Breaksea Spit 
(Fraser island) to the Q1d/NSW border: 
N4 - seine nets 
All tidal waters between the northern bank of Baffle Creek and the southern bank of Kauri  
Creek:  
N5 - mesh/ seine/ tunnel nets 
All tidal waters on the east coast of Queensland out to sea from the 3 nautical mile line:  
N8 - mesh-nets 
Mesh-nets can range in specifications from 120 to 600 metres net length, and from 50 to 245 
mm mesh size. A bait net however, can range from 200 to 800 metres net length, and from 12 to 
88 mm mesh size. Depending on the target species and location of use, the net design can vary 
considerably. An example of the complexity is for Hinchinbrook Channel: 
Ni symbol for Net Fishery (east coast No.1):  
Waters in rivers and creeks: 
Mesh Net 
length 400 m; 
min mesh size 50 mm (no max, but 50 to 115 mm during barramundi season) 
Seine Net 
length 200 m; 
min mesh size 50 mm (no max, but 50 to 115 rum during barramuncli season) 
Offshore waters (in at least 2 m of water): 
Mesh-Net 
length 600 m; 
mesh size 150 to 245 mm 
Other waters 
Mesh/ Seine Net 
length 400 m 
111111 mesh size 50 (no max, but 50 to 115 mm during barramundi season) 
7 
100") 
N2 symbol for Net Fishery (Set Net - east coast):  
Hinchinbrook Channel and tributaries: 
Mesh-net 
length 120 m; 
mesh size 150 to 215 mm. 
N6 symbol for Net Fishery (Bait No. 1:  
Waters other than rivers and creeks: 
Mesh Bait/ Seine Bait Net 
length 400 m; 
mesh size 12 ta 45 mm 
Rivers and Creeks: 
Mesh Bait/ Seine Bait Net 
length 200 m; 
mesh size 25 to 45 mm. 
7. Interim Dugong Protection Areas 
Mesh-netting has been identified as a major threat to dugongs. A list of nine Interim Dugong 
Protection Areas (IDPAs) have been proposed to eliminate the risk of dugong capture in mesh-
nets in these areas. Figure 5 is a detailed map of the Queensland east coast showing the IDPAs 
and all relevant rivers, bays, lakes etc mentioned in the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995. 
The Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995, Schedule 13 details where a specific net design can 
and cannot be used. Table 2 is an extract summary of table 1, providing the regulations by 
'location' for each of the IDPAs. For each of the IDPAs, there can be numerous mesh-net 
specifications depending on the location within the IDPA, and the fishery symbol. 
Therefore due to the complexity of the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995, tables 1 and 2 give 
the briefest description of what mesh-net specifications are allowed under the Queensland 
Fisheries Regulation 1995 for each of the IDPAs. To provide an overview of the type of nets 
allowed to be used in each IDPA, a range of net specifications is provided in table 3. This table 
details a range of all net design specifications allowed in a IDPA. A net within the specification 
ranges given can be used in the IDPAs depending on the fishery symbol held by a fisher and 
location of operation. The IDPAs that a fishery symbol can be used in are given in table 4. A 
fisher with a symbol of Ni, N6, or N7 may operate in all tidal waters of any IDPA. These 
symbols are held by 90% of the endorsed fishers in the Queensland east coast net fishery 
8. CONCLUSION 
Mesh-nets are very efficient and selective at catching a target species. They are however, also 
efficient at entangling animals larger than the mesh size that are unable to detect a net as an 
obstacle, such as dugong. The entanglement and retention of a dugong in a mesh-net requires 
the dugong to encounter the net and then become entangled as a result of an avoidance 
response. Dugongs may die as a result of drowning or stress whilst entangled in a mesh-net, or 
c) 
are killed by fishers to simplify their removal from the net. Studies show that dugongs are 
susceptible to death from capture stress and they may subsequently die in spite of being 
released alive from the net (Marsh and Anderson 1983). Rescue techniques have proved to be 
difficult and are mostly unsuccessful. 
The mesh-net gear design is relatively non destructive to the environment, and any measure to 
make them further environmentally friendly is seen to be very difficult. The gear design can be 
varied according to the target species, and also to reduce by-catch, but due to the effectiveness 
of entangling large animals such as dugong, it would be very difficult to eliminate dugong as a 
by-catch from a particular mesh-net design. If a mesh-net could be designed to not catch 
dugong, it would need to have the highest hanging ratio, a very light twine diameter, and a 
large mesh size allowing appendages to pass through (this 'may' facilitate breakage of the 
twine). Such a net would be very inefficient at catching the fin fish species targeted by the 
Queensland net fishery. 
The capture and retention of a dugong in a mesh net is determined firstly by the nets location 
relative to dugong distribution, ie a spatial and temporal overlap, secondly by the method of 
using of the net and thirdly by the nets resistance to the avoidance response movements by the 
dugong after an encounter with the net. In conclusion, any mesh net or set mesh net used in an 
area inhabited by dugong pose a threat of capture to those animals. These net designs are 
efficient at entangling animals larger than the mesh size, and the degree of entanglement 
depends on the hanging ratio of the net as well as the breaking strain and the mesh size. Any 
seine net, tunnel net, set pocket net or ring net used in an area inhabited by dugong pose some 
threat of capture to those animals depending on the method and location of use. A dugong 
encountering these net designs will react with an avoidance response which may cause capture 
similar to that of the target species, ie being guided into the net. A cast net due to the small size 
and minimal soak time poses little or no threat of capture to dugong. Therefore it is the spatial 
and temporal overlap between mesh nets and dugongs that is of concern rather than the net 
design and specifications. 
9 
l9(). /f) 
100 0 100 200 300 400 Kilometers 
Figure 5. Location of Interim 
Dugong Protection Areas 
(1. Boundaries of individual areas 
may be altered in discussion 
with stakeholders 
BATH URST 
BAY 
• 
Cape Flattery 
Cooktown 
Port Douglas 
Cairns .4,7 
Innisfail 
PRINCESS 
CHARLOTTE 
BAY 
Legend 
Interim Dugong Protection Area 
	
 GBRMP Boundary 
Reefs 
Land & Mangrove 
Cardwell 
HINCHINBROOK 
REGION 
Ayr • 	 Cape 
Gloucester 
Bowen.. ....)-, 
NEWRY % 
tl.• REGION, 
UPSTART 
BAY 
Proserpine . 
CLEVELAND 
BAY• 
Townsville 
INCE 
SHOALWATER 
BAY 
Sancy 
—Cape 
Elliott 
River Kolan River 
17 
Cooro;oah 
Cape 
Moretc - 
SOUTHERN 
HERVEY 
Battle BAY 
Creek 
GREAT 
SANDY 
STRAIT 
Wide Bay 
Harbour/ 
Pelican Bay/ 
Tin Can In et 
Lake 
Burne 
River Mary 
Rive 
Kauri 
Creek 
Lake 
Cootharaba 	 ' 
Lake 
Weyba 
PORT 
CLINTON 
Cape Manifold 
St Lawrence 
Creek 
Fitzroy River 
Rockhampton 
keppel 
Bay 
Gladston 
Proposed, subject to discussion 
in the current review of the 
Far Northern Section Zoning Plan 
of the GBRMP ) 
2. 
Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
50 
88 
South of Baffle Creek 
North of Baffle Creek 
Cape Manifold to Cape 
Gloucester  
Keppel Bay  
Offshore Waters 
Offshore waters North of 
Cape Moreton 
Rivers and Creeks 
Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
In at least 2 m of water 
In at least 2 m of water. 
2 nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Need not be within 100 m of it unless in Shoalwater Bay. 
Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
50 meshes deep 
3 nets max 
Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
800 m attendance rule  
50 meshes deep 
150 to 215 120 
120 	 100 to 245 
75 
Table 1. Queensland Fisheries RNulation 1995, Schedule 13, Net Fisheries Commercial) summar for the Queensland east coast. 
In at least 2 m of water not fixed or hauled 
33 meshes dee maximum 
Need not be within 100 m of it 
115 mm mesh size max in barramundi closed season 
88 
150 to 245 600 
600 
 
150 to 245 
   
Two nets may be joined (max 1200 m) 
     
115 max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
Location 
Herve Ba 
South of Elliot River 
North of Elliot River 
Lake Cootharaba; 
Cooroibah; 
Weyba 
Ni 
1022 S mbols 
NET FISHERY (East Coast No. 1) 
All tidal waters on the east coast of Queensland 
1500 
Net length 
max 
(metres) 
MESH NET 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
100 m attendance rule unless 
otherwise stated 
Cape Gloucester to St 
Lawrence Creek 
Rivers and Creeks between 
Kauri and Baffle Creeks 
Foreshore nets between 
Burnett River and Baffle 
Creek 
Table 1. Corn... 
Ni 
1022 Symbols 
NET FISHERY (East Coast No.1) 
All tidal waters on east coast of Queensland 
100 m attendance rule unless 
otherwise stated 
SEINE NET 
Location Net length 
max 
(metres) 
Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Lake Weyba 25 25 
North of Mary River 100 31 pocket 
45 remainder 
Prawns only 
South of Baffle Creek 800 50 
North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
Rivers and Creeks 200 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
Cape Gloucester to St 
Lawrence Creek 
200 75 
Set pocket nets used in the 
Fitzroy, Kolan, Albert and 
Logan Rivers 
10 25 Need not be within 100 m of it 
/ 
Tunnel nets used in 
Moreton Bay, Tin Can 
Inlet, Pelican Bay, Tin Can 
Bay, Great Sandy Strait and 
Wide Bay Harbour 
1700 
200 tunnel 
50 tunnel 
25 for 400 m 
each side 
44 rest 
1.5 to 4 m tunnel entrance 
	 ' 
N2 
272 Symbols 
NET FISHERY (SET NETS-East Coast) 
All tidal waters on the east coast of Queensland 
800 m attendance rule unless 
otherwise sated 
MESH NET 
Additional Regulations 
North of St Lawrence Creek 115 mm mesh size max in barramundi closed 
season. 
3 nets max 
Distance between first and last 1 mile. 
50 meshes deep 
3 nets max 
Distance between first and last 1 mile 
50 meshes deep 
3 nets max 
Two nets may be joined 
Distance between first and last 1 mile. 
50 meshes deep 
6 nets max 
Distance between first and last 1 mile. 
1/3 of net max may extend beyond low water. 
6 nets max. 
Distance between first 
 and last 1 mile. 
Location Net length 
max 
(metres) 
Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Baffle Creek to Cape 
Flattery- foreshores 
600 100 to 215 
Kauri Creek to Cape 
Flattery- Rivers and Creeks 
Hinchinbrook Channel and 
tributaries 
120 
120 
150 to 215 
150 to 215 
North of Cape Flattery-
Rivers and Creeks 
120 150 to 215 
North of Cape Flattery-
Foreshores 
600 150 to 215 
Table 1. Cont... 
; 
eftieltn 
I 3 
Table 1. Cont... 
N4 
70 Symbols All tidal 
between  
NET 
waters within 
Breaksea Spit 
SEINE NET 
FISHERY (Ocean 
400 metres 
  (Fraser Island) 
Beach) 
of high water on ocean beaches 
to the Qld/NSW border. 
Seine Nets only between 1 April to 
31 August 
Location Net length 
max 
(metres) 
Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
i / 
North of the S/E tip of 
North Stradbroke Island 
200 to 500 50 to 70 150 meshes deep for at least 1/2 of length 
	 ' 
South of the S/E tip of 
North Stradbroke Island 
150 to 500 50 to 70 150 meshes deep for at least 1/2 of length 
1 4 
NET FISHERY (BAFFLE CREEK TO KAURI CREEK) 
All tidal waters between the northern bank of Baffle Creek and the 
southern bank of Kauri Creek  
100 m attendance rule unless 
otherwise stated 
1 end may be fixed 
N5 
4 Symbols 
MESH NET 
Additional Regulations 
In at least 2 m of water 
Need not be within 100 m of it 
2 nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Need not be within 100 metres of it 
115 mm mesh size max in barramundi closed season 
In at least 2 m of water 
Closed between 1 July to 31 October 
33 meshed deen 
Need not be within 100 m of it 
50 meshes deep 
3 nets max 
Distance between first and last 1 mile. 
800 m attendance rule 
50 meshes deep 
1 September to 1 February closure 
Location Net length 
max 
(metres) 
Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
All Waters in this fishery 
area unless otherwise 
stated 
800 50 
Offshore waters 600 150 to 245 
North of Cape Moreton-
offshore waters 
600 150 to 245 
Rivers and Creeks 400 50 
Hervey Bay 600 88 
South of Elliot River 600 88 0.65 
North of Elliot River 600 88 
Rivers and Creeks-
Set mesh-nets 
120 150 to 215 
Burnett River to Baffle 
Creek- foreshores 
120 100 to 215 
Table 1. Cont... 
Table I. Corn_ 
N5 NET FISHERY (BAFFLE CREEK TO KAURI CREEK) 
All tidal waters between the northern bank of Baffle Creek and the southern 
bank of Kauri Creek 
100 m attendance rule unless 
otherwise stated 
1 end of net may be fixed 
SEINE NET 
Location Net length 
max 
(metres) 
Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
All waters in this fishery 
area unless otherwise 
stated 
800 50 
Rivers and Creeks 200 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
Tunnel Nets used in Great 
Sandy Strait and Wide Bay 
Harbour 
1700 
200 tunnel 
length 
50 tunnel 
25 for 400 m 
each side 
44 rest 
1.5 to 4 m tunnel entrance 
16 
NET FISHERY (Bait No. 1) 
All tidal waters on the east coast of Queensland 
100 m attendance rule unless 
otherwise stated 
MESH NET 
Net length 
max 
(metres) 
 
Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
600 12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
400 12 to 45 
	
 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed  
Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 400 12 to 45 
400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
400  12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
200  25 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
	
 SEINE NET 
Net length 
max 
(metres) 
Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
600 12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed  
Only 1 end of the net may be fixed  
Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
400 12 to 45 
400 12 to 45 
400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
400  12 to 45 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed  
Only 1 end of the net may be fixed  
Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
400  12 to 45 
200  25 to 45 
Pelican Bay 
Tin Can Inlet 
N6 
1965 Symbols 
Location 
Burnett River to Sandy 
Cape (Fraser Island) 
North of Burnett River 
Moreton Bay 
Hervey Bay  
Great Sandy Strait 
Wide Bay Harbour 
Rivers and Creeks 
Location 
Burnett River to Sandy 
Cape (Fraser Island) 
North of Burnett River 
Moreton Bay  
Hervey Bay  
Great Sandy Strait 
Wide Bay Harbour 
Pelican Bay  
Tin Can Inlet 
Rivers and Creeks 
Table 1. Cont... 
17 
Table 1. Cont... 
N7 
9 Symbols 
NET FISHERY 
All tidal waters on the ea5 
MESH NET 
Location Net length 
max 
(metres) 
Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
South of Baffle Creek 800 50 
North of Baffle Creek 400 50 
Cape Manifold to Cape 
Gloucester 
88 
SEINE NET 
Location Net length 
max 
(metres) 
Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
South of Baffle Creek 800 50 
North of Baffle Creek 400 50 
(Bait No. 2) 
t coast of Queensland 
100 m attendance rule unless 
otherwise stated 
Additional Regulations 
115 mrn max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
Additional Regulations 
115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
'fable 1. Cont... 
1 
N8 
2 Symbols 
NET FISHERY (East Coast No. 2) 
All tidal waters on the east coast of Queensland out to sea from the 3 
nautical mile line  
100 m attendance rule unless 
otherwise stated 
MESH NET 
Location Additional Regulations Mesh Size 
min (mm) 
Net length 
max 
(metres) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
0.65 
North of Hervey Bay 
South of Elliot River 
In at least 2 m of water 
In at least 2 m of water 
33 meshes deep  
Need not be within 100 m of it. 
600 
600 
88 
88 
North of Elliot River, east 
of 153° 
600 88 
Other offshore waters 600 150 to 245 
Hervey Bay 1 
In at least 2 m of water 
Two nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m. 
Closed between 1 July to 31 October  
1 9 
Table 2. Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995, Schedule 13, Net Fisheries (Commercial) summary for each IDPA by/location'. 
GREAT SANDY 
STRAIT 
MESH NETS 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Ni  South of Elliott River 600 88 0.65 33 mCshes deep max 
N5  South of Elliott River  600 88 0.65 33 meshes deep  
In at least 2, Im of water Ni Offshore waters 600 150 to 245 
Need not be vNiithin 100m of it 
2 nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Ni  Rivers and Creeks  400 50 115 max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N5  Rivers and Creeks 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N6 Bait  Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
Ni Rivers and Creeks between 120 150 to 215 50 meshes deep 
Kauri and Baffle Creeks 3 nets max 
Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
800 m attendance rule 
N2 Kauri Creek to Cape 120 100 to 215 3 nets max 800m attendance rule Set Net  Flattery- River & Creeks Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
Baffle to Kauri Creeks-
offshore waters 
600 150 to 245 N5 2 nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Need not be within 100 m of it 
N5 Baffle to Kauri Creeks 
	
 other waters 
800 50 100 m attendance rule 
N5 Rivers and Creeks- 120 150 to 215 50 meshes deep 
Set Mesh-nets 3 nets max 
Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
800 m attendance rule 
N6 Bait  Great Sandy Strait 400 12 to 45 Only I end of net may be fixed 
N7 Bait South of Baffle Creek 800 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
Only 1 end of the net may he fixed 
20 
Table 2. Cont... 
GREAT SANDY STRAIT SEINE NETS 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Ni  South of Baffle Creek 800 50 
N7 Bait 
 South of Baffle Creek 800 50 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed  
prawns only Ni North of Mary River 100 31 in pocket 
45 rest 
Ni  Rivers and Creeks 200 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season , N5  Rivers and Creeks  200 50 115 m_m max mesh size in barramundi season N6 Bait  Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed Ni Tunnel Nets 1700 
200 tunnel 
50 tunnel 
25 for 400 m 
each side 
- 
44 rest 
 
1.5 to 4 m tunnel entrance 
i 
N5 Tunnel Nets 1700 
200 tunnel 
length 
50 tunnel 
25 for 400 m 
each side 
44 rest 
1.5 to 4 m tunnel entrance 
N5 All waters 800 50 
N6 Bait  Great Sandy Strait 400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
21 
Table 2. Cont 
SOUTHERN HERVEY 
BAY 
MESH NETS 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Ni Hervey Bay 600 88 In at least 2 m of water not fixed or hauled 
N5 Hervey Bay 600 88 In at least 2 m of water 
	 . 
Closed between 1 July to 31 October 9:00pm to 4:00am  
N6 Bait Hervey Bay 400 1 2 to 45 Only I end 01 net may be fixed  
33 meshes deep max closed between 1 July to 31 October 
4:00pm to 4:00am 
Ni South of Elliott River 600 88 0.65 
N5  South of Elliott River 600 88 0.65 33 meshes deep max 
N8 From 
3nm line 
South of Elliott River 
between Theodolite and 
	
 O'Regan Creeks 
600 88 0.65 Closed between 1 July to 31 October 
33 meshes deep max 
Ni Offshore waters 600 150 to 245 In at least 2 m of water 
2 nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Ni 
 Rivers and Creeks 400 50 115 max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N5  Rivers and Creeks 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N6 Bait  Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
Ni Rivers and Creeks between 
Kauri and Baffle Creeks 
120 150 to 215 50 meshes deep 800 m attendance rule 
can not be used in barramundi closure 
3 nets max Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
N5 Rivers and Creeks- 
Set Mesh-nets 
120 150 to 215 50 meshes deep 800 m attendance rule 
3 nets max Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
N2 
Set Net  
Kauri creek to Cape 
Flattery- foreshores 
600 
. 100 to 215 3 nets max 
Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
N5 Baffle to Kauri Creeks- 
Offshore waters 
600 '150 to 245 2 nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
	 . 
Need not be within 100 m of it 
N6 Bait 
N7 Bait 
Burnett River to Sandy 
Cape (Fraser Island) 
South ol Bailie Creek 
600 
800 
'12 to 45 
50 
Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
115 min max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
Table 2. Cont... 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Prawns only 
115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
	
 Only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
115 mm max mesh size in barramundi season 
	
 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
Fishery 
Symbol 
SOUTHERN HERVEY 
BAY 
Location 
SEINE NETS 
Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Ni North of Mary River 100 31 pocket 
45 remainder 
Ni South of Baffle Creek 800 50 
N7 Bait South of Baffle Creek 800 50 
Ni Rivers and Creeks 200 50 
N5 Rivers and Creeks 200 50 
N6 Bait  Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 
N5 All waters unless otherwise 
stated 
800 50 
N6 Bait Burnett River to Sandy 600 12 to 45 
Cape (Fraser Island) 
N6 Bait Hervey Bay 400 12 to 45 
')3 
Table 2. Cont. 
PORT CLINTON! 
 	 SHOALWATER BAY 
MESH NETS 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Ni 
 North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N7 Bait North of Baffle Creek 400 50 
Ni Cape Manifold to Cape 
	
 Gloucester 
400 88 Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
N7 Bait Cape Manifold to Cape 
	
 Gloucester 
400 88 Both ends of the net may be fixed for 1 hour 
Ni Offshore waters 600 150 to 245 In at least 2 m of water 
2 nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Need not be within 100 m of it unless in Shoalwater Bay 
N8 Out 
from 
3nm line 
Offshore waters 600 150 to 245 In at least 2 m of water 
Two nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
N1 Rivers and Creeks 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season  
N6 Bait  Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
N2 
Set Net  
Baffle Creek to Cape 
Flattery- foreshores 
600 100 to 215 3 nets max 800 m attendance rule 
Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
N2 
Set Net  
Kauri Creek to Cape 
Flattery- Rivers and Creeks 
120 150 to 215 50 meshes deep 800 m attendance rule 
3 nets max Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
N8 Out 
from 
3nm line  
North of Elliott River 600 88 Need not be within 100 m of it 
N6 Bait  North of Burnett River 400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
Table 2. Cont... 
PORT CLINTON! 
 	 SHOALWATER BAY 
SEINE NETS 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Ni  North of Baffle Creek  400 50 115 nru-n max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N7 Bait North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
Ni  Rivers and Creeks 200 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N6 Bait  Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
N6 Bait  North of Burnett River 400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
25 
Table 2. Cont. 
INCE BAY/ 
 	 NE WRY REGION 
MESH NETS 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Ni  North of Baffle Creek  400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season N7 Bait  North of Baffle Creek 400 50 
Ni Cape Manifold to Cape 
	 . Gloucester 
400 88 Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
N7 Bait Cape Manifold to Cape 
Gloucester 
400 88 Both ends of the net may be fixed for 1 hour 
Ni Offshore waters 600 150 to 245 In at least 2 m of water 
2 nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Need not be within 100 m of it unless in Shoalwater Bay  
In at least 2 m of water 
Two nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
N8 Out 
from 
3nm line 
Offshore waters 600 150 to 245 
Ni Rivers and Creeks 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season N6 Bait Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour Ni Cape Gloucester to St 
	
 Lawrence Creek 
75 Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
N2 
Set Net 
Baffle Creek to Cape 
Flattery- foreshores 
600 100 to 215 3 nets max Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
115 mm max mesh size during barramundi closure 
800 m attendance rule N2 
Set Net 
Kauri Creek to Cape 
Flattery- Rivers and Creeks 
120 150 to 215 50 meshes deep 800 m attendance rule 
115 mm max mesh size during barramundi closure 
3 nets max Distance between first and last net 1 mile N8 Out 
from 
3nm line  
North of Elliott River 600 88 
17_ to •15 
Need not be within 100 m of it 
Only I end of net may be fixed 
Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
N6 Bait North of Burnett River 400 
.44:1 
= =3 2t- 
Table 2. Coat... 
INCE BAY/ 
 	 NEWRY REGION 
SEINE NETS 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Ni  North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N7 Bait North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
Ni  Rivers and Creeks 200 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N6 Bait Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
Ni Cape Gloucester to St 
Lawrence Creek 
200 75 
N6 Bait North of Burnett River 400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
Both ends of net may be fixed for 1 hour 
27 
Table 2. Cont. 
UPSTART BAY/ 
 	 CLEVELAND BAY 
MESH NETS 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Ni 
	  North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N7 Bait  North of Baffle Creek 400 50 
Ni Offshore waters 600 150 to 245 In at least 2 m of water 
2 nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Need not be within 100 m of it unless in Shoalwa ter Bay N8 Out 
from 
3nm line  
Of 
	 waters 600 1 50 t o 245 In at least 2 ,,,m of water 
Two nets rn;;.'y be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Ni 
 Rivers and Creeks 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N6 Bait  Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 
	
 Only 1 end of net may be fixed N2 
Set Net 
Baffle Creek to Cape 
Flattery- foreshores 
600 100 to 215 3 nets max 800 m attendance rule 
115 mm max mesh size during barramundi closure 
Distance between first and last net 1 mile N2 
Set Net 
Kauri Creek to Cape 
Flattery- Rivers and Creeks 
120 150 to 215 50 meshes deep 800 m attendance rule 
115 mm max mesh size during bmamuncli closure 
3 nets max 
Distance between first and last net 1 mile N8 Out 
from 
3rtm line  
North of Elliott River 600 88 Need not be within 100 m of it 
N6 Bait  North of Burnett River 400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
'I'able 2. Cont... 
UPSTART BAY/ 
 	 CLEVELAND BAY 
SEINE NETS 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Ni 
 North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 n-un max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N7 Bait North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
only 1 end of the net may be fixed 
Ni 
 Rivers and Creeks 200 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
N6 Bait  Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
N6 Bait North of Burnett River 400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of net may 
 be fixed 
 
29 
Table 2. Cont... 
• 
HINCHINBROOK 
REGION 
MESH NETS 
, 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
I 	 • 	 Additional Regulations 
Ni  North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 11111-1 max mesh size in barramundi closed season N7 Bait  North of Baffle Creek  400 50 
Ni Offshore waters 
	 i 	  
600 150 to 245 In at least 2 m of water 
2 nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Need not be within 100 m of it unless in Shoalwater Bay  N8 Out 
from 
3n_m line  
Offshore waters 600 150 to 245 In at least 2 m of water 
Two nets may be joined in waters deeper than 20 m 
Ni  Rivers and Creeks 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season N6 Bait  Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed N2 
Set Net 
Baffle Creek to Cape 
Flattery- foreshores 
600 100 to 215 3 nets max Distance between first and last net 1 mile 
115 mm max mesh size during barramundi closure 
800 m attendance rule N2 
Set Net  
Kauri Creek to Cape 
Flattery- Rivers and Creeks 
120 150 to 215 50 meshes deep 800 m attendance rule 
3 nets max Distance between first and last net 1 mile N2 
Set Net 
Hinchinbrook Channel and 
tributaries 
120 150 to 215 50 meshes deep 800 m attendance rule 
3 nets max 
Two nets may be joined Distance between first and last net 
1 mile 
Cannot be used in Barramundi closure N8 Out 
from 
3nm line  
North of Elliott River 600 88 Need not be within 100 m of it 
N6 Bait  North of Burnett River 400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed 
'144  
OAF 
Table 2. Com .. 
rlinik_.nuNtiKuutc 
REGION 
SEINE NETS 
Fishery 
Symbol 
Location Net length 
max (metres) 
Mesh Size min 
(mm) 
Twine 
Diameter 
max (mm) 
Additional Regulations 
Ni 
 North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season N7 Bait North of Baffle Creek 400 50 115 mm max mesh size in barramundi closed season 
only 1 end of the net may be fixed Ni  Rivers and Creeks 200 50 115 rnin max mesh size in barramundi closed season N6 Bait  Rivers and Creeks 200 25 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed N6 Bait  North of Burnett River 400 12 to 45 Only 1 end of net may be fixed  
nnn• 	 Ffr u.; 
Table 3. Summary of all net specification ranges for each IDPA. A net, depending on the design and 
symbol can be used within these specification 
	 e in a IDPA 
IDPA 
c, 
Net Length Range (m) 
All Net Designs 
Mesh Size Range 
(mm) 
All Net Designs 
Twine piameter 
max (mm) 
All Net Designs 
(if given) 
Great Sandy Strait  120 to 800 (1700 tunnel) 12 to 245 0.65 	
_ 
Southern Hervey Bay  120 to 800 12 to 245 0.65 
Port Clinton  120 to 600 12 to 245 
Shoalwater Bay  120 to 600 12to 245 
_ 
Ince Bay  120 to 600 12 to 245 
Newry Bay  120 to 600 12 to 245 
Upstart Bay  120 to 600 12 to 245 
_ 
Cleveland Bay  120 to 600 12 to 245 
Hinchinbrook Region  120 to 600 12 to 245 
Table 4. Summary of the net design, the number of QFMA fishing symbols and the IDPAs that a fishery 
symbol can be used in. 
Symbol Net Design QFMA 
Fishery 
Symbols 
IDPA Area 
Ni 
 Mesh/ Seine Net 1022 All All tidal waters 
N2 Mesh-net 272 All but not 
Great Sandy Strait 
All tidal waters 
N4 
	  Seine Net 70 Great Sandy Strait Within 400 m of h.w.1 
N5 Mesh/ Seine Net 4 Great Sandy Strait; 
Southern Hervey Bay 
All tidal waters 
N6  Mesh/ Seine Net 1965 All All tidal waters 
N7  Mesh/ Seine Net 9 All All tidal waters 
N8 Mesh Net 2 All but not 
Great Sandy Strait 
and some of 
Hinchinbrook Region 
Out from 3 nm line 
i 
(p. 3?) 
REFERENCES 
Baranov, F.I. (1914). The capture of fish by gillnets. Mater. Poznaniyu Russ. Rybolov. 3 (6): 56-99. 
Brandt, A von, (1984). Fish catching methods of the world. Fishing News Books, Surrey, England, pp 355 - 378. 
FAO, (1987). FAO catalogue of small-scale fishing gear (second edition). Fishing News Books, Surrey, England. 
Fridman, A.L. (1986). Calculations for fishing gear designs. Fishing News Books, Surrey, England. 
Kailola, et al. (1993). Australian fisheries resources. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Department of Primary 
Industries, and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, Australia. 
King, M. (1995). Fisheries biology, assessment and management. Fishing News Books, Oxford, UK. 
Marsh, H. and Anderson, P.K. (1983) Probable susceptibility of dugongs to capture stress. Biological 
Conservation 25; pp:1-3. 
Marsh. H., Cockeron, P., Lawler, I.R., Lanyon, J.M. and Preen, A. R. (199
-1published). The statues of the 
dugong in the southern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Great barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 
Townsville, Australia. 
Queensland Government. (1995). Queensland Fisheries Regulation, 1995. Australian Government Printers. 
Queensland Government. (1995). Queensland Fisheries Act, 1994. Australian Government Printers. 
249(p. ti) 
REPORT 
ON 
VESSEL USE 
IN THE INTERIM DUGONG PROTECTION AREAS 
Gilbert, M. 1 , Benzaken, D. 1 
1  Socio-economic and cultural Program 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
2Prp.z) 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 	 1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 	 3 
Aims 	 3 
Methods 	 3 
Main Trends in Vessel Use 	 3 
Shipping 	 3 
Recreational Vessel Use 	 3 
Commercial Fishing Vessel Use 	 4 
Tourist Vessel Use 	 4 
Main Issues 	 5 
Vessel strike 	 5 
Damage to seagrass beds 	 5 
Overview Of Each Vessel Use Type 	 6 
Recreational Vessel use 	 6 
Commercial Vessel Use 	 6 
Shipping 	 7 
Aerial surveillance database 	 8 
GBRMPA Permitted Commercial Tourism Visitation 	 8 
DETAILS OF VESSEL USE IN EACH INTERIM DUGONG PROTECTION AREA 	 10 
Great Sandy Strait/Hervey Bay DPA 
Great Sandy Strait 
Anchorages 
Marine Infrastructure 
Recreational Vessel 1cs1-- 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
Commercial Net Fishery 
10 
10 
10 
11 
11 
11 
12 
Shoalwater Bay / Port Clinton 	 14 
Recreational Vessel Use 	 14 
Tourist Vessel Use 	 18 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 	 18 
Ince Bay 
Recreational Vessel Use 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
Newry Region 
Recreational Vessel Use 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
Upstart Bay 
	 24 
20 
20 
20 
22 
22 
22 
1 
200›.1,5 
Recreational Vessel Use 	 24 
Commercial Vessel Use 	 24 
Cleveland Bay 	 25 
Marine Infrastructure 	 25 
Shipping 	 25 
Recreational Vessel Use 	 25 
Tourist Vessel Use 
	 26 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
	 26 
Hinchinbrook Region 	 27 
Marine Infrastructure 	 27 
Anchorages 
	 27 
Recreational Vessel Use 	 27 
Tourist Vessel Use 
	 29 
Commercial Fishing Vessel 
	 30 
Princess Charlotte Bay / Bathurst Bay 
	 31 
Marine Infrastructure 
	 31 
Anchorages 	 31 
Recreational Vessel Use 
	 31 
Tourist Vessel Use 	 32 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
	 32 
2 
2o(P. 
Executive Summary 
Aims 
The aim of this report is to assess the levels of vessel use within the interim Dugong 
Protection Areas (DPA's), including recreational, commercial use and shipping, and to 
identify the main issues relating to vessel impact on dugong and dugong habitat. 
Methods 
There are few existing datasets which give reliable information on levels of vessel use within 
the Queensland coastal waters. The following databases have been queried to assist with 
gauging trends in vessel use but can only be regarded as indications of current situations for 
each DPA: the Queensland Coastwatch aerial surveillance database, the Great Barrier Reef 
Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) returns database, Queensland Department of Transport 
Private Boat Registrations district annual statistics, Queensland Fish Management Authority 
(QFMA) commercial fishing database, and existing site-specific research and reports on use 
within any of the DPA's. 
Interviews were carried out with Queensland Department of Primary Industries Boating and 
Fisheries Officers, and Queensland Department of Environment field staff as a source of 
anecdotal information on vessels and the types of activities occurring in each DPA. Maps of 
the relevant DPA were used in the interviews and where appropriate were annotated to 
illustrate as well as possible the spatial distribution and extent of information obtained for 
vessel use. These maps were then combined to produce as series of vessel-use maps for 
each DPA including additional positional information on existing marine infrastructure and 
important anchorage sites. Officer's were also asked to summarise their perception of the 
major threats to dugong and dugong habitat for their area. 
Main Trends in Vessel Use 
Shipping 
There are three DPA's where shipping is a major component of vessel, namely Princess 
Charlotte Bay, Cleveland Bay and Hinchinbrook Region. In Princess Charlotte Bay DPA the 
charted shipping lane crosses over the northern perimeter of the DPA. Johnston et al. (1994) 
identified this inner route as 'well established' with shipping traffic generally staying within the 
bounds of the charted shipping lane. During a 9 month period for 1993/4 there were 1208 - 
1213 vessel movements passing through the Princess Charlotte Bay section of shipping lane 
(Johnston et al. 1994 Appendix A-2). 
Shipping traffic entering the Port of Townsville must pass throu -gh the Cleveland Bay DPA. 
Leading lights marking the channel into the port are shown on Map 6. For the 12 months 
June 1995/1996 the Townsville Port Authority recorded movements of 720 commercial 
vessels in excess of 200 gross weight tonnage into the port. These included cargo, 
passenger, naval and bunker vessels (Townsville Port Authority 1997). 
The Hinchinbrook DPA Management Area 4 is affected to a perhaps lesser extent by ships 
entering from the northern side of the Palm Island Group to access the Bulk Sugar Terminal 
at Lucinda. For 1996, 54 vessel movements were recorded all of which were piloted. 
Generally the commercial shipping traffic is confined to well defined paths. 
3 
Recreational Vessel Use 
There are few datasets on recreational vessel use in either the GBRMP or the Queensland 
coastal waters in general, except where site-specific research has been carried out such as 
the GBRMPA reports' Recreational Usage Patterns of Shoalwater Bay and Adiacent Waters'  
(Jennings 1996), the 'Bramble Reef Socio-economic Study' (Benzaken et al) and the Great 
Sandy Region Management Plan. The results from these surveys have been outlined in the 
following Shoalwater Bay, Hinchinbrook Region and Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
DPA detailed section. For other areas, recreational vessel use must be inferred from a 
variety of existing datasets which, in most instances, were not designed for this purpose. 
The potential recreational vessel use for each DPA has been drawn from Queensland 
Transport private boat registrations for the districts adjacent to the DPA's. The greatest 
increase in private boat registrations for the DPA's occurred in Cairns and North District 
(72.54%) where 7930 vessels were registered for 1995 compared with 4596 vessels for 1984. 
The next highest total was for Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait DPA (Maryborough, 
Burnett Valley and Bundaberg combined) of 11222 boat registrations in 1995, an overall 
50.25% increase from 7469 registrations in 1984. Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton also 
register high vessel numbers. However, these have not seen the same degree of increase in 
boat registrations since 1984 (34.07%, 18.84%, and 39.44% respectively) compared with 
those recorded at the sites above.' 
Intense levels of recreational use occur in the Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait DPA. 
and the high degree of marine infrastructure development throughout the area reflects this. 
Hinchinbrook Region, Cleveland Bay and Newry Region are also relatively high use areas 
with many of the other DPA's being less accessible and therefore experiencing less 
recreational vessel use. 
Commercial Fishing Vessel Use 
Commercial net and crabbing fisheries are located inshore, around islands and in estuaries 
within all of the DPA's. Small fast moving vessels with shallow draughts are generally used 
to access fishing sites and may pose a threat to dugong in terms of potential vessel strike. 
In terms of the total days fished, Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait supported 8094 days for the 
years 1993,1994, and 1995 combined. This figure is far higher than any other DPA. 
Hinchinbrook Region, Princess Charlotte Bay and Cleveland Bay recorded the next highest 
totals (2027, 1898 and 1632 Days, respectively) for the three years of data analysed. 
Vessels engaged in Otter and Beam trawling also work many areas within the DPAs and their 
impact on seagrass beds requires investigation. Research on the East Coast Trawl Fishery 
trawl effort calculated for 1995 identified Princess Charlotte Bay and Upstart Bay as hot-spots 
in terms of high trawl effort (pers. comm. Francis Pantus GBRMPA 1996). 
Tourist Vessel Use 
The GBRMPA Returns database was queried to obtain data on the number of tourist vessels 
visiting reefs which fall inside the DPA's over a twelve month period from July 1995 under 
the GBRMPA permit system. The highest visited DPA was Hinchinbrook Channel and 
islands (762 vessel visits), followed by Cleveland Bay with 543 visits, and Princess Charlotte 
Bay recording 55 visits. As the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park boundary often does not 
extend to all areas within the DPAs, further research into the Queensland Marine Park Permit 
system would be required to gain the full picture for tourist vessel movements within the 
DPA's. Southern Hervey Bay/ Great Sandy Strait has high tourist vessel use but is difficult to 
compare with other DPA's due to data limitations. Bareboat and houseboat charters operate 
both in Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait and Hinchinbrook Region. 
'Note: Although Cairns is not located close to a DPA it is likely that many of the recreational use of Princess Charlotte 
Bay is drawn from this area and possibly Townsville as well. Hinchinbrook Region similarly is used by residents of 
Townsville as well as Ingham, Cardwell and Tully residents. Further research would be required to ascertain the user 
group catchment areas for each DPA 
4 
20(r4) 
Main Issues 
Vessel strike 
Vessel strike appears to be of greatest threat in areas where vessels travel at high speeds in 
shallow water over seagrass beds. This type of vessel activity is often associated with the 
net fisheries and crabbing (commercial and recreational) where dinghies are used to access 
nets and pots at inshore and estuarine fishing sites. Boating and Fisheries Officers for 
Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait stated that this was of primary concern as there are currently 
no restrictions on vessel speed in inshore and estuarine environments. Given the speed and 
spatial extent of vessel use in the DPA's it would appear that vessel strike is likely to be a 
significant cause of dugong mortality in Queensland coastal waters. 
Activities such as the water-ski races that have been run in the past in Hinchinbrook Channel, 
where vessels are traveling at high speeds (70kn) often across shallow water areas near 
mangroves, are of particular concern (see M. Burnham 1993, Queensland Department of 
Environment Marine Park Report: Hinchinbrook Ski Classic 1993, Hinchinbrook Channel). 
Damage to seagrass beds 
Seagrass beds appear to be under threat from 2 major activities associated with vessel use. 
These are anchorages and dredging. 
Anchorages are of primary concern where high use level anchorages occur over seagrass 
beds. Queensland Department of Environment staff suggested that damage to seagrass 
beds from the sweep of anchor chains is discernible in high use anchorages. The 
introduction of appropriate mooring structures or practices is required in several locations 
where anchorages and seagrass beds coincide. Further investigation would be required to 
identify all of the anchorages within the DPAs where seagrass damage is an issue. The 
GBRMPA GIS could be used to perform this task. 
Particular attention should be focused on the monitoring of new marina developments and 
the dredging of channel access within DPAs. Currently several DPAs have proposed access 
and infrastructure developments pending. These include marinas at Oyster Point and 
Dungeness, the upgrade of Fishers Creek Boat Ramp at Hinchinbrook, and channel access 
to Molongal Creek in Upstart Bay. Molongal Creek has a history of illegal dredging (Pers. 
comm. Boat and Fisheries), and currently there is a channel dredging proposal before the 
Bowen Council. 
The Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait DPA is currently under the Great Sandy 
Region Management Plan which proposes future guidelines for the development of further 
marine infrastructure for the area. No further marina developments will be permitted 
between River Heads and Kauri Creek in the central section. Future marina proposals will 
be for shallow draught vessels to avoid the need for dredging, however existing channels will 
be maintained and new channels will be dredged where there is a demonstrated need. Spoil 
dumping is permitted in approved sites with impact monitoring. Vessel pollution and water 
quality guidelines will be applied to all new marinas. (Great Sandy Region Management Plan) 
5 
20(P•7) 
Overview Of Each Vessel Use Type 
Recreational Vessel use 
There are few datasets on recreational vessel use in either the GBRMPA or the Queensland 
coastal waters in general, except where site-specific research has been carried out such as 
the GBRMPA reports' Recreational Usage Patterns of Shoalwater Bay and Adjacent Waters' 
(Jennings 1996) and the 'Bramble Reef Socio-economic Study' (Benzaken et al.) and the 
Great Sandy Region Management Plan. Results from this research is presented in the 
relevant DPA overview. For other areas, recreational vessel use must be inferred from a 
variety of existing datasets which, in most instances, were not designed for this purpose. 
Here the potential recreational vessel use has been drawn from Queensland Transport 
private boat registrations for the districts adjacent to the DPA's (See Table 1). 
Dugong Protection Local District Boat Registrations Boat Registrations Percentage Increase 
Area User Catchment 1995 1984 
- 
(%) 
Princess Charlotte Bay/ Cairns and North 7930 4596 72.54 
Bathurst Bay 
Hinchinbrook Ingham 1604 1294 23.96 
Region 
Cleveland Bay Townsville 6336 4726 34.07 
Upstart Bay Ayr/Home Hill 2275 2136 6.51 
Bowen 1381 1141 21.03 
Newry Region/ Mackay 6635 5583 18.84 
Ince Bay 
Shoalwater Bay/ Rockhamption 5583 4004 39.44 
Port Clinton 
Southern Hervey Bay/ Maryborough 5104 3180 60.50 
Great Sandy Strait 
Burnett Valley 1343 677 98.38 
Bundaberg 4775 3612 32.20 	
. 
Table 1 	 Private boat registrations for the districts for the years 1995, 1984 and the 
total percentage increase in registrations over this 11 year period. 
The greatest increase in private boat registrations for the DPA's occurred in Cairns and North 
District where there was a 72% increase from 4596 registered vessels in 1984 to 7930 
vessels in 1995. The next highest increase was for Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
DPA(Maryborough, Burnett Valley and Bundaberg combined) of 7469 registrations in 1984, 
an overall 50% increase to 11222 boat registrations in 1995. Townsville, Mackay and 
Rockhampton also register high vessel numbers however have not seen as much increase in 
boat registrations since 1984 (34%, 18%, and 39% respectively). 
Commercial Vessel Use 
There two DPA's which show high levels of trawl effort. These are Princess Charlotte Bay 
and Upstart Bay. Trawling occurs in all DPA's in deeper offshore waters except in the case 
of Beam Trawling in Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait where inshore estuaries are 
open to fishing. Further analysis of QFMA databases is required to give more detail on trawl 
effort within the DPA's. 
A summary of commercial Net was obtained from the Queensland Fish Management 
Authority (QFMA) commercial logbook data for each DPA for the period 1993,1994 and 
1995. Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait recorded 8094 days fished for the three 
years, a significantly higher use level than any of the other DPA's (See Figure 1). 
6 
Su
m
  T
ot
a
l N
e t
  D
ay
s
  F
is
he
d 
ov
e r
  3
 Y
ea
r  
Pe
r i
od
 
4
 01
  
G
)
 -A
 
0
3
 
(.
0
 
0
 
0
 
0
 
0
 
0
 0
 
0
 
c
) 
0
 
 
CD
  
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
  
H
e r
v
ey
  
.
  
x
.  
c
o
  
ao
  
B
ay
/G
re
a t
  
c
4
i1P. 
Sa
n d
y  
St
ra
it  
Po
rt  
Cl
in
to
n  
Z
 
Sh
oa
lw
a t
e
r  
B
ay
  
ii
  
.  
c
.0
  
0
  
In
ce
  B
ay
 
 
-
13  
T1
  
—
  
N
ew
ry
  R
eg
io
n  
0
0
 
0
  
ZT3  
U
p
s
ta
rt
  B
ay
  
M
 
CD
  
Wi
P
rA
i
(oco  
C
le
ve
la
n d
 Ba
y  
g
x
i f
tg
a
g  
1\.)  
H
in
c h
in
br
oo
k
 wo
rtio
l  8
  
R
eg
io
n  
ffi l
if
tia
l
t.
  
Pr
in
ce
ss
  
ph,...1
,75
z5:
s litl
  
C
ha
r l
ot
te
  B
ay
  
Wia
ttra
4  c
e;  
0 ri• CD  
‘.
‹ 
 
(1) 
 CD  Ct.  CD  S1)  CD  co  cri  Total Net Days F shed per DPA over 3 Years: 1993-1995 
20(p E) 
Figure 1 Commercial Net Fishery - Total Days Fished over a 3 Year Period 
(1993,1994, and 1995) for each Dugong Protection Area' 
Source: QFMA Commercial Fishing Database (reworked by Francis Pantus) 
Note: The DPA extent used does not perfectly coincide with the QFMA database grid unit. As a 
result these figures may be slightly under the real value. 
Further information about the number of vessels operating in the commercial net fishery 
within each DPA are summarized in each DPA overview. 
The main issues attributed to commercial fisheries in terms of dugong and habitat decline, 
are firstly, mortality due to entrapment in nets, particularly where set nets are left unattended, 
secondly, vessel strike as vessels accessing fishing sites travel quickly in shallow waters. 
(pers. comm. Boating and Fisheries) The third issue is the impact of vessels anchoring over 
seagrass beds, and finally the degradation of deep seagrass beds due to otter trawling. (pers. 
comm. QDOE staff). 
Shipping 
There are three DPA's where shipping traffic is a significant component of vessel use, 
namely Princess Charlotte Bay, Cleveland Bay and Hinchinbrook Region. Shipping traffic 
occurs in the Princess Charlotte Bay DPA where the charted shipping lane crosses over the 
northern perimeter of the DPA. 
Johnston et al. (1994) described this inner route as 'well established' with shipping traffic 
generally staying within the bounds of the charted shipping lane. There were approximately 
1208 - 1213 vessel movements recorded for the Princess Charlotte Bay section of the 
shipping lane for 9 month period in 1993/4. (Johnston et al. 1994 Appendix A-2). 
Shipping traffic entering the Port of Townsville must pass through the Cleveland Bay DPA. 
Leading lights mark the channel into the port. For the 12-months June 1995/1996, the 
Townsville Port Authority recorded movements of 720 commercial vessels in excess of 200 
tonnes (gross weight) into the port. These included cargo, passenger, naval and bunker 
7 
zo(p. q) 
vessels (Townsville Port Authority 1997). Generally, recreational vessels are discouraged 
from using the shipping lead channel, therefore smaller recreational vessels and even larger 
vessels such as the Magnetic Island Ferries' tend to travel outside the leading lights. 
In the Hinchinbrook DPA Management Area 4 ships entering from the northern side of the 
Palm Island Group access the Bulk Sugar Terminal at Lucinda. For 1996, 54 vessel 
movements were recorded, all of which were piloted. 
Aerial surveillance database 
The Coastwatch aerial surveillance data was queried for all DPA's excluding Great Sandy 
Strait/Hervey Bay. The data tends to be difficult to use for actual vessel use as the sampling 
strategy isn't designed for this purpose. As a result the graphs presented based on vessel 
sightings in the DPA's must be regarded with extreme caution and comparisons cannot be 
made between DPA's based on this data, however an indication of the range of vessels using 
the DPA's can be gained. 
GBRMPA Permitted Commercial Tourism Visitation 
The GBRMPA Returns database was queried to obtain data on the number of tourist 
operators visiting reefs within the DPA's over a twelve month period (July 1995-July 1996). 
The highest visited DPA was the Hinchinbrook Region with Cleveland Bay DPA receiving the 
next highest level of tourist vessel visitation (See Table 2). (Excluding Southern Hervey 
Bay/Great Sandy Strait DPA) 
DUGONG PROTECTION AREA REEFID REEF_NAME Total Vessel Visits 
/12 Months 
Total Passengers 
/12 Months 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14007 Taiwan Shoal 1 4' 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14011 Olive Patch 2 10 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14022 Wharton Reef 1 10 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14026 Stanley Island Reefs 3 16 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14031 Blackwood Island Reef 8 51 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14042 Flinders Island Reefs 40 242 
DPA TOTAL 55 333 
Hinchinbrook Region 18008 Brook Islands Reef 61 343 
Hinchinbrook Region 18010 GooId Island Reef 218 744 
Hinchinbrook Region 18011 Garden Island Reef 53 199 
Hinchinbrook Region 18014 Hinchinbrook Island Reef 429 11854 
Hinchinbrook Region 18015 Agnes Island Reef 1 2 
DPA TOTAL 762 13142 
Cleveland Bay 19006 Orchard Rocks Reef 4 7 
Cleveland Bay 19007 Bay Rock Reef 2 4 
Cleveland Bay 19009 Magnetic Island Reefs 537 3100 
DPA TOTAL 
_ 
543 3111 
Newry Re9ion 20219 Cave Island Reef 2 13 
Newry Region 20228 Newry Island Reef 5 69 
DPA TOTAL 7 82 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 22038 Clara Island Reef 1 10 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 22075 Clara Group Reef 2 10 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 22078 Island Head Island Reef 27 229 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 22081 U/N Reef 1 5 
DPA TOTAL 31 254 
Table 2 	 Tourist vessel visitation to reefs within the DPA's for the period July 1995 to 
July 1996. Data obtained from the GBRMPA RETURNS database. 
Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait as outlined in the following discussion on the area, 
experiences heavy tourist vessel activity, particularly in the whale watching season. 
However, the area most heavily visited for whale watching is outside the DPA boundary. 
8 
2orp /p) 
Bareboat and houseboat charters operate both in Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
and Hinchinbrook Channel.' 
1 	 (For more information on tourist vessels movements the Queensland Department of 
Environment permits database will need to be queried). 
9 
Zofr . 
DETAILS OF VESSEL USE IN EACH INTERIM DUGONG 
PROTECTION AREA 
Great Sandy Strait/Hervey Bay DPA 
The Great Sandy Strait and Hervey Bay supports the highest level of vessel use of all the 
DPA's and is one of the busiest vessel traffic areas in Queensland. Currently, the area is 
under the review of the Great Sandy Region Management Plan which coordinates use and 
development within the area. 
Vessel use in the waters of the Great Sandy Strait/Hervey Bay encompasses a range of 
activities such as recreational and commercial fishing, spearfishing, charter boats, diving 
snorkelling, motorised watersports, jet skis (hire and private), glass bottom boats, parasailing, 
sailing, yacht races, bareboat charter, whale and turtle watching, and cruise ships. Vehicular 
ferries operate in several locations throughout the bay. 
Great Sandy Strait 
Geographically, the Great Sandy Strait area provides a range of channels, intertidal flats, 
mangrove estuaries and sheltered waters for all vessel types. The main traffic areas follow 
deeper water channels which are delineated by navigation guides, however shallow draught 
vessels including a large fleet of aluminum dinghies, regularly use the intertidal estuarine 
environments. There are no speed restrictions on vessels at this time. Most of the vessel 
use in this shallow area is for recreational and commercial fishing. Tinnanbar, Shark Inlet 
and Kauri Creek are popular recreational destinations for day trippers from the Tin Can Bay 
area. South from Kauri Creek to Tin Can Bay the recreational and commercial fishing 
environments are over seagrass beds. This combined with the speed at which boats are 
traveling in shallow waters, would appear to greatly increase the potential for vessels striking 
dugong. An estimated 500 vessel movements a week occur between Tin Can Bay and Inskip 
Point. (Anecdotal information source: Boating and Fisheries).Bareboats and Houseboat 
charters work from Tin Can Bay and Carlo. Some water skiing occurs at Pelican Bay. 
Anchorages 
As an anchorage, Great Sandy Strait and Hervey Bay waters are protected by Frazer Island 
with most anchorages occurring either in the waters just off the main channel along the 
western perimeter of Frazer Island, or on the western perimeter of the strait in the mouths of 
rivers and estuaries such as Tin Can Bay, Pelican Bay, Kauri Creek, Big Tuan Creek, Susan 
River, and in particular the Mary River. ( . ary's Anchorage, between Frazer Island and 
Stewart Island provides good shelter and is a popular anchorage, particularly for yachts. 
Pelican Bay located to the south of Frazer Island is sheltered by Inskip Point and is 
commonly used by boats including trawlers, sheltering inside the bar. There is a significant 
trawler fleet based at Tin Can Bay. Anchor damage to seagrass beds has been reported in 
the Pelican Bay area and is likely to be important in other areas where high-use anchorages 
occur over seagrass meadows. The issue of anchor damage to seagrass beds needs to be 
addressed if these environments are to be preserved. Further research is recommended to 
identify areas where anchorages occur over seagrass in all the DPA's. 
10 
Marine Infrastructure 
The Great Sandy Region Management Plan recognizes a need for more marinas to service 
the commercial and recreational boat owners in the area. 
Current infrastructure: 
Public Boating facilities include 21 boat ramps, 4 jetties, 1 pontoon and 16 separate public 
boating facilities. The Great Sandy Strait Management Plan provides guidelines for the 
future development of marine infrastructure in the area. No further marina developments will 
be permitted between River Heads and Kauri Creek in the central section. Future marina 
developments will be for shallow draught vessels to avoid the need for dredging. However, 
existing channels will be maintained and new channels will be dredged where there is a 
demonstrated need and spoil dumping is permitted in approved sites with impact monitoring. 
Vessel pollution and water quality guidelines will be applied to all new marinas. 
Recreational Vessel Use 
Maryborough is the closest major town to the Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait DPA . 
Boat registrations give an indication of the potential recreational use of the area by privately 
registered boat owners living adjacent to the DPA. There has been a 50% overall increase 
in the number of boats registered to the Maryborough, Burnett Valley and Bundaberg district 
in 11 years (See Table 3). 
District 
	 Boat Registrations 
	 Boat Registrations 
	 Percentage 
1995 	 1984 	 Increase (%) 
Maryborough 5104 3180 60 
Burnett Valley 1343 677 98 
Bundaberg 4775 3612 32 
Region Total 11222 7469 50 
Table 3 
	 Hervey Bay District - Total number of privately registered vessels for 
1995,1984 and percentage increase over the 11 year period. 
Recreational use by private vessels in this area is predominantly for fishing (97%), mainly in 
the Great Sandy Strait, but it is also used for pleasure boating, and water-skiing (Cuthill 
1994). It was estimated that recreational fishing effort for the area for 1994 was 
approximately 362 975 angler days (Cuthill 1994). This does not include visitor angler 
which was estimated at 100 000 angler days in 1991 (Cuthill 1994). 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
Hyland (1993) reported an annual average of 293 commercial vessels worked the Hervey 
Bay Region between 1989 and 1991 with an average annual total of 9372 days. 
(NB. The grids used for the 'Hervey Bay Region' in the Hyland study extend from Ungowa 
25° 30' north to 24° 30' latitude and so doesn't include the Great Sandy Strait itself). 
There are a range of commercial fisheries' endorsements for the Hervey Bay Region (see 
Table 4), however this does not imply that all of these vessels actually work the DPA area, 
but only gives an indication of fishing vessel activity. Fishing vessels based in the area 
undertake a range of fishing methods, including trawling, potting, line fishing, gill, set, drift 
netting, and beach seining. 
11 
.2(20. 0) 
CATEGORY Hervey Bay Bundaberg TOTAL 
No. of Master Fishers 139 176 315 
No. of Assistant Fishers 189 296 485 
No of Primary Endorsements 106 120 226 
No. of Tenders 176 160 336 
Ocean Beach Endorsements 2 2 
East Coast Barramundi 11 19 30 
Endorsements 
Otter Trawl Endorsements 36 65 101 
Crab Endorsements 72 75 147 
Beam Trawl Endorsements 18 9 27 
Line Endorsements 103 120 223 
Net Endorsements 77 86 163 
Bait Endorsements 2 2 
Table 4 	 The total number of fishing endorsements for Hervey Bay Region for 1991 
Source: Hyland (1993) P.  10 
Offshore otter trawling occurs to the north of the DPA, and inshore otter trawling south from 
Woodgate to Point Vernon. (See Maps of Extent of Vessel use for each fishery in Appendix 
A.) Extensive seagrass meadows exist in the western half of Hervey Bay, with smaller 
seagrass areas interspersed from Urangan to River Heads. (Hyland 1993) 
Four River Beam Trawlers were working the Mary River in 1993, while 18 fishers had 
endorsements to use river beam trawl between Double Island Point and Burrum Heads. The 
Burrum, Isis, Cherwell and Gregory Rivers and the northern region of the Great Sandy Strait 
from River Heads to Woody Island are open for river beam trawling. The Mary River is also 
used for set netting. (Hyland 1993) 
Urangan is a base for many of the Scallop vessels working in the north of Hervey Bay with 
130 vessels working this fishery in the Hervey Bay region in 1990. Scallop refuse is dumped 
in the Urangan area. Heavy boating traffic occurs in the Urangan to Round Island waters 
(Hyland 1993). 
Commercial Net Fishery 
Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait recorded the highest level of net fishing days for all DPA's. 
In 1995, 65 vessels logged a total of 2288 days for the area, a decrease from the two 
preceding years (see Figure 2). 
12 
Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
Total Net Days Fished Per Year 
w 
.2°69, /*) 
Figure 2 Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait Commercial Net Fishery 
Total Number of Days Fished for Years 1993, 1994 and 1995 
Note: The total number of vessels working the DPA for each year is written above the year 
on the bottom axis. 
Source: QFMA Commercial Fishing Database (Reworked by Francis 
Pantus) 
Note: The DPA extent used does not perfectly coincide with the QFMA database grid unit. 
As a result these figures may be slightly under the real value. 
Tunnel Netting is permitted in the Great Sandy Strait (Moreton Bay being the only other 
location where this practice is permitted) and occurs in the intertidal zone below mangrove 
communities, particularly in the area south of Urangan. 
Crabbing 
Crabbing is carried out both commercially and recreationally (see Table 5). Pots are 
accessed by fishers using dinghies with outboard motors often traveling at speeds up to 40 
knots (Anecdotal information source: Boating and Fisheries). 
Target 
	
Main area Fished 	 Method 	 Recreational Effort 
Sand Crabs 
Portunus pelagicus 	 Burrum Heads, 	 Potting 	 High Recreational 
Gatakers Bay 	 fishing value exists 
North of Urangan 
Mud Crabs 
Scylla serrata 	 Mangrove Areas between 	 Potting 	 High Recreational 
Mary River and Pulgul Creek 	 fishing value exists 
Table 5 	 Main Crab Fisheries in Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait 
Source Hyland 1993 
13 
Zottpt ma) 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 
Recreational Vessel Use 
Jennings (1996) identified the main recreational use group for Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 
as largely residents from Yeppoon and Rockhampton. The trends for Rockhampton District 
private boat registrations are shown in Table 6. 
Dugong Protection 
Area 
Local District 
User Catchment 
Boat Registrations 
1995 
Boat Registrations 
1984 
Percentage 
Increase (%) 
Shoalwater Bay/ 
Port Clinton 
Rockhampton 5583 4004 39.44 
Table 6 	 Rockhampton District - Total number of privately registered vessels for 
1995,1984 and percentage increase over the 11 year period. 
Jennings (1996) analysed Department of Environment aerial surveillance data for 1988-1995 
for the Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton area and despite data limitations was able to ascertain 
that the Shoalwater bay area was primarily used by motorised vessels, with sailing vessels 
tending to use the outer coastal areas (see Table 7) It is important to note that these data 
are not absolute vessel numbers for recreational use but are indications of the proportional 
trends for each vessel type. It should also be noted that the Shoalwater Bay DPA 
corresponds the Section B tabled here, although the data is grouped with section A which lies 
to the north and outside of the DPA boundary. 
Year 	 Location 	 No 	 Class Of Activity No 
	 Vessel Types 
	 No. 
1988-1995 	 Section A & B 493 
	 Recreational 
	 376 	 Motorised 	 313 
(Shoalwater Bay) 
	 Commercial 	 117 	 Sail Powered 
	 29 
Vehicle 	 26 
Camps 
	 8 
Fishing Vessels 109 
Trawlers 
	 8 
Subtotal 	 493 	 493 	 493 
Subtotal 
	
Island Head Ck 458 	 Recreational 	 1190 Motorised 
	 540 
Port Clinton 
	 236 	 Commercial 	 201 	 Sail powered 
	 484 
Section E 	 393 	 Vehicle 	 147 
Corio Bay 	 274 	 Camps 	 19 
Fishing Vessels 69 
Trawlers 	 133 
	
1361 	 1361 	 1361 
Total 	 1854 	 1854 	 1854 
Table 7 	 Results of Jennings (1996) analysis of Department of Environment aerial 
surveillance data for 1988-1995 
14 
20(p./
) 
The Recreational Usage Patterns of Shoalwater Bay and Adjacent Waters survey included 
data gathered by 4 different means: Mail survey (Mail), Club Member Survey (Club), Self 
selected and administered surveys (Self) and survey of commercial operators (Comm). The 
highest response rate was for the respondents surveyed by mail and so these results have 
been graphed and are shown below for the results of the destination, departure and main 
activity undertaken. Section B referred to in the following tables corresponds to the 
Shoalwater Bay DPA area, while the Port Clinton DPA is roughly aligned with the area here 
called Section D. 
Destinations: 
The destinations most frequently used by the respondents are summarised in Table 8. 
Mail Club Self Comm 
Location % (of 256) % (of 38) (°/0 of 27) (`)/0 of 27) 
A Section A Northern area of 
Shoalwater Bay 
28.1 18.2 70.4 
B Section B Southern area of 
Shoalwater Bay 
5.5 66.6 3.70 
C Section C Island Head Ck 
environments 
40.6 55.3 96.3 40.74 
D Section D Port Clinton 
environments 
19.5 60.5 63 14.81 
E Section E above cape Manifold to 
Cape Clinton 
40.6 36.8 18.5 
F Section E above five rocks to Cape 
Manifold 
39.5 28.9 33.3 7.41 
G Section E Little Corio Bay to Five 
Rocks 
27.3 36.8 14.8 
H Corio Bay 48.1 71.1 29.6 
I Yeppoon, Keppel & Fitzroy River 30.5 26.3 40.7 
Outside study area 12.9 13.2 37 
Table 8 	 Destinations used by the respondents for each survey type, as a percentage 
of the total for that survey type. 
(Jennings 1996) 
The Shoalwater Bay dugong protection area coincides with Area B (see figure 3) in the 
Jennings report which receives low use levels, a point which was confirmed by Boating and 
Fisheries patrol staff working in the Shoalwater Bay area. The reason for this seems to be 
the presence of the Military Training Area which deters recreational vessel users from 
frequenting the area even when it is open. Port Clinton DPA is covered in Sector D and in a 
small proportion of Sector C. From this research it can be shown that the Shoalwater Bay 
DPA receives minimal recreational vessel use. Port Clinton however is more popular as a 
destination and is identified as a key use area for the study, but even so lower than other 
areas that are more easily accessible from departure points. 
15 
2002. /7) 
Figure 3 	 Mail Survey - Level of use per destination as a Percentage 
(Jennings 1996) 
Departure points 
The most popular departure point for accessing the survey area was from Rosslyn Bay (H) 
followed by the Curio Bay area (B). (See Table 9 and Figure 4) 
Mail Club Self Comm 
Departure points `)/0 (of 
256) 
`)/0 (of 38) (3/0 of 27) (°/0 of 27) 
0/, 
A Bungalee 0.8 9 
B Corio Bay area 21.5 18 3 
C Fitzroy Motor Boat Club 0.4 0 
D Five Rocks 2.3 0 
E Farnborough Bch 2.3 0 
F Gladstone 2.3 3 33.3 
G Rockhampton 5.1 36.8 6 
H Rossyln Bay 54.9 81.6 51 66.7 
I Ross Creek 6.6 2.6 3 
J Stanage Bay 7.8 31 
K Sandy Bay 0 
L Mackay 0 
M Marlborough 0.4 0 
N Kellys / Cooberry 
	
_ 10.9 6 
0 Hollins Bay 0.4 0 
Other 10.2 10.5 11 
Table 9 
	
Departure points used by the respondents for each survey type, as a 
percentage of the total for that survey type. 
(Jennings 1996) 
16 
60 
      
      
50 - 
40 - 
30 - 
20 -- 
10 - 
0 
    
r7i  
o 	 wu c I9 
Figure 4 	 Percentage of departures per departure point for the Mail Survey 
(Jennings 1996) 
Activities: 
The main activity undertaken by respondents by all survey methods was Recreational Fishing 
(See Table 10). 
Mail Club Self Comm 
`)/0 (of 256) % (of 38) (Y° of 27) (`)/0 of 27) 
Main activity % 
A Boating 4.7 5.2 17 50 
B Recreational fishing 52.3 55.3 51 100 
C SCUBA diving 16.6 
D Kayaking 
E Tourist activity 66.7 
F Spearfishing 0.4 
Snorkelling 0.4 16.6 
H Sightseeing 1.6 2.6 67.7 
I Camping 3.5 
Other 12.1 2.6 26 
Table 10 
	 Results of the main activities engaged by survey respondents as a 
percentage of the totals for each survey method. 
(Jennings 1996) 
17 
20(p. ,9S 
Figure 5 Frequency (%)of recreational activity undertaken in the study area from 
Mail survey results. 
Recreational fishing was considered by most mail survey respondents to be an appropriate 
activity for Section B and D (69% and72°/0), while predominantly trawling, commercial 
netting, collecting and fishing were not considered to be suitable activities to be permitted in 
either areas. 
Tourist Vessel Use 
Approximately 6-8 charter vessels operate in the area in the Port Clinton area and south, with 
little or no activity in the Shoalwater Bay DPA. Island Head Creek and Port Clinton are used 
as fishing destinations and anchorages for charter vessels. (Fitzsimmons 1996) Tourist 
operators predominantly use Island Head Reef with a total of 27 visits recorded for 12 
months See Table 11. 
DUGONG PROTECTION AREA REEF_ID REEF NAME Total Vessel Visits 
/12 Months 
Total Passengers 
/12 Months 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 22038 Clara Island Reef 1 10 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 22075 Clara Group Reef 2 10 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 22078 Island Head Island Reef 27 229 
Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton 22081 U/N Reef 1 5 
DPA TOTAL 31 254 
Table 11 Tourist Vessel visitation to reefs within Shoalwater Bay/Port Clinton DPA 
From GBRMPA returns database. 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
Under current research being carried out by the GBRMPA into Shoalwater Bay, a report on 
the Status of Fishing in Shoalwater Bay is available for more detailed information on fisheries 
in Shoalwater Bay. 
The shallow bathymetry of Shoalwater Bay excludes it as a significant trawl ground and this 
is supported by the lack of fishing effort recorded in the QFMA logbook database. 
The commercial net fishery is minor also, as shown below in Figure 6, with only 8 vessels 
recording catch data for the area in 1995 with a total of 61 Days fished. The level of use has 
decreased over the three years shown. The Port Clinton commercial net fisheries recorded 
slightly higher however this also experienced a decline over the 3 years. 
18 
Shoalwater Bay 
Total Net Days Per Year 
•1 
	
8 
	
8 
1993 
	 1994 
	
1995 
Total No of Vessels per Year 
To
ta
l N
et
  D
ay
s  
F
is
he
d 
250 
200 — 
150 — 
100 — 
50 — 
0 
20). zo) 
Figure 6 Shoalwater Bay Commercial Net Fishery 
Total Number of Days Fished for Years 1993, 1994 and 1995 
Note: The total number of vessels working the DPA for each year is written above the year 
on the bottom axis. 
Source: QFMA Commercial Fishing Database (Reworked by Francis 
Pantus) 
Note: The DPA extent used does not perfectly coincide with the QFMA database grid unit. 
As a result these figures may be slightly under the real value. 
19 
zo(p. fl) 
Reference List 
Benzaken, D., Gilbert, M., Innes, J., (In preparation) 
	 Bramble Reef Socioeconomic Study 
CRC Reef funded project. 
Burnham, M.B. (1993) Hinchinbrook Ski Classic 1993, Hinchinbrook Channel 
Marine Park Report 
Cuthill, M. (1994) 	 Report on Marine Recreation Activities, Facilities and Opportunities 
in the Great Sandy Management Area. 
Unpublished 
CYPLUS Taskforce (1993) 
	 Land Use and Economy 
Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy 
Fitzsimmons, L. (Editor) (1996) 
Status of Fisheries and Fisheries Resources in Shoalwater Bay 
A Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 
Hyland, S.J. (1993) Fisheries Resources of the Hervey Bay Region 
Queensland Fish Management Authority 
Jennings, Gail (1996) Recreational Usage Patterns of Shoalwater Bay and Adjacent 
Waters 
A Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 
Johnston et al (1994) Great Barrier Reef Shipping Study - Inner/Outer Route Risk 
Assessment 
CRC REEF Research Center. October 1994 Final Report 
Queensland Department of Environment 
Great Sandy Region - Management Plan 
Matthews, W. 
Sandy 
Resource Inventory - of the Tidal Lands and Waters of the Great 
Strait/Tin Can Bay Area 
Conducted on the behalf of: 
Queensland Department of Environment 
Maryborough 
35 
20(psz.z) 
Ince Bay 
Recreational Vessel Use 
Ince Bay is a relatively remote DPA with access limitations, and therefore appears to support 
low levels of recreational use. There are camp sites located in Cape Palmerston National 
Park. Recreational users access the bay from Cape Palmerston by traveling along the beach 
from the township of Greenhill, or from Armstrong Beach to the north. Beach launching of 
smaller vessels occurs from the national park sites. Generally the area is tidal and the 
shallow bathymetry excludes use of the area by larger vessels. (Anecdotal information 
source: Boating and Fisheries). 
Sarina and Mackay are the nearest main population centers to Ince Bay. Private boat 
registrations in this case are probably not a good indication of potential recreational vessel 
use (See Table 12). Recreational fishing and crabbing appear to be the main activities 
undertaken in the area. 
Dugong Protection 
Area 
Local District 
User Catchment 
Boat Registrations 
1995 
Boat Registrations 
1984 
Percentage Increase 
(0/0) 
Newry Region/ 
, 	
Ince Bay 
Mackay 6635 5583 18.84 
Table 12 	 Mackay District - Total number of privately registered vessels for 
1995,1984 and percentage increase over the 11 year period. 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
Otter and Beam Trawling occurs between Armstrong Beach to Ince Bay, but does not appear 
to occur in the DPA area. 
Netting and crabbing are the main commercial fishing activities occurring inside the DPA with 
approximately 7 professional fishers currently working the area. (Anecdotal information 
source: Boating and Fisheries). This would appear to be supported by the QFMA database 
which gives 5 fishers working the area in 1995. (See Figure 7) 
20 
Ince Bay 
Total Net Day Fished per Year 
20(74.* 
Figure 7 Ince Bay Commercial Net Fishery 
Total Number of Days Fished for Years 1993, 1994 and 1995 
Note: The total number of vessels working the DPA for each year is written above the year 
on the bottom axis. 
Source: QFMA Commercial Fishing Database (Reworked by Francis 
Pantus) 
Note: The DPA extent used does not perfectly coincide with the QFMA database grid unit. 
As a result these figures may be slightly under the real value. 
The practice of setting offshore set nets perpendicular to headlands and islands could be a 
potential threat to dugong in the area (Anecdotal information source: Boating and Fisheries). 
21 
Newry Region 
Recreational Vessel Use 
The Newry Region is more popular than Ince Bay as a recreational destination, however use 
levels are difficult to estimate. Road access into settlements within the area makes it more 
accessible than Ince Bay. The main boat ramp at Seaforth is often busy with at times up to 
100 boats a day being launched. Other access points are from St. Helens Beach boat ramp, 
Murray Creek boat ramp, Mathers Creek (an informal ramp) and probably access is gained 
via private property along creeks. (Anecdotal information source: Boating and Fisheries). 
The main local population using the DPA are probably from the Mackay district. Private boat 
registrations for this area is shown in Table 13. There are picnic and camping areas located 
within the DPA and a couple of resorts. A small amount of water skiing is at times carried out 
offshore from the resort at Ball Bay. 
Dugong Protection 
Area 
Local District 
User Catchment 
Boat Registrations 
1995 
, 
Boat Registrations 
1984 
Percentage Increase 
(°/0) 
Newry Region/ 
Ince Bay 
Mackay 6635 5583 18.84 
Table 13 	 Mackay District - Total number of privately registered vessels for 
1995,1984 and percentage increase over the 11 year period. 
There is a resort located on Newry Island but this does not contribute greatly to the 
recreational vessel traffic. 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
Redcliffe Island, Ball Headland and Hillsborough are fished for Barramundi and small 
mackerel in the season October to December. Vessels are generally 4-5m dinghies with 30- 
90hp outboard motors. Approximately 6-7 professional fishers are known to work the area 
regularly, of these, several are from Sarina, one is based at Midge Point, and one is based at 
Ball Bay permanently. (Anecdotal information source: Boating and Fisheries). The total 
number of days fished for the area is shown in Figure 8. Offshore gill nets can be used off 
steep headlands where 2 meter water depths remain at low tide. These nets as in Ince Bay 
may be a potential threat to dugong as they move around the headlands. 
22 
Newry Region 
Total No of Net Days Fished 
9 
	
6 
	
6 
1993 
	
1994 
	
1995 
Total Boats per Year 
To
ta
l N
et
  D
ay
s  
Fi
sh
ed
 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
     
  
208 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
    
.2.0074a 
Figure 8 Newry Region Commercial Net Fishery 
Total Number of Days Fished for Years 1993, 1994 and 1995 
Note: The total number of vessels working the DPA for each year is written above the year 
on the bottom axis. 
Source: QFMA Commercial Fishing Database (Reworked by Francis 
Pantus) 
Note: The DPA extent used does not perfectly coincide with the QFMA database grid unit. 
As a result these figures may be slightly under the real value. 
Oyster Leases operate at Rocky Island, Newry and Rabbit island however, these have little 
associated vessel traffic. 
23 
Upstart Bay Total Net Days Fished per Year 
•;?0(77,* 
Upstart Bay 
Recreational Vessel Use 
It is difficult to assess the levels of recreational use for Upstart Bay. The current proposal to 
dredge an access channel through Molongel Creek would suggest that as a departure point it 
must receive a reasonable amount of use. During long weekends up to 50 boats can be 
observed to use the access facilities. The south eastern corner of the bay is reported to be 
fairly heavily used, particularly for crabbing. (Anecdotal information source: Boating and 
Fisheries). 
The total number of privately registered vessels for 1995,1984 and percentage increase over 
the 11 year period is shown in Table 14. There have not been any large increases in private 
vessel registrations for the area over the last 11 years. 
Dugong Protection 
Area 
Local District 
User Catchment 
Boat Registrations 
1995 
Boat Registrations 
1984 
Percentage Increase (0/0) 
Upstart Bay Ayr/Home Hill 
Bowen 
2275 
1381 
2136 
1141 
6.51 
21.03 
Table 14 	 Ayr/Home Hill/Bowen - Total number of privately registered vessels for 
1995,1984 and percentage increase over the 11 year period. 
Commercial Vessel Use 
Upstart Bay supports quite high trawl effort, with some banana trawling occurring early in the 
season, but most of this use falls largely outside the perimeter of the DPA. 
The net fisheries are shown below based on the QFMA log book data (See Figure 9). 10 
commercial netters recorded 87 days of fishing for 1995, a decrease from the previous 2 
years. 
Figure 9 Upstart Bay Commercial Net Fishery 
Total Number of Days Fished for Years 1993, 1994 and 1995 
Note: The total number of vessels working the DPA for each year is written above the year 
on the bottom axis. 
Source: QFMA Commercial Fishing Database (Reworked by Francis 
Pantus) 
Note: The DPA extent used does not perfectly coincide with the QFMA database grid unit. 
As a result these figures may be slightly under the real value. 
24 
Cleveland Bay 
Cleveland Bay DPA is the only DPA located around the entrance to a major port and major 
population center. As a result, shipping, commercial and recreational vessel traffic is 
considerably high. 
Marine Infrastructure 
Ross Creek: 
	 123 Moorings which are used mainly by yachts and recreational vessels. 
Ross River: 
	 153 Moorings of which approximately 70% are filled. Generally there are 
between 50-60 trawlers berthed each season. 
Breakwater Marina: 
	 169 berths which are rented with an average occupancy of 88% 
(approximately 148 boats) on average for the last 12 months, 
77 berths are owned and occupied permanently. 
Townsville Motor Boat Club: 
	 90 berths, 95% are permanent residents. There are 
approximately 200 visiting boats on average each year. 
Townsville Ross River Marina: 44 moorings with 38 leases held by commercial fishers 
70% occupancy. 
There are three main boat ramps with Townsville, and one boat ramp at Pallarenda. 
Shipping 
Shipping traffic entering the Port of Townsville must pass through the Cleveland Bay DPA. 
Leading lights mark the channel into the port. For the 12 months from June 1995 the 
Townsville Port Authority recorded movements of 720 commercial vessels in excess of 200 
tonnes (gross weight) into the port. These included cargo, passenger, naval and bunker 
vessels (Townsville Port Authority 1997). Generally, recreational vessels are discouraged 
from using the shipping lead channel, therefore smaller recreational vessels and even larger 
vessels such as the Magnetic Island Ferries' tend to travel outside the leading lights. 
Recreational Vessel Use 
Townsville District has a large number of privately registered vessels (6336 boats in 1995), in 
an area of easy access to the waters of the Cleveland Bay DPA (see Table 15). 
Dugong Protection 
Area 
Local District 
User Catchment 
Boat Registrations 
1995 
Boat Registrations 
1984 
Percentage Increase 
(%) 
Cleveland Bay Townsville 6336 4726 34.07 
Table 15 
	 Townsville District - Total number of privately registered vessels for 
1995,1984 and percentage increase over the 11 year period. 
Recreational use of the inshore/coastal waters adjacent to Townsville and Magnetic Island is 
reportedly high, particularly recreational fishing which is concentrated in inshore waters close 
to access points and immediately south of Ross River. The types of recreational fishing 
includes trolling and crabbing. Cape Pallarenda boat ramp is a preferred departure point for 
vessels, particularly recreational fishers, using the banks out from Pallarenda to West Point, 
an area avoided by commercial vessels as it is shallow. High speed vessels in this area are 
of concern. Bay Rock Reef and Middle Reef are also popular fishing destinations. 
(Anecdotal information source: Boating and Fisheries, OLD Department of Environment). 
Magnetic Island is visited by boats from Townsville as well as the resident island fleet. 
Horseshoe Bay supports all forms of recreational fishing. Trawlers and yachts use this bay 
as an anchorage. Shark mesh nets are in place off Horseshoe Bay. There is one jet-ski 
operation based here and some water-skiing takes place occasionally. Parasailing is 
conducted off Picnic Bay jetty. 
25 
Cleveland Bay Total No of Net Days Fished per Year 
13 
1994 
420(p. cP) 
Tourist Vessel Use 
Cleveland Bay was the second most visited DPA for tourist vessels operating under the 
GBRMP permit system. A total of 543 vessel visits were recorded for the DPA over 12 
months, 537 of the total visits were to Magnetic Island.(See Table 16) 
DUGONG PROTECTION AREA REEF_ID REEF_NAME Total Vessel Visits 
/12 Months 
Total Passengers 
/12 Months 
Cleveland Bay 19006 Orchard Rocks Reef 4 7 
Cleveland Bay 19007 Bay Rock Reef 2 4 
Cleveland Bay 19009 Magnetic Island Reefs 537 3100 
DPA TOTAL 543 3111 
Table 16 	 Tourist vessel visitation to reefs within Cleveland Bay for the period July 
1995 to July 1996. Data obtained from the GBRMPA returns database. 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
Otter Trawling for banana prawns is concentrated around the mouths of Ross Creek and 
Ross River early in the year. Other than this there is limited trawling effort carried out in the 
eastern half of Cleveland Bay. 
In 1995, 12 commercial net fishing vessels worked the coastal zone in Cleveland Bay 
compared to 23 for 1993 (see figure 10). The commercial net fishery tends to concentrate in 
the south-eastern corner of Cleveland Bay. 
Figure 10 Cleveland Bay Commercial Net Fishery 
Total Number of Days Fished for Years 1993, 1994 and 1995 
Note: The total number of vessels working the DPA for each year is written above the year 
on the bottom axis. 
Source: QFMA Commercial Fishing Database (Reworked by Francis 
Pantus) 
Note: The DPA extent used does not perfectly coincide with the QFMA 
database grid unit. As a result these figures may be slightly under the real 
value. 
26 
Hinchinbrook Region 
Marine Infrastructure 
The Hinchinbrook Region can be accessed from boat ramps located at Cardwell, Mission 
Beach, South Mission Beach, Hull Heads, Dungeness and a range of formal and informal 
access landing on the estuaries flowing into the channel. One of these, Fishers' Creek boat 
ramp is about to be upgraded. This boat ramp is located right on the perimeter of the 
channel estuary system. As it is accessible from the Highway, it is used as the Hinchinbrook 
Channel access point for recreational boaters from Townsville and probably northern centers 
as well. (Anecdotal information source: QDOE Cardwell and Dungeness). 
Jetties are located at Cardwell and Lucinda and are used by the Tourist vessels located in 
the area. 
Anchorages 
The Hinchinbrook Region provides a range of anchorage sites for all types of vessels. 
Trawlers frequently anchor behind Brook Islands, GooId Island, with yachts and shallow 
draught vessels frequenting anchorages further inside the channel. Several anchorages 
occur over seagrass beds in the area. 
Recreational Vessel Use 
The Hinchinbrook Region has high recreational value as well as being particularly popular as 
a recreational fishing destination. The area is regularly used by boat owners in the Ingham 
District, Cardwell and Tully. The total boat registrations for the Ingham District is shown in 
Table 17. It seems likely that the user group catchment for the area extends far beyond this 
with residents from Townsville accessing the area and perhaps from areas further to the 
north also (Benzaken et al.). 
Dugong Protection 
Area 
Local District 
User Catchment 
Boat Registrations 
1995 
Boat Registrations 
1984 
Percentage Increase 
(0/0) 
Hinchinbrook 
Region 
Ingham 1604 1294 23.96 
Table 17 
	 Ingham District - Total number of privately registered vessels for 
1995,1984 and percentage increase over the 11 year period. 
The Hinchinbrook Channel receives high use levels predominantly due to its "all weather" 
boating environment. It was the destination most often visited by Ingham resident private 
boat owners rating higher than reef destinations (Benzaken et al.). 
The range of vessel types using the area is shown in the following table 18 which 
summarises Queensland Department of Environment patrol trip records of vessels sightings 
in one section of the Hinchinbrook Region. (Note: the patrol area extends around the 
southern half of Hinchinbrook Island, both eastern and western sides) 
27 
80 
35 
2 
6 3 
13 
6 
15 
we 
.t) 	 17.> 	 7-er 	 -I) 	 7, 5 0 
, 	 E ,E 
8 	 0 
2 
68 
14 
23-Jan 27-Feb 21-Mar 7-Apr 12-Aug 4-Sep 10-Oct 16 -Sep 8-Sep 14-Oct 12-Oct 13-Oct 14-Oct Total 
Dinghy 13 8 3 8 5 9 4 5 3 6 4 68 
Comm fisher 2 1 1 4 
Half cabin 1 1 10 1 1 14 
Trawler 2 2 1 2 1 8 
Private pleas 1 1 2 
Single mast 1 4 6 7 5 3 1 4 4 35 
Twin mast 2 1 2 1 6 
Trimaran 2 1 3 
Catamaran 1 1 2 3 3 3 13 
Motor vessel 2 3 1 6 
House boat 2 2 4 2 3 2 15 
Missing data 1 1 1 1 4 
o 
Cruiser 3 3 
Rent a 1 1 
Charter 1 1 3 5 
Barge 1 1 
Pilot vess 1 1 
Water taxi 1 1 
Table 18 	 Summary table of vessel types observed by QDOE patrols in the 
Southern Hinchinbrook Area. Data supplied by QDOE, Dungeness 
The results of this table (see Figure 11) show clearly the high proportion of recreational 
dinghies using the sheltered waters of Hinchinbrook area, and the range of recreational and 
commercial vessels using the area. 
Figure 11 	 The number and types of vessels observed by QDOE in a sample of their 
patrols of southern section of Hinchinbrook Region 
Source: Trip record Sheets from QDOE Dungeness 
While dinghies tend to use the channel waters, larger half cabin and private pleasure 
Speedboats are able to utilize areas less sheltered and travel at much faster speeds. 
28 
20(p. ?/) 
Accidental groundings of recreational vessels occur on the tidal flats in Missionary Bay 
(Anecdotal information source: QDOE Cardwell). 
In the past, water-skiing races have been held in the channel. These are of major concern as 
racing vessels achieve speeds of up to 70 knots and travel across shallow water areas 
throughout Hinchinbrook Channel. In the past, the event has been monitored by QDOE staff 
and is of great concern (see Burnham 1994). 
Tourist Vessel Use 
Of all the DPAs in the GBRMP (this excludes Southern Hervey Bay/Great Sandy Strait), 
Hinchinbrook Region received the highest tourist vessel visitation under the GBRMPA 
returns system. 762 vessel visits carrying 13142 passengers were recorded in a twelve 
month period. (See Table 19) This is an understatement of the real number of tourist vessel 
visits as part of the Hinchinbrook Region falls under the jurisdiction of Queensland (state) 
Marine Parks. Vessels permitted to use the area under the state marine parks have not been 
included as there is no returns data available. 
DUGONG PROTECTION AREA REEF_ID REEF_NAME Total Vessel Visits 
/12 Months 
Total Passengers 
/12 Months 
Hinchinbrook Region 18008 Brook Islands Reef 61 343 
Hinchinbrook Region 18010 Goold Island Reef 218 744 
Hinchinbrook Region 18011 Garden Island Reef 53 199 
Hinchinbrook Region 18014 Hinchinbrook Island Reef 429 11854 
Hinchinbrook Region 18015 Agnes Island Reef 1 2 
DPA TOTAL 762 13142 
Table 19 	 Tourist vessel visitation to reefs within the Hinchinbrook DPA for the period 
July 1995 to July 1996. 
Data obtained from the GBRMPA RETURNS database. 
Under the state marine permits regular ferry and tourist operations run from both Cardwell 
and Dungeness, making regular trips through the Hinchinbrook channel, and to Hinchinbrook 
and Goold Islands. 
Bareboat and yacht rental businesses operate in the Hinchinbrook Region. The operators do 
give advice on which anchorages can be used by clients, and a log of anchorages is 
recorded. This source of information is probably worth further investigation to gain 
information on the areas within the Hinchinbrook Region being used by these vessels. There 
are also cases of accidental grounding of Bareboats in Missionary Bay. (Anecdotal 
information source: QDOE Cardwell). 
Large cruise vessels currently have permits to access the area. Other smaller cruise ships 
regularly pass through Hinchinbrook .Channel as an alternative scenic route between Cairns 
and Townsville. (Anecdotal informatiulr-ource: QDOE Cardwell). 
29 
740 
720 
-0 700 
C) 
-c 680 cn 
660 
a5 640 
4a5 620 
600 
I- 
• 
580 
560 - 
540 
Hinchinbrook Region Total Net Days Fished per Year 
733 
- 
- 
.... 
1 
677 
617 
- 
	
- 	 ,,, 
..ktd,-...t., 
,,, ....N.;,,,..tt;, 
- ,'''''..4,,Tvg. 
 As- 
,,...; 
	
,,, 	
, , 	 •,,,-,- 
- 
4... 
, 
— 
- m  
e- 
35 	 25 
1993 	 1994 
Total No of Vessels per Year 
26 
1995 
o(p. 
Commercial Fishing Vessel 
Commercial Net fishers in the Hinchinbrook Channel numbered 26 in 1995 with a total of 
617 days fished, a slight decrease on the total days fished in the two years previous. 
Figure 12 Hinchinbrook Region Commercial Net Fishery 
Total Number of Days Fished for Years 1993, 1994 and 1995 
Note: The total number of vessels working the DPA for each year is written above the year 
on the bottom axis. 
Source: QFMA Commercial Fishing Database (Reworked by Francis 
Pantus) 
Note: The DPA extent used does not perfectly coincide with the QFMA database grid unit. 
As a result these figures may be slightly under the real value. 
30 
zo(A y3) 
Princess Charlotte Bay/ Bathurst Bay 
Princess Charlotte Bay and Bathurst Bay are the most remote of the DPA's. Despite this, 
recreational use of the area has steadily increased over the last ten years, as four wheel 
drive trips to the Cape have grown in popularity. (Anecdotal information source: Boating and 
Fisheries). 
Marine Infrastructure 
There are no formal boat ramps in the area however most recreational vessels are dinghies 
transported by road and launched into rivers or from the coast via National Parks or from 
Marina Plains. Other larger vessels such as yachts travel to the area by sea. 
Anchorages 
Princess Charlotte Bay is a popular anchorage for trawlers working in the area, particularly 
sheltering behind the Cliff Islands, Clack Island and King Island. The Owen Channel 
between the islands of the Flinders Group is used by trawlers and yachts. 
Recreational Vessel Use 
Located along the northern edge of Lakefield National Park, Princess Charlotte Bay and 
Bathurst Bay (adjacent to Cape Melville National Park) are experiencing an increase in levels 
of recreational use. The user group catchment area is large with its extent difficult to identify 
as there is no large local population nearby however there are anecdotal reports of regular 
use of the area by residents from Cairns and Townsville. (Anecdotal information source: 
Boating and Fisheries). For total vessels privately registered to Cairns and North District see 
Table 20. 
District 	 Boat Registrations 
	 Boat Registrations 
	 Percentage 
as at 1995 	 as at 1984 
	 Increase (%) 
Cairns and North 
	 7930 	 4596 	 72.54 
Table 20 	 Cairns & North District - Total number of privately registered vessels for 
1995,1984 and percentage increase over the 11 year period. 
Access into the area is restricted during the wet season. However, when the roads are open 
recreational vessels are launched into rivers in Lakefield National Park and through Marina 
Plains. The Cape York Peninsula Landuse Study (Cyplus, 1993) describes the Princess 
Charlotte Bay area as a major area for freshwater, estuarine, inshore and reef recreational 
fishing. It is difficult to obtain definite numbers for the recreation use but it appears from 
reports of field officers working in the area that use levels are increasing. The types of 
recreational vessels sighted by coastwatch include: dinghies, game fishing vessels, yachts 
and pleasure craft (see Figure 13). 
31 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
_J 
Z LU 
cn 
a cn 
0 — I-U LL > 
TR
A
W
L
ER
 
0 
LIJ 0 
0 Z (f) 
LC21 
> 
06› , 30.5 
Princess Charlotte Bay 
Figure 13 	 The total number of vessels sighted during Coastwatch Aerial Surveillance 
for the Princess Charlotte Bay and Bathurst Bay areas. 
Tourist Vessel Use 
Tourist vessels use is fairly low compared to other northern DPA's. 55 tourist vessel visits 
were recorded for twelve months with most visits being to the Flinders and Stanley Island 
Group. (See Table 21) 
DUGONG PROTECTION AREA REEF_ID REEF_NAME Total Vessel Visits 
/12 Months 
Total Passengers 
/12 Months 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14007 Taiwan Shoal 1 4 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14011 Olive Patch 2 10 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14022 Wharton Reef 1 10 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14026 Stanley Island Reefs 3 16 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14031 Blackwood Island Reef 8 51 
Princess Charlotte Bay 14042 Flinders Island Reefs 40 242 
DPA TOTAL 55_ 333 
Table 21 The total number of tourist vessels and passengers visits over twelve months. 
Data Source: GBRMPA returns database. 
Commercial Fishing Vessels 
Sections of Princess Charlotte Bay and Bathurst Bay are zoned General Use 'B' excluding 
trawling in the southern and inshore section of the bays. North of this zone the East Coast 
Otter Trawl Fishery operates. The high number of trawlers operating in the area is reflected 
in the aerial surveillance data (see Figure 13 ). 
Princess Charlotte Bay and Bathurst Bay are also major areas for East Coast Net Fishery, 
the East Coast Barramundi Set Gill Net Fishery, the Mud Crab Fishery, and the Ornate Rock 
Lobster Fishery (CYPLUS 1993). A total number of 14 vessels recorded using the area for 
net fisheries in 1995, with 499 total days fished (See Figure 13). Reef Line fishing is carried 
out on Corbett and Grub reefs at the northern edge of the DPA boundary. 
32 
Princess Charlotte Bay Total Net Days Fished per Year 
17 	 13 	 14 
1993 	 1994 	 1995 
Total No of Vessels per Year 
240(p.IS) 
Figure 14 	 Princess Charlotte Bay/Bathurst Bay Commercial Net Fishery 
Total Number of Days Fished for Years 1993, 1994 and 1995 
Note: The total number of vessels working the DPA for each year is written above the year 
on the bottom axis. 
Source: QFMA Commercial Fishing Database (reworked by Francis Pantus) 
Note: The DPA extent used does not perfectly coincide with the QFMA database grid unit. 
As a result these figures may be slightly under the real value. 
33 
a Vs) 
Acknowledgments: 
Queensland Department of Environment Staff at Rainbow Beach, Maryborough, Yeppoon, 
Gladstone, Mackay, Rockhampton, Airlie Beach, Pallarenda, Cardwell, Dungeness and 
Cairns. 
Queensland Department of Primary Industries Boating and Fisheries Staff at Urangan, 
Mackay, Townsville and Cairns. 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority staff: 
Alix Walker 
Nicole Walsh 
James lnnes 
Francis Pantus 
Jamie Storrie 
Julie Bahr 
34 
20 (p.37) 
Reference List 
Benzaken, D., Gilbert, M., Innes, J., (In preparation) 	 Bramble Reef Socioeconomic Study 
CRC Reef funded project. 
Burnham, M.B. (1993) Hinchinbrook Ski Classic 1993, Hinchinbrook Channel 
Marine Park Report 
Cuthill, M . (1994) Report on Marine Recreation Activities, Facilities and Opportunities 
in the Great Sandy Management Area. 
Unpublished 
 
CYPLUS Taskforce (1993) 	 Land Use and Economy 
Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy 
Fitzsimmons, L. (Editor) (1996) 
Status of Fisheries and Fisheries Resources in Shoalwater Bay 
A Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 
Hyland, S.J. (1993) Fisheries Resources of the Hervey Bay Region 
Queensland Fish Management Authority 
Jennings, Gail (1996) Recreational Usage Patterns of Shoalwater Bay and Adjacent 
Waters 
A Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 
Johnston et al (1994) Great Barrier Reef Shipping Study - Inner/Outer Route Risk 
Assessment 
CRC REEF Research Center. October 1994 Final Report 
Queensland Department of Environment 
Great Sandy Region - Management Plan 
Matthews, W. 
Sandy 
Resource Inventory - of the Tidal Lands and Waters of the Great 
Strait/Tin Can Bay Area 
Conducted orrthe behalf of: 
Queensland Department of Environment 
Maryborough 
35 
EFFECTIVENESS OF VOLUNTARY CESSATION OF DUGONG HUNTING 
Background 
Dugong hunting is an integral part of indigenous use and management of marine 
resources. The management regime is based on traditional laws which embody an 
individual or particular group's rights and responsibilities in relation to marine 
estates and resources. Hunting is not practised by all people. Amongst some grou p s 
the dugong has spiritual and totemic significance and cannot be hunted by indigenous 
law. Where dugong hunting is practised only a limited number of designated men 
actually hunt. 
Dugongs are culturally significant to those groups who hunt as well as those who do 
not. There is a complex mix of groups who hunt and those who do not, along the 
Queensland cost. The forced relocation of Aboriginal people, Torres Strait Islander 
people and South Sea Islanders in earlier times has resulted in dugong hunting being 
introduced and continuously practised in most parts of the east Queensland coastal 
area. Hunting by South Sea and Torres Strait Islanders in non territorial waters is seen 
by traditional marine estate custodians as an infringement of native title rights. 
South of Cooktown it appears that dugong are mainly taken for special events and 
celebrations although there are consistent but unconfirmed anecdotal reports of 
dugong being taken for sale in some areas. There is no accurate data on the numbers 
of dugong taken. Permits to hunt dugong south of Cooktown have not been issued by 
the Authority for some eighteen months. The Yarrabah Community is still operating 
on an old permit which allows dugong to be taken, this is currently being renegotiated. 
Indigenous people have expressed concern over declining dugong numbers for some 
time. These concerns relate, primarily, to the loss of a cultural icon and resource 
which reflects on indigenous identity. They are concerned about the loss of dugong in 
fishing nets and they believe, trawl nets as well as from pollution of sea grass, direct 
boat strikes and disturbance to habitat resulting from coastal development. Past 
attempts to limit hunting have been seen as discriminatory whilst these other threats 
have not been seriously dealt with. 
There has been a reduction in hunting by some people, in some areas, on a voluntary 
basis as well as by formal MOU in the case of the Darumbal people of the Shoalwater 
Bay/Port Clinton area. There is no data available to demonstrate the degree of 
compliance with voluntary agreements not to hunt. Certainly none of the groups 
who have indicated that they have suspended hunting have applied for permits nor is 
there any evidence to suggest that they are hunting illegally. 
The Authority has developed an interim policy advising all assessing officers and 
permit delegates that hunting of dugong in the area south of Cooktown is not 
generally sustainable and that permits for dugong hunting should not be 
recommended on environmental grounds. Staff have been instructed that if people 
seek a permit to hunt dugong then they should explain the circumstances and advise 
hunters that permits cannot be recommended. A fact sheet explaining the situation 
has been prepared for staff to give to hunters. 
at (p. Z.) 
Issues 
This is a highly sensitive issue, culturally and politically, for indigenous peoples. 
Voluntary cessation of hunting is not comprehensive but where people have agreed 
not to hunt there is no evidence to suggest that they are not abiding by that agreement. 
Comprehensive coverage of all areas and groups has not been possible due to the large 
geographic area, wide range of groups, political complexities between groups and a lack 
of resources to adequately address this issue. 
Those people who continue to hunt, or support hunting, are extremely strong 
advocates for the maintenance of what is seen to be a very significant cultural activity. 
People are angry that dugong have been killed for many years by non indigenous 
activities in much greater numbers than hunting and that nothing has seemingly 
been done about it. 
Indigenous peoples are not prepared to willingly suspend an important cultural 
activity if serious attention is not being given to all other threats. There are reports 
that people are not prepared to continue existing voluntary suspensions if serious 
measures are not implemented to remove all other threats. Indigenous people have 
also stated that formal joint management arrangements or regional agreements are a 
necessary part of future management for dugong or DPA's. 
The issue is further complicated by the fact that hunting, as a cultural activity which 
has been maintained, is seen by some as a significant assertion of native title rights. 
Indigenous groups are being advised by their advocates and advisers not to enter into 
formal written agreements giving up, or suspending, hunting rights as there is 
concern that this may constitute a diminishing of native title rights. 
In addition to cultural disruption ceasing hunting could have a significant impact on 
the economy of some groups as they rely on hunting to provide meat for the table. 
Many indigenous people are in the lower socio-economic bracket and are increasingly 
reliant on finding non store sources of food. 
There is strong reaction, by some, to Governments imposing permit systems and 
controls over traditional cultural activities. After so many years of being subjugated, 
dispossessed and denied rights, indigenous peoples are concerned that imposed 
management systems on traditional activities are yet another means of cultural 
genocide. 
Despite the issues and concerns raised there are indications that a resolution could be 
found in the development of formal management agreements with indigenous 
people for both proposed Dugong Protected Areas (DPA's) and dugong as a species. 
Such agreements are possible under part VB of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. 
The nature and content of any such agreements would need to be negotiated according 
to a framework of basic principles during the development of management plans for 
DPA's. Similar State arrangements would also be required as many of the dugong 
habitats are outside of the GBRMP. 
2 I% (p.V) 
Recommendations 
That joint management arrangements for DPA's be investigated and developed as a 
part of management planning for those areas. 
That staff of the Authority work with Queensland D of E and ATSIC staff to inform all 
indigenous groups of the plight of dugong and seek to extend voluntary suspension of 
hunting to all groups in the Southern GBR as an interim measure while joint 
management arrangements are being developed. 
That following advice to indigenous groups, illegal hunting activities be vigorously 
investigated and prosecuted. 
Greg Smith 
GBRMPA in conjunction with 
Rick Hill 
	 Bill White 
	 Gale Duell 
ATSIC 
	 ATSIC 
	 ATSIC Qld State Office 
	 Cairns 
	 Townsville 
Fee)^1,G . 
100 0 100 200 Maryborough Sandy Strait 300 Kilometres 
GiruDala people - Agreed not to 
hunt Ayr to Whitsunday Island 
area, agreement working 
Cardwell 
Proserpine 
Mackay 
Irice 
Some hunting Hinchinbrook area 
by Palm Island people reported 
--Newry-
Rtaion- . 
Edgecumbe 
Upstart 
	
Bay 
Bay 	 Bowen 
Djupera Dili - Mackay Council 
of Elders Agreed not to apply for 
hunting permit - working 
Some reports of hunting by 
people not of these groups 
Darumbal - Memorandum 
of understanding agreeing 
not to hunt - working 
Rodds 
Bay 
Southern 
Hervey 
Bundaberg • 
	 Bay 
. : 
b. 
, Shoalwater 
.s• 	 . Bay 
Port 
-,Clinton 
• 
Gladstone 
• 
Roc khampton 
Great 
Hinchinbrook 
Region 
b 
Cleveland 
Ba 
Townsvill 
Bowling 
Green Bay 
Ayr • 
Legend 
Towns 
Dugong Protection Areas (DPAs) 
    Proposed by Preen/Morissette report 
MO Agreed by GBRMC 22 
	
 GBRMP Boundary 
	 I Land & Mangrove 
Reefs 
Non Kuku Yalandji - 
Hunt in area but in conflict 
with customs of Kuku Yalandji 
Kuku Yalandji - 
see above: no hunting Mossman/ 
Port Douglas agreed and working 
Girrgun people - 
Suspended hunting out 
of own concern for dugong 
Port \ 
Douglas, 
Port Douglas 
Cairns 
Innistail 
Cooktown 
• 
Wujal 
Wujal 
zi (p.4) 
Location of Interim Dugong Protection Areas 
in southern GBR & Hervey Bay showing proposals 
from the Preen/Morissette report for boundary changes and additional Areas 
Report on Voluntary Suspension of Hunting 
Kuku Yalandji people - 
Dugong 'dreaming story' - 
no hunting and concerned 
about hunting by others 
Coastal Development and Pollution in Dugong Protection Areas 
J. Brodie A, J.E. Cavanagh'', D. Haynes A and D. Pitts c 
AGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, PO Box 1379, Townsville, Qld, 4810. 
BAustralian Institute of Marine Sciences, PMB No. 3, Townsville Mail Centre, Qld, 
4810. 
cEnvironment Science and Services, PO Box 4066 Toowong Qld 4066. 
January 1997 
Introduction 
Activities associated with urban settlement and development along the Queensland 
coast have the potential to increase water column pollutant concentrations. This may 
result in loss of nearshore seagrass habitat (Marsh, 1992; Anon, 1993; Preen etal., 
1995) or result in the increased availablity of bioaccumulable pollutants. Both 
influences may adversely impact internationally significant Great Barrier Reef dugong 
populations (GBRMPA, 1981; Marsh, 1992; Preen, 1993). 
Queensland coastal development 
Queensland local governments adjacent to coastal World Heritage Areas contain 
approximately 15% of the State's population, all but one of the State's major ports and 
are amongst the fastest growing areas in Queensland. There have been no attempts 
made to systematically assess the impacts of coastal urban development on the Great 
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. 
a. Water column pollutants 
Agriculture, public health and urban settlement and industrial activities around the 
world have contributed to the widespread contamination of aquatic ecosystems with 
pollutants such as organochlorine compounds and heavy metals (Fowler, 1990; 
Tatsukawa et a/. 1990), as well as with increased sediment loads (Moss et al. 1992). 
Heavy metals and organochlorine pollutants are conservative and are essentially 
permanent additions to the environment (Clark, 1992). They are also often highly toxic 
to biota (Richardson, 1995).Various reviews conducted over the last 10-12 years 
indicate the sparsity of information available on the extent of organochlorine and metal 
pollution in the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon and Queensland in general (Dutton, 1984; 
Hunter and Rayment, 1991; Hunter, 1992). 
I. Organochlorine pollution 
Organochlorine release has been implicated in reproductive and immunological 
abnormalities observed in terrestrial bird populations and in marine mammal 
populations (Boon et al., 1992). The few studies of the impact of organochlorine 
compounds carried out on Australian marine environments indicate that environmental 
contamination by organochlorine substances has occurred at relatively low 
concentrations and that highest pollutant concentrations have been associated with 
centres of urbanisation (Connell, 1993; Richardson, 1995). Most studies have focussed 
on pollutant distribution in biota (von Westemhagan and Klumpp, 1995; Smillie & 
Waid, 1985; Olafson, 1978; McCloskey & Deubert, 1972). A number of audits on 
pesticide usage have recently been conducted (eg. Hamilton & Haydon 1996; Simpson 
et al. 1993; Rayment & Simpson, 1992) and management options for the monitoring of 
pesticide residues suggested (Simpson et a/., 1993; Rayment ck. Simpson, 1992; 
Rayment, 1991). However, very little information on the quantitative distribution of 
pesticide residues in Queensland is available. 
II. Metal pollution 
Metals such as arsenic, cadmium, copper, rriercury, lead, nickel and zinc are also 
released into the aquatic environment through urban storm-water and wastewater 
discharges and from runoff from agricultural lands. Metal toxicity can interfere with 
growth, reproduction and behaviour of contaminated organisms. Results of Australian 
studies of marine environmental metal contamination indicate that surficial sediments 
adjacent to most urbanised and industrialised estuaries are contaminated with metals, 
particularly lead and zinc (Connell, 1993; Batley, 1995). Most investigations of metal 
concentrations in Queensland coastal environments were carried out in the late 1970s 
and early 1980s. These studies documented heavy metal concentrations in seawaters, 
sediments and biota from selected locations along the Queensland coast. With the 
exception of samples associated with harbour developments, environmental metal 
concentrations were typically found to be low compared with levels collected from 
other parts of the world (Burdon-Jones et a/. 1982; Klumpp & Burdon-Jones, 1982). 
b. Sediments 
The ecosystems of the Great Barrier Reef receive sediments and nutrients from a range 
of sources including upwelling, effluent discharges and river runoff. Based on land-use 
and catchment runoff models, Moss et al. (1992) calculated that runoff of sediments 
and nutrients from catchments draining into the Great Barrier Reef has increased 
several fold since European settlement following the development of significant 
pastoral and agricultural industries. The primary cause of increased sediment loss is 
removal of natural vegetation (Beckman 1991). The current average annual sediment 
input into the Great Barrier Reef from river runoff has been estimated to range from 14 
- 25 x 106 tonnes per year (Furnas et al. 1996). Seagrass meadow decline in Australian 
waters has been associated with the general hypothesis of reduced plant photosynthesis 
caused by increased water turbidity, epiphyte growth and silt deposition (Clarke & 
Kirkman, 1989; Walker & McComb, 1992; Abal & Dennison, 1996). Storm water 
runoff and effluent discharges, vegetation clearing, and local dredging and trawling can 
all be a consequence of urbanisation and agricultural expansion and are important 
factors effecting water clarity and seagrass health (Preen et al. 1995). The extent of 
anthropogenic impact on seagrass meadows within the Great Barrier Reef World 
heritage Region is unknown (McKenzie et al. 1996) 
2 
Interim Dugong Protection Areas: Urbanisation and pollution 
Data detailing urban development and pollutant impact on designated interim Dugong 
Protection Areas are summarised below. 
Princes Charlotte Bay/Bathhurst Bay 
 
Development 
This a relatively isolated and undeveloped section of the coastline. The nearest urban 
centre is Cooktown, more than 150km to the south-east. Existing 'urban' 
development is restricted to a number of fishing camps on the Marrett River, 
Normanby, the North Kennedy, the Annie Rivers and at Port Stewart at the mouth of 
the Stewart River. There are coal deposits in the Bathurst Range ap.,d Bathurst Heads 
has been identified as a potential port site for a coal loading facility- ;There have been 
proposals for a small nature-based tourist facility on Kalpower Station near the Marrett 
River. The draft Stage 2 report for the Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy 
recommends that improved port facilities be provided at Port Stewart. The Flinders 
Islands are a popular stop-over point for cruising yachts, although there are no 
developments on the island group. 
Catchment condition 
Over 60% of the catchment of the north-east Cape York is classified as grazing land 
(Moss et al. 1992). The catchment is characterised by highly variable rainfalls with 
large sediment discharges under high flow conditions. Seagrasses off the coast of Cape 
York do not face the immediate threats from urban and agricultural runoff that 
potentially impact the GBR coast further south (Lee Long & Coles 1996). 
Pollutant levels 
No information is available on pollutant concentrations in Princess Charlotte Bay. a-
HCH was detected in relatively high concentrations in Coral Sea seawaters in 1987 
(Kurtz & Atlas, 1990). Because of the limited sampling undertaken at this time, it was 
unclear whether the high concentrations detected were a short term increase caused by 
improper local pesticide disposal or were indicative of long term regional 
contamination caused by southern-moving airborne contaminant from Asia. 
Hinchinbrook Region 
Development 
This section of the coastline is approximately mid-way between the major cities of 
Cairns and Townsville in the local government areas of Cardwell Shire and 
Hinchinbrook Shire. The nearest large urban centre is Ingham which is inland from the 
southern boundary of the proposed interim dugong protection area (DPA). The main 
urban centre adjacent to the proposed interim DPA is the township of Cardwell, 
located on the Bruce Highway at the northern end of the Hinchinbrook Channel. It has 
3 
a population of approximately 1,300 and a small number of tourist accommodation 
establishments. Cardwell is a popular departure point for houseboats, yacht hire and 
cruises to nearby islands. A major resort complex is under construction at Oyster 
Point, just south of Cardwell. 
The other sizeable coastal township is Lucinda (population 800) at the southern end of 
the Hinchinbrook Channel. It is the site of a major port facility for the export of raw 
sugar and a departure point for private vessels and charter boats. There are two other 
small holiday villages on the mainland adjacent to this proposed interim DPA. 
Dungeness is a small fishing port and recreational boating base some 2 km north-west 
of Lucinda. Taylors Beach is a small residential holiday village south of Lucinda. 
The proposed interim DPA includes Hinchinbrook Island, Goold Island and the Brook 
Islands. The only development on these islands is a small 50 bed resort at Cape 
Richards on Hinchinbrook Island. There is a proposal for the development of a small 
harbour and mirieia at Dungeness and the possible establishment of a ferry/barge 
service between Taylors Beach and Great Palm Island. The township of Cardwell is 
designated as an urban growth centre in the Cardwell Shire draft Strategic Plan. 
Catchment condition 
Principal land uses in the Herbert catchment include upland tin mining, grazing and 
sugar cane cultivation in the lower river flats and coastal plains (Anon 1993). Water 
quality in the catchment is affected by diffuse agricultural runoff and turbidity (Moss et 
al. 1992). Extensive wetland degradation has occurred in lower catchment areas (Anon 
1993). The Herbert is characterised by large discrete flood events separated by 
extended periods of low flows (Furnas et al. 1996), and as a consequence, large 
volumes of sediments and associated nutrients are discharged irregularly under flood 
conditions. On average, 500,000 tonnes of sediment are estimated to be discharged by 
the Herbert River each year. 
Pollutant levels 
Point sources in the catchment include sewage effluent from the Ingham STP, sugar 
mill effluent and runoff from closed tin mines. There are also a number of mariculture 
operations (prawn farms and caged barramundi) present in the Hinchinbrook Channel. 
Discharge of effluents from these may contribute suspended ediment loads to local 
areas of the channel. The Hinchinbrook region has been the focus of recent 
investigations examining sedimentary processes and contaminant loadings (Brunskill, 
1995). The distribution of lead, copper, mercury and cadmium in sediments has been 
investigated and the distribution of organochlorine pesticide residues in sediment cores 
is currently being undertaken (Cavanagh, 1997). Marine sediments have been found to 
contain locally elevated concentrations of heavy metals suspected of being sourced 
from current and past agricultural and mining activities. These concentrations are 
however low by world standards. Low levels of DDT (3ng/g) were detected in one 
surface sediment sample collected in Hinchinbrook Channel (Brunskill, pers. comm.). 
Cleveland Bay 
4 
2acp. 
Development 
This proposed interim DPA is located adjacent to the City of Townsville - a major 
residential, industrial, tourist, transport, service and defence centre. Townsville City 
has a population of approximately 90,000 while the greater Townsville area (including 
Thuringowa Shire) has a population of some 135,000 persons. Townsville City and 
Thuringowa Shire have annual growth rates of approximately 1% and 4% respectively. 
Townsville is a major private and commercial boating centre on this section of the 
Queensland coast. It generates large concentrations of recreational boating activity in 
Cleveland Bay as well as tourist ferry and charter boat trips to the Great Barrier Reef. 
The proposed interim DPA also includes Magnetic Island, a major residential area and 
tourist destination in Cleveland Bay. Magnetic Island has a population of 
approximately 3,000 and a further capacity to accommodate approximately 1,400 
overnight visitors. It is also a major day trip destination from Townsville. The 
anticipated future population of Magnetic Island is expected to be of the order of 
6,000 persons. Townsville has significant concentrations of heavy industry including a 
nickel and copper refinery. Townsville Port is a major facility for import of nickel ore 
and export of refined metal products. Likely future developments within and adjacent 
to this proposed interim DPA include the construction of a major zinc refinery, further 
expansion of port facilities, upgrading of road and rail access to the port, and further 
residential development on both the island and on the mainland. 
Catchment condition 
The major type of land use in the Ross River catchment is grazing. 250,000 tonnes of 
sediments are estimated to be discharged by the Ross River each year (Moss et al. 
1992). Point source discharges of nutrients are a relatively significant contributor of 
nutrients to Cleveland Bay. Water quality in Cleveland Bay is also influenced by 
northward flowing flood waters sourced from the Burdekin River following heavy 
rainfall events. 
Pollutant levels 
Seawater metal concentrations in samples collected in nearshore waters between 1976- 
1977 in Cleveland and Bowling Green Bays and between Townsville and Cardwell in 
1979 were within the range of mean world data reported at that time (Burdon-Jones et 
al. 1982; Klumpp & Burdon-Jones, 1982). Seawater and sediment samples collected in 
the vicinity of the Townsville Port have been found to contain locally elevated 
concentrations of nickel, chromium, iron and zinc (Reichelt & Jones, 1993). These 
were associated with Port nickel ore loading berths (Reichelt & Jones, 1993). 
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have also been detected in sediments collected 
from Townsville Harbour and were believed to be a consequence of fuel discharges 
and motor exhaust emissions to the water (Smith et al. 1985). Background tissue metal 
concentrations have been assessed in 9 species of tropical bivalves collected from the 
greater Townsville region in 1979 (Klumpp & Burdon-Jones, 1982). The relationship 
between bivalve tissue metal concentration, location and environmental impact was not 
assessed in this study. Seagrass metal concentrations were also been assessed in 1975 
(Denton et al. 1980). Concentrations of manganese and zinc were relatively high in 
samples assessed. Average muscle tissue concentrations of chlorinated organics (PCBs, 
5 
DDTs, HCHs, aldrin, dieldrin and chlordanes) in coastal marine fish species collected 
in the vicinity of Townsville between 1989 and 1993 were reported by Kannan and co-
workers (Kannan et al. 1995). Concentrations of all compounds were low compared 
to samples from the Brisbane region and other urbanised centres. 
Denton and co-workers reported metal concentrations in muscle, liver, kidney, lung 
and brain tissue and in the blood of 48 dugongs collected from Torres Strait and 
Townsville between 1974 and 1978 (Denton et al. 1980). These studies detected 
unusually high concentrations of Fe and Zn in liver tissue and high concentrations of 
Cd in kidney tissue. Concentrations of Cu, Cd, Co and Ag were also elevated in the 
liver compared with concentrations in other species of marine mammals. Levels of Fe, 
Zn, Cd and Co in the liver and Cd in the kidney were positively correlated with age of 
the animal. The concentrations were similar to those in dugong from the Gulf of 
Carpentaria (Denton et al. 1980) and more recent samples from the Ton -es Strait 
(Gladstone 1996). It was considered unlikely that the high metal concentrations 
accumulated by dugongs were a reflection of anthropogenic impacts, given the 
remoteness of the sampling sites (Denton et al. 1980). Heinsohn and Marsh reported 
very low lindane and dieldrin concentrations in the liver of four dugongs collected from 
Townsville (Heinsohn & Marsh 1978); and Smillie & Waid (1984) reported PCB 
concentrations in the muscle, liver and blubber of a single dugong caught at Magnetic 
Island. 
Upstart Bay 
Development 
This section of the coastline is located between the urban centres of Ayr/Home Hill 
and Bowen. It is located within the Burdekin Shire. It is an undeveloped section of the 
mainland coastline with no urban centres adjacent to the proposed interim DPA. The 
small fishing and holiday village of Groper Creek is located just north of the proposed 
area. 
Catchment condition 
Grazing is the predominant land use in the Burdekin catchment (Anon 1993). Soil 
erosion is widespread and severe. Cane cultivation is practiced on the lower reaches of 
the river delta. The Burdekin is characterised by large discrete flood events separated 
by extended periods of low flows (Furnas et al. 1996). 
Pollutant levels 
Metal concentrations have been assessed in a number of seagrass species collected 
from Upstart Bay in 1975 (Denton et al. 1980). No data exists for levels of 
organochlorine pesticide residues in Upstart Bay. A previous study on Burdekin River 
sediment detected lindane at 5.2 ng/g (Dyall & Johns, 1985). A study of groundwater 
of the Burdekin Region detected levels of 0-5ng/L lindane and 0-3 ng/L heptachlor 
(Brodie et al., 1984). These levels are below the Australian drinking water quality 
criteria of 30 and lOng/L for lindane and heptachlor respectively although in some 
6 
cases exceed the water quality criteria set for the protection of the aquatic environment 
(1 and 0.3ng/L for lindane and heptachlor respectively, Nicholson, 1984). 
Newry Region  
Development 
This section of coastline is located some 40km north of the major coastal city of 
Mackay. It is located within the local government area of Mackay City. There are a 
number of small holiday/retirement/fishing settlements on the mainland coast adjacent 
to this proposed interim DPA. These are located at St Helens Beach, Seaforth and Port 
Newry. Tourist accommodation facilities are found at Halliday Bay. There is a small 
resort on Newry Island. Limited urban and tourist growth is expected to occur in the 
Seaforth area. Additional rural residential development is likely to occur in the Helens 
Beach area adjacent to the northern section of the proposed interim DPA. 
Catchment condition 
The Pioneer subcatchment is used for extensive sugar cane production (Anon 1993). 
Land use practices have resulted in severe soil erosion and a deterioration in soil 
structure. 
Pollutant levels 
No information available 
Ince Bay 
Development 
This proposed interim DPA is located south of Sarina in the Sarina Shire. Most of the 
mainland coast in this area is located within the Cape Palmerston National Park. 
There is no urban development along this section of the mainland coast. The closest 
coastal settlement is the small holiday/fishing village of Armstrong Beach to the north. 
The large coal loading facility at Hay Point lies 25 km to the north . Large numbers of 
bulk carriers lie anchored up to 10 km offshore of this area. 
Catchment condition 
No major waterways discharge near Ince Bay. The predominant land use in the area is 
dryland grazing. Areas are overgrazed and have suffered from inappropriate land-
clearing practices, resulting in erosion problems (Anon 1993). 
Pollutant levels 
No information available 
7 
Shoalwater Bay 
Development 
Much of the mainland coastline adjacent to this proposed interim DPA is located 
within the Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area approximately midway between 
Mackay and Gladstone. There are a number of small, isolated fishing settlements along 
the western side of Shoalwater Bay north of the proposed interim DPA. The largest of 
these is located at Stannage. A collection of approximately 20 islands is found in 
Shoalwater Bay. Most of these islands are owned by the Commonwealth and are 
located within the Military Training Area. Port Clinton is a remote section of coastline 
and is located within the Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area approximately 80 km 
north of Yeppoon. There is no urban development along this section of the mainland 
coastline although Port Clinton has been identified as a potential port site. 
Catchment condition 
No major river systems enter Shoalwater Bay. Grazing lands in the southern catchment 
surrounding the bay are relatively stable, although there has been deterioration in 
• vegetation cover (Anon 1993). 
Pollutant levels 
Metal concentrations have been assessed in a number of seagrass species collected 
from Shoalwater Bay in 1975 (Denton et al., 1980). No other information on pollutant 
concentrations is available. 
Hervey Bay 
Development 
This proposed interim DPA is located between Fraser island and the mainland. It 
includes approximately 150 km of coastline from Woodgate south to Inskip Point. It 
is located within the local government areas of Hervey Bay City, Maryborough City 
and Cooloola Shire. 
The main urban centres on the mainland coast are: 
Hervey Bay. A regional service centre and tourist destination that is experiencing 
rapid population growth. It is the fastest growing city in the Wide Bay region and 
population numbers are expected to double to around 75,000 by the year 2010. The 
Urangan Boat Harbour is a major embarkation point for tourist vessels. 
Bingham/River Heads. A satellite development area south of Hervey Bay at the mouth 
of the Mary River. It is one of two major ferry gateways to Fraser Island. 
Tin Can Bay/Cooloola Village. Tin Can Bay is a local fishing and holiday village that 
is experiencing increasing development pressure and population growth. Cooloola 
Village is a major new subdivision that is being developed south of Tin Can Bay. 
8 
Rainbow Beach. This expanding holiday and tourist township is located adjacent to the 
southern boundary of the proposed interim DPA. It is a major gateway to and .service 
centre for Fraser Island. Ferry services to Fraser Island operate from Inskip Point. 
Maryborough is a large regional population centre. 
North of Hervey Bay, smaller coastal settlements are located at Burrum Heads and 
Woodgate. South of Hervey Bay, smaller coastal settlements are located at Maroom, 
Boonooroo, Tuan, Poona Point and Tinnanbar. The character of these small holiday 
and fishing villages is changing as they experience subdivision pressure and population 
growth. On the west coast of Fraser Island, the main centre of development is the 
Kingfisher Bay resort. This integrated resort development includes a hotel, convention 
centre, a commercial centre, houses, condominiums and sporting/recreation facilities. 
The mainland coastline adjacent to this proposed interim DPA is experiencing rapid 
subdivision, tourist and population growth. This is occurring at both the larger 
population centres and the smaller coastal villages. Possible future
-tozIrist development 
includes the expansion of the Kingfisher Bay resort, a possible small resort on 
Bandicoot Island at the mouth of the Mary River and several mainland marina/resort 
proposals. Additional town planning controls (including possible Development Control 
Plans) are being considered for coastal communities in this area. This is being 
undertaken as part of the implementation of the management plan for the Great Sandy 
Region. 
Catchment condition 
The Mary River catchment has been extensively cleared for agriculture and the lower 
reaches of the Mary River are under significant pressure from grazing and agriculture 
(Anon 1993). Land clearing and concommittantly increased erosion and sediment 
transport were implicated in massive losses of seagrass from Hervey Bay, Queensland, 
following cyclonic storms and flooding of the Mary River in 1992 (Preen et al. 1995). 
This catastrophic seagrass loss was followed by mass migration and presumed 
mortality of a majority of the bays dugong population (Preen & Marsh 1995). 
Pollutant levels 
Herbicide and insecticide concentrations present in the Mary River and in Hervey Bay 
sediments were measured between 1993 and 1996 (Anon 1996). Sediment and river 
water pollutant concentrations were below detection limits for most compounds. The 
herbicides 2,4-D and Triclopyr were detected at trace concentrations (<0.2 ugh). 
Reference List 
Abal, E.G. & Dennison, W. C. (1996). Seagrass depth range and water quality in 
southern Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia. Marine and Freshwater 
Research, 47, 763-771. 
Anon. (1993). The condition of river catchments in Queensland. Department of 
Primary Industries, Queensland. 
9 
o) 
Anon. (1996). Flood related pesticide monitoring in the Mary River and Hervey Bay. 
Queensland department of Environment, Unpublished Report. 
Batley, G. E. (1995). Heavy metals and tributyltin in Australian coastal and estuarine 
waters. L. P. Zann, & D. C. Sutton (editors), The state of the marine 
environment report for Australia technical annex: 2 pollution (pp. 63-72). 
Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 
Beckman, R. (1991). Measuring the cost of clearing. Ecos (Autumn) 13-15. 
Boon, J. P., van Arnhem, E., Jansen, S., Kannan, N., Petrick, G., Schulz, D., Duinker, 
J. C., Reijnders, P. J. H., & Goksoyr, A. (1992). The toxicokinetics of PCBs in 
marine mammals with special reference to possible interactions of individual 
congeners with the cytochrom P450-dependent monooxygenase system: an 
overview:C. H. Walker, & D. R. Livingstone (editors), Persistent pollutants in 
marine ec,)§ystems (pp. 119-160). Oxford: Pergamon Press. 
Brodie, J.E., Hicks, W.S., Richards, G.N. and Thomas, F.G. (1984). Residues related 
to agricultural chemicals in the groundwaters of the Burdekin River delta, 
North Queensland. Environ. Pollut. (series B) 8:187-215. 
Brunskill, G.J. (1995). Geochemistry, distribution and history of riverine sediment in 
the Herbert/Hinchinbrook Island region of the Great Barrier Reef. In: Great 
Barrier Reef: Terrigenous sediment flux and human impacts. Larcombe, P. and 
Woolfe, K. (eds). James Cook University of North Queensland Press, p 21. 
Burdon-Jones, C., Denton, G. R. W., Jones, G. B., & McPhie, K. A. (1982). Regional 
and seasonal variations of trace metals in tropical Phaeophyceae from north 
Queensland. Marine Environmental Research, 7, 13-30. 
Cavanagh J.E. 1997. Organochlorine profiles in sediment cores of the Herbert and 
Burdekin River Estuaries and their relationship to historical agricultural 
activities. PhD thesis proposal. James Cook University. 
Clark, R. B. (1992). Marine pollution. 3rd ed., ). Oxford: Claredon Press. 
Clarke, S. M., & Kirkman, H. (1989). Seagrass dynamics. A. W. D. Larkum, A. J. 
McComb, & S. A. Shepherd (editors), Biology of seagrasses: a treatise on the 
biology of seagrasses with special reference to the Australian region (pp. 304- 
345). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 
Connell, D. W. (1993). Water pollution: causes and effects in Australia and New 
Zealand. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press. 
Denton, G. R. W., Marsh, H., Heinsohn, G. E., & Burdon-Jones, C. (1980). The 
unusual metal status of the dugong Dugong dugon. Marine Biology, 57, 201- 
219. 
10 
aza (p 11) 
Dyall, R. A., and R. B. Johns. (1985). Organochlorine pesticide levels in selected 
sediments of the Great Barrier Reef, Unpublished report to the Great 
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 
Dutton, I.M. (ed.). 1984. Proceedings of a workshop on contaminants in waters of the 
Great Barrier Reef. May, 1984, Brisbane, GBRMPA workshop series no. 5. 
Fowler, S. W. (1990). Critical review of selected heavy metal and chlorinated 
hydrocarbon concentrations in the marine environment. Marine Environmental 
Research, 29, 1-64. 
Furness, M., Mitchell, A. & Skuza, M. (1996). River inputs of nutrients and sediment 
to the GBR. Unpublished report. 
Gladstone, W. (1996). Trace dittils in sediments, indicator organisms and the 
traditional seafoods of the Torres Strait, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 
Authority, Townsville. 
Hamilton, D and Haydon, G. (1996). Pesticides and fertilisers in the Queensland sugar 
industry-estimates of usage and likely environmental fate. Volume 
1:Pesticides. Project ICM-R&D.94.01. Department of Primary 
Industry/BSES sugar industry RD&E program. 
Heinsohn, G. E., and H. Marsh. (1981). Ecology and conservation of the dugong 
(Dugong dugon), James Cook University, Townsville. 
Hunter, H. M. (1992). Agricultural contaminants in aquatic environments: a review. 
Brisbane: Department of Primary Industry. 
Hunter, H.M. and Rayment, G.E. (1991). Agricultural contaminants in aquatic 
environments - an overview. In: Land use patterns and nutrient loadings of the 
Great Barrier Reef region. D. Yellowlees (ed.). James Cook University of 
North Queensland Press, pp53-66. 
Kannan, K., Tanabe, S., & Tatsukawa, R. (1995). Geographical distribution and 
accumulation features of organochlorine residues in fish in tropical Asia and 
Oceania. Environmental Science and Technology, 29, 2673-2683. 
Klumpp, D. W., & Burdon-Jones, C. (1982). Investigations of the potential of bivalve 
molluscs as indicators of heavy metal levels in tropical marine waters. 
Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 33, 285-300. 
Kurtz, D. A., & Atlas, E. L. (1990). Distribution of hexachlorocyclohexanes in the 
Pacific Ocean basin, air, water, 1987. D. A. Kurtz (editor), Long range 
transport of pesticides (pp. 143-160). Michigan, USA: Lewis Publishers, Inc. 
Marsh, H. (1992). Biological basis for managing dugongs and other large vertebrates 
in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.. Townsville, Australia: Great Barrier 
Reef Marine Park Authority. 
11 
ROc•-/4 
McCloskey, L.R. and Deubert, K.H. 1972. Organochlorines in the seastar 
Acanthaster planci. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8(4):251-256. . 
McKenzie, L. J., Rasheed, M. A., Lee Long, W. J., & Coles, R. G. (1996). (Report 
No. EcoPorts Monograph Series No. 2). Brisbane: Department of Primary 
Industry. 
Moss, A., Rayment, G.E., Reilly, N. and Best, E.K. (1992). Sediment and nutrient 
exports from Queensland coastal catchments, a desk study. DOE, DPI 
unpublished report. 
Nicholson, B.C. (1984). Australian water quality criteria for organic compounds. 
Australian Water Resources Council Technical paper no.82. Department of 
Resources and Energy. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 
Olafson, R.W. (1978). Effect of agricultural activity on levels of organochlorine 
pesticides in hard corals, fish and molluscs from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar. 
Environ. Res. 1:87-107. 
Preen, A. R. (1993). Interactions between dugongs and seagrasses in a subtropical 
environment. Unpublished PhD thesis, James Cook University. 
Preen, A. R., Lee Long, W. J., & Coles, R. G. (1995). Flood and cyclone related loss, 
and partial recovery, of more than 1000km 2 of seagrass in Hervey Bay, 
Queensland, Australia._Aquatic Botany, 52, 3-17. 
Rayment, G.E. (1991). Downstream effects of agricultural practice within integrated 
catchment management. In: Land use patterns and nutrient loadings of the 
Great Barrier Reef region. D. Yellowlees (ed.). James Cook University of 
North Queensland Press, pp 217-220. 
Rayment, G.E. and Simpson, B.W. (1993). Pesticide audit for the Condamine-
Balonne-Culgoa catchment, Part 3 of Kenway, S.J. (ed), Water quality 
management in the Condamine-Balonne-Culgoa Catchment: Land use, 
fertiliser use, pesticide audit and water quality issues, monitoring and available 
information. Condamine-Balonne Water Committee, Dalby, Queensland. 
Reichelt, A. J., & Jones, G. B. (1993). (Report No. Unpublished report to the Great 
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority). James Cook University. 
Richardson, B. J. (1995). The problem of chlorinated compounds in Australia's marine 
environment. in L.P. Zann, & D.C. Sutton (editors), The State of the Marine 
Environment Report for Australia, Technical Annex: 2 (pp. 53-61). Townsville, 
Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 
Simpson, B.W., Rayment, G.E. and Spann, K.P. 1993. Pesticide use study 
Pumicestone Passage catchment, in Pumicestone Passage, it's catchment and 
Bribie Island. Integrated management strategy-component study. Queensland 
Department of Environment and Heritage, Brisbane. 
12 
2 ,.("17./.3) 
Smillie, R.H. and Wade, J.S. (1984). Polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine 
compounds in Great Barrier Reef biota. In: Proceedings of a workshop on 
contaminants in waters of the Great Barrier Reef. I.M. Dutton (ed.), May 
1984, Brisbane, GBRMPA workshop series no.5.p 34. 
Smith, J. D., Hauser, J. Y., & Bagg, J. (1985). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in 
sediments of the Great Barrier Reef region, Australia. Marine Pollution 
Bulletin, 16, 110-114. 
Tatsukawa, R., Yamaguchi, Y., Kawano, M., Kannan, N., & Tanabe, S. (1990). 
Global monitoring of organochlorine insecticides- an 11-year case study (1975- 
1985) of HCHs and DDTs in the open ocean atmosphere and hydrosphere. D. 
A. Kurtz (editor), Long range transport of pesticides (pp. 127-141). Michigan, 
USA: Lewis Publishers Inc. 
Walker, D. I., & McComb, A. J. (1992). Seagrass degradation in Australian coastal 
waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 25, 191-195. 
von Westernhagen, H. and Klumpp, D.W. 1995. Xenobiotics in fish from Australian 
tropical coastal waters, including the Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 
30(2): 166-169. 
13 
23(p. 
Dugong Protected Areas - Seagrass Issues 
A Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
January 1997 
W. J. Lee Long, L. J. McKenzie and R. G. Coles 
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Northern Fisheries Centre, PO Box 5396, Cairns 
Q 4870. 
Background to Great Barrier Reef Seagrass Management 
The importance of Great Barrier Reef region seagrasses to commercial and recreational fisheries 
production and to dugong and turtle populations is widely recognised. Seagrass management 
initiatives have included special protection measures for areas of importance to commercial 
fisheries production (eg., fisheries coastal strip closures). Information on areas grazed by dugong 
and turtles is needed to help establish protected areas necessary for conservation of these 
megafauna. 
There are difficulties for management of seagrasses because of a scarcity of detailed information 
on the natural variability in seagrasses and the causes of change. The Great Barrier Reef seagrass 
resource inventory is also incomplete, particularly in deepwater areas. Priorities for study include 
establishment of long-term seagrass monitoring programs at sites over a range of latitudes, 
locations and habitat types, and areas of conservation priority. Studies which identify the causes 
of change in seagrasses and seagrass responses to anthropogenic impacts will help in developing 
tools for monitoring impacts and the health of Great Barrier Reef systems. Seagrass losses are 
not the only indicators of ecological impact. Increases in seagrass, when due to nutrient 
additions, might be used as important early warnings of negative environmental impact. 
Integrated catchment management programs which seek to address downstream impacts of land 
run-off may be one of the best management measures for successful seagrass conservation. 
Protection of coastal seagrasses may be particularly important in southern regions where 
potential threats are currently greatest and where dugong populations appear to have no 
alternative offshore feeding areas. 
Seagrasses and Dugongs 
Coastal seagrasses in northern Queensland are often restricted to the intertidal and immediate 
subtidal depths to less than 5 m. The relatively turbid coastal waters of northern Queensland 
limit light penetration and therefore limit the depth distribution of seagrasses in these areas. 
Very little seagrass was found in offshore during recent deepwater seagrass surveys south of Dunk 
Island (QDPI, unpublished information). Thus the primary food source of dugongs along much of 
the Queensland coast, is restricted to a relatively narrow band close to shore. This area overlaps 
with some of the main areas of gill netting in these regions, and presents immediate high risks to 
dugongs of capture in gill nets. If the area of subtidal seagrass habitat is small or restricted, there 
are few alternative feeding areas for dugong. 
Large-scale losses of seagrass can cause large scale dugong mortality and emigration (eg., the 1992 
seagrass and dugong losses in Hervey Bay, Preen etal. 1995). It is currently believed that small 
changes in seagrass distribution and abundance are likely to only affect dugong fecundity and 
dugong movements, but not likely to be the cause of mortalities (Marsh, pers comm.). 
Long-term variability in seagrasses 
For most of the nine proposed Dugong Protected Areas there is little or no data on long-term 
variation in seagrass distribution and abundance. Baseline maps of seagrass biomass information 
for coastal locations was obtained in Queensland Department of Primary Industries broadscale 
surveys during the 1980's. 
Princess Charlotte Bay 
.?3(p. a") 
Broadscale surveys conducted in October 1994 (Coles, Lee Long and Squire 1985) indicated the 
location of coastal seagrass meadows in Princess Charlotte Bay, but have not been repeated. 
Numerous dugong feeding trails were observed during surveys on the reef platform of Clack Reef. 
A large area of seagrass habitat dominated by Halophila species was found in the sheltered 
northeastern side of Corbett Reef during deepwater seagrass surveys (Coles et al. 1995) and 
dugong were sighted in this area during seagrass surveys. 
Hinchinbrook Region 
Seagrass habitats in the Hinchinbrook region (including Dunk Island to Cape Cleveland) were first 
mapped in October 1987 during a broadscale survey between Cairns and Bowen (Coles et al. 
1992). That survey indicated where the main areas of seagrass habitat occurred and noted that 
seagrasses in the Hinchinbrook Island area are important regionally (Lee Long, Mellors and Coles 
1993). The nearest large areas of seagrass are to the south around Townsville and dugong 
populations in Hinchinbrook Island area probably use seagrasses in a regions which extends at 
least from Dunk Island to Cape Cleveland. 
A detailed survey of Dunk Island to Cape Cleveland in October 1996 (Lee Long et al. In Prep.) 
provides the only source of quantitative data to assess region-wide changes in seagrasses since 
1987. This survey indicated significant increases in the distribution of seagrasses across the 
region since the 1987 broadscale survey, with most increases in the area of subtidal seagrass 
habitat. However, we have no measure of any other changes in seagrass distribution and 
abundance during the intervening nine-year period. 
Anecdotal information has indicated a possible decrease in seagrass distribution and abundance in 
the region during 1990 and 1991. There is no quantitative record of the scale of these possible 
changes, so we cannot make any confident comment on the likely impacts on animals such as 
dugongs and green sea turtles. Detailed annual surveys are required at a number of localities to 
reliably measure regional variations in seagrasses over long term periods. 
Cleveland Bay 
As for the Hinchinbrook region, long-term change in seagrasses from Cape Pallarenda to Cape 
Cleveland and Magnetic Island come only from a broadscale survey in October 1987 and a 
detailed survey in October 1996. No data is available for changes over the intervening period. 
Upstart Bay 
The only published maps of seagrass distribution and abundance for Upstart Bay are from the 
initial broadscale survey in November 1987 (Coles et al. 1992). Unpublished maps were obtained 
from two brief surveys of Upstart Bay to assess the impacts of Cyclone Ivor in 1989 (Queensland 
Department of Primary Industries, unpubl. information). 
Pori Newry 
Since the initial broadscale survey of Port Newry in March 1987 (Coles et al. 1990), no 
subsequent surveys have been conducted here. 
Ince Bay 
Since the initial broadscale survey of Ince Bay in March 1987 (Coles etal. 1990), no subsequent 
surveys have been conducted here. 
Shoalwater Bay 
Detailed baseline maps for Shoalwater Bay seagrasses were obtained in Spring (September 1995) 
and Autumn (April 1996) (Lee Long et al. 1996). The area of seagrass mapped in both surveys 
was of the same magnitude as was found in the initial broadscale survey (Coles etal. 1992), but 
more habitat was recorded in areas previously unsurveyed. 
Turbid waters in Shoalwater Bay restrict the seagrass depth distribution to mostly the large 
intertidal flats. Very little subtidal seagrass habitat was found in the Shoalwater Bay region. Thus 
?3(p%3) 
the time available for dugongs to feed is limited to the period when water over the intertidal flats 
is sufficient for access. 
Port Clinton 
See comments for Shoalwater Bay (above). 
Hervey Bay 
Initial broadscale surveys mapped approximately 1000 km 2 
 of seagrass habitat in Hervey Bay in 
November 1988. Detailed surveys helped document the loss of almost all of this habitat, and its 
partial recovery following a cyclone and two floods in 1992 (Preen, Lee Long and Coles 1995). 
Causes of seagrass changes 
Seagrasses in northern Australia display large seasonal variation in abundance (Mellors 1993; 
McKenzie 1994; Lanyon and Marsh 1995; Lee Long et al. 1996). Year-to-year variation is less 
studied. Large changes can occur from catastrophic impacts (eg., cyclones and floods), but the 
causes of normal year-to-year variation are less understood. Light and nutrients are two of the 
most important parameters which influence seagrass growth and survival, but extreMes of 
temperature, salinity or exposure can also lead to stresses and disease. Natural 161
-.4g-term change 
in seagrass might therefore be related to specific long-term changes in climatic conditions, and 
this requires investigation. 
Human influences on long-term seagrass growth and survival can include stresses related to land-
use, land run-off and coastal zone modifications. These include soil and nutrient loads. 
agricultural and industrial chemicals and changes in coastal hydrology (drainage, currents, shelter 
and exposure). Stress from anthropogenic impacts could lead to disease and loss of resilience or 
seagrass death. 
Diseases affecting seagrassBiologistPortsmith, Cairns Northern Fisheries Centre38-40 Tingira 
Street5396Cairns487Onfc(070) 351 401(070) 529 814leelonw@1pi.q1d.gov
.auFisheries Business 
Group WL:WLWarren Lee LongDugong Protection Areas - Seagrass Issues 
Five fungal pathogens were recently identified from samples and suspected as the cause of 
widespread death of seagrasses in Tin Can Bay and Great Sandy Straits (Wnuczynski 1996). One 
of these isolated pathogens was the slime mould Labyrinthula, which was the causative agent for 
wasting disease in seagrasses in North America and Europe (see Den Hat
-tog 1987). If diagnoses 
are confirmed this would be the first documented case of wasting disease for Australian seagrasses. 
Widespread and lethal infections of these fungal pathogens is likely to be a result of stresses on 
seagrasses (see above) leading to outbreaks of the normally-dormant fungal populations. Reports 
by McLeod (1996), Thorogood (1996) and Wnuczynski (1996) highlight the need to investigate 
further the possibility of fungal pathogens causing seagrass losses in Queensland. 
The occurrence of Labyrinthula and other fungal seagrass pathogens elsewhere in Queensland has 
not been investigated and has not been indicated as a likely cause of seagrass loss. All other large-
scale seagrass losses in Queensland have been linked to causes such as cyclones and floods (Preen, 
Lee Long and Coles 1995; QDPI unpubl. Information) rather than chronic or acute disease 
infections. The above-mentioned anecdotal records of reductions in seagrass abundance at some 
northern Queensland localities in 1990 and 1991 were not formally investigated, so the 
involvement of disease agents cannot be confirmed. Note that long-term climatic change, and its 
influence on light and nutrient availability, is still considered an extremely important influence 
on region-wide changes seagrass distribution and abundance. Further study is required to establish 
the influence of environmental stresses and fungal pathogens in year-to-year changes in 
seagrasses in northern Queensland. 
References 
4230)•0 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J. and Squire, L.C. (1985). Seagrass beds and prawn nursery cuounds 
between Cape York and Cairns, QDPI Information Series QI185017 Queensland 
Department of Primary Industries. 31pp. 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., Helmke, S.A., Bennett, R.E., Miller, K.J. and Derbyshire. K.J. 
(1992). Seagrass beds and juvenile prawn nursery grounds Cairns to Bowen. Queensland 
Department of Primary Industries Information Series QI 92012. 64 pp. 
Coles, R.G., Mellors, J.E., Bibby, J.M., and Squire, B.A. (1987). Seagrass beds and juvenile prawn 
nursery grounds between Bowen and Water Park Point. Queensland Department of 
Primary Industries Information Series QI 87021. 54 pp 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., McKenzie, L.J., Short, M., Rasheed, M.A. and Vidler, K.(1995). 
"Distribution of deep-water seagrass habitats between Cape Weymouth and Cape 
Tribulation, northeastern Queensland". Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 
Authority and CRC Reef. (QDPI: NFC, Cairns) 33 pp. 
Den Hartog, C. (1987--), :Wasting disease" and other dynamic phenomena in Zostera beds. 
Aquatic Botany. 27, 3-4. 
Lanyon, J.M. and Marsh, H. (1995). Temporal changes in the abundance of some tropical 
intertidal seagrasses in North Queensland. Aquatic Botany 49, 217-237. 
Lee Long, W.J., Coles, R.G., Derbyshire, K.J., Miller, K.J. and Vidler, K.P. (1992). Seaarass beds 
and juvenile prawn and fish nursery grounds, Water Park Point to Hervey Bay. Queensland. 
Queensland Department of Primary Industries Information Series QI 92011. 
Lee Long, W.J., Mellors, J.E. and Coles, R.G. (1993). Seagrasses between Cape York and Hervey 
Bay, Queensland, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44(1). 
19-31. 
Lee Long, W.J., McKenzie, L.J., and Coles, R.G. (1996). 'Distribution of Seagrasses in Shoalwater 
Bay, Queensland - September 1995'. Unpublished report to the CRC Reef Research Centre 
and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (QDPI: NFC, Cairns) 24pp. 
Lee Long, W.J., McKenzie, L.J., Roelofs, A.R., Makey, L. And Roder, C. (In Prep.). 
Hinchinbrook Region Seagrass Communities - A Baseline Survey, 1996. Report to the Great 
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and CRC Reef. 
McKenzie, L. J. (1994). Seasonal changes in biomass and shoot characteristics of a Zostera 
capricorni Aschers. dominant meadow in Cairns Harbour, northern Queensland. Australian 
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45, 1337-1352. 
Mellors, J. E., Marsh, H. and Coles, R. G. (1993). Intra-annual changes in seagrass standing crop. 
Green Island, northern Queensland. In: Tropical Seagrass Ecosystems; Structure and 
Dynamics in the Indo-West Pacific. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater 
Research 44, 33-42. 
Preen, A., Lee Long, W. J., and Coles, R. G. (1995). Flood and cyclone related loss, and partial 
recovery, of more than 1000 km2 of seagrasses in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. 
Aquatic Botany, 52:3-17. 
Wnuczynski, M. (1996). Wasting disease investigations conducted in south-east Queensland. 
Honours Paper, Bachelor of Applied Science Honours course, University of Queensland, 
Gatton. 
JL-ef,..LIJR-1- - l.,1%.., C111116 111.113 
vital wAgrass meadows 
-
f-////974. 	 v 7Wr 
Session Two: Pressures and Effects on Great Barrier Reef Lagoon 
Impacts on and responses of seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef- issues for management 
Lee Long, W.J. and Coles, R.G. 
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Northern Fisheries Centre Research Centre, PO 
Box 5396, Cairns, Qld 4870. 
An estimated 3000 Icrd of coastal seagrass habitat and at least 2000 km' of deepwater seagrass 
habitat has been mapped in the Great Barrier Reef region from broad-scale coastal surveys in the 
1980s and ongoing inter-reef surveys. Seagrasses have been found in estuaries, shallow coastal bays 
and inlets, on fringing and barrier reef platforms, and in inter-reef areas to depths greater than 60 m. 
Most of the fourteen known species are common to the Indo-West Pacific region, but some reach the 
latitudinal limits of their distribution in Queensland and at least two Halophila species may be 
endemic to the Great Barrier Reef region or northeastern Australia. 
All seagrasses are important in primary production and therefore in supporting complex marine food 
webs. Estuarine and shallow coastal seagrass meadows appear to be more important than deeper 
meadows as nursery habitat for juvenile prawns and fish. Dugong and green sea turtles - species 
listed as endangered or threatened - depend on seagrasses for survival. Large areas of seagrass at 
depths between 10 and 30 metres are associated with large dugong populations in the Cairns and Far 
Northern Sections, and in Hervey Bay immediately south of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. 
Coastal seagrasses help to maintain nutrient and sediment stability and water clarity. The role of 
seagrasses in deep water (>10 m) is less understood and requires attention. Large areas of macro-
green algae communities in deep water, mostly on the outer shelf, are little known or understood and 
receive no special protection measures. 
Natural cyclone and flood events can cause widespread loss of seagrasses in shallow and deep water, 
but agricultural land-use practices may exacerbate the effects of these natural events or reduce the 
resilience and recovery of seagrasses from natural impacts. The most immediate threats from urban 
and agricultural runoff, or coastal and Barrier Reef development appear in southern, populated 
regions. Localities which provide shelter and water conditions ideal for productive seagrass habitat 
are often targets for port development, and at the downstream end of heavily impacted catchments. 
Reducing the threats to seagrasses and dependent fauna from oil-spills requires improved 
management of shipping traffic and oil-spill responses. Current fisheries legislation, marine parks 
and area closures to trawl fishing help protect valuable inshore seagrass prawn nursery and dugong 
feeding habitat, but deepwater seagrasses do not yet receive formal protection measures. 
Natural year-to-year change in Queensland seagrasses is not recorded and the causes, scale and 
ecological consequences of long-term changes remain poorly understood. Seagrass monitoring 
programs need long-term support and methods for hindcasting seagrasses in the tropics require 
development. Impacts on seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef currently appear low to moderate, but 
land-use practices and coastal management need careful attention to minimise adverse impacts of 
increasing population and development. Research must help describe the responses of seagrass to 
natural and human impacts and attempt to determine acceptable levels of changes in seagrass 
meadows and water quality conditions which may cause those changes. Catchment management 
programs and heightened community awareness of the alternatives for reducing run-off impacts are 
considered essential for maintenance of Great Barrier Reerasses. 
NI) 	 rtiri-011 I10111 agncin- 
tural and urban development had 
killed many seagrass meadows, 
researcher Warren Lee Long told 
the Great Barrier Reef conference 
yesterday. 
Coastal scagrass meadows were 
vital nursery habitats for juvenile 
prawns and fish, as well as major 
food sources for dugongs, Mr Long 
said. —The loss of more than 
18 1000sq km of seagrasses in Hervey 
Bay in 1992 followed two cyclones 
and prolonged flooding," he said. 
The influence of nutrients on 
this area of senrass was aggra- 
rated riy 
agriculture. 	 . 	 - 	 • 
Mr Long said that when the first 
Great Barrier Reef conference Was 
held in 1983, little was known 
about seagrass in the GBR region. 
Broadscale surveys of .seagrass 
meadows followed recognition in 
the 1980s of the importance of 
seagrass for tiger prawn fisheries, 
dugongs and green sea turtles. 
Several new species of seagrass 
had been discovered in recent 
months. Scientists were concerned 
about incremental increases in 
pressures. 
CiptAfr,6(A a°4 15(C--(-- e24 
/ The Great Barrier Reef: Science, Use and Management 
 
.,4 
17 et' 	 Ce 	 vv- 
GBR Sea grasses - pressures and responses 
 
Impacts on and responses of seagrasses in the Great Barrier 
Reef - issues for management 
W.J. Lee Long and R.G. Coles 
Queensland Department of Primary Industries 
Northern Fisheries Centre Research Centre PO Box 5396 Cairns Q 4870. 
Abstract 
An estimated 3,000 km' of coastal seagrass habitat and at least 2,000 km' of deepwater seagrass 
habitat has been mapped in the GBR region from broad-scale coastal surveys in the 1980's and 
ongoing inter-reef surveys. Seagrasses have been found in estuaries, shallow coastal bays and inlets, 
on fringing and bather reef platforms, and in inter-reef areas to depths greater than 60 m. Most of the 
fourteen known species are common to the Indo-West Pacific region, but some reach the latitudinal 
limits of their distribution in Queensland and at least two Halophila species may be endemic to the 
Great Barrier Reef region or northeastern Australia. 
All seagrasses are important in primary production and therefore in supporting complex marine food 
webs. Estuarine and shallow coastal seagrass meadows appear to be more important than deeper 
meadows as nursery habitat for juvenile prawns and fish. Dugong and green sea turtles - species 
listed as endangered or threatened - depend on seagrasses for survival. Large populations of dugong 
have also indicated the existence of large areas of seagrass at depths between 10 and 30 metres. The 
ecological role of seagrasses in deep water (>10 m) is not well understood and requires study. Large 
areas of macro-green algae communities in deep water, mostly on the outer shelf, are little studied 
and receive no special protection measures. 
Natural cyclone and flood events can cause widespread loss of seagrasses in shallow and deep water. 
Agricultural land-use practices may exacerbate the effects of these natural events or reduce the 
resilience and recovery of seagrasses from natural impacts. The most immediate threats from urban 
and agricultural mnoff, or coastal and Barrier Reef development appear in southern, populated 
regions. Localities which provide shelter and water conditions ideal for productive seagrass habitat 
are often targets for port development, and at the downstream end of heavily impacted catchments. 
Reducing the threats to seagrasses and dependant fauna from oil-spills requires improved 
management of shipping traffic and oil-spill responses. Current fisheries legislation for marine plant 
protection, policies for protection and sustainable use of seagrass habitat areas, marine parks and area 
closures to trawl fishing help protect valuable inshore seagrass prawn nursery and dugong feeding 
habitat, but seagrasses in deep water do not yet receive formal protection measures. 
Natural year-to-year change in Queensland seagrasses has not been recorded in any detail and the 
causes, scale and ecological consequences of long-term changes are poorly understood. Seagrass 
monitoring programs need long-term support and methods for hindcasting seagrasses in the tropics 
require development. Impacts on seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef currently appear low to 
moderate, but incremental increases in the total impact must be managed. Land-use practices and 
coastal management need careful attention to minimise adverse impacts of increasing population and 
development. Research must help describe the responses of seagrass to natural and human impacts 
and attempt to determine acceptable levels of changes in seagrass meadows and water quality 
conditions which may cause those changes. Catchment management programs and heightened 
community awareness of the alternatives for reducing run-off impacts are considered essential for 
maintenance of Great Barrier Reef seagrasses. 
240P. 41 
GBR Sea grasses 
- pressures and responses 
Status of Seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef 
At the time of the first Great Barrier Reef Conference (1983) we knew close to nothing about 
the extent of seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) region. Collections for taxonomic 
classifications (den Hartog 1970, Greenway 1979) and studies of succession in intertidal 
seagrasses at Townsville (Birch and Birch 1984) formed the strength of our knowledge then. 
Broad-scale seagrass surveys along the Queensland coastline were initiated by the Queensland 
Department of Primary Industries (Coles et al. 1985a,b, 1987a,b, 1992, Lee Long et al. 1992, 
1993) following recognition of the importance of seagrasses as nursery habitat for juvenile 
prawns of commercially valuable tiger prawn fisheries (Coles and Lee Long 1985). The dietary 
dependence of dugongs and green sea turtles on seagrasses was also established at about this 
time (eg., Lanyon et al. 1989). Dugong and green sea turtle conservation became an additional 
impetus for subsequent seagrass research, mapping and monitoring. Conservation management 
priorities for these endangered or threatened species strongly influences the direction of Great 
Barrier Reef seagrass studies today. 
Broad-scale surveys of separate regions from 1984 to 1989 (Coles et al. 1985; Coles et al. 1987a,b; 
Coles et al. 1992; Lee long et al. 1992) indicated where seagrasses occurred in estuaries, shallow 
coastal bays and inlets, on some fringing reefs, barrier reef platforms and limited sites in deep water. 
Coastal waters were broadly mapped for all of Queensland, but surveys of deeper water (>10 m), 
inter-reef, inshore-reef and barrier-reef platform areas have only recently begun. Seagrasses have 
been found to depths of 58m in the Cairns and Far Northern Sections (Lee Long, McKenzie and 
Coles 1996 
Approximately 3,000 km' of coastal (<15 m depths) seagrass habitat was mapped during initial 
broadscale surveys in the Great Barrier Reef region (Lee Long, Mellors and Coles 1993), and at least 
a further 2,000 km' of deepwater seagrass habitat has been estimated so far (Lee Long et al. 1996). 
Fourteen known seagrass species were recorded from surveys of Queensland coastal, island and reef 
waters between 1984 and 1989 (Lee Long, Mellors and Coles 1993). Most of these species are 
common to the Indo-West Pacific region, but some reach the latitudinal limits of their distribution in 
Queensland (Lee Long, Mellors and Coles 1993) and at least two species (Halophila tricostata and 
Halophila sp.) may be endemic to the Great Barrier Reef region. One recently described species 
(Halophila capricorni, Larkum 1996) has since been described and taxonomic studies of additional 
undescribed plants in the Genus Halophila may lead to further increases in the species list for the 
Great Barrier Reef (Kuo, Pers. Comm.). 
There are few records of seasonal variability in Queensland seagrasses. Mellors et al. (1993) recorded 
a two-fold increase from winter to summer biomass in a Halodule uninervislCymodocea serrulata 
meadow at Green Island, but McKenzie (1994) measured up to six-fold change in above-ground 
biomass of a coastal Zostera capricomi meadow from winter to summer, at Cairns nearby. 
Information on year-to-year variability in tropical seagrasses remains limited because of few 
opportunities for long-term studies. Long-term variation in seagrasses has potentially large 
consequences on prawn fisheries, dugongs and sea turtle populations, and successful management of 
these populations requires much better information on seasonal and long-term variation in seagrass 
distribution and abundance. Attempts at formalising seagrass monitoring programs are just 
beginning. 
Seagrasses represent important components of coastal primary production and support complex 
marine food webs. They are often valuable nursery grounds for commercially and recreationally 
important species of prawns and fish. Estuarine and shallow coastal seagrass meadows appear to be 
much more important as nursery habitat for juvenile prawns and fish (Derbyshire et al. 1995). 
Seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef are also major sources of food to dugong and green sea turtles - 
species listed as threatened or endangered. Meadows dominated by Halophila and Halodule species 
2 
4 4 (p 
GBR Sea grasses - pressures and responses 
are preferred dugong feeding areas. Seagrasses in coastal regions play important roles in maintaining 
sediment stability and water clarity. Their physical role in deep water (>10 m) is less understood. 
Impacts on, and Responses of, Seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef 
Research on the responses of seagrass to nutrients is very limited, but current work indicates seagrass 
growth at coastal and reef localities is nutrient limited (Mellors, Udy pers comm.). Excessive nutrient 
inputs from agricultural and urban run-off however, have led to widespread loss of seagrasses at 
locations in Australia and overseas (Shepherd et al. 1989). The loss of over 1000 km' of seagrasses in 
Hervey Bay in 1992 followed two cyclones and prolonged flooding (Preen et al. 1995) and the 
influence of suspended sediments and nutrient loads on seagrass mortality was probably exacerbated 
by coastal land-clearing and agriculture. The responses of seagrasses to increased light attenuation 
(caused by high concentrations of phytoplankton and suspended sediments) has been used to develop 
models where seagrass growth and distribution are used as broad indicators of water quality and 
environmental health (Dennison et al. 1993). Simple models of the responses of Great Barrier Reef 
seagrasses to light and nutrient concentrations will be useful when assessing the status and impacts 
on Great Bather Reef water quality. 
Current land-use practices and continued urban and agricultural expansions present a chronic threat 
and may exacerbate the effects of natural events through increased soil erosion and nutrient run-off. 
Land run-off impacts may also affect the recovery of seagr, asses after loss. Integrated Catchment 
Management (ICM) programs seek to address these issues and are seen as an important part of good 
management for continued survival of seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef. 
Seagrasses are common in sheltered areas where coastal developments are concentrated and bring 
increased threats of urban and industrial runoff, dredging or burial. Impacts which increase water 
column sediments and nutrients, or phytoplankton or epiphyte density can lead to greater attenuation 
of light and reduced seagrass survival at depth (Dennison et al. 1993). Introduction of exotic marine 
species to Queensland ports, via ships' hulls or ballast water, present potential threats to local 
seagrass communities. Sea-urchins or other seagrass grazers could denude seagrass areas, and other 
introduced invertebrates or plants could compete against native species. The abovementioned threats 
are greatest in semi-enclosed bays and ports where water exchange rates are low. Far Northern 
Section seagrasses do not yet face the same immediate threats from urban and agricultural runoff, or 
coastal and Barrier Reef development that occur in southern populated regions. 
Accidental and non-accidental impacts of trawling may impact on seagrasses - including 
chronic, low level disruption within meadows (causing patchiness and erosion) or incremental 
impacts on the edges of meadows. Most seagrasses in shallow, coastal bays and inlets are in 
water too shallow for trawlers to operate and damage to inshore seagrass meadows by trawling 
activity should be minimal under the fishery management policy of strip closures. Dense meadows in 
deep water are usually avoided by trawlers when possible. Low density seagrass meadows in deep 
water may receive greater fishing pressure. Many of these areas are dugong feeding habitat, but 
receive no special zoning or protection from trawling and may be at risk of damage. 
Increases in shipping traffic along eastern Queensland will lead to the increased likelihood of oil 
spills. Oil spills may cause severe and immediate damage to intertidal seagrass meadows but subtidal 
seagrasses may be at lesser risk (Jackson et al. 1989; Kenworthy et al. 1993). Impacts on the 
invertebrate and fish communities which seagrasses support can be severe, but may respond 
positively to subsequent regeneration of seagrasses. 
3 
240, 
GBR Sea grasses - pressures and responses 
Management Issues 
Widespread loss of seagrasses in shallow and deep water in Hervey Bay had devastating effects on 
dugong populations (Preen et al. 1995; Preen and Marsh 1995). There have been few opportunities 
for documenting seagrass losses in the Great Barrier Reef and associated impacts on associated 
fisheries and fauna have been less studied. Management plans and management responses to impacts 
on Great Barrier Reef region seagrasses are designed primarily around the maintenance of seagrasses 
for commercial prawn fisheries and for dugong and turtle populations. The Great Barrier Reef 
Marine Park Authority and port authorities at Cairns, Mourilyan, Gladstone, and other areas, support 
seagrass management measures which also consider the broader ecological importance of seagrasses 
in maintaining coastal water quality, sediment stability, and as the basis for other marine fisheries 
and food-webs. 
Management policies and options 
In 1990, the Queensland Fish Management Authority (QFMA), in consultation with fishing industry, 
acknowledged the value of seagrasses to tiger and endeavour prawn stocks, and added to the seasonal 
prawn closures with a coastal strip closure system to protect juvenile prawns and their seagrass 
habitat. Most shallow, coastal seagrass habitat in the Far Northern and Cairns Sections north of Cape 
Tribulation, is thus currently in areas zoned as free from trawling activity, either within the QFMA 
policy of coastal strip closures or within Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority zoning. An 
extension of this reasonably effective strip closure system to protect coastal seagrasses south of Cape 
Tribulation is also being considered for evaluation in Queensland trawl fisheries management. 
Important dugong feeding areas inshore between the Starcke River and Barrow Point receive special 
protection through scientific and preservation zones. In this area, seagrasses offshore in deep water 
(>10m) are important dugong feeding habitat (eg., Lee Long et al. 1989), but are not afforded 
complete protection through zoning. There may be other unsurveyed areas of deep water seagrasses 
in the Great Barrier Reef important to dugongs and green sea turtles, but which receive no special 
protection. Seagrasses are listed as protected marine plants under Section 51 of the Queensland 
Fisheries Act 1994. This Act also includes Chief Executive powers to enable prosecutions for wilful 
and unlawful damage to seagrass habitat, or for unlawfully causing damage to seagrass habitat. 
Integrated catchment management programs have wide acceptance across Queensland and should be 
encouraged from a seagrass conservation perspective, since seag,rasses are at the 'downstream end' of 
catchment run-off. This may be one of the best management measures for successful seagrass 
conservation. Point-source discharges are also being addressed and effluent controls are being 
slowly introduced at reef locations to help minimise impacts on seagrasses and corals. Gradual, 
incremental increases in all of the above impacts, associated with an expanding population, 
presents a serious threat to long-term survival of seagrasses in the Great Barrier Reef region. 
Planning for and management of these increasing pressures must be acknowledged by the 
whole community. We strongly recommend greater community education, awareness and 
involvement in land-use practices and programs which minimise downstream impacts on seagrasses. 
Programs to monitor the status of seagrass systems need to be formalised to evaluate the 
effectiveness of seagr ass management in the Great Barrier Reef. 
Sea grass research priorities 
Mechanisms or structures for directing research and management of seagrasses in the Great Barrier 
Reef region include the interchange of information at annual Great Barrier Reef and CRC researcher 
conferences, and through ad hoc workshops and discussions. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 
Authority, The Queensland Fish Management Authority (QFMA), The Queensland Department of 
Environment (QDoE), and The Queensland Department of Primary Industries (QDPI) are the major 
4 
(p. 
GBR Sea grasses - pressures and responses 
organisations responsible for seagrass management in marine park and fisheries areas. The 
Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Development of the Great Barrier Reef supports new 
initiatives in seagrass studies to obtain information of direct use toward management of the Great 
Barrier Reef. Research on Great Barrier Reef region seag,rasses is conducted primarily by the QDPI, 
the James Cook University's Tropical Environment Studies and Geography group and the University 
of Queensland's Marine Botany group. Requests from the above organisations, and initiatives from 
scientists, are currently the major avenue for generation of research and monitoring, and information 
gained on seagrass habitat distribution and ecology is distributed to these organisations and extended 
for public use. 
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority holds an archival GIS database using Arc-Info® to 
store QDPI data on survey sites and seagrass distribution for research and management use. The 
Queensland Department of Primary Industries' MapInfoa GIS databases include full sets of the raw 
data generated from a series of fine- and broad-scale mapping and monitoring programs. 
Initial QDPI surveys conducted in the 1980's and 1990's provided information on seagrass 
distribution and abundance for large parts, but not all, of the Great Barrier —Re2-f region. This 
information is now very dated and should be used with some caution in zone planning. Large areas 
of deep-water and reef-platform habitat remain unsurveyed for seagisses, and the immediate priority 
is to collect at least preliminary information on seagrass habitats for the remainder of the Great 
Barrier Reef. 
There is a paucity of information on year-to-year change in seagrass distribution and abundance 
for most seagrass species and community types. There is no formal strategy or program in place 
for monitoring seasonal or long term change in seagrass distribution and abundance for any part of 
the Great Barrier Reef region. Limited studies of year-to-year change at specific coastal and deep 
water sites in the Cairns Section are currently supported by some port authorities and by the CRC 
Reef Research Centre. An effective monitoring program would include a range of localities - coastal, 
reef, deep-water, near population centres and remote. Seagrass growth rate (or productivity) is at least 
as important as standing crop to the populations which depend on seagrasses, and information on 
temporal variation in seagrass production rates, for a range of species and localities, would enable 
much better interpretations of how seagrasses support marine animal populations, fish and prawn 
production. 
The CRC Reef Research Centre is now conducting studies on a) growth responses to natural and 
human impacts (eg., nutrients and light), and b) mechanisms of seagrass recovery after loss. These 
will provide for inclusion within management plans: guidelines on ecologically acceptable water 
quality standards and a better understanding of the requirements and potential for recovery of 
seagrasses after loss. 
References 
Birch, W.R. and Birch, M. (1984): Succession and pattern of tropical intertidal seagrasses in 
Cockle Bay, Queensland, Australia: a decade of observations. Aquat. Bot. 19, 343-367. 
Coles, R.G. and Lee Long, W.J. (1985). Juvenile prawn biology and the distribution of seagrass 
prawn nursery grounds in the southeastern Gulf of Carpentaria. In 'Second Australian Prawn 
Seminar' (Eds P.C. Rothlisberg, B.J. Hill and D.J. Staples), pp. 55-60 (NPS2: Cleveland, 
Australia). 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., and Squire, L.C. (1985a). Seagrass beds and prawn nursery grounds 
between Cape York and Cairns. Queensland Department of Primary Industries. Information 
Series QI85017. 
5 
2.40).) 
GBR Seagrasses - pressures and responses 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J. and Squire, L.C. (1985b). Seagrass beds and prawn nurseries mapped in 
north east Queensland. Australian Fisheries, September 1985, pp. 24-5. 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., Squire, B.A., Squire, L.C. and Bibby, J.M. (1987a). Distribution of 
seagrass and associated juvenile commercial penaeid prawns in north-eastern Queensland 
waters. Aust. J. Mar. and Freshw. Res., 38, 103-119. 
Coles, R.G., Mellors, J.E., Bibby, J.M. and Squire, B.A. (1987b). Seagrass beds and juvenile prawn 
nursery grounds between Bowen and Water Park Point. Queensland Department of Primary 
Industries. Information Series QI87021. 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., Helmke, S.A., Bennett, R.E., Miller, K.J. and Derbyshire, K.J. (1992). 
Seagrass beds and juvenile prawn nursery grounds Cairns to Bowen. Queensland Department 
of Primary Industries Information Series QI 92012. 64 pp. 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., McKenzie, L.J., Short, M., Rasheed, M.A., and Vidler, K. 
(1995b). Distribution of de-water seagrass habitats between Cape Weymouth and 
Cape Tribulation, northeastern Queensland. Unpublished report to the Great Barrier 
Reef Marine Park Authority. (QDPI: NFC, Cairns) 33 pp. 
den Hartog, C. (1970). The Seagrasses of the World'. (North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam) 
293pp. 
Dennison, W.C., Orth, R.J., Moore, K.A., Stevenson, J.C., Carter, V., Kollar, S., Bergstrom, 
P.W., and Batiuk, R.A. (1993). Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic 
vegetation: Habitat requirements as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. BioScience 
42(2), 86-94. 
Derbyshire, K. J., Willoughby, S. R., McColl, A. L. and Hocroft, D. M. (1995). Small prawn habitat 
and recruitment study - final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation 
and the Queensland Fisheries management Authority. Queensland Department of Primary 
Industries. 43 pp. 
Greenway, M. (1979): Halophila tricostata (Hydrocharitaceae), a new species of seagrass from the 
Great Barrier Reef Region. Aquat. Bot. 7, 67-70. 
Jackson, J., Cubit, J., Keller, D., Batista, D., Burrs, K., Caffey, H., Caldwell, R., Garrity, S., Getter, 
C., Gonzalez, C., Guzman, H., Kalfmann, K., Knap, A., Levings, S., Marshall, M., Steger, 
R., Thompson, R. and Weil, E. (1989). Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian 
coastal marine communities. Science 243:37-44. 
Kenworthy, W.J.; Durako, M.J.; Fatemy, S.M.R.; Valavi, H., Thayer, G.W. (1993). Ecology of 
seagrasses in northeastern Saudi-Arabia one year after the Gulf war oil spill. Mar. Poll. 
Bull. 27, 213-222. 
Lanyon, J. (1986). 'Seagrasses of the Great Barrier Reef. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
Special Publication Series No. 3 (GBRMPA: Townsville). 54 pp. 
Lanyon, J.M., Limpus, C.J. and Marsh, H. (1989). Dugongs and turtles: grazers in the seagrass 
system. In 'Biology of Seagrasses'. A.W.D. Larkum, A.J. McComb and S.A. Shepherd (Eds). 
Elsevier: Amsterdam, New York. pp. 610-34. 
6 
.4074 
GBR Sea grasses - pressures and responses 
Larkum, A. W. D. (1996). Halophila capricomi (Hydrocharitaceae): a new species of seagrass from 
the Coral Sea. Aquatic Botany, (In press). 
Lee Long, W.J., Coles, R.G., Helmke, S.A. and Bennett, R.E. (1989). Seagrass habitats in coastal, 
mid shelf and reef waters from Lookout Point to Barrow Point in north-eastern Queensland, 
a report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Queensland Department of 
Primary Industries. 24 pp. 
Lee Long, W.J., Coles, R.G., Derbyshire, K.J., Miller, K.J. and Vidler, K.P. (1992). Seagrass beds 
and juvenile prawn and fish nursery grounds, Water Park Point to Hervey Bay, Queensland. 
Queensland Department of Primary Industries Information Series QI 92011. 
Lee Long, W.J., Mellors, J.E. and Coles, R.G. (1993). Seagrasses between Cape York and Hervey 
Bay, Queensland, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44(1), 
19-31. 
Lee Long, W.J., McKenzie, L.J. and Coles, R.G. (1996). Deepwater seagrasses in northeastern 
Australia - How deep, how meaningful? In: Seagrass Biology: Proceedings of an 
International Workshop. Rottnest Island, Western Australia, 25-29 January 1996. Eds. 
J. Kuo, R.C. Phillips, D.I. Walker and H. Kirkman. University of Western Australia. 
pp. 41-50. 
Marsh, H. and Saalfeld, W.K. (1989). Distribution and abundance of dugongs in the northern Great 
Barrier Reef Marine Park. Aust. Wildl. Res. 16:429-40. 
McKenzie, L. J. (1994): Seasonal changes in biomass and shoot characteristics of a Zostera 
capricomi Aschers. dominant meadow in Cairns Harbour, northern Queensland. Australian 
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45, 1337-1352. 
Mellors, J. E., Marsh, H. and Coles, R. G. (1993). Intra-annual changes in seagrass standing crop, 
Green Island, northern Queensland. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 
44, 33-42. 
Preen, A., Lee Long, W. J., and Coles, R. G. (1995). Flood and cyclone related loss, and partial 
recovery, of more than 1000 km2 of seagrasses in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. 
Aquatic Botany, 52:3-17. 
Preen, A. and Marsh, H. (1995). Response of dugongs to large-scale loss of seagrass from 
Hervey Bay, Australia. Wildlife Research 22:507-519. 
Shepherd, S.A., McComb, A.J., Bulthuis, D.A., Neverauskas, V., Steffensen, D.A. and West, 
R. (1989) Decline of Seagrasses. Chap. 12. In: Biology of Seagrasses, A treatise on the 
biology of seagrasses with special reference to the Australian region. 1st ed. (Eds: 
Larkum, A.W.D., McComb, A.J. and Shepherd, S.A.) Elsevier, Amsterdam, 346-393. 
7 
ce 
The Great Barrier Reef: Science, Use and Management 6 2-5--- 	 1 /9 
	 %um., as 
Session Two: Pressures and Effects on Great Barrier Reef Lagoon 
The effects of trawl fisheries on Great Barrier Reef seabed habitat 
Pitcher, C.R., Burridge, C.Y., Wassenberg, T.J. and Poiner, I.R. 
CSIRO Division of Marine Research, PO Box 120, Cleveland, Qld 4163. 
The non-reefal seabed area of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) accounts for about 95% of the 
Marine Park region and comprises many different types of habitats that support a great diversity 
of seagrasses, algae, seabed animals and fishes, some of which are commercially important and 
others that are rare and/or endangered. The GBR also supports a valuable prawn trawl fishery of 
about 900 vessels that earn about $60 million per year. However, in spite of the extent and 
importance of the non-reefal area, there have been few studies of the non-reefal seabed habitat. 
The few large scale studies of GBR seabed benthos have, nevertheless, yielded quite consistent 
patterns, showing that tF habitats and their flora and fauna are closely related to sediment type. 
The muddier areas tend to be the least diverse, whereas sandier and harder areas are more 
diverse with a more abundant fauna. Large epibenthos, which form living structural habitat 
attached to the seabed, usually are restricted to rubbly or rocky patches. Because of the habitat 
requirements of the fauna, there are distinct cross-shelf zones related to the change from 
terrigenous muddy sediments of the inshore lagoon through to coarse calcareous sediments of 
the offshore inter-reef. 
Most of the management issues for GBR seabed habitats are related to the effects of prawn 
trawling and these effects have been documented most comprehensively by a 5 year 
CSIRO/QDPI study in, and adjacent to, the Cross-Shelf Closure in the Far Northern Section of 
the GBR. The seabed and associated communities in the study area were described, then 
sampling was conducted to compare areas open and closed to trawling. There were few 
significant differences between the benthic communities in open and closed areas — but this 
should not be interpreted as a direct comparison of trawled vs untrawled areas because the 
inshore area of the closure was trawled before the closure, and some trawling has continued in 
this area. Also, much of the area open to trawling has not been trawled and effort is highly 
aggregated. Next, a Before-After-Control-Impact experiment was conducted, in which twelve 
2.7 x 1.2 km treatment plots were trawled entirely once-over and compared with control plots. 
Between 1-7 t of benthic material was removed from each treatment plot. Despite this obvious 
impact, there were few significant differences between the benthic communities in trawled plots 
and control plots. To determine the impact of intensive trawling on seabed benthos, a repeated-
trawl depletion experiment was conducted. Preliminary analyses indicated that each trawl 
removed roughly 5-20% of the available biomass of sessile benthos and that 12-13 trawls 
removed roughly 70-90% of the apparent initial biomass. These results show that the impacts of 
trawling may not be detectable in areas that are trawled sparsely or infrequently; however, the 
cumulative effect of frequent trawls over the same grounds may be substantial. 
Extension of these trawl impact results to the remainder of the GBR will require information on 
the distribution and dynamics of benthos communities as well as the distribution and intensity 
of trawler effort, at fine spatial scales (GPS resolution). This information will be essential for 
developing management strategies that ensure trawling is conducted in a manner consistent 
with the rinci les of ecolo icall sustainable develo ment. 
Trawling 
nets $150n1 
By COLLEEN DAVIS 
TRAWLING produced 10 times 
more bycatch than the amount of 
priwns and other target species. 
CS1RO marine researcher Roland 
Pitcher said yesterday. 
He was presenting a paper at 
the national Great Barrier Reef 
conference at James Cook Uni-
versity about the effects of prawn 
wling on GBR seabeds. 
— 
        
Dr Pitcher said trawling was a 
valuable fishery involving about 
900 boats and annual landings 
valued at S150 million .a year. 
About 7000 tonnes of prawns 
were caught annually, as well as 
about 1000 tonnes of scallops, he 
said. 
Continued Page 2 a7/0 
"Trawling is most extensive off Towns-
ville and Princess Charlotte Bay," Dr 
Pitcher said. 
He said there was evidence that prawn 
trawling had, and continued to have, direct 
impacts on the seabed. 
It had also changed the ecosystem. 
Although repeated trawls of an area 
caused significant damage, those areas that 
were trawled occasionally suffered only 
marginal damage. 
"The cumulative effects of trawling are 
substantial," Dr Pitcher said. 
"Research has cknionstrated that the 
impacts • of trawling depend on the 
intensity of trawling, and it is clear that 
trawl grounds are subjected to widely 
varying effort. 
"Further, the impacts of crawling 
probably depend on the type of7-,awl gear 
Dr Pitcher said researchers needed to 
look at rates of recovery of sez:ecis after 
trawling, and whether there was scope for 
different:::-,ategies of trawling. ivry 
"etta 
 
19 
     
        
–/2/'9Ce
------Pje-- 
GBR Conference— The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 
	 7.01.97 
ar p. 2) e, 
The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 
C. R. Pitcher, C. Y. Burridge, T. J. Wassenberg and I. R. Poiner 
CSIRO Division of Marine Research, PO Box 120, Cleveland, Qld. 4163, Australia 
Abstract 
The non-reefal seabed area of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) accounts for about 95% of the 
Marine Park region and comprises many different types of habitats. These seabed habitats 
support a great diversity of seagrasses, algae, seabed animals and fishes, some of which are 
commercially important while others are rare and/or endangered. The GBR also supports a 
valuable prawn trawl fishery of about 900 vessels that land catches worth about $150 million 
annually. However, despite of the extent and importance of the non-reefal area, there have been 
few studies of the non-reefal seabed habitat. - 
- 
The few large-scale studies of GBR seabed benthos have consistently showed that the habitats 
and their flora and fauna are related closely to sediment type. Muddier areas tend to be the least 
diverse, whereas sandier and harder substrata are more diverse and support a more abundant 
fauna. Large epibenthos, which form living structural habitats on the seabed, usually are 
restricted to rubbly or rocky patches. Because of the habitat requirements of the fauna. there are 
distinct cross-shelf zones related to the change from the terrigenous muddy sediments of the 
inshore lagoon to the coarse calcareous sediments of the offshore inter-reef. 
Most of the management issues for GBR seabed habitats are related to the effects of prawn 
trawling. These effects have been documented most comprehensively by a 5 year CSIRO/QDPI 
study in, and adjacent to, the Cross-Shelf Closure in the Far Northern Section of the GBR. The 
seabed and associated communities in the study area were described, then sampling was 
conducted to compare areas open and closed to trawling. There were few significant differences 
between the benthic communities in open and closed areas — but this should not be interpreted 
as a direct comparison of trawled vs untrawled areas because the inshore area of the closure was 
trawled before the closure, and some trawling has continued in this area. Also, given that fishing, 
effort is highly aggregated, much of the area open to trawling has not been trawled. A Before-
After-Control-Impact experiment was then conducted, in which twelve 2.7 x 1.2 km treatment 
plots were trawled entirely, once-over, and compared with control plots. Between 1-7 t of 
benthic material was removed from each treatment plot. Despite this obvious impact. there were 
few significant differences between the benthic communities in trawled plots and control plots. 
The impact of intensive repeated-trawling on seabed benthos was then determined by 
conducting a repeated-trawl depletion experiment. Preliminary analyses indicated that each 
trawl removed roughly 5-20% of the available biomass of sessile benthos and that 13 trawls 
removed roughly 70-90% of the apparent initial biomass. These results show that the impacts of 
prawn trawling may not be detectable in areas that are trawled sparsely or infrequently; 
however, the cumulative effect of frequent prawn trawls over the same grounds may be 
substantial. 
Extension of these trawl impact results to the remainder of the GBR will require information on 
the distribution and dynamics of benthos communities, as well as the distribution and intensity 
of prawn trawler effort at fine spatial scales (GPS resolution). This information will be essential 
for developing management strategies that ensure ecologically sustainability of the fishery and 
of the rich and diverse lagoon seabed fauna. 
1 
2 Sri>. 15 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
Introduction 
Most research in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has concentrated on coral reefs because of their 
visual appeal and accessibility in shallow water. However, the coral reefs themselves account 
for only about 5% of the region. The deeper water seabed areas between the reefs have been 
neglected (Hutchings 1990). This may be because they have been perceived as less 
"charismatic" than the coral reefs and certainly less obvious than the reefs, and because of the 
difficulties of working in the deeper
, seabed areas. As a consequence, little is known about the 
non-reefal seabed habitats and their faunal communities (Hutchings 1990). This meagre 
knowledge contrasts distinctly with the size and extent of the major user of these deeper seabed 
areas, ie. the prawn trawl fishery; as well as with the strong public perception that trawling 
damages the seabed environment; and with the magnitude of difficulties that managers face in 
addressing these issues in the absence of scientific knowledge (Zann 1995). It is commonly 
believed that the fauna living on the seabed are delicate in their structures and, in many areas of 
the GBR, they are exposed to trawling (Hutchings 1990). 
In this paper, we define the non-reefal seabed habitats and describe briefly the prawn trawl 
fishery as the main user of the seabed. We also identify the maaagement issues related to these 
habitats and summarise the available information on non-reefal habitats. Recent research on the 
impacts of trawling on these habitats in the GBR is described. Finally,-the implications of the 
scientific knowledge for addressing the management issues are discussed, and we identify the 
information needs. 
What are the GBR seabed habitats ? 
The non-reefal seabed habitats of the GBR encompass the relatively protected area between the 
outer barrier reefs and the Queensland coast. The entire area in the lee of the barrier reefs can be 
described as a lagoon (Mather and Bennett 1993); however, the inshore side of this area has 
relatively few coral reefs and is often referred to as the 
"main lagoon", whereas the offshore 
side has many coral reefs and the non-reef part is often referred to as the 
"inter-reef' area 
(Fig. 1, inset b). Together, the main lagoon and the inter-reef areas comprise the 
"GBR lagoon" 
and account for about 95% of the area of habitat of the GBR Marine Park region. In this paper, 
the term "GBR lagoon" will refer to the entire non-reefal area, unless the italicised terms 
defined above are specifically used. 
The GBR lagoon includes many different types of physical habitats, ranging from nearshore 
terrigenous muds, silts and sands through to offshore carbonate sands of various grades — all 
variably interspersed with rubbly and rocky cracks and patches, deep reefs and shoals with hard 
corals, and exposed areas of bedrock. These habitats support a great diversity of seabed 
(benthic) fauna: from the microscopic to macroscopic; meiofauna within the sediments to the 
large epibenthic structural organisms; sessile and mobile invertebrates; seagrasses and algae; 
and many species of fishes (Hutchings 1990). Some of these seabed organisms (benthos) are 
commercially important, particularly those targeted by prawn trawlers. These habitats are also 
used by rare and endangered vertebrate species (eg. turtles and dugongs). Despite the extent and 
importance of the lagoon seabed, however, our knowledge of the benthos is limited to only 4-5 
descriptive studies (see below) and there is no information on long term trends, which may 
indicate any alteration in the state of these habitats . 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
What is the nature of the trawl fishery ? 
The GBR Lagoon supports a valuable otter-trawl fishery, with about 900 boats and annual 
landings with a value of about $150 million (Queensland Fisheries Management Authority 
data). The boats are licensed to trawl from Cape York to the NSW border, but within this 
region, most effort is concentrated in Princess Charlotte Bay, the Townsville region, and 
Moreton Bay. In the cross-shelf axis, effort is concentrated in the main lagoon, but also extends 
into the offshore inter-reef at some latitudes (Hutchings 1990). Penaeid prawns are the primary 
target species group (with –7,000 t landed per annum). Scallops (-1,000 t), sand crabs, scyllarid 
lobsters, squid, and a few fin-fish species are also landed (QFMA data). All vessels are required 
to complete a daily logsheet of catch and effort, using a 30 minute grid reference. 
The target species are caught by dragging otter trawl nets (typically "quad-gear", comprising 4 
nets with a combined foot-rope length of –44 m) across the seabed. In the process, many other 
seabed organisms, both mobile and sessile are caught and/or damaged — these are called 
bycatch (Zann- 
 :1995). There have been many anecdotal reports and a few scientific studies that 
have demo–ristr-ated that prawn trawl nets remove benthos. However, the overall ecological 
significance of this impact is not yet clear. 
What are the management issues ? 
The management issues for lagoon seabed habitats are driven primarily by the need to manage 
their sustainable multiple use (by prawn trawlers, tourism, line fishery, shipping, and 
conservation interests). There is also an obligation to report on their status and World Heritage 
Values, and a requirement for feedback on the goals and objectives of the GBR 25-year 
Strategic Plan (GBRMPA 1994). Questions that arise about management of the seabed include: 
What are the pressures and impacts on these habitats? What are the ongoing impacts? Is 
biodiversity being lost? Do impacts differ in different seabed habitats? What is the distribution 
and intensity of habitat use? How should the lagoonal and inter-reefal areas be classified for 
representative marine protected areas? How should the zoning system be reviewed to manage 
seabed areas to maintain biodiversity? — currently the lagoon seabed is not well represented in 
protected areas of the GBR. Should some currently unprotected areas be set aside in reserves? If 
so, how should they be selected? For impacted areas, what kind of recovery can be expected, 
and over what time period? The underlying problem is that there is insufficient scientific 
knowledge available to answer these questions and manage the related issues. 
The activity most likely to have significant impacts on GBR seabed benthos is prawn trawling 
(Hutchings 1990). This is because there is an extensive prawn trawl fishery operating in the 
lagoon, and the available evidence suggests that there have been, and continue to be, direct 
impacts on the lagoon seabed habitat due to prawn trawling, as well as indirect changes to other 
components of the ecosystem (eg. trophic structures). Consequently, most of the management 
issues for lagoon benthos are related to the effects of prawn trawling on the seabed (Zann 1995). 
Confounding the issue is that very little is known about the distribution, composition and status 
of the lagoon habitats. 
The impacts of prawn trawling on seabed habitats and the benthic communities they support is 
an important issue (Zann 1995). This is because of the indirect effects on target species (eg. 
through impacts on predator or prey species, or habitat) and indirect effects on other valuable 
species (eg. commercial or recreational finfish species), and direct but more general 
environmental effects and conservation issues (eg. destruction of structural habitat, loss of 
biodiversity, loss of rare and/or endangered species). 
GBR Conference— The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
What is known about the GBR seabed habitats ? 
The fauna of the seabed are classified broadly by their relationships with the substratum and 
their size (Gray 1981, Longhurst and Pauly 1987). Animals living on the seabed are known as 
epifauna (or epibenthos) and animals living in the sediment are known as infauna. Animals 
washed through a 1 mm sieve from a grab sample are meiofauna, whereas those retained are 
macrofauna (or macrobenthos). Animals too large to be properly sampled by a 0.1 m 2 grab are 
megafauna (or megabenthos) and those firmly attached to the substratum are sessile. 
Previous studies of GBR seabed benthos, with significant spatial coverage, include the 
following: 
Birtles and Arnold (1983 and 1988) used a 1.6 m epibenthic dredge to sample inter-reefal 
epibenthos during a series of integrated studies at up to —90 sites, on a roughly 8 n. mile 
grid off Townsville, at various intensities between 1977 and 1983. Most sites were in the 
main lagoon area, between the coast and the reef-matrix, a few sites were sampled on the 
outer half of the shelf, in the offshore inter-reefal area. 
Cannon, Goeden and Campbell (1987) conducted classification and ordination analyses of 
prawn trawl bycatch (including macro- and mega-benthos and fishes) from two of a series 
of seven exploratory prawn trawl surveys in three main areas of the GBR. Samples were 
collected primarily with 2 m prawn try-shot nets at about 230 siteS between 1979 and 1982. 
Although providing significant latitudinal coverage, most sampling was unstructured, with 
the objective of identifying new commercial prawning grounds. 
Jones and Derbyshire (1987), Watson and Goeden (1989), and Watson et al. (1990) used 
commercial prawn trawl gear to sample fauna at monthly intervals in up to 24 sites 
distributed from the inshore, across the main lagoon, into the offshore inter-reef matrix, over 
a —1°x1° region off Townsville in 1985 and 1986. 
Coles et al. (1996) conducted a video survey over —4' of latitude north of Cairns, primarily 
for broad-scale mapping of seagrass. Sediment, algae and epibenthic meg.afauna were 
recorded also. The sampling strategy for the survey was to divide the region into 15-minute-
of-latitude blocks and select a cross-shelf transect at random from each block. Each transect 
was divided into 1 n. mile segments and a randomly placed video transect —100-300 long 
was conducted in each segment. 
These studies of GBR seabed benthos consistently showed that the physical habitats. and the 
flora and fauna associated with them, are strongly influenced by sediment type (ie. the 
continuum through mud, sand, rubble and rock). These patterns were similar to the typical 
patterns previously described for the ecology of the seabed (see reviews by Gray 1981 for soft 
seabed; also Longhurst and Pauly 1987). The GBR studies focussed on the larger animals living 
on the seabed, ie. the macrobenthos, and in many cases just the subset of species sampled as 
bycatch in prawn trawls. This epifauna has high species richness — typically 700+ species 
would be found in a representative set of samples from the GBR. The infauna was not included 
in these GBR studies, but similar work in adjacent regions (eg. Gulf of Carpentaria, Long and 
Poiner 1994) showed that tropical infauna also has high species richness — again, typically 
700+ species larger than —1 mm, and at least as many < 1 mm. It is likely that the infauna would 
have similar richness in a representative series of samples from the lagoon in any section of the 
GBR. 
The GBR studies showed that the least diverse areas had muddier sediments. where the 
dominant animals were deposit feeders. Sandier and harder areas tended to be more diverse, at 
least partly because of the greater range of physical habitats. The fauna of harder areas were also 
4 
s(ps 6) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
more abundant, and the dominant animals were filter feeders, scavengers or carnivores. The 
megabenthic epifauna, which form living structural habitat attached to the seabed, generally 
were restricted to rubbly or rocky patches, or areas where the bedrock or coarse substrata were 
exposed by fast currents. Such patterns are also typical of other regions (eg. Torres Strait: 
Pitcher et al. 1992; Gulf of Carpentaria: Long and Poiner 1994, Long et al. 1995). 
The physical habitat requirements of inter-reefal benthos are responsible for the distinct cross-
shelf zonation of benthic fauna in the GBR, related to the change from terrigenous muddy 
sediments of the inshore lagoon through to coarse calcareous sediments of the offshore inter-
reef. Typically, multivariate analyses separated the fauna into three main groups: inshore 
lagoon, offshore inter-reef, and a mid-shelf lagoon transition area. This zonation was apparent in 
all the GBR studies, although the composition of the species groups among the different studies 
has not been examined for consistency. Only one of the studies (Cannon et al. 1987) compared 
samples from a range of latitudes (-12°S to -18°S) and showed an overlapping continuum 
rather than discrete groupings of (prawn trawl bycatch) faunal variation. However, the authors 
treated this result with caution due to their unstructured sampling strategy. 
G7,11 
I CP. (a) 
Far Northern 
Section — 
Cross Shelf 
Closure 
(b) 
12°S - 
( ) 
Australia 
Queensland 
Fig. 1. Map of the cross-shelf closure and adjacent areas open to trawling in the Far Northern 
Section of the Great Barrier Reef (a). The entire area between the coast and the ribbon 
of outer barrier reefs is the lagoon, although the outer shelf area among the reef matix is 
often termed the inter-reefal area (shaded in inset b) and the inshore area with few reefs 
is often termed the main lagoon (not shaded in inset b). Insets (b) and (c) show the 
location of the study area relative to Queensland and Australia. 
In 1992-93, CSIRO and QDPI used commercial fish and prawn trawls, a 3 m epibenthic dredge, 
a video sled and a grab, to sample fish, prawns and benthos at >150 stations in the Far Northern 
Section of the Great Barrier Reef. The stations were distributed representatively, from the coast 
to the outer barrier, throughout the -1'x 1 ° area of the cross-shelf closure and adjacent open 
•• 0 
n • 
Cape York s:13. 
Peninsula 
5 
0 
0 S(A.ENS 
CEPHA_O., 
I 	 CRUS-ACEATFC.', 
Cq;NO;D ; 
c\. 
Cr) 	
B;vALvA0 	
ALC voNeA:  
0 0 1-- 
''JA:I=ER A 
ASC.D.A, 
	
0 3R,OZOA 
-OLOTH, 
0 GORGON , A 
- 1 h 
HYDRC.:ZCA 
2L 
- 2 	 2 
cN 	 < < 	 < < (f) 	 < 
0 
	
< 	 < 0 
< 
<0 
-2 
(b) 
(Pk 7A4) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
zones (Fig. 1; Blaber et al. 1993 and 1994). Note that stations were restricted to trawlable, or 
semi-trawlable ground. The patterns documented for epibenthic dredge fauna were similar to 
those of previous studies, with cluster analyses of sites by taxa showing three main cross-shelf 
groupings. These patterns are shown more informatively by a two-dimensional plot of the 
ordination of sites by taxa (Fig. 2a), which shows relatively close grouping of inshore sites, 
clearly separated from offshore sites, and with midshelf sites scattered mostly in between. 
Offshore sites were much more heterogeneous in composition than inshore sites. Ordination of 
high-level taxa by sites (Fig. 2b), clearly showed different cross-shelf distributions. The 
echinoids and bivalves were much more abundant inshore, whereas the ophiuroids, crinoids and 
zoanthids were much more abundant offshore. Other groups of taxa showed a range of patterns 
in between. Different species within each high-level group of taxa sometimes had quite different 
cross-shelf patterns of abundance to the group as a whole and these details are currently being 
analysed. As with the other GBR studies, these patterns were correlated with depth, sediment 
and carbonate content. 
Part of the CSIRO/QDPI study focussed on the large (mega) benthic epifauna (ie. sponges, 
gorgonians, seawhips, soft corals, hard corals), because of their contribution to biodiversity, 
importance as structural habitat for other organisms, and vulnerability to trawl impact. These 
megabenthos were very patchily distributed at several scales and tended to have many other 
organisms associated with them (eg. fishes, holothurians, crinoids, echinoids, asteroids, 
molluscs etc), in addition to the sessile fauna themselves. The megabenthic patches represented 
islands of high diversity surrounded by extensive areas of sand and silt almost devoid of 
megabenthos. Where megabenthos did occur, they generally were confined to slightly raised 
harder substrata in offshore areas, and the occurrence of such substrata was often <5% in video 
transects. Typically, these patches were 1-10 m across and were separated by 10-100 m (Fig. 3), 
but were highly variable. 
vDS 1 
Fig. 2. Multidimensional scaling plots of (a) dissimilarities of sites, by taxa. inshore sites (3). 
midshelf sites (n) offshore sites (4), and (b) dissimilarities of high-level taxa, by 
stations. Note, the MDS1 axis corresponds primarily with inshore to offshore 
orientation, left to right. 
MDS 
6 
Be
n
th
os
  c
o
de
  
9 - 
8 - 
7 
5 
4 - 
3 - 
2 - 
- 
0 
ID IP 
,1n/•n••• 
	 1•n• • 
	 •M• 	 4,0 	 OMEN 	 MI 
a 	 M•1=1.1•11= 
MM. 41••• 
1  
11 • 
(b) 
Be
n
th
os
  c
o
de
  
srp 8') 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
(a) 
27 5 	 27.6 	 277 	 278 279 28.0 . 281 	 28.2 283 284 285 	 28.6 	 28.7 	 28.8 	 28.9 	 290 	 291 
9 
8 
7 
6 11•n• • 	 • • M• 
5 • • 	 • • • • • • I. 
4 
3 
2 
252 	 253 	 25.4 	 255 	 256 	 25.7 	 25.8 25.9 
	 260 261 	 26.2 	 26.3 26.4 265 
	 266 257 	 268 
Longitude (143 0 
 minutes) 
Fig.3. Distribution of major benthos types in -2.8 km long coded video transects along (a) 
shallow (-20 m) shoaling seabed and (b) deeper (-35 m) seabed in the midshelf of the 
Cross Shelf Closure. Codes: 1=silt/sand, 2=rubble, 3=algae, 4=shell beds, 5=patches of 
seawhips and gorgonians, 6=5+sponges, 7=6+hard corals, 8=rocks, 9=reef. The multiple 
scales of patchiness of benthos are clearly apparent. 
What are the documented effects of prawn trawling on seabed habitats ? 
The effects of prawn trawling have been documented most comprehensively by a 
recent 5 year study conducted by CSIRO and QDPI in the Cross-Shelf Closure 
("Green Zone") and adjacent open areas in the Far Northern Section of the GBR 
(Fig. 1). One aspect of this study was to measure the impact of prawn trawling on 
seabed communities. This was examined in three ways: 
by surveying the cross-shelf closure and comparing the species composition and 
abundance with that in adjacent areas north and south that were open to 
prawn trawling; 
by conducting a Before-After-Control-Impact experiment in the mid-shelf 
section of the area closed to prawn trawling, to determine the impact of a single 
trawl per unit area; 
by conducting a repeated trawl depletion experiment on selected tracks in the 
mid-shelf section of the area closed to prawn trawling. 
The study area was initially sampled to describe the seabed and associated 
communities. This survey provided the distributional information described in the 
previous section (Fig. 2) and the statistical information needed for designing the 
subsequent studies. 
7 
6 
0 2. 0_ 
0 
C.) 
(a) 
2_ 
-2 
• 
• 
• 
y • 
• 
•• 
A n 
• 
AV 	 • • 
• 	 I 
• 	 AI 
A 	 ;Ay 11 B71 v. 	 t •  
I•1. 	 • 	 I 
1 I. TO y A • 	 • 	 • 
" 
lily 
. I• • 
I 
•
• 
# • v. 
A • - 
( b ) 
6_ 
a 517)• f`) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
Open vs Closed Comparisons 
Sampling was conducted to compare the demersal communities of prawns, fishes, 
benthos, and bycatch species in the "Green Zone" and adjacent areas open to prawn 
trawling (Blaber et al. 1994). Power analysis was used in designing a survey that 
could detect 10-fold differences between open and closed areas. Prawn trawls, fish 
trawls, epibenthic dredge and video sled were used to sample 166 stations. 
However, the results presented here are only for the benthos communities sampled 
by -15 minute tows of the 3 m epibenthic dredge at each station.. 
More than 700 benthic taxa, weighing 6-7 t, were collected. Many of these showed 
significant cross-shelf patterns of abundance due to differences in physical habitat, 
as summarised in Fig. 2. Analysis of variance indicated that only seven taxa 
differed significantly between the "Green Zone" and adjacent areas open to 
trawling, and that only two of these were more abundant in the "Green Zone" — 
this was less than expected by chance alone. Principal component analysis of 
stations by abundant species (those prez-. .Tii, at more than 60 stations, Fig. 4a) and 
by common species (those present at more than 20 stations, Fig. 4b) showed no 
clear separation of "Green Zone" stations from open zone stations. The first 
principle component axis also shows the inshore-offshore separation identified in 
Fig. 2. The direction and magnitudes of differences between the closed and open 
areas are summarised most concisely by frequency distributions of the log of the 
ratio of species abundances in the closed and open zones (Fig. 5). A log-ratio value 
of +1 would indicate 10 times higher abundance in the "Green Zone" and a value of 
-1 would indicate 10 times lower abundance in the open zone. Clearly, the 
abundance of most species differed little between the two zones, and the mean of 
the frequency distributions is close to zero — in fact, there were a few more species 
slightly more abundant in the open zone, but the means of the distributions were 
not significantly different from zero. 
• A 	 g 
Z.. 	 4 i A •1 	
• 
• 
AVIV • 1 • i g a 	 V 	 il A J O M 'I : 
• A 
	
r e. i 
	
•• A%  
' 1. 	 I, . AY • 2 li Is: • ;,, 
'ILI 74 m*. A : 
• 
A 
• 	 • 
-6_ 
6 	 -2 	 2 
First principal component 
6 	 -6 -2 	 2 
First principal component 
6 
Fig. 4. Principal component analyses of sites in open and closed areas for (a) very common 
species present at more than 60 stations, and (b) common species present at more than 
20 stations. Symbols: =closed area, A=open area north, V=open area south. 
The comparisons of the "Green Zone" with adjacent areas open to trawling showed 
that, at this scale and resolution, there were few significant differences between the 
benthic communities of the closed and open areas. However, these results should 
8 
 0 Common 
Abundant 
1E:3 	  Closed 
.............................. 
Ooen 
1.3 
1.1] 
0.9 
0.7 
0.5 	  
0.3 
0.1 
    
   
0 Common 
Abundant 
   
Closed 
    
    
    
-0 . 1 
-0.3 
-0.5 ',0M1.§0i• 
-0.7 
-0.9 
-1.1 3 
-1.3 
Open 
07 S(") .10) 
GBR Conference - The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
not be interpreted as indicating that prawn trawling has no impact, because there 
was not a direct comparison of trawled vs untrawled areas. It is known that the 
inshore area of the closure was trawled before the declaration of the closure and 
some trawling has continued in this area. Further, in the area open to trawling 
much of the trawling is highly aggregated and some areas are rarely if ever trawled 
(Gribble and Robertson 1996). 
1.3 
1.1 
0.9 
0.7 
0.5 
o 03 
ys: 0.1 
-j -0.3 
-0.5 
-0.7 
-0.9 
-1.1 
-1.3 
a)  (b) 
0 	 5 	 10 	 15 	 20 	 25 	 30 	 35 	 0 	 5 	 10 	 15 	 20 	 25 	 30 
Frequency 
	
Frequency 
Fig. 5. Frequency distributions of the log of the ratio of species abundances in the closed and 
open zones (a) by weights and (b) by numbers, showing the direction and magnitudes of 
differences. 
Before-After-Control-Impact Experiment 
The next phase of the study was to conduct a controlled trawling experiment where 
defined plots of seabed were sampled before half of them were trawled entirely, 
once-over, then all plots were sampled again after 6 months (Pitcher and Thomas 
1992). This is known as a Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) experiment. The 
experiment was intended to simulate prawn trawlers moving into new mid-shelf 
inter-reefal areas to target high-value red-spot prawns and the situation for 
grounds that are not trawled intensively (ie. the majority of the area of GBR trawl 
grounds). The size of the experimental plots had to be large to be relevant to the 
scale of commercial prawn trawling operations and the movement patterns of 
fishes, prawns and other non-sessile organisms, yet small enough to permit 
sufficient replicate plots to be established. Due to the need for "before" sampling, 
the experiment could not be designed to answer questions about past impacts in 
previously trawled grounds. Also, due to the scale of plots required to assess 
impacts on mobile species, the experiment could not address the situation 
represented by the relatively small areas of very intensively trawled grounds. 
Power analysis was used to design the experiment to detect, with >80% power, 
order-of-magnitude decreases in the abundance of most benthic groups because this 
was at least the effect-size expected from previous research and anecdotal reports. 
The final design was for 24 plots of seabed, each 2.7 x 1.2 km to accommodate 
replicate sampling trawl-shots. The optimum number of stations to sample within 
each plot was estimated by cost-benefit analysis, for both the before and after time 
periods, at -3 stations per plot. The experiment was split into two phases started at 
different times of the year to counter seasonal differences in the biology of 
organisms and uncontrollable environmental risk factors (eg. cyclones, ENSO). 
9 
Fig. 6. Design and timeline for the before and after sampling, and manipulation (arrows), of 
shallow and deep plots in phases 1 and 2 of the BACI experiment. 
(a) 	 (b) 
199311994 
	
=Es ci 	 o 19941 Nil r=1 
	 C3 
	
Shallow r=01. 	 Ei CI 	 CI 
Phase 2 
	
=so 	 No 
t=1 	 =I E=111111 	 1101 ED 	 i= Deep  
Fl 
=mu 	 EN 
	
Before 24 
	 After 2 
a STP• it) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
There were two main types of trawlable ground in the area and trawling was 
simulated in both. They were deeper areas (35-50 m) where almost all ground 
within the plot could be trawled, and shallower areas (17-25 m) containing patches 
within the plot that were too rough to trawl. The factors and sampling hierarchy 
for this design were: 
2 x Seasons (wet and dry) 
2 x Habitats (shallow and deep) 
2 x Impact (trawled and un-trawled) 
2 x Time (before and after) 
3 x Plots (replicates, a total of 24) 
3 x stations, a total of 144 stations. 
Establishing the BACI Experiment involved searching large areas with a video 
camera on a towed sled to locate appropriate plots of seabed for the experiment. 
The plots needed to include benthic structure because the experiment was intended 
to assess the impacts on benthic structure, of establishing new prawn trawl 
groundS-
. Once established, all plots were sampled before the impact by using fish 
trawls, prawn trawls, a benthic dredge and a video sled. The treatment phase 
involved two trawlers using heavy exploratory type gear. Approximately 45 hours 
of trawler effort was required to trawl each of the 12 impact plots entirely, once-
over. All material retained in the nets was recorded. Differential GPS was used for 
accurate positioning of adjacent trawl tracks. All plots were sampled again 6 
months after the impact, using the same methods. The design and timing of 
sampling for the experiment is shown in Fig. 6. 
Phase 1 
Before 1+ 
	 After 1 
I= 	 I= 
=III 	 EN 
Shallow (= EMI 
	
CI IN O 	 O 
=III 	 Es 
01•1 
El III 1  Deep 
10 
GBR Conference - The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
8000 T 
                
7000 - 
-a 6000 
-0
▪ 
 
• 
5000 - 
> 
• 
4000 
g 3000 
eD 2000 - 
m 
         
Ascideans 
Echinoderms 
Bivalves 
0 Corals 
o Alcyonarians 
Gorgonians 
0 Hydroids 
0 Sponge 
Algae 
1 
    
               
               
               
               
               
               
i 	 1 ! 
4 	 6 	 9 	 14 	 18 	 21 
Plot Number 
      
      
      
1000 - 
  
, JE1 In 7 
2 	 8 	 12 	 15 
	
19 	 24 
Plot number 
 
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
Fig. 7. Amount of benthic material, by major benthic class, removed by trawl gear from each of 
the (a) shallow and (b) deep experimental plots, during the manipulation of the BACI 
experiment. 
During the treatment phase, almost 40 t of benthos material Avas removed from all 
12 trawled plots (Fig. 7). Of this, about 32 tonnes came from the 6 shallow plots 
(equivalent to -13 kg/Ha) and the amount from each shallow plot varied between 
2-7 t. About 6 tonnes came from the 6 deep plots (equivalent to -2.5 kg/Ha) and the 
amount from each plot varied between 1/2-11/2 t. Despite this obvious indication of 
some impact, and that the power of the experiment met the design criteria, few of 
the estimated impacts for benthos were significant (Table 1; Burridge et al. 1996). 
Direct observations of structural habitat also showed little change. Clearly, the 
impact of a single trawl per unit area was less than one order-of-magnitude. 
Table 1. Estimates of impact (from log-weights) for benthic classes in benthic dredge and 
prawn trawl. Shaded cells highlight negative effects, ie. abundance of benthic class 
decreased in treatment plots relative to controls, but all estimates were not significant. 
except perhaps one borderline case (bolded cell - estimated impact effect with a 
probability level for a t-test 0.05<=p<0.01). 
CLASS Dredge: 
Impact after 6 
months 
Prawn Trawl: 
Impact after 6 
months 
Combined: 
Impact after 6 
months 
Prawn Trawl: 
Impact after 
12 months 
Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Est. S.E. Est. 	 S.E. 
Algae 
-0.01 0.22 0.33 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.21 
Ascidians 
-0.02 0.25 0.04 0.44 0.01 0.25 0.41 0.44 
Asteroids 0.15 
 0.31 0.24 0.33 0.20 0.23 0.27 0.33 
Bivalves 
-0.27 0.33 0.55 0.36 0.14 0.24 0.42 0.36 
Bryozoans -0.03 0.21  0.56 0.31 0.27 0.19 0.13 0.31 
Cephalopods 0.28 0.24 0.19 
 	 0.30 0.24 0.19 -0.11 0.30 
Crinoids 
-0.18 0.18 -0.05 
 0.27 
	
 -0.12 0.76 	  -0.13 0.27 
Crustaceans 
-0.23 0.16 0.07 0.21 0.1.3 0.19 0.21 
Echinoids 
-0.12 	  0.30 -0.01 0.29 -0.07 0.21 0.46 0.29 
Gastropods -0.35 0,21 0.21 0.27 -0.07 0.1 7 0•25 0.27 
Holothurians 0.32 
 	 0.33 0.39 0.34 0.36 0.24 0.07 0.34 
Hydrozoans 
-0.06 0,21 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.17 0.11 0.26 
Marine plants -0.04 0.24 -0.26 0.23 -0.15 0.17 -0.28 0.23 
11 
Octocorallians 0.04 0.30 0.31 0.29 
Ophiuroids 0.09 0.16 
Sponges 0.07 0.31 0.41 0.46 
Zoantharians 0.16 0.22 04.1 
0.24 0.28 0.67 
0.37 
0.46 
0.41 
0.18 	 0.21 
CLASS 
Algae 
.clalaIls .., 
Asteroids 
Bivalves 
ryozoax 
 
Cephalopods 
Crinoids 
Crustaceans 
Echinoids 
Gastropods 
Holothurians 
Hydrozoans 
Marine plants 
tocoralljai 
 
Ophiuroids 
ages 
Zoantharjans 
	  
Dredge 
kg/ha 
density 
Trawl 
kg/ha 
density 
42.16 0.09 
14.85 0.26 
159.69 0.89 
0.43 0.21 
10.95 0.18 
3.19 1.28 
1.30 0.03 
1.42 0.07 
9.65 0.49 
1 
0.24 0.01 
Trawls 
% of 
Dredge 
< 1 
2 
<1 
<1 
48 
2 
40 
3 
5 
5 
<I 
4 
11 
9 
Dredge Trawl Dredge Trawl 
presenc presenc weight weight 
96 
92 	 82 
97 	 63 
21 
29 
94 
98 
74 
83 
74 
75 
92 
84 
48 5 
73 52 
90 <1 
84 4 
99 1 
30 <1 
52 <1 
58 3 
62 1 
7 <1 
3 
80 1 
3 
3 
18 
<1 
1 
7 
<1 
12 
4 
<1 
14 Sitt*''"... 
2 	 1 . 85 
17.71 
0" 
2 .. 
TOTAL 	 339.70 	 7.14 	 2.10 
 
2 
 
8 
99 	 94 	 14 
a SIP . if 3) 
GBR Conference - The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
A further indication of the magnitude of the impact of a single prawn trawl in 
terms of removal of benthic organisms comes from comparisons of the relative 
"efficiency" of the prawn trawl versus the dredge (Table 2). Comparisons of three 
information types (ie. the frequency of stations where each benthic class was 
observed, the composition of the benthos, and the estimated catch density per 
swept area) suggested that the dredge was more efficient at removing benthos than 
the prawn trawl (Burridge et al. 1996). Most benthic classes were caught more 
frequently in the dredge than in the prawn trawl; the composition of the benthos 
from the prawn trawl was biased towards larger benthic fauna (64%; sponges, 
crustaceans, zoantharians and octocorallians) compared with the dredge (14%); and 
the estimated density of most benthic classes from the prawn trawl was only -5% of 
that from the dredge. Overall, the prawn trawl caught -7 kg,/}la whereas the 
dredge caught -340 kg/Ha, but the prawn trawl does not appear to have an equal 
impact on all classes of benthos - at least in terms of what it removes. Assuming 
the dredge catch was a reliable indicator of the actual density of benthos on the 
seabed, Table 2 gives an indication of the amount of each class that would be 
removed by a single pass of the trawl nets. For example, about 5% of the sponges 
would be removed. 
Table 2. Comparisons of the sampling properties and benthos densities estimated by the 
epibenthic dredge and prawn trawl. Column headers: % presence = proportion of sites 
where benthic class was sampled by gear type; % weight = proportion of total weight of 
samples made up by each benthic class by gear type; kg/ha density = total catch of 
benthic class divided by estimated swept area (hectares). Sessile benthos are highlighted 
with shading. 
12 
400 400 SOO I COO 
COO SOO 000 SOO SOO 
1000 OCO 
• 	
• 
- . 
2s-0)
- 10 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
i:SUB;Total.S6WW en  
It is arguable that the amount of material actually removed is irrelevant because 
the prawn trawl could damage much of the material that the ground-gear touches, 
without actually removing it. However, severely damaged organisms would have 
died and decayed in the time between the treatment and the after-sampling. If this 
effect was large, it should have been detected by the BACI experiment. The fact 
that it was not, suggests that only an unmeasureable fraction was severely 
damaged, and left in situ, during the manipulation. 
Repeated -Trawl Depletion Experiment 
A repeated-trawl depletion experiment was also conducted to determine the 
intensity of prawn trawling that would cause a substantial impact' on the sessile 
benthos; to place the results of the BACI experiment in perspectiv-2 -and to 
document the rate of impact of intensive trawling on seabed benthos (CSIRO/QDPI 
unpubl.). The repeated trawls were conducted on six 2.7 km tracksfrom within the 
BACI plots, for which there was detailed information about their "before" status. 
Each track was trawled 13 times over, with precise vessel navigation accomplished 
using differential GPS. The overall width of the trawled area in each track was -35 
m, compared with the width of the trawl gear at -17 m. A central area of 10-15 m 
wide in all tracks was trawled at least 10 times (Fig. 8). 
Along track dimensions (m) 
Fig. 8. Spatial distribution and intensity of repeated trawls on the depletion tracks. Note 
different scales that exaggerate cross-track dimensions. Actual tracks were almost 
straight; bends indicate waypoints through which the trawler had to pass. 
In the process of conducting the depletion experiment, about 2.25 t of sessile 
benthos was removed from the six tracks, corresponding to -55 kg/Ha. Preliminary 
Leslie-Davis regression analyses of the biomass of sessile megabenthos removed by 
each repeated trawl and recorded on the trawler during the experiment (Fig. 9), 
indicated that the rate of removal of sessile benthos (= slope) by each trawl was 
roughly 5-20% of the estimated available biomass and that 13 trawls removed 
roughly 70-90% of the estimated initial trawlable biomass (= x-intercept). The 
biomass of benthos and depletion rate varied substantially among tracks (Fig. 9) 
13 
SIP* is) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
and only one track (on Plot 18) did not shown a significant overall depletion trend 
during the experiment. Note that at the time of writing, these are oversimplified 
results based on incomplete data, and that more detailed analyses in progress are 
indicating that the results are much more complex, with depletion rates differing 
within and among different types of organisms (CSIRO Report in prep.). 
Preliminary estimations, based on raw depletion data, indicated that initial sessile 
benthos biomass was in the range -130 kg to -710 kg per track, an average of -470 
kg, which corresponded to -70 kg/Ha (depending on preliminary estimates of the 
effective area of the tracks). These biomass density estimates contrast with a 
biomass of -95 kg/Ha from the dredge during the BACI experiment (Table 2). If the 
dredge biomass can be used as an approximation of the actual benthos biomass, 
this suggests that -25 kg/Ha of benthos was more resistant to removal by prawn 
trawls. In this case, the -55 kg/Ha of benthos removed by the depletion trawls, 
which was 70-90% of the apparent (x-intercept) biomass, may have been only -60% 
of the actual benthos biomass on the seabed. This result concurs with remote video 
observations that suggest some fauna (eg. some gorgonians and seawhips) are very - 
resilient to removal. The results from the more rigorous analyses in progress will 
differ in detail, although we anticipate that the overall implications will be similar. 
14 
9 
140 
120 
100 
80 L. 
_c 
60 
CO 
o 40 ; 
20 7 
0 	  
140 r 
120 
100 
80 
_c 
60 
CO 
40 
20 r 
0 	  
Plot 18 
spos/4) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
(a) Shallow Plots 
	 (b) Deep Plots 
CD 
CO 
C.) 
1 4 0 7 
120 '7 	 Plot 21 
100 - 
80 ; 
60 
4C - 
20 - 
C 	  
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 
Cumulative catch (kg) 	 Cumulative catch (kg) 
Fig. 9. Leslie-Davis Plots of the depletion of sessile benthic classes (see shaded taxa in Table 2) 
on (a) three shallow tracks and (b) three deep tracks, all trawled repeatedly 12-13 times 
(• = catch data included in regression; * = data excluded). 
Conclusions about the Effects of Prawn Trawling 
Clearly, prawn trawling can degrade the state of the inter-reefal benthos and 
despite the absence of long-term data sets to confirm trends, anecdotal reports, 
circumstantial evidence and, extension of these research results, suggest that there 
have indeed been changes. The CSIRO/QDPI experiments showed that the 
cumulative effect of high intensity prawn trawling is likely to be substantial on 
epibenthos in species rich offshore areas, but the impacts may not be detectable in 
areas that are trawled infrequently or sparsely. This result is important because 
the intensity of trawling is not uniform; some areas are trawled intensively, but 
large areas are trawled only occasionally or sparsely. The experiments could not be 
designed to answer questions about past impacts in previously trawled grounds on 
soft sediments of the main lagoon, especially smaller infauna. These lagoonal soft 
sediment fauna may, however, be less vulnerable to trawling. Because the intensity 
of trawling and impacts in soft sediments are poorly known, the overall significance 
of trawling effects on the GBR ecosystem is not yet fully clear. To determine 
whether the impacts of trawling on benthos are sustainable, more information is 
required on the distribution and dynamics of benthos communities, the spatial 
distribution and intensity of prawn trawl effort (at much finer scales than presently 
15 
.? 5 (p.17) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
collected) in the GBR region, as well as information on the vulnerability of soft 
sediment fauna. 
What is the significance of this knowledge to management ? 
The scientific knowledge has affirmed the value of the lagoonal and inter-reefal 
seabed habitat, in terms of the high biodiversity of seabed benthos communities 
(with sponges in particular having a high level of endemism — Hooper and Levi 
1994), the support of significant representatives of marine biological evolutionary 
history, and provision of habitat for many other organisms, including fishes 
(Hutchings 1990). Some fauna are also valuable for the bio-prospecting industries. 
Current zoning plans are focussed on and around the offshore reefs, but research 
has shown that inter-reefal communities have cross-shelf trends in composition 
that should be taken into account in strategic planning for conservation of 
repzQ..sentative communities. Latitudinal trends, though poorly known, are likely to 
exist (Hutchings 1990) and should also be taken into account. To meet strategic 
planning objectives, mapping and inventories of the GBR seabed benthos are 
required for regionalisation/zonation studies. These should target large scale 
latitudinal trends but must also account for cross-shelf patteins. 
The documented information on the impacts of prawn trawling should be adopted 
by developing management strategies that ensure exploitation of prawn resources 
is conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable 
development. These impacts are not simple, as research has demonstrated that the 
impacts of trawling depend on the intensity of trawling and it is clear that trawl 
grounds are subjected to widely varying effort. The impacts of trawling also depend 
on the physical habitat and the question still remains "...what have been the 
impacts in previously and intensively trawled grounds in the main lagoon?" 
Particularly in softer sediments, as opposed to structured habitat patches. To 
properly address this question, information will be needed on fine-scale distribution 
of trawl effort (GPS resolution) so that sampling can be designed to cover a range of 
trawl-intensities and control for natural differences in habitat. Further, the 
impacts of trawling probably depend on the type of trawl gear used. There are 
many types of demersal trawl nets and their use depends on the target species and 
nature of the seabed. The gear used for trawling for demersal fishes is very 
different from that used for prawns, and the types of habitat targeted also differ, 
consequently the impacts of fish trawling are almost certainly different. 
Documenting the direct impact of prawn trawling on the sessile seabed 
communities has been very important. But it is now perhaps even more important 
to determine the natural dynamics of benthos populations and the ecological 
processes structuring them, as well as their rates of recovery after trawling or other 
impacts. Such research would provide an assessment of the sensitivity of the fauna 
to a range of pressures and establish expected time frames for recovery. This 
knowledge is needed because large areas of the GBR have already been trawled, 
and for future management of the region, it is necessary to understand if and how 
these areas may recover if they were closed to trawling or if different strategies for 
trawling were implemented. 
Strategies for managing prawn trawling will be required to ensure ecological 
sustainability, whilst allowing reasonable use. Certainly, seabed benthos can be 
16 
42 SY,' et) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
impacted substantially and thus zoning plans should aim to preserve 
representative areas of such habitat and its biodiversity. Impacts on lagoonal soft-
bottom benthos are suspected (Hutchings 1990), based on bycatch composition, but 
have not yet been formally documented. In the absence of rigorous information, the 
precautionary principle should initially be adopted and representative areas of this 
habitat and its biodiversity should also be preserved in zoning plans. Gaps in the 
biological and ecological information should be addressed and, in addition, systems 
to provide more reliable information on the fme-scale distribution and intensity of 
prawn trawling should be introduced. Such information could be obtained with the 
introduction of a vessel monitoring system and will be essential for assessing and 
managing the environmental impacts and ecological sustainability of prawn 
trawling. 
2srpt t9) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
Bibliography 
Birtles, A., Arnold, P. (1983) Between the Reefs: some patterns of soft substrate 
epibenthos on the GBR Shelf, pp. 159-163 in Baker, J.T., Carter, R.M., 
Sammarco, P.W., Stark, K.P. (Eds) Proc GBR Conference, Townsville, 1983. 
Birtles, A., Arnold, P. (1988) Distribution of trophic groups of epifaunal 
echinoderms and molluscs in the soft sediment areas of the central GBR 
Shelf, Proc. 6th. Int. Coral. Reef Symp., Townsville, Australia, 1988, 3: 325- 332 
Blaber S., Brewer D., Caesar D., Burridge, C., Caeser, D., Connell M., Dennis, D., 
Dews, G., Glaister, J., Gribble N., Hill B., Milton, D., Pitcher C.R., Poiner, 
I.R., Salini J., Thomas, M., Veronise S., Wassenberg T. (1994) The effects of 
prawn trawling in the far northern section of the Great Barrier Reef: Final 
Report to GBRMPA on 1992-93 Research. CSIRO Division of Fisheries – 
Queensland Department of Primary Industries Report, 123pp. 
Blaber S., Brewer D., Caesar D., Connell M., Dennis, D., Glaister, J., Gribble N., 
Hill B., Long, B., Milton, D., Pitcher C.R., Poiner, I.R., Salini J., Thomas, M., 
Veronise S., Wassenberg T., (1993) The effects of prawn trawling in the far 
northern section of the Great Barrier Reef: Final Report to GBRIVIPA on 
1991-92 Research. CSIRO Division of Fisheries – Queensland Department of 
Primary Industries Report, 62pp. 
Burridge, C., Pitcher C.R., Wassenberg, T., Blaber S., Brewer D., Caeser, D., 
Connell M., Dews, G., Glaister, J., Gribble N., Hill B., Poiner, I.R., Toscas, 
P.,Veronise S., (1996) The effects of prawn trawling in the far northern 
section of the Great Barrier Reef: Final Report to GBRMPA on 1994-95 
Research. CSIRO Division of Fisheries – Queensland Department of Primary 
Industries Report, 102pp. 
Cannon, L.R.G., Geoden, G.B., Campbell, P. (1987) Community patterns revealed 
by trawling in the inter-reef regions of the Great Barrier Reef. Mem. Qld. 
Mus. 25(1): 45-70 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J. McKenzie, L.J. Short, M., Rasheed, M.A. and Vidler, K. 
(1996). Distribution of deep-water seagrass habitats between Cape 
Weymouth and Cape Tribulation, north-eastern Queensland, Report to the 
GBR Marine Park Authority. Queensland Department of Primary Industries 
Report, 33 pp. 
GBRMPA (1994) The Great Barrier Reef keeping it great: a 25 year strategic plan 
for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Great Barrier Reef Marine 
Park Authority, 64 pp. 
Gray, J.S. (1981) The Ecology of Marine Sediments. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge 
Gribble, N.A., Robertson, J. (1996) Fishing effort in the far northern cross-shelf 
closure of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: the effectiveness of closures. 
Ecological Management in press. 
Hooper, J.N.A., Levi, C. (1994) Biogeography of Indo-West Pacific sponges: 
Microcionidae, Raspailiidae, Axinellidae. Pp. 191-212 in van Soest, van 
Kempen, Braekman (eds) Sponges in space and time: Biology, Chemistry, 
Palaeontology. Proc. 4th Int. Porifera Cong., Amsterdam. 
18 
2s(p ‘ao) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
Jones, C.M., Derbyshire, K. (1988) sampling the demersal fauna from a commercial 
penaeid prawn fishery off the central Queensland coast. Mem. Qld. Mus. 
25(2): 403-415 
Long, B.G., Poiner, I.R. (1994) Infaunal benthic community structure and function 
in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Northern Australia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 
45: 293-316 
Long, B.G., Poiner, I.R., Wassenberg, T.J. (1995) Distribution, biomass and 
community structure of megabenthos of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. 
Mar. Ecol. Frog. Ser. 129: 127-139. 
Longhurst, A.R., Pauly, D. (1987) The Ecology of Tropical Oceans. Academic Press, 
San Diego. 
Mather, P., Bennett, I. (1993) A Coral Reef Handbook: a guide to the geology, flora 
and fauna of the Great Barrier Reef, 3rd ed. Australian Coral Reef Society 
Handbook series No.1, 264 pp. 
Pitcher, C.R., Skewes, T.D., Dennis, D.M., Prescott, J.H. (1992) Distribution of 
seagrasses, substratum types and epibenthic macrobiota in Torres Strait, 
with notes on pearl oyster abundance. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 43: 
409-419 
Pitcher C.R., Thomas, M. (1993). The effects of prawn trawling in the far northern 
section of the Great Barrier Reef: Design of 1992-93 and 1993-94 Research. 
CSIRO Division of Fisheries Report, 1 lpp. 
Watson, R.A., Dredge, M.L., Mayer, D.G. (1990) Spatial and seasonal variation in 
demersal trawl fauna associated with a prawn fishery on the central Great 
Barrier Reef, Australia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 41: 65-77 
Watson, R.A., Goeden, G.B. (1989) Temporal and spatial zonation of the demersal 
trawl fauna of the central Great Barrier Reef. Mem. Qld. Mus. 27(2): 
611-620 
Zann, L.P. (1995) Our sea, our future: major findings of the state of the marine 
environment report for Australia. Department of the Environment, Sport 
and Territories, Ocean Rescue 2000 Program, 112 pp. 
19 
2S(p....11) 
GBR Conference — The effects of prawn trawl fisheries on GBR seabed habitats 07.01.97 
Table and Figure Captions 
Table 1. Estimates of impact (from log-weights) for benthic classes in benthic dredge and 
prawn trawl. Shaded cells highlight negative effects, ie. abundance of benthic class 
decreased in treatment plots relative to controls, but all estimates were not significant, 
except perhaps one borderline case (bolded cell — estimated impact effect with a 
probability level for a t-test 0.05<=p<0.01). 
Table 2. Comparisons of the sampling properties and benthos densities estimated by the 
epibenthic dredge and prawn trawl. Column headers: % presence = proportion of sites 
where benthic class was sampled by gear type; % weight = proportion of total weight of 
samples made up by each benthic class by gear type; kg/ha density = total catch of 
benthic class divided by estimated swept area (hectares). Sessile benthos are highlighted 
with shading. 
Fig. 1. Map of the cross-shelf closure and adjacent areas open to trawling in the Far Northern 
Section of the Great Barrier Reef (a). The entire area between the coast and the ribbon 
of outer barrier reefs is the lagoon, although the outer shelf area among the reef matix is 
often termed the inter-reefal area (shaded in inset b) and the inshore area With few reefs 
is often termed the main lagoon (not shaded in inset b). Insets (b) and (c) show the 
location of the study area relative to Queensland and Australia: 
Fig. 2. Multidimensional scaling plots of (a) dissimilarities of sites, by taxa, inshore sites (3), 
midshelf sites (n) offshore sites (4), and (b) dissimilarities of high-level taxa, by 
stations. Note, the MDS1 axis corresponds primarily with inshore to offshore 
orientation, left to right. 
Fig.3. Distribution of major benthos types in –2.8 km long coded video transects along (a) 
shallow (-20 m) shoaling seabed and (b) deeper (-35 m) seabed in the midshelf of the 
Cross Shelf Closure. Codes: 1=silt/sand, 2=rubble, 3=algae, 4=shell beds, 5=patches of 
seawhips and gorgonians, 6=5+sponges, 7=6+hard corals, 8=rocks, 9=reef. The multiple 
scales of patchiness of benthos are clearly apparent. 
Fig. 4. Principal component analyses of sites in open and closed areas for (a) very common 
species present at more than 60 stations, and (b) common species present at more than 
20 stations. Symbols: II=closed area,A=open area north, V=open area south. 
Fig. 5. Frequency distributions of the log of the ratio of species abundances in the closed and 
open zones (a) by weights and (b) by numbers, showing the direction and magnitudes of 
differences. 
Fig. 6. Design and timeline for the before and after sampling, and manipulation (arrows). of 
shallow and deep plots in phases 1 and 2 of the BACI experiment. 
Fig. 7. Amount of benthic material, by major benthic class, removed by trawl gear from each of 
the (a) shallow and (b) deep experimental plots, during the manipulation of the BACI 
experiment. 
Fig. 8. Spatial distribution and intensity of repeated trawls on the depletion tracks. Note 
different scales that exaggerate cross-track dimensions. Actual tracks were almost 
straight; bends indicate waypoints through which the trawler had to pass. 
Fig. 9. Leslie-Davis Plots of the depletion of sessile benthic classes (see shaded taxa in Table 2) 
on (a) three shallow tracks and (b) three deep tracks, all trawled repeatedly 12-13 times 
(• = catch data included in regression; * = data excluded). 
Cooloola Seafood Festival 
J.J. McLeod 
Cooloola Fishermans Festival Association Inc 
118 Emperor St 
Tin Can Bay 
Telephone(074) 864394 
Fax (074) 864133 
LARGE SCALE SEAGRASS DIEBACK. 
The Cooloola Fishermans Festival Assoc. Inc was formed after the 
1992 deepwater seagrass die back in Hervey Bay.The group mainly 
consists of net and trawl fishers and their families along with 
other community. members. 
It had been suggested that a seagrass die back was occuring and 
had been happening for quite a while but previously we had no 
means of knowing how to address the issue. We now hold a Seafood 
Festival each year to raise money to put towards research into 
what is happening to seagrass in the area. 
We got involved with the Dept Of Environment, Marybordugh, in 
establishing 9 long term monitoring sites in the Great Sandy 
Straits- Hervey Bay intertidal areas and are still involved. We 
engage a private consultant to carry out the research work. 
CFFA Inc also funded work done by Matthew Wnuczynski- 
Seagrass Pathogens: A Review of their occurrences, symptoms 
and factors influencing the outbreak of disease and 
The influence of water quality on the virulence of the 
seagrass pathogen Labyrinthula. 
Matthew is now a Bachelor of Applied Science (Natural Systems and 
Wildlife Management). He was also involved in isolating the 
pathogen Labyrinthula within this area. 
We needed to know more about large scale die backs and what was 
happening here in the Great Sandy Straits and Hervey Bay areas. 
We were only looking in our own back yard, thinking that it was 
only a problem here, but communications with other fishers along 
the coast have suggested that this is not the case. Government 
agencies were not saying much about the problem so it was 
difficult to get an all over picture. 
Some areas may have localised concerns caused by man made 
influences but the overall picture is still not clear. 
We now know that from Townsville south, there have been major 
changes in seagrass populations in the intertidal areas. This was 
made known at the meetings of QCFO with fishers in relation to 
ways to remediate the impacts of netting on dugong in DPAs and 
along the Qld coast. 
It appears that seagrass die back has been occuring in intertidal 
areas along the coast for as much as two decades, more so in some 
areas than others. The total area affected may range from 
Townsville to the Qld/ NSW border. 
anirp,z 
It has also been suggested that two of the most productive 
plants, cymodocea serrulata ( common names- buffalo grass or 
dugong grass) and zostera capricorni (common names- eel grass or 
mullet grass) have been reduced to only a small percentage of 
their normal coverage area. 
Cymodocea Serrulata, once, according to old time fishers, the 
most common intertidal plant, has almost gone. Growing from half 
way up a tidal area to 1 to 11
- m below the low tide mark. It has a 
broad leaf and can grow to 30cm long and around lcm wide. With 
lots of rizomes, the plant can grow on firm to soft sediment that 
is not boggy or too hard and likes open bays and protected 
foreshore areas. This plant was the most sought after by dugong 
in the ittertidal areas because it had the greatest mass and was 
easier to obtain than the other seagrasses. The telltale sign of 
dugong presence is Cymodocea Serrulata leaves and Rizomes 
floating in tide marks in an area so fishers would know to take 
care. 
It has been suggested that dugong predominantly feed on and have 
a preference for species of the genera Halophila and Halodule 
which are "pioneering species" or a"weed like species" They have 
a broad NICHE. It has been suggested that dugong grazing promotes 
sparse meadows of pioneer species, such as Halophila ovalis which 
has a very broad niche, probably the broadest of the seagrass in 
the Southern Great Barrier Reef and can be found from the deepest 
water, along with Halophila spinulosa, to the the intertidal 
area, with Zostera capricorni. 
Halophila and halodule on the subtidal and intertidal areas are 
usually very small but in much deeper water, up to 10m, can grow 
much bigger, almost doubling their size. 
If dugongs consume 25kgs dry weight of seagrass, or 10% of their 
body weight in wet seagrass in 24 hours, then each animal would 
need many square kms of cpver if consuming halophila and haludule 
rather than cymodocea serrulata to maintain good body condition 
to fight off bacteriaand parasitic infestation such as cryptosporidiosi 
It is not known how widespread crytosporidiosis is in animals in 
the SGBR. 
Cymodocea serrulata can grow more densly and much more concentrated 
in the areas it prefers. Dugong also consume zostera capricorni, 
when it is higher up on the intertidal area it is quite dark and 
looses its green look, so the dugong only eat it when there is 
nothing else to eat. They like zostera when it is very young and 
very green. 
Over the time that fishers have been looking at seagrass, we have 
become very aware that seagrasses are different and have their 
own niches. The seagrass in Hervey Bay, growing in water over 10m 
deep, that was destroyed in the 92 flood, has recovered very 
well. These include Halophila spinnulosa, Halophila avails and 
Halodule unine,rvis but Halophila spinnulosa is the most dominant. 
tz.. (r• v„) 
This has occured in an area where trawling has been going on 
during that recovery time, with little or no recovery in areas 
where no trawling happened. 
Dugong were dying and sick looking animals were sighted between 
July and November, with dead animals coming up throughout the 
area, the number depending on the amount of seagrass and total 
number of dugong in the area. Seagrass growth picks up from about 
November to May then dies back from June to November.The highest 
number of dugong deaths has been in late 96. 
Fishers report that the seagrass on the intertidal area is at the 
lowest level they can remember for many years. Net 
 fishers have 
existed for more than a hundred years, along with dugong in this 
area. The only thing that is different is the amount of seagrass. 
CFFA Inc were looking at the seagrass die back from a marine 
production point of view because some of the species of fish and 
crustaceans were down in number. We felt that the carrying 
capacity was affected by the downturn in seagrass so we could 
expect lower than normal catches. It appears that the carrying 
capacity is as flat as it can go now and with any increase in 
seagrass we can expect an increase in productivity. One would 
expect that along with other species, dugong numbers would have 
to be less as well. 
I would like to point out the work done in 1996 by CFFA Inc with 
the part resurvey of seagrass transects in the Great Sandy 
Straits area and the work on pathogens and assessment of impacts 
on seagrass world wide. 
A copy of the two papers is attached for your information. 
The part resurvey of long term seagrass monitoring sites within 
the Great San.,R.y Straits and Tin Can Inlet was done in November 96 
by FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental. Money for the research 
came fram_ CFFA Inc and a Coastcare grant. 
Part of the report states -"Whilst only a part resurvey, this 
study suggests a significant acceleration in the trend of 
declining seagrass distribution within the Great Sandy Strait, 
first reported by FRC in 1992". 
Part of the research done by Matthew Wnuczynski, on the influence 
of water quality on the seagrass pathogen Labyrinthula states-
"Thus seagrass growing in lower salinity areas within the Great 
Sandy Straits may be experiencing an external environmental 
stress which is reducing the productivity of the plant. A 
reduction in productivity, stunted leaves and less leaves per 
tiller may predispose the seagrass to attack by fungal diseases 
and/or Labyrinthula. This is evident from the significantly 
higher frequency of isolation of fungus from seagrass collected 
at lower, salinity sampling areas and a greater degree of disease 
symptoms, exhibited by the seagrass. The fungi isolated may be a 
secondary invader of seagrass following infection by Labyrinthula. 
The presence of fungi may be detrimental to seagrass contributing 
to the massive die off throughout the Great Sandy Straits.". 
Part 3.6 Of that paper. 
Environmental and other factors associated with an outbreak of 
wasteing disease. 
"Bacterial and fungal infection, changes in SOLAR-RADIATION, 
extremes in precipitation, reduced light, temperature increase, 
long term lunar cycles that influences ocean circulation or tidal 
effects have all been suggested as possible stressors". 
(Whelan and Cullinane, 1987, Den Hartog. 1987.) 
Shoalwater Bay is an area without a lot of man induced activity 
and yet the seagrass die back has been similar to that in the 
Great Sandy Straits. WHY? 
Refer Map.1 
	 Shoalwater Bay. 
	 Sea grass die back area. 
Refer Map.2 Showing large areas of seagrass die back in the 
Northern Hemisphere. 
Refer Map.3 Qld east coast Townsville to NSW Border 
Refer Diagram.1 Cymodocea Serrulata and Halophila Ovalis sizes 
Figure 1: 9 long term monitoring sites established within the 
Great Sandy Straits. Three of these were resurveyed in Nov 96. 
It appears that Northern Hemisphere seagrass collapsed over large 
areas in different continents at a similar time. So why should 
our seagrass he .re in Australia be more tolerant to such widespread 
climatic changes, and if dugong were in the Northern Hemisphere 
seagrass collapsed area, what would their fate be.? 
I think that dugong and fishers can live together and given the 
chance fishers could become the long term caretakers of the DPAs. 
Who else is there? Its about time some Pi
-
-the agencies involved 
worked with some of the fishers to formulate an agenda to assist 
with the future development of fishing gear to help reduce the 
impact on the animals that they are so concerned about. That 
should be the number one priority, development of high tech 
alarms, nets or other gear that would have the desired effect.They 
should be trying to work out what is fact and what is fiction and 
what is propoganda put together by that element in the conservation 
groups who would not think twice about gutting a dead dugong on 
the beach and getting the best media they can out of it. 
Commercial fishers who are of that element that shows disregard 
for the criteria set down by their peers should be removed from 
the industry. 
There shoud be a retrieval plan put in place for dugong recovery 
5/ 
	 476(p.6-) 
in the event of an accidental drowning in a net or boat strike to 
get the best result from an autopsy. The person involved should 
be given immunity if they follow the retrieval plan. 
There is no reason why other fishers in the DPAs cannot be 
involved in monitoring the long term sites of seagrass as in the 
Sandy Straits. If we had not become involved we would not have 
been as aware as we are today. 
Part of the fishers commitment to a DPA would be to look after 
the sites and help monitor them. Fishers are people who walk over 
look at, and work in areas that support seagrass and yet are 
only used when experts want to know something that isn't in a 
book. Their information is vital to the long term survival of 
dugong, seagrass and coastal habitat. 
As for Cymodocea serrulata (buffalo grass or dugong grass), it 
doesn't matter what you call it, there needs to be a lot more 
work done to find out where it was and how much is left now. 
Lets hope Cymodoca rotundata and the other broad leaf seagrass 
north of Townsville are in better shape. 
CFFA Inc has not yet had sufficient funds to have some one 
develope a formula to isolate the presence of Labyrinthula and/or 
fungi in Cymodocea serrulata and there needs to be a solar 
radiation check done -i.e the number of cloud free days, over the 
last thirty years, in the southern Great Barrier Reef to Fraser 
Island area - so that it can be factored into the equation. 
The other mystery is why the deep water halophila are doing so 
well in areas that are trawled? The more fishers know about 
seagrass identification the more they can help seagress. 
TRUST US! DONT DESPISE US! HELP US TO DEVELOPE THE GEAR WHICH 
WOULD GIVE A WIN/WIN SITUATION FOR THE ANIMAL, THE FISHERS AND 
THE AGENCIES INVOLVED. 
A list of CFFA Inc funded or part funded work is attached. 
FRC 
Establishment of long term seagrass monitoring sites within 
the Great Sandy Straits and Tin Can Inlet. July 1994 
A part resurvey of long term seagrass monitoring sites within 
the Great Sandy Straits and Tin Can Inlet. March 1995. 
The occurrence of the pathogen Labyrinthula sp. in South East 
Queensland, Australia. February 1996. 
A part resurvey of long term seagrass monitoring sites within 
the Great Sandy Straits and Tin Can Inlet. November 1996. 
Matthew Wnuczynski 
Natural Resource Management Studies UQ Gatton 1996 
2024) 
Seagrass pathogens: A review of the occurrence, symptoms and 
factors influencing the outbreak of disease. 
The influence of water quality on the virulence of the 
seagrass pathogen, Labyrinthula. 
	 December 1996. 
JOE MCLEOD 
Cooloola Fishermans Festival Assoc Inc 
t— (I) (r) Z) < ci  
r' 2: r: r: 
	 2" 	 Co ,,0 .1) nID 
r'' 	 n..-"'" ,..- CM =.Cm •,-) r..) g, ulo-c 
	
,,_ 
▪ 	
'13 "- Q-1 c -1 zu)c:r-T 3 11 ,rri c,271 n 
	
= 	 —: CM CM 
 
	
CM 	 -.
n 
▪ 
n-' a'  cm c c. c —CrC 0 	
. .1 . .1 . 
cr) cryo-P 
, 
« < crc n 
cr- 
,0 
Ln 
02G rp.4t!  
r 
• 
0 
LTI 
n-t 
yvik ci 
207. 
IvA 
•,. 
IP" 
Location of Interim 
Dugong Protection Areas I 
Princess 
Charlotte 
Bay 
-./ 
( 1. Boundaries of individual areas 
may be altered in discussion 
with stakeholders 
2. [7221 Proposed, subject to discussion 
in the current review of the 
Far Northern Section Zoning Plan I 
of the GBRMP ) 
Bathurst 
\ Bay 
\ 
\ 
. 	 I 
; 
( 
/ 
toet 
c- „, • C c 
„ 
klinohinbrook 
Region 
- 
.,• Cleveland 
	 ‘- 
*OgY 
, 
CIpsta.t.t 
-,: Bay 
" 
/ 
q4,11/ 10 	 SYillEY , ?,-..„ 
• 
, 
- 
Newry , 
- Region 
, 	 , 	 - 	 • 
-- Shb,diwater 
' 	 / 	 •n• 
, 
, 
Legend 
Towns 
Dugong Protection 
utn 
GBRMP Boundary 
Land & Mangrove 
MI Reefs 
Port 
Clinton 
Southern, 
Hervey \ 
Bay 	 \ 
Great 
Sandy 
Strait 
I it% 1.44 1: _t 
	 ; 	 • ; 
	 !IL .0 ;11! s.ta;.41i 
	 j:.11 
!' 
/- I 1 
k.; 
I 	 (et 	 I 
I C l i 	 c, 26(piP) 
1- la lop Li c\ 
0 VCAl f s 
Figure 8. Halophila ovalis 
I cm 
,( 
0 v\ 
vi 'Pe-r I do 
Ci re-ok 
plov 
901 Rik ,. 
V 
H,loa,de 
Cymodocea serrulata 
eN, 	 . 
ct cA ut 	 Uh 	 rv  
hi ctre.oN OVe,-,f 5v11  
p 	 vv-4 s 	 r'S 1,5 
0.2(115 _ 	 1 op n  
Figure 6. Hrtiodule unincrvis 
BAY 
) 
, 
26(p. 1/9, 
Fisheries Research Consultants 
p 
Point Vernon 
of 
„j., Point 
Maryborough 
Vernon 
Moon Point 
&Jody Point 
Datum Poin 
— /6ayman 
°ha F ,,tound 
Island 
 \ w2dy ISLAND  
,....K.11:\ rth Boluoll i..)y 
\NlAp' All igiKtIP:Li.„. \ 
- 1-1-1- g Woody 
 dy \ 
Island 
	 n, 
MT NT 
Point 
RASE 
South Point 
(.1) 
Mangrove Point 
r ISLAND\ %Duck Island -„ 
MARYBOROUGH 
und NI 
131/40 Island 
0 
rden 
nd 
TRUE 
0 0 
Toon 
II I 1 l 	 1, !! 
3 4r..) 	 0 ' P1/4/0/ 
/// 
Figure 1,. Transect locations 
Ch its
North 	 \,.....„..._ LEADING HILL 
White 
 
N k. 
) 	 \,. 
	
r N 
	 \ 
N 
1 
( 0 
, 
),,... 4 
	
,----%. 
	 - 
 
log/slid 	
— 
	
A 	 • 
f 	 1 ` 	 . ,-- ( 	 b 	 \ 
r 	 (---\  
00MANJIN fpli% k 	
Eurong 	 n%11. 
!rumba 	 0 i 	 \--  
Lake 	 N. 
.,.. 
 (.„ 
	
• -1 • 1•• I!. • •..nr.4„. 6,-... 1 
, Boomanjin \ 0) 
	
C 	 c 
.\ 	 c.,;-,-; n 
( \_ 	 (  
	
I 	
-;\ .\> 
'-. 
	
)ci - 	 . ;:.  
r \\ 
,---- 
	
,:\ 	 ,, 
,,, 	 , 
	 , 
,-,,o, .,,,, 
 
,1..•4 	 .,.:,-- 	 ,,,, ,,,,, 
-::, '15' 	 ''.'' '1 \ '§'' •• ,.. `s,..‘ . 
	
.1!". 	 .1'. 	 •:,s4 	 , j 
`1. • 	 , 
Nt . ,1 
	 '15' .) . 1 
 
\ 
? 	 it 
	 ''' 
 
'I.' 
\ 	
I 	 •%. 1 . '1. '''' ... 	 '`.?' '...\ '''''. 
1 
'.1. 
.3 	 n‘',%. \!... ..,.,''''.-,',... , '‘.. ,t. ,- \t-/ 	 .: \C 
--k 	 \ 	 I 	
4:' • 
	 ,, 
\ 	
/ N.111, Spit 
 
+ il'ir@LUFF / 	 Thu Ildr 
/ 
River 
Heads 
North 
IlajdSouth !lead 
v-7 Shoulder 
Point 
Booker 
Island / 
FISII 
I IABIT 
RE:SI:FIVE 
No 2 1 
0 
Kaini Clot' k 
0 
Tin 	
.)11 
I 
lnskip 
\ fir 
	 Point 
..?•••  
Hook Point 
Bay 
Sprt 
••!. 
Est':_lishment of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 6 
Ccs 
The Influence Of Water Quality On The Virulence Of 
The Seagrass Pathogen, Labyrinthula 
By 
Matthew Wnuczynski 
Ba.App.Sci.(Natural Systems & Wildlife Management) 
A report submitted to the 
Cooloola Fisherman's Festival Association Inc. 
Queensland Commercial Fisherman's Organisation 
November, 1996 
23fp, 
Table of Contents 
List of Figures 
	  
iv List of Tables 
	  
iv 1.0 : SUIVIMARY 
2.0: INTRODUCTION 
4 
8 3.1 : A History Of Wasting Disease 
	  8 3.2 : The Species Of Seazrass Affected By Labyrinthula 
	
 10 3.3 : The Symptoms Associated With Wasting Disease 
	
 11 3.4 : Characteristics Of Labvritzthulo 
	  14 
3.5: The Effects Of Wasting Disease At An Ecosystem Level 
	
 15 3.6 : Environmental And Other Factors Associated With Outbreaks Of Wasting 
Disease 
16 
3.6.1 : The Effects Of Increased Salinity On Wasting Disease 
	
 18 
3.6.2 : The Effects Of Temperature & Light On Wasting Disease 
	  19 
3.7: Wasting Disease Investigations Conducted In The Great Sandy Strait In 1995 
	
 20 3.8 : The Morpholog..y & Habit Of Zostera capricorni 
	  23 4.0 : MATERIALS & METHODS 
	 25 4.1 : Site Selection & Sampling Design 
	
 25 4.2 : Vigour Of Seag.:rass Sampled 
	
 27 4.3 : Assessment of Wasting. Disease Severity 
	
 28 4.4 : Isolation of Labvrinthula 
	  28 4.5 : Isolation Of Fungi 
	
 30 
5.0 
4.6 : Statistical Analysis Of Data Collected 
	  30 : RESULTS 
	  
3? 5.1 : Physical Condition Of Seagrass Collected 
	  32 5.2 : Severity Of Wasting Disease Symptoms On Z. CCIpTiC0171i 
	  34 5.3 : The Frequency Of Isolation OfLabyrinthula From Z. capricorni 
	  35 5.4 : The Frequency Of Isolation Of Filamentous Fung.
-.i From7 capricorni 
	  36 6.0 : DISCUSSION 
	  
39 7.0 : ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
	  44 8.0 : BIBLIOGR.APHY' 
	  
45 9.0 : APPENDLY ONE 
	  49 
3.0 : LITERATURE REVEEW 
UI 
7(p. 
List of Figures 
Figure 1: A diagrammatic representation of Zostera capricorni showing the 
herbaceous rhifonze system and the thin linear leaf blacks. 
Figure 2: A map of Tin Can Bay, Great Sandy Strait, Showing the location of Zostera 
capricorni meadows sampled during 1995 and the location of envisaged 
sampling areas for the current investigation 
	
 75 
Figure 3: The wasting index key used to quanti! the severity of disease symptoms on 
the leaves of Zostera capricorni. 
	 28 
Figure 4: The length of Zostera capricorni leaves collected from Tin Can Bar (Top) 
and Hervey Bay indicating the influence of lower salinity on seagrass sife 
	 33 
Figure 5: The influence of lower salinity on the LAI values for Zostera capricorni 
collected at two sampling locations at Tin Can Bay (Top) and Hervey Bay 
	 33 
Figure 6: The association that exists between wasting disease symptoms exhibited by 
Zostera capricorni growing within Tin Can Bay (Top) and Hervey Bay and 
salinin• 	  34 
List of Tables 
Table 1: The location of sampling sites within Tin Can Bay, Great Sandy Straits, 
showing the sites where Labyrinthula was successfully isolated from Z. 
capricorni collected during investigations conducted in 1995 
	
 77 
Table 2: The frequency of isolation of Labyrinthula from Zostera capricoriii collected 
from sampling areas varying in salinity within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 35 
Table 3: A comparison of the success of isolating Labyrinthula from Zostera 
capricorni meadows growing in the Great Sandy Strait during two investigations 
conducted in 1995 and 1996. 
	 36
Table 4: The frequency of isolation of four species offungi from Zostera capricorni 
collected from the two sampling locations within the Great Sandy Strait. 
	
 36 
Table 5: Results of statistical analysis of the frequency of isolation of the four species 
offungi from Zostera capricorni indicating significant differences between and 
within sampling areas in the Great Sandy Strait. (X2 hs,A0 .51 = 15.507) 37 
Table 6: A sumniaty of data collected and analysed during this investigation on 
Zostera capricorni growing within the Great Sandy Strait. 
	
 38 
iv 
2 7# 
1.0: SUMMARY 
Seagass communities are located throughout the world in relatively shallow sediments 
protected from wave action of the open ocean (Walker & McComb, 1992; 
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), 1990; Den Hartog, 1987). They are 
among the most productive and dynamic element of aquatic ecosystems (Sterrenburg. 
Erftemeijer & Nienhuis, 1995). The growth and survival of seagass communities is of 
major importance to coastal waters as seagasses aid in the prevention of nearshore 
coastal erosion. 
As well, seagrass communities are considered high in ecolo gical value as they provide a 
breeding_ ground and nursery for a diverse array of finfish and crustaea, and support 
large populations of dugongs, turtles and prawns in the tropical seagass beds of 
northern Australia (Walker 8.: McComb, 1992). A number of environmental factors 
determine the growth and distribution of seagasses along the coastlines around the 
world such as ocean currents. nutrient concentrations, water temperature, light 
availability and salinity (Abal & Dennison, 1996). 
Throughout the world there have been periodic declines in the areas covered by 
seagass. These declines have been attributed to a combination of natural and 
anthropogenic influences. Labynnthula spp. (marine slime-moulds) have been 
implicated as causing declines of seagass meadows of the northern hemisphere: a 
phenomenon that has been commonly referred to as 'wasting disease'. 
Seagass communities growing in the Great Sandy Strait re gion exhibited similar 
decline phases to communities growing in the northern hemisphere. The decline of 
seagrass within the Great Sandy Strait began in the early to mid 1980's with the loss of 
Zostera capricorni from the upper Tin Can Bay Inlet (McLeod, pers.comm,.1996). 
By 1988 seagrass die-off was noted at Inskip Point, 1<lauri Flats and throughout large 
seagrass meadows within the Great Sandy Strait. Preliminary investiaptions conducted 
1 
a.rP• 
seagrass meadows within the Great Sandy Strait. Preliminary investigations conducted 
during the winter of 1995 successfully isolated Labyrinthula from Zostera capricorni 
meadows growing in the Tin Can Bay region. 
The continual die-off of sea -ass within the Great Sandy Strait raised concerns over the 
ecological impact associated with the wide-spread loss of seagass. Variations in water 
quality, in particular salinity, was one factor which may predispose seagass to infection 
by Labyrinthula. Seagrass was collected from a number of sampling areas within the 
Great Sandy Strait which varied in salinity levels to test that hypothesis. 
The representative seagass collected was assessed using a wasting disease index key to 
determine the severity of disease symptoms. Although the seagass exhibited a high 
deuee of wasting disease symptoms the frequency of isolating the pathogen during 
laboratory investigations was minimal. 
However, four species of fungi were consistently isolated from seagass. The 
frequency in isolating one of the four species of fungi was con
-elated to low salinity and 
high wasting disease symptoms. The isolation of the three other species of fungi 
 
between distinct sampling areas was not statistically significant. 
The vigour of the seam -ass collected was also con-elated to salinity. Seagass collected 
from low salinity sampling areas were stunted in comparison to seagass collected from 
standard salinity sampling areas. The number of leaves per seagass tiller also varied 
with changes in salinity as plants collected from standard salinity sampling areas tended 
to have a greater number of leaves per individual seagrass frond (tiller). 
Thus, seagrass growing in lower salinity areas within the Great Sandy Strait may be 
experiencing an external environmental stress which is reducing the productivity of the 
plant. A reduction in productivity, stunted leaves and less leaves per tiller, may 
predispose the seagrass to attack by fungal diseases and/or Labyrinthula. This is 
evident from the significantly higher frequency of isolation of fungus from seagrass 
collected at lower salinity sampling areas and greater degree of disease symptoms 
exhibited by the seagass. The fungi isolated may be a secondary invader of seagrass 
following infection by Labyrinthula. The presence of the fungi may be detrimental to 
seagrass contributing to the mass die-off throughout the Great Sandy Strait. 
oar/07) 
2.0 : INTRODUCTION 
Seagrasses are submerged vascular plants botanically classified within four families of 
monocotyledonous plants (McRoy & Hefferich, 1980; Plate & McComb, 1981). They 
are located throughout the world in nearshore coastal areas protected from the wave 
action of the open ocean (Walker & McComb, 1992; Environmental Protection 
Authority (EPA), 1990; Den Hartog, 1987). Seagrasses grow in relatively nutrient 
rich shallow sediments and are among the most productive and dynamic elements of 
aquatic ecosystems (Sten -enburg, etal., 1995; Walker & McComb. 1992). 
The morphological structure and high productivity of seagrass communities influence 
- various physical, chemical and biological processes of coastal aquatic ecosystems 
(Burdick, Short & Wolf, 1993; Walker & McComb, 1992). They provide a breeding 
around and nursery for a diverse array of fuifish and .crustacea and contribute to the 
organic food chain through the direct grazing activities of dugong's, turtles and prawns. 
The fronds of these vascular plants provide a suitable substrate for the colonization, 
growth and reproduction of a diverse range of epiphytes (Orth & Van Montfrans. 
1984; Sten- engburg et al., 1995). Th., epiphytes associated with seagrass communities 
add to the calcium carbona --zIoncentrations within ocean sediments and forna an 
important dietary component of many invertebrate and vertebrate marine fauna, such 
as gastropods, amphipods, isopods and fishes (Howard, 1982; Orth & Van Montfraus, 
1984; Walker & McComb, 1992). 
The growth and survival of seagrass communities is also of major importance in the 
prevention of nearshore coastal erosion. Seagrasses reduce water currents and bind 
coastal sediments aiding in the stabilization of the marine benthos and a subsequent 
4 
increase in the nutrient status of coastal waters (Walker & McComb, 1992; Bulthuis, 
Brand & Mobley, 1984). 
There are several water quality parameters which determine the growth and spatial 
distribution of seagrasses along coastlines throughout the world. These include: 
turbidity; the nutrient concentration of coastal waters, water temperature; submarine 
irradiance; and salinity (Abal & Dennison, 1996). Generally seagrass plants are 
restricted to shallow waters less then 30 metres in depth (Pate & McComb. 1981). 
However, the amount of light available for seagrass determines the depth at which the 
plant can grow. The depth of seagrass growth is influenced by factors affecting water 
clarity, such as increased turbidity and sedimentation, phytoplaukton blooms and 
enhanced nutrience input from the land (EPA, 1990: Abal & Dennison, 1996). A 
decline in the amount of light available to seagrasses is considered to. be the major 
external environmental factor causing a decline in sea9..
.rass meadows in some Western 
Australian coastal waters and harbours (EPA, 1990). 
Throughout the world there has been a general reduction in seagrass meadows which 
has been attributed to a combination of natural factors and anthropogenic influences 
_.(Walker & McComb, 1992; Burdick et al., 1993). The decline of the most 
pfedorninent species of seagrass growing in the Northern Hemisphere, Zosrera marina 
(L.), has been caused primarily by two factors: excess nutrient pollution due to coastal 
eutrophication; and a recurrence of 'wasting disease' (Burdick et al., 1993). 
Eutrophication causes a decline in water clarity and a subsequent reduction in the 
photosynthetic ability of seagrasses (Walker & McComb, 1992). 
5 
2arim) 
Both coastal eutropication and wasting disease have led to the loss of seagrass 
meadows causing a degeneration of species diversity (Den Hartog, 1987; Burdick et 
al., 1993). The rejuvenation of a seagrass community may be achieved by the 
regenerative and degenerative stages being in equilibrium, where losses and gains are 
compensated. However, these two stages were not in balance during 1930 and 1931 
as an outbreak of 'wasting disease' almost caused a complete loss of Z. marina beds in 
the North Atlantic (Den Hartog, 1987). 
Wasting disease has been implicated for repeatedly causing dramatic reductions of Z. 
marina during the 1930's along the east coast of the United States and the west coast 
ofEurope (Short. Porter, lizurui & Aiai, 1993). A number of species of slime moulds_ 
from the Family Labyrinthulacea, primarily consisting of saprophytic marine slime 
moulds, have been isolated from seagrass meadows along the Atlantic coast of.North 
America, the coast of Nova Scotia (Canada), Roscoff (France) and Devon (England) 
(Muelnstein, Porter & Short, 1988; Short, lbelings & Den Hartoz, 1988). 
The causal organism of wasting disease that affected Z. marina along the north-eastern 
coast of the United States of America was identified as a pathogenic strain of 
Labvrinthula zosterae (Porter et Muehlstein), which. m -oduced symptoms similar to 
those recorded during the 1930's (Muehlstein etal., 1988; Short, Muehlstein & Porter, 
1987). 
At present there is no evidence to suggest that the presence of Lab_yrinthula on 
macrophytes under optimal growing conditions has resulted in any detrimental effects 
on the plant (Vergeer & Den Hai -tog, 1994). The recorded decline in seaarass 
meadows attributed to wasting disease may have been significantly influenced by other 
6 
factors causing stress within seagrass meadows and subsequently increasing the 
macrophytes susceptibility to invasion by pathogens (Den Hartog, 1987). Factors 
placing a stress on seagrass are numerous and include: seasonal growth patterns, 
changes in environmental growing conditions, erosion by floating ice, fouling by 
epiphytes, exposure of the macrophyte to frost, and the grazing effects of water fowl 
(Den Hartog, 1987). 
Within the Great Sandy Strait region, South-East Queensland, seag
-ass meadows have 
been rapidly declining over the past ten years (McLeod, pers.comm., 1995). Regions 
once covered with a diverse array of dense seagrass have exhibited many characteristics 
similar to reported cases of seagass die-off throughout the world (McLeod, 
pers.comm., 1995). As well as this, approximately 1,000 km: of seagass meadows 
were destroyed in the Hervey Bay region during early 1992 following two major floods 
and a cyclone within a three-week period (Thorogood, Unpublished). During the 
winter of 1995. 
 a pilot investigation was conducted over a six month period within the 
Great Sandy Strait to isolate Labyrinthula from scagass exhibiting necrotic lesions 
(symptoms commonly associated with wasting disease). Based upon the results of this 
study further research was initiated at the beginning of 1996 to investigate the influence 
of water quality on the virulence of the seacrrass pathogen Labyrinthu/a. 
7 
3.0 : LITERATURE REVIEW 
3.1 : A History Of Wasting Disease 
Wasting disease caused a dramatic reduction in the size of Z. marina meadows along 
the North American Atlantic coast during 1930 and the Atlantic coast of Europe in 
1931 (Den Hartog, 1987; Cotton, 1933; Short, etal., 1988; Burdick et al., 1993). The 
recovery of Z. marina beds in many locations was hampered by the constant die-back 
due to the recurrence of the disease. It was not until 1955-1965 that recovery 
occurred, but some patches that were once occupied by Z. marina were still left 
wicolonised more than 20 years later (Short et al., 1987; Short et al., 1988: 
Muehlstein, et al., 1988). 
The spread of the wasting disease which destroyed seagrass beds along the south coast 
of lieland during 1932 to 1933 was slow, taking two years to spread six miles 
(Renouf 1934). Yet the recovery of Z. marina, Zostera nana and the hybrid, which 
were all equally effected, was relatively rapid (Renouf, 1934). 
Early investigations regarding the destruction of Zostera in a number of localities in 
France indicated that a pathogenic bacterium was the causative agent (Cotton. 1933). 
However, American and Canadian scientists were not successful in finding the 
causative organism which lead to the wide-spread death of Zostera (Cotton. 1933). 
The cause of the wasting disease and the subsequent decline of Z. marina throughout 
the North Atlantic during the 1930's was suspected to be a marine slime mould but, this 
has never been conclusively determined (Cotton, 1933; Short et at., 1987; Muehlstein, 
1992; Short et al., 1988; Den Hartog, 1987; Burdick etal., 1993). 
8 
/4) 
Investigations based on herbarium material of Z. marina from the British Museum, 
London, the United Kingdom and the Rijksherbariurn (Leiden), indicated that the 
wasting disease is an inconspicuous but widespread endemic phenomenon naturally 
occurring in seagrass beds (Den Hartog. 1989). The oldest diseased specimen from 
the British collection dates back to approximately 1840. and from the Netherlands to 
1856 (Den Hartog, 1989). 
Investigations conducted during the 1930's on Z. nzarina established that within the 
blackened spots on the leaves caused by the wasting disease the mycelium of a fungus 
was consistently present (Petersen, 1933). The leaves of Zostera were affected by the 
mycelium throughout winter, but young shoots produced in spring were generally 
without infection until the beginning of summer (Petersen. 1934). This mycelium was 
present in the outer .cortex of Zostera . 
 rhizomes during winter and spring and is the 
source of infection of new leaf material. The mycelium also extends throughout the 
mesophyll cells of the seagrass leaves by extending through air-spaces and along the 
cell-walls (Petersen, 1933). Successful isolation of this fungus by Petersen (1933) was 
achieved once during this particular experiment and it is believed that the fungus 
belongs to the group Hyphomycetes which, when growing in agar blocks, infected the 
leaves of Zostera nzarina producing dark spots. It has been suggested that the.thugus 
commonly associated with the infected seagrass leaves is the cause of the notorious 
wasting disease (Petersen, 1934). 
Further investigations during the wasting disease outbreak of the 1930's identified a 
thin walled, tenuous, spindle-shaped organism located within 
 the air spaces and cells of 
diseased Zostera leaves (Reim, 1934). However, recent investigations by Muehlstein 
(1992) reported that Labyrinthula cells were rarely found in the large air spaces of the 
9 
frarip /a) 27- 
plant tissue under investigation. This difference between two similar studies has been 
explained by the fact that Renn's (1934) investigations were based upon damp slide 
chambers with limited plant tissue available for the invasion of Labyrinthula, and the 
normal invasion of the pathogen is via plant cells (Muehlstein, 1992). The organism 
under investigation during the 1934 experiments by Reim was thought to be a 
mycetozoan similar to the Labyrinthula described by Cienkowski in 1876 (Reim, 
1934). The Labyrinthula-like organism investigated forms a network of aggregated 
terminal, often branching with tenuous pseudopods (Renu, 1934). 
The symptoms displayed by recent outbreaks, which are described below, were first 
recocmised in the Great Bay Estuary on the Maine-New Hampshire Border in 1984 
(Short et al., 1987: Short et al., 1988; Short et al., 1993; Muehlstein et al., 1988). 
During the years between . 1985-1987 infected plants were found along. the. Atlantic 
coast of North America and there have been reported findings along the coast of Nova 
Scotia (Canada), Roscoff (France), Devon(Enaland). and Kaikoura (New Zealand) 
(AnniE., .rer, 1964; Short et al., 1988; Muehlstein et al.. 1988: Ramage, pers.comm 
1996) 
3.2 : The Species Of Seagrass Affected By Lab printhula 
Marine slime moulds belonging to the genus Lab yrinthula have been shown to infect a 
numbers of seagrass species under laboratory conditions (Short et al., 1993; Vergeer 
& Den Hartog, 1991; 1994). 
Wasting disease has recently been successfully isolated from not only Zostera species, 
but from 15 seagsass species belonging to nine genera (Vergeer & Den Hartog, 1991; 
10 
1994). The 15 species of seagrass from which Labyrinthula was successfully isolated 
are listed in Appendix One. 
Thus, Labyrinthula, not only affects Z. marina, but also a deeper growing species in 
Japan and Korea; Zostera caulescens Miki. L. zosterea also causes necrotic lesions on 
Zostera japonica Ascherson et Crraebner, a species of seag,rass growing in sheltered 
tidal flats on the coast from Vietnam to Sakhalin.(Vergeer & Den Hartog, 1991). 
Material collected from the middle of the 19 th 
 century onwards and held by the 
Rijksherbariuna, indicated that Z. noltii Honiem (also referred to in the literature as 
Zostera nana Roth) is also a host of Labyrinthula. Recent field observations 
conducted in England, Wales, France, the Netherlands and Germany also indicated the 
presence of the Labyrinthula on Z. noltii species, although the rate of infection is slow 
(generally below 1%) (Verger & Den Hartog 1991; Philippail & Dijkenaa, 1995). 
*Thus, the range of hosts that L. marina affects extends beyond a single host as 
previously thought and the geographical distribution of the disease extends into the 
western North Pacific (Short et al., 1993). 
3.3 : The Symptoms Associated With Wasting Disease 
Labyrinthula initially infects healthy leaves of seagrass causing dark patches increasing 
to 3-4 cm long after the first week. The presence of Labvrinthula cells are usually 
along the marg.
-ins of the necrotic tissue, and in green leaf tissue Labyrinthula cells are 
commonly within 1-3 mm from visible necrotic areas (Muehlstein, 1992). 
The dark necrotic lesions that develop On both young and old seagrass leaves spread 
longitudinally to cover large areas of the leaf surface and other leaves after two weeks 
11 
(Short et al., 1988; Short et al., 1987). After three weeks several of the infected 
leaves turned completely brown and died, while on other shoots the spread of 
Labyrinthula had stopped. This indicates that the occurrence of the disease does not 
always lead to the death of the macrophyte (Short et al., 1993), yet repeated 
defoliation may cause stress to the plant and this coupled with the discolouring of the 
roots or rhizomes may lead to the death of the plant (Den Hartog, 1989). 
The growth rate of all infected plants is dramatically reduced due the effects of the 
pathogen (Short et al., 1988). The lesions reduce the photosynthetic ability of the 
plant by decreasing pigment levels on the leaves (Durako & Kuss, 1994; Whelan & 
Cullinane, 1987; Short el al., 1988). Cells in the necrotic areas loose their 
photosynthetic capability due to the destruction of the ch.loroplasts by the pathogen. 
resulting in the death of the plants if new leaves are not produced (Muehlstein, 1992). 
Experiments conducted 011 Thallassia spp. indicated that these lesions increased the 
respiratory oxygen demand of the Thallassia leaves (Durako & Kuss, 1994). Oxygen 
conductance to the root / rhizome system is also dramatically reduced resulting., in net 
respiration regardless of the intensity of light. This also causes the macrophyte to be 
more susceptible to hypoxia and sulfide toxicity which may cause the death of 
seagrasses in waters with high sediment sulphide levels. The die-off of Thalassic 
seems to be density-dependant affecting dense patches of various sizes, from 1 metre 
diameter to almost 2 kilometres. Experiments revealed the pathogen spread quite 
slowly and all seedlings inoculated with Labyrinthula developed necrotic lesions within 
one week but did not die, perhaps due to stored seed reserve (Durako & Kuss, 1994). 
Whilst the symptoms of the disease appear similar over the range of seagrass species 
affected, the rate of disappearance appears greatest for Z. marina (Short etal., 1987; 
12 
Short et al., 1988; Durako & Kuss, 1994). it has been suggested by Tutin (1938) that 
the rate of disappearance of Z. marina is related to the ecology of the plant itself 
Zostera marina has developed two life history strategies in response to different 
environmental conditions (Keddy, 1987). Zostera exposed to high summer water 
temperatures and large fluctuations in salinity have an annual growth pattern with 
plants growing during the winter months and die-off during summer (Harrison, 1979., 
Keddy, 1987). These plants tend to grow in the upper intertidal areas and recruitment 
is achieved entirely through the germination of seeds during the following spring 
(Harrison, 1982). Zostera marina growing in relatively stable environments allocate 
biomass to the elongation of perennial rhizomes during summer, following a die-back 
during winter (Tomlinson, 1974
.
, Robertson & Maim, 1984). The perennial form of 
this species are more abundant in the low intertidal exposed briefly at low tide 
(Harrison, 1979: Keddy, 1987). Seeds produced by the perennial species probably do 
not play an important role in the year-to-year survival of the population and 
propagation of the plant is almost entirely by vegetative growth (Hootsman, Vermaat 
& Van Vierssen, 1987). 
There is no evidence that the presence of Labyrinthula on seagrass under optimal 
growing conditions cause any harm to the plant. However, light intensity is the 
limiting factor for vigorous vegetative growth of the perennial form of Z. marina 
(Tutin,1 93 8). Reduced sunlight may cause a slight decrease to the growth of the plant 
increasing the susceptibility of the seam
.ass to infection by the pathogen.(Tutin,1938; 
13 
RI" 
Vergeer & Den Hartog, 1994). The survival of other annual species of segrasses may 
in many instances depend heavily upon the abundance of seeds.that are produced in the 
previous year (seedset) (Den Hartog, 1987). 
3.4 : Characteristics Of Labrrinthilla 
The family Labyrinthulidae Haeckel (14) consists of a small group of primarily marine 
protists, saprophytes and pathogens of a number of different marine vascular plants 
such as Zostera spp. Thalassia testudiniunz and Ruppia maritinza (L.), and marine 
algae such as Cladophora spp. and Laminaria saccharina (L). Lamour (Muehlstein, 
1992: Pokorny, 1967). 
Labyrinthula spp. are characterised by fusiforin cells that exhibit a gliding mobility 
through an ectoplasmic network. The ectoplasm which is concerned primarily with 
cell movement, also provides a source of nutrition, adhesion and intercellular 
communication (Muehlstein et.al., 1988). Extensive branching and anastomosing of 
hyaline slime filaments forms a distinctive colony linking the cells (Pokorny, 1967). 
The lack of the taxonomic classification of the genus Labyrinthula, due to a number of 
different morpho1ogicL1 forms exhibited by this pathogen, has lead to the confusion 
over the classificon to species level (Muehlstein, 1992). 
Only one of four species of Labyritzthula, which were used to inoculate Z. marina, 
produced the characteristic wasting disease symptoms, suggesting that Lab printhula 
sp. is the primary biotic agent of the wasting disease. This species has been referred to 
as Labyrinthula :astern (Muehlstein et al., 1988; Muehlstein, 1992). 
Labyrinthula penetrates the leaves of seagrasses using two methods. The first is by 
small wounds created by the epiphytic community which colonize the seagrass, and the 
14 
11110•18) 
second is by enzymatic degradation of the outer epidermal cell walls by Labyrinthula 
(Muehlstein, 1992). However, investigations conducted by Muehlstein (1992) found 
that uo Labyrinthula cells were present on the outer surfaces of epidermal cells, in 
epidermal cells, or in the lacunae. The cells of the pathogen remain in the mesophvll 
cells of the leaf, perhaps for nutritional purposes as well as the ease of penetration. 
Labyrinthula cells move through the mesophyll cell walls by enzymatic degradation 
and progress in the leaf cells to eventually invade cells of vascular tissue and epidermis. 
3.5 : The Effects Of Wasting Disease At An Ecosystem Level 
The reduction of the seagrass community during the 1930's due to die-back 
dramatically effected coastal and near shore ecosystems, having an effect on 
commercial fishing throughout the North Atlantic (Short. et al., 1987). There was a 
reduction in the population of migratory waterfowl, as well as the closure of the 
scallop fishery in the mid-Atlantic coast of the United States. - The loss of seagrass 
severely effected the geese and duck population within the United States and swans 
were being artificially fed at Abbotsbury and in the Yealm. near Plymouth due to the 
loss of seagrass seeds and rhizomes which form the staple food for these animals 
(Cotton, 1933). 
The loss of the seagrasses causes the resuspension of sediments which reduces light 
penetration to the ocean floor making the recolonization of seagrasses difficult due to 
the decrease in water clarity (Walker & McComb, 1992). Alteration in the topography 
and physiography of estuaries and bays may result due to the decline of the main sand 
and mud binding component of this aquatic ecosystem (Cotton, 1933). A decline in 
the abundance of seagrasses to the level experienced in Western Australia during the 
15 
1960's may cause a 40 % reduction in fish, macro-crustaceans and benthic 
invertebrates due to the seagrass habitat being replaced by bare sand (Walker & 
McComb, 1992). 
3.6 : Environmental And Other Factors Associated With Outbreaks Of Wasting 
Disease 
Many hypotheses have been suggested to ex
-plain the cause of the wasting disease of 
the 1930's but due to insufficient technology and knowledge, investigations during that 
era were limited. Detailed studies were not conducted until the rapid decline of Z. 
marina was noticed throughout the Great Bay Estuary on the Maine-New Hampshire 
border. Prior to this, the nature of environmental factors and the status of the seaarass 
beds leading up to a decline were unknown or speculated (Short etal.. 1988). 
The hypotheses offered may be divided into two broad groups. Those of one group 
suggests that death is caused by a microorganism infecting otherwise healthy (but 
possible stressed) plants. Those of the other group suggest that the pathogenic 
microorgaMsm is naturally present within healthy seagrasses. and only causes 
morbidity and mortality in plants that have been subject to some unrelated stressor 
(Den Hartog.„ 1989; Short et ed., 1987). Bacterial and fungal infection, changes in 
solar radiation, extremes hi precipitation, reduced light, temperature incre-ase, 
 long-
tenn lunar cycle that influences ocean circulation or tidal effects, and oil spills have all 
be suggested as possible stressors (Whelan & Cullinane, 1987: Den Hartog, 1987). 
Discrepancies exist with a number of these hypotheses. The environmental conditions 
associated with the onset of wasting disease are reported to vary significantly. 
However, if 'stress' predisposes seagrass communities to infection then a range of 
16 
1111167 .2o) 
21 
causal factors may achieve the same result, and many causal factors may be shown to 
be inter-related (such as low precipitation and high water temperature, salinity, and 
solar radiation) (Den Hartog„ 1987). Whilst wasting disease affected Z. marina 
meadows simultaneously over the whole North Atlantic. differing local influences may 
have resulted in the coincidental onset of disease (Den Hartog, 1987). Environmental 
factors may influence the timing of an outbreak of wasting disease or they may 
increase the susceptibility of the seagrass to the pathogen (Vergeer & Den Ham
-tog, 
1994). 
The consideration of possible ways by which the disease may spread lends increasing 
support to the hypotheses that are based upon the constant presence of the pathogen 
LabiTinthida within seagrass plants. If outbreaks of the disease are the result of 
location-specific infection, then a mechanism which enables the .disease to rapidly 
spread from an epicentre must exist. Evidence of such a mechanism: one which could 
transport the pathogen across the Atlantic within a short space of time, is lacking 
(Short et al., 1988). However, if the pathogen is present. even as a mutation of a 
pathogenic form, then simultaneous geographically
. 
 remote outbreaks of the disease 
would not be unexpected (Short et al., 1988). 
If the latter scenario is correct, then the pathogen must exist within seagrass 
communities in a non-aggressive form for long periods of time until an external factor 
triggers an outbreak (Short et al., 1988). The pathogen may change from a non-
aggressive secondary decomposer to a pathogenic form, or perhaps the pathogen has a 
long-term cycle which includes the formation of a resistant structure (cyst). Slime-
moulds other than Labyrinthula exists in algae and seagrass meadows of the Pacific as 
secondary decomposers of aged plant material. Alternatively, Labyrinthula may exist 
17 
as an obligate parasite at naturally low population densities, its rapid increase triggered 
off by external conditions, possible on a global scale (Shorter al., 1988). 
The influences of a range of environmental factors are discussed below: 
3.6.1 : The Effects Of Increased Salinity On Wasting Disease 
It was noted in the 1930's that the seag,rass destroyed by wasting disease in North 
American was greater in areas with hider salinity levels (Pokorny, 1967 In: Short 
et 
al., 1987; Veraeer and Den Hartog,, 1991). Altering salinity levels in laboratory tests 
from <10 %, in which infection did not spread to new plant material, to between 15 
and 30% in which the entire plant was infected with the disease, demonstrated how 
salinity levels controlled the disease (Shorter al, 1987). 
Evidence from several sites has shown that the 
. infection of Z. marina by Labyrinth?!la 
is greater the seaward ends of estuaries. ea. the Great Bay Estuary on the Maine-New 
Hampshire border, as well as in Enaland. France and the Netherlands where eulittorial 
and brackish water populations of Z. marina have not been affected (Short el al.. 
988). Investigations in the Netherlands indicated that most of the surviving 
seaarasses growing in the eulittorial zone or in brackish water, had an 'annual strategy' 
with a higher seedset (Den Hartog, 1987). The wide-leaved perennial subtiOral species 
of Zostera were not affected by the wasting disease that destroyed Zostera beds 
between 1932 and 1934 in Ireland but the narrow-leaved perennial form of Z. marina 
was affected (Whelan & Cullinane, 1986). 
Investigations based upon the effects of salinity on seagiass infection suggests that at 
salinities below 10 % the infection of Zostera marina is rare, indicating that the activity 
18 
"0225 
of the pathogen is greatly reduced or stopped at lower salinities (Muehlsteiu 
et al., 
1988). 
3.6.2 : The Effects Of Temperature & Light On Wasting Disease 
During the wanner seasons, lesions expand rapidly, whereas during the winter months 
growth of the disease is slower (Short et al., 1988). The pathogen affects the plants' 
physiological processes as well as its metabolic balance by reducing photosynthesis. 
This reduction in photosynthesis is important during the late summer months as the 
hours of available light reduce while water temperatures remain relatively high. The 
result is a reduction in photosynthesis while respiration remains constant causing a 
subsequent decline in seagrass growth rates. This in turn may create a further 
metabolic stress on the plant, making it increasingly susceptible to diseases (Short 
et 
al., 1988). 
It has been suggested that the loss of 400 ha of T. testudinum meadows in Florida Bay 
since 1987 is due to either: high salinity, reduced frequency of hurricanes, high water 
temperatures, chronic hypoxia of Thalassia roots and rhizomes or Labvi -inthzila 
(Robbiee, Barber, Carlson, Durako. Fourqurean, Muehlstein, Porter, Yarbro, Zienian, 
Zieman, 1991). The recurring patchy die-off is concentrated in protected basins to a 
depth of 1.5 metres below mean sea level and occurs most rapidly during autumn and 
spring (Robbiee et al., 1991). The decline of the seagrass meadows has had dramatic 
effects on the species composition within Florida Bay thus effecting both the shellfish 
and Elfish industries (Robbiee et al., 1991). 
The decline of Z. marina has been suggested by Stevens (1936 In: Short etal., 1988) 
to be triggered by a long-term lunar cycle which influences oceanic current patterns. 
19 
This may be considered as a global effect that would alter environmental conditions 
and perhaps cause the expansion of the pathogen over a very large area (Short et al., 
1988). 
However, the factor or series of factol -s that initiate the disease-related declines is not 
vet known and is still being investigated in light of the above information (Short et al., 
1988). Environmental factors may influence the timing of an outbreak of the wasting 
disease or they may increase the seagrass susceptibility to the pathogen (Vergeer & 
Den Hartog, 1994). Perhaps prolonged periods of cloud cover which reduces ambient 
light levels while heating the surface waters, or dry summer and autumn months 
causing the increase in coastal water temperatures, would further stress infected plants 
at a time when they are more vulnerable (Shorter al., 1988). 
3.7 : Wasting Disease Investigations Conducted In The Great Sandy Strait in 
1995 
Seagrass growing within the Great Sandy Strait, Queensland, are located along tidal 
flats adjacent to mainland towns which include Tin Can Bay, Maaroom and Hervey 
Bay. The majority of land bordering the Great Sandy Strait in the Tin Can Bay district 
is prohibited to access due to the location of the Wide Bay Military Reserve. Land use 
north of Tin Can Bay is predominantly forestry with sparse residential development. 
Hervey Bay has undergone recent urban development and subsequently a rapid 
increase in population. There has been an increase in infrastructure such as sewage 
treatment plants, community rubbish disposal sites, and industrial estates along the 
coastal strip within Hervey Bay. Pollutants associated with the increases in population 
and development of infrastructure have undoubtably had a negative impact on the 
20 
Steak ) 
nearby coastal aquatic ecosystems. The initial die-off of seagrass meadows within 
Hervey Bay coincides with township development and increases in population. 
The most predominant species of seagrass growing within the Great Sandy Strait 
in clude : Zostera capricomi: Halociule uninervis: Halophila spitizilosa; Halophila 
ovalis: and Cy1720CIOCea serrulata. These seagrass species have undergone periodic 
decline over the past three years and the symptoms associated with wasting disease 
were noticed (McLeod pers.comm) Many areas once covered with a diverse array of 
seagrass have been transformed into barren areas of tidal flats (Wuuczynski, 
Unpublished). There has been a significant decline in dugong and turtle sightings 
within the Bay as well as a decrease in locally exploited fish stocks (McLeod 
pers. comm. ). 
Investigations conducted during the winter of 1995 were aimed at isolating 
Lob -yr/mini/a fi - om Z. capricorni meadows exhibiting wasting disease svmptoms. Z. 
cap-/col-nn meadows were sampled at eleven sites throughout Tin Can Bay and the 
location of sites where Labyrinthula was successfully isolated are listed in Table 1. 
Information regarding environmental factors which may predispose seagrass to 
infection by Labyrinthida was not collected during this investigation as the aim wi- 
initially to isolate the pathogen. 
21 
Table 1: The location of sampling sites within Tin Can Bay. Great Sandy Straits, 
showing the sites where Labyrinthula was successfully isolated from Z. 
capricorni collected during investigations conducted in 1995. 
Sampling site within the Great Sandy Strait Isolation of Labvrinthzila 
Pelican Bay NO 
Bullock Point YES 	
_ 
, East of Bullock Point YES 
Pannikin Island NO 
! Wide of Painilkin Island NO 
1 Teebar Creek NO 
! Carlo Creek NO 
! Wabbies Creek YES 
! Norman Point ! NO 
Snapper Creek 	 • NO 	 • 
The successfully isolation of Labyrinthula from Z. capricorni initiated the current 
study to test the hypothesis that changes in water quality may predispose seazrass to 
infection by Labvrinthula. Z. capricorni is the only species of seaarass that was 
assessed during this investigation due to the successful isolation of Lab yrinthula from 
this species in the previous study. Moreover, the majority of literature pertaining to 
wasting disease originates from the Northern Hemisphere where Z. marina is the 
predominant sea2rass. The strap-like leaves of Z. capricorni are similar in structure to 
those of Z. marina enabling results of other wasting disease investigations to be 
compared with the results obtained from this investigation due to the morphological 
similarities between the two species. 
f' 1; 
, 
. 
3.8 : The Morphology & Habit Of Zostera capricorni 
Zostera capricorni has an herbaceous rhizome system with a short lateral shoot at each 
node, each of which bearing up to six leaves (Figure One). The linear leaf blade is thin, 
long and translucent. Five main longitudinal veins are present along the length of the 
leaf blade with three very distinct dark green intramarnal veins. Cross veins, if 
present, run across the leaf at right angles to the longitudinal veins. 
Figure 1: A diagrammatic representation of Zostera capricorni showing the 
herbaceous rhizome system and the thin linear leaf blades. 
1 	 / 	
: 
,......._...........„4„ ,P.---- . 
- 
Zostera capricorni 1cm 
23 
2Ø 
The width of the leaves range from 2-5mm wide and vary in length from several 
centimetres to over half a metre. The leaf tip is blunt and the leaf margin is generally 
smooth and rarely denticulate. A lizule is present. The characteristic feature of Z. 
capricorni is a single leaf originating from the rhizome rather than from the vertical 
leafbearing shoot. 
Z. capricorni grows both inteitidally and subtidally and is the most extensive seagrass 
growing within the Great Sandy Strait. Dawson and Dennison (1996) state that Z. 
capricorni appears to acclimatise very rapidly to adverse environmental conditions and 
the leaf morphology of this species provides adequate protection against ultra violet 
radiation when exposed at low tides. 
24 
PP")  
4.0 : MATERIALS & METHODS 
4.1 : Site Selection & Sampling Design 
Based upon the success of isolating Labyrinthula from Z. capricorni in Tin Can Bay 
during investigations conducted in 1995, it was envisaged that these sites would form 
the basis for seagrass collection for the current study. Initially 
 live sampling areas 
were chosen at Tin Can Bay based upon extremities in water quality in relation to 
salinity and nutrients (Figure Two). 
Figure 2: A map of Tin Can Bay, Great Sandy Strait, Showing the location of Zostera 
capricorni meadows sampled during 1995 and the location of envisaged 
sampling areas for the current investigation 
25 
Zavera capricorni meadows growing in Snapper Creek and adjacent to Pannikin 
Island were chosen as high nutrients sampling areas. This is due to the Tin Can Bay 
sewage treatment plant located inland from Snapper Creek and the Rainbow Beach 
sewage treatment plant locate,d north of Carlo Point. Low salinity sampling areas were 
chosen at the mouth of Teebar Creek and Kauri Creek. A standard salinity (33%) 
sampling area was chosen directly opposite the entrance of Wide Bay Harbour. This 
sampling areas was considered as the control as it is less likely to be influenced by 
fluctuations in salinity and nutrient due to the relatively high tidal exchange. However, 
due to the dramatic loss of Z. capricorni within Tin Can Bay since previous 
investigations, the sampling regime outlined above had to be altered. A second 
sampling location, Hervey Bay, was chosen to enable sampling areas to be compared. 
• Two sampling areas, varying in salinity levels, were chosen within both Tin Can Bay 
and Harvey Bay. Five sampling sites were randomly chosen along a standard tidal 
height within each of the sampling areas to ensure that seagrass collected experienced 
similar environmental conditions in relation to exposure, wave action, and turbidity. 
Sampling areas within Tin Can Bay were located loWards the southern end of the 
Great Sandy Strait: Seagrass collected from the mouth of Kauri Creek were 
considered to be a low salinity sample with recorded salinity measurements of 29.5%o. 
Seagrass growing on the tidal flats directly opposite the entrance to Wide Bay Harbour 
was collected and this was considered to be the 'control' sampling area (referred to as 
standard salinity sampling area, salinity measurement of 32.3960). 
Similarly, in Hervey Bay a Z. capricorni meadow growing near the entrance of Pulzul 
Creek was chosen as the second low salinity sampling area (salinity measurement of 
26 
111111(,305 f 
30.696o), while a tidal flat south of Pulgul Creek away from its discharge was chosen as 
the second 'control' or standard salinity sampling area (salinity measurement of 
33.2960). 
The collection of seagrass material was undertaken one hour prior to low tide to 
ensure that seag,rass being investigated experienced with tidal exposure. Ten Z. 
capricorni tillers were collected by hand from each of the five sampling sites and 
placed in medium sized plastic bags. The seagrass was then transported to the 
laboratory in a large container cooled with ice. Care was taken throughout the 
collection and transportation process to minimise 
 mechanical damage to the plants. 
4.2 : Vigour Of Seagrass Sampled 
Once transported to the laboratory the .seagarass was rinsed in fresh water and the tcital 
number of leaves per seagrass tiller was measured. To assess the condition of the 
seagrass population at the time of sampling the third leaf from the apex of each Z. 
capricorni tiller was removed and measured according to Burdick et al.,(1993). The 
width of the seagrass frond was also measured and. an 
 average width value was 
derived. 
The multiplication of the number of leaves per seagarass tiller by the area of seauass 
leaves (length by width) gave a value referred to as Leaf Area Index (LAI). The LAI is 
a measurement of the total area of leaf material available for photosynthesis by the 
seagrass plant, an indicator of the health status of the plant (Burdick et al., 1993). 
27 
4.3 : Assessment of Wasting Disease Severity 
Following the assessment of the physical condition of the collected seagrass, the third 
leaf from each of the 200 seagrass plants collected were visually inspected with the 
naked eye to determine the severity of necrosis caused by wasting disease. A score 
ranging from one to six was assimaed to each of the leaves according to a 'wasting 
disease index key' (Figure 3). Seauass fronds receiving high scores exhibited greater 
necrotic lesions associated with wasting disease (Den Hartog, 1989). 
Figure 3: The wasting index key used to quantify the severity of disease symptoms on 
the leaves of Zostera capricorni. 
   
   
   
• 
  
• 
 
   
41111111b-- 
4 
	 Amarmilonliarn- 
_ 
5 
	 1111111111111111111111ftrw. 	  
6 
4.4 : Isolation of Labyrinthula 
Each seag:rass leaf was surface sterilised by agitation in 0.5% sodium hypochlorite for 
2 minutes, followed by agitation in distilled water and then in artificial sea-water for 
two minutes (Muehlstein, Porter & Short, 1988). Each leaf was cut into segments 
approximately 1-2 cm long. Each segment cut from seagrass under 10 cm in length 
ii 
28 
was plated and every second seagrass segment was plated for leaves greater than 10 
cm in length. 
The plating medium initially used to isolate Labyrinthula was prepared according to 
Porter 1990 (Short, etal.. 1993; Muehistein et aL,1988) as follows: 
1.2% agar on a sterilised sea-water base: 
1% horse serum; and 
250 mg1-1 of streptomycin and penicillin. 
A second agar medium was prepared according to Vergeer & Den Hartog (1994) to 
determine if the frequency of isolation of Labyrinthula varied with the agar media 
used. The agar media consisted of the same quantities of the constituents outlined 
above, however rather then horse serum being used as the primary food source for the 
slime mould., chicken albumen. was substituted. 
Artificial sea-water was Used as the sterilised sea-water base in the preparation of all 
agar media (Vergeer & Den Hartog, 1994). It was prepared according to the 
following recipe : 
NaCl 
	 49.4 2A, 
KC1 
	 1.4 a/L 
MgSo4.7H20 
	 12.6 g/L 
MgC12.6H20 
	 9.2 g/L 
CaC12 	 0.2 g/L 
The segments of the seagrass leaves were placed on the semi-solid agar media 
approximately 2-3mm thick, in pen
-i dishes (Vergeer & Den Hartog, 1994). The petri 
dishes were sealed with thin wrapping plastic and stored in the dark at 25 degrees 
Celsius (Vergeer & Den Hartog, 1994). The petri dishes were examined daily for a 
period of 20 days for the presence of Labyrinthula. The number of seagrass segments 
infected by Labyrinthula were recorded per leaf. 
4.5: isolation Of Fungi 
Any other filamentous fungi were also isolated from the seagrass segments plated on 
the agar media. The fungi were sub-cultured by removing square blocks of infected 
agar, approximately 50mm by 50inrn, and transferring the blocks onto a Potato 
Dextrose Agar (PDA) medium. 
The petri dishes were sealed and placed under a dark light near ultraviolet wavelength 
to promote fungal sporalation for identification. Once spores were visible with the 
naked eye pieces of sticky-tape were brushed over the fungi to attract spores for 
transfer onto microscopic slides. The spores were stained with lactophenol cotton blue 
and observed using light microscopy for classification. 
4.6 : Statistical Analysis Of Data Collected 
A generalised linear model procedure in SAS was used for the analysis of deviance 
using the logit function, and Pearson Chi-square for frequency of recovery of fungal 
isolates from Z. capricorni leaves. Output corresponds to Chi squared frequency 
distribution analysis. These techniques analyse trends in the incidence of the four fungi 
based on differences within and between sampling sites. Bionomially distributed data 
was entered for frequency of isolation of the fungi as a function of the total number of 
leaf segments plated. 
30 
Nt0).345 
Measurements of individual plant characteristics, including leaf length, width and 
number of leaves per tiller, were compared between sites to identify indicators of plant 
health/stress. 
31 
WO). 35P) 124 
5.0 : RESULTS 
5.1 : Physical Condition Of Seagrass Collected 
The mean number ofleaves per tiller was lower from seagrass collected from sampling 
areas in low salinity. Seagrass collected from standard salinity water in both Tin Can 
Bay and Hervey Bay had approximately 4.5 and 4.1 leaves per tiller respectively. 
Whereas seagrass collected from Kauri Creek and Pulgul Creek had approximately 4.3 
and 3.8 leaves per tiller respectively. 
Statistical analysis of the data relating to the length of each representative seac.,
,rass 
frond indicated that leaf length significantly varied according to salinity (Figure 4). The 
size of seagrass fronds collected from Tin Can Bay tended to range from 4 to 8 cm 
long in lower salinity areas whereas the fronds of seagrass collected from the. standard 
salinity sampling area tended to be larger ranaing from 8 to 12 cm. 
Similarly_ in Hervey Bay approximately 80% of seagrass fronds collected from Pulgul 
Creek had leaf lengths ranging between 4 to 6 cm. The majority of seaa
-rass fronds 
collected from the standard salinity sampling area at Hervey Bay were larger with leaf 
lengths between 8 to 10 cm (Figure 4). 
The LAI also derived fgr each sampling area indicates that seagrass collected from low 
salinity areas in both Tin Can Bay and Hervey Bay have a LAI value ranging between 
10 to 20 (Figure 5). Whereas seagass collected from standard salinity sampling areas 
tend to have a larger leaf area available for photosynthesis with LAI values ranging 
between 30 to 50. This result may be expected due to seagrass collected from lower 
salinity sampling areas having smaller fronds and less leaves per tiller. 
32 
0 nnnnn• 
5 1- ^ 
-4 
0 	 2 	 4 	 6 	 8 	 10 12 14 16 
Length of third leaf from apex (cm) 
1 0 low salinity 
	 1 
IR standard salinity! 
25 - 
20 T 
15 L 
5 
l:—Flow salinity 
II standard salinity ! 
0 	 - - 
	
0 	 10 	 20 	 30 	 40 	 50 	 60 
Leaf Area Index 
3:3 
70 
25 7 
20 4. 
-1111 (iA 36 S 
Figure 4 : The length of Zostera capricorni leaves collected from Tin Can Bay (Top) 
and Hervey Bay indicating the influence of lower salinity on seagrass size. 
 
Clow salinity 
II standard salinity 
 
0 	 2 	 4 	 6 	 8 10 12 14 16 
Length of third leaf from apex (cm) 
Figure 5: The influence of lower salinity on the LAI values for Zostera capricorni 
collected at two sampling locations at Tin Can Bay (Top) and Hervey Bay. 
10 	 20 	 30 	 40 	 50 	 60 
	
70 
Leaf Area Index 
0 low salinity 
II standard salinity 
8 
4 
>, 
c a) 
o- 
20 
16 
12 
8 
4 
; Dow salinity 
!standard 
salinity 
— 
20 — 
16 
12 
5.2 : Severity Of Wasting Disease Symptoms On Z. capricorni 
Seaszrass collected from the low salinity sampling area in Tin Can Bay exhibited a 
higher frequency of symptoms associated with wasting disease, reflected in the 
significantly higher wasting disease scores assigned to each frond assessed (Figure 6). 
Eighty percent of the seagass collected from the standard salinity sampling area in Tin 
Can Bay had necrotic lesions covering 10% or less of the seagrass frond (ie received a 
wasting disease score of 3 or below). 
Sea,._rass collected from both sampling areas in Hervey Bay appeared healthier than 
that at Tin Can Bay with approximately 60% of seagrass having necrotic lesions cover 
1% or less of the frond (Figure 6). However, a greater proportion of seagrass 
collected from Pulaul Creek received higher wasting disease scores in coinparison to 
scagrass collected from the standard salinity sampling area. Although this trend is DOT 
statistically significant it does indicate the associated that exists between wasting 
disease symptoms and salinity. 
Figure 6: The association that exists between wasting disease symptoms exhibited by 
Zostera capricorni growing within Tin Can Bay (Left) and Hervey Bay 
(Right) and salinity. 
1 	 2 	 3 	 4 	 5 	 6 
Wasting Disease Score 
1 	 2 	 3 	 4 	 5 	 6 
Wasting Disease Score 
34 
1 	 !T(7s 3 s)) 
5.3 : The Frequency Of Isolation Of Labyrinthula From Z. capricorni 
Despite a large proportion Z. capricorni assessed exhibiting a relatively high degree of 
wasting_ disease symptoms, the frequency of isolation of Labvrinthula from collected 
samples was minimal (Table 2). From the 200 seaarass fronds plated on the semi-solid 
agar media, Labyrinthula was isolated five times. The slime mould was successfully 
isolated three times from seaerass collected from Tin Can Bay and twice from 
seagrass collected in Hervey Bay. The use of the alternative medium., chicken 
albumen, had no effect on the frequency of isolation ofLabyrinthula. 
Table 2: The frequency of isolation of Labyrinthula from Zostera CapriCOrni collected 
from sampling areas varying in salinity within the Great Sandy Strait 
Sampling area Number of fronds sampled Isolation of Labyrinthula 
T.C.B 
Kauri Creek 50 0 
T.C.B. 
Std. Salinity  50 3 
H.B.** 
Pulgul Creek 50 1 
H.B. 
Std. Salinity  50 1 
*T.C.B. : Tiu Can Bay 
** H.B. : Hervey Bay 
As is evident in Table 1 (section 3.7), Labyrinthula was isolated from four out of the 
eleven sampling areas in Tin Can Bay during investieatious conducted in 1995. Table 
3 compares the results obtained from the 1995 and the current investigations with 
reference to isolating Labyrinthula from Z. capricorni. 
35 
111107- 3'0 alp 
Table 3: A comparison of the success of isolating Labyrinthula from Zostera 
capricorni meadows growing in the Great Sandy Strait during two 
investigations conducted in 1995 and 1996. 
Sampling Location Year % isolation 
Tin Can Bay  1996 6 
Hervey Bay 4 
Pelican Bay  1995 0 
Bullock Point 25 
East of Bullock Point ,, 20 
Panican Island II 0 
Inskip Hole 40 
Wide of Panikin Is. II 0 
Teebar Creek 0 
Carlo Creek s, 0 
Wabbies Creek I/ 60 
Norman Point ,, 0 
Snapper Creek 0 
5.4 : The Frequency Of Isolation Of Filanientous Fungi From Z. capricorni 
Four species of fungi were consistently isolated•fi
-om both Tin Can Bay and Hervev 
Bay sampling locations. The .finigi have been referred to as Type 
. 1 (T1), Type 2 (T2). 
Type 3 (13), and Type 4 (T4). The frequency of isolation of the fungi seagrass 
sampled at both sampling locations within the Great Sandy Strait is listed in Table 4. 
Table 4: The frequency of isolation of four species of fungi from Zostera capricorni 
collected from the two sampling locations within the Great Sandy Strait. 
- 	 • . 	 _ Sampling Lc:cal:ion 
- 	 _ 
Fungi Type Frequency Isolation 
(%)* 
Tin Can Bay T I 11 
T2 50 
13 14 
T4 7 
Hervey Bay T1 15 
T2 39 
T3 9 
T4 9 
* 	 Ml.. - Z.__ __ _ _ r 	 i • r - 	 - 	 - i tie 	 y or isolation ot the fungus has been expressed as the number of 
seagrass fronds from which the fungus was isolated over the total number of 
seagass fronds plated on agar media. 
36 
&SOP% # 0) 
As can be seen from Table 4 the most frequently isolated fungus is T2 which has been 
classified into the PeniciIlium genus. 
Statistical analysis of the data collected from the frequency of isolation of each fungi 
from seagrass collected in Tin Can Bay and Hervey Bay indicates that there is DO 
significant difference in the isolation of T1. T3, and T4 fungus between sampling areas 
(Table 5). Changes in salinity had no effect of the frequency of isolation of these fungi 
but did have a sipificant effect on the isolation of T2 fungi. There is also a significant 
statistical difference in the isolation of the four species of fungi within sampling sites 
(Table 5). The five sampling sites chosen in each of the four sampling areas were all 
located along a standard tidal heig.ht and from personal observations during sampling 
appeared to be uniform in seam
-ass cover. 
.Table 5: .Results of statistical analysis of the 
.frequency of isolation of the four species 
of fungi from Zovera capricomi indicating significant differences between 
and within sampling areas in the Great Sandy Strait.(X, is .o. 05) = 15.507) 
Sampling Location Significance Within 
(Chi-Squared Deviance) 
Significance Between 
(Pr>Chi) 
Tin Can Bay 
TI 16.689 (p>0.05) us 
T7 35.962 (p>0.05) 0.0448 (p>0.05) 
T3 ns ns- 
T4 us DS 
Hervey Bay 
TI 26.498 (p>0.05) DS 
T? 34.185 (p>0.05) 0.000 (p>0.001) 
T3 us us 
T4 us ns 
As there is a significant difference in the isolation of T2 fiuw.us between sampling areas 
at both locations further analysis of the data collected was undertaken. From this 
37 
JAVA* t 
s2 
analysis it was found that the frequency of isolation of T2 fungus was significantly 
higher (p>0.05) in seagrass collected from low salinity waters in both Tin Can Bay and 
Hervey Bay (Table 6). Within the standard salinity sampling area of Hervey Bay, the 
isolation of T2 fungus was less frequent in comparison to seag,rass collected from the 
standard salinity sampling area of Tin Can Bay. 
Thus, the frequency of isolating T2 fungus is positively correlated with the severity 
disease symptoms expressed by Z. capricomi, which is greatest at low salinity 
sampling areas within the Great Sandy Strait. The data collected and analysed during 
this investigation has been summarised in Table 6. 
Table 6: A summary of data collected and analysed during this investigation on Zostera 
capricomi growing within the Great Sandy Strait. 
Attribute 
I Measured 
TCB Sampling Location 
	
 Low Salinity 
	 i Std. Salinity 
HB Sampling Location 
Low Salinity 	 Std. Salinity 
LAI  10-20 	 40-50 10-20 30-40 
Disease 
Severity Score 
4-5 7_3 1- 7 2-3 
Labyrinthula 
Isolation (c)/0)*  
- 6 - 4 
Isolation of T2 
fungus** 
60% 40% 42% 6% 
*The number of leaves f1 ,9m which Labyrinthula was isolated out of a total of 100 
leaves plated per sampling location. 
**The number of leaves from which T2 fungus was isolated out of the total number of 
leaves plated. 
38 
6.0 : DISCUSSION 
4110(1)4 
27r 
Dark necrotic lesions growing along the length of Z. capricorni leaves were noticed 
during.; investigations conducted in 1995. During this time seagrass meadows were 
declining at an alarming rate with no apparent expatiation (McLeod pers.coram. 1995). 
The isolation of Labyrinthula from Zostera growing, in a number of locations in the 
Great Sandy Strait implicated the pathogen as the primary cause of the seagrass die- 
off. 
However, Short et al. (1988) and Vergeer et al. (1994) suggest that Labyrinthula, 
being isolated from 11 seagrass species belonging to nine genera, may be of no 
detriment to seagrass optimal growing conditions. The isolation of 
Labyrintlnila from 
healthy seagrass suggests that it may play an important role in the senescence of 
seagrass leaves. 
Environmental factors may influence an outbreak of wasting disease, either 
by 
increasing the susceptibility of seagrass to infection by the pathogen or by stimulating 
the g.Towth of Labvrinthula and other fungi (Short et al., 1988: Vergeer et al., 1994). 
In warmer latitudes seasonal variation in seagrass distribution is less COMM011 and 
fungal diseases, flooding and industrialization have been suggested as major factors 
causing a decline in seagrass (Talbot. Dnoop & Bate, 1990). The relatively rapid 
decline in seagrrass within the Great Sandy Strait during the six month period between 
sampling is comparable to other reported cases of seagrass die-off throughout the 
Atlantic cost of North America during 1985-1987 (Short 
et al., 1988; Muehlstein et 
al., 1988). Sampling areas where Labyrinthu/a 
was isolated during initial 
39 
investigations in Tin Can Bay, Bullock Point, East of Bullock Point Jetty, and Wabbies 
Creek, were barren and no sea grass could be found for investigative purposes. 
Salinity, as well as other environmental parameters, has been proposed as a factor 
influencing disease-related die-off of seagrass meadows throughout the world. 
Labyrinthula was not frequently isolated during this investigation despite alternative 
plating medium being used. However, previous studies conducted on seagrass 
growing in mesocosm tanks by Short et al., (1987) and Burdick et al., (1993) 
demonstrated that at lower salinities (<10%) the rate of seagrass infection by 
Labyrinthula was reduced and at higher salinities (between 15 and 30%) entire 
seam-ass tillers were infected resulting in die-off 
Labyrinthztla was only isolated from five seagrass plants out of 200 plants plated 
• despite a high proportion of plants exhibiting symptoms associated with wasting 
disease. Two plating mediums were used ensure that the frequency of isolating 
Labyrinthula was not influenced by agar media used (Muelilstein et al., 1988 ., Short el 
al., 1993: Vergeer & Den Hartog, 1994). 
Investigations conducted by Burdick et al., (1993)on seagrass growing in mesocosm •• 
tanks found that as the rate of infection by Labyrinthula increased seagrass 
dihisce the outer diseased leaves resulting in lower leaf area indices. These findings 
correspond to the physical condition of seagrass growing in the Great Sandy Strait in 
relation to the frequency of isolation of T2 fungi. 
Seagr.ass sampled from the entrance of Pulgul Creek and Kauri Creek had shorter leaf 
lengths and less leaves per tiller resulting in lower leaf area indices. These findings are 
comparable to those of Talbot et al., (1990) who demonstrated that following an 
40 
grOP 44,5 
increase in freshwater due to major rainfall events there is a reduction in the length of 
seagrass leaves. The average maximum blade length of seagrass fronds decreased from 
41.2 cm prior to major rainfall to 19.6 cm ten months latter. 
The influence that creek systems have on surrounding seagrass meadows is not 
restricted to altering salinity concentrations. The input of freshwater derived from land 
based sources can also influence nutrient concentrations within the water column as 
well as the marine benthos, alter turbidity, and during times of high flow may cause a 
decrease in light penetration. The re-establishment of seagrass may be limited due to 
the decrease in water clarity associated with lower light penetration and rises in 
suspended solids within the water column (Bulthuis, etal., 1984). 
Following Ilia rainfall events towards the end of 1995 the large quantities of 
freshwater input into the Great Sandy Strait increased the suspended solids within the 
water column causing a reduction in light penetration. Investigations conducted by 
Abal & Dennison (1996) indicated that Z. capricorni displays a variety of adaptive 
responses to decreases in light intensities. Zostera growing., under low light intensities 
had lower biomass and productivity per ra2, and larger shoots. 
Although the seagrass sampled 1:-.,le mouth of creek, areas expected to have higher 
quantities of suspended solids, had shorter leaves, the input of freshwater and 
associated sediments may have caused a smothering of seaszrass meadows. Following 
moderate fresh water input into the Dwelera and Nahoon estuaries, South Africa, the 
sudden influx of freshwater and sediment temporarily impaired the growth of seagrass 
(Talbot, et al., 1990). This placed a major stress on Zostera capensis Setchell, 
resulting in a significant reduction in leaf length. 
41 
os) 
The seagrass sampled from both standard salinity areas tended to appear more healthy 
displaying less necrotic lesions, thus receiving lower wasting index scores then seagrass 
collected from low salinity sampling areas. However, the use of the wasting index key 
(Burdick, el al., 1993) it is a subjective method of determining disease severity. Video 
image analysis would provide a more objective method of quantifying the severity of 
disease symptoms while providing appropriate data for statistical analysis. 
The wasting index scores assigned to seagrass frolids tended to reflect the success of 
isolating T2 fungi rather than Labyrinthula and the other three types of fwagi. This 
suggests that the symptoms produced by T2 fungi may be similar to that of 
Labyritahula or, T2 fungi is a secondary infection which invades seagrass fronds 
following infection by Labwinthula. The absence of isolating both Labyrinthula and 
T2 fungi from the same seagrass frond suggests that similar symptoms are produced by 
both pathogens. 
Despite attempts being made to ensure that sampling sites were uniform (ie. seagrass 
was collected at random from a uniform tidal height at similar tide times), there was a 
significant statistical difference in the isolation of the four fungi within sampling sites. 
This indicates variation in the susceptibility of individual plants within sea.2.
-rass 
meadows to disease. 
There is no simificant statistical difference in the isolation of Ti, T3, and T4 fungus 
between sampling areas indicating that the influencing factors associated with 
freshwater creek systems have no affect on the presence of the fungus within seagrass 
meadows. As a significant difference did exist in the frequency in isolation of T2 Fungi 
a correlation may be made between low and standard salinity sampling areas. The 
42 
frequency of isolation of 12 fungi was higher in the low salinity sampling areas of Tin 
Can Bay and Hervey Bay. This suggests that the presence of 12 fungi within Z. 
capricorni meadows is influenced by an environmental factor or series of factors 
associated with freshwater input. This factor, or combination of factors, may 
predispose seagrass to infection by diseases including T2 fungi or Labirinthzda and 
have a detrimental affect on the productivity Z. capricorni. 
43 
7.0 : ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
Several people have siglificantly contributed valuable knowledge and time over the past 
year during various stages of this report. I wish to thank Dr. Pam Pittaway and Mrs 
Debroah Ramage from the University of Queensland, Gat -ton College. for there support 
and guidance which motivated me throughout the past ten months. 
I also wish to thank Ms Vicki Hamilton of the Department of Plant Production, 
University of Queensland, Gatton College, for her assistance during the many hours of 
laboratory investigations. 
As well, I wish to thank Mr Joe McLeod and other members of the Queensland 
Commercial Fisherrnans Organisation for providing invaluable knowledge of the Great 
Sandy Strait region and the use of boating facilities during seagass collections. 
N*03* fr) 2 
8.0 : BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Abal, E.G. & Dennison, W.C. (1996). Seagrass depth range and water quality in 
Southern Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia. Mar. Freshwater Res., 47: 
763-771. 
Armi2er, L.C. (1964). An occurrence of Labyrinthu/a in New Zealand Zostera. N.Z. 
J. Bot., 2: 3-9. 
Bulthuis, D.A, Brand, G.W. & Mobey, M. C. (1984). Suspended sediments and 
nutrients in water ebbing from senrass covered and denuded tidal mudflats in 
a southern Australian embaymeut. Aquat. Bot., 20: 257-266. 
Burdick, D.M., Short, F.T. & Wolf J. (1993). An index to assess and monitor the 
pro2ression of wasting disease in eelarass Zostera marina. Mar. Ecol. Pros!. 
Ser., 94:83-90. 
Cotton, A.D., (1933). Disappearance of Zostera marina. Nature. 132: 277. 
Den Harto2, C. (1987). "Wasting disease" and other dynamic phenomena in Zostera 
beds. Aquat. Bot., 27: 3-14. 
Den Hartog.,, C. (1989). Early records of wasting-disease-like damage patterns in 
eeluass Zostera marina. Dis. Aquat. Org., 7: 223-226. 
Durako, M.J. & Kuss, K.M. (1994). Effects of Labyrinthula infection on 
photosynthetic capacity of Thalassia testudinunz. Bull. Mar. Sc., 54(3): 
727-732. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1990). Effects of Eat and temperature On 
the photosynthesis of seagarass, epiphytes and macroalgae and implications 
for management of the Albany harbours. 
	 Environmental Protection 
Authority, Technical Series No. 32. 
Harrison, P.G. (1982). Spatial and temporal patterns in abundance of two intertidal 
seagrasses : Zostera americana and Zostera marina. Aquat. Bot. 12: 305- 
320. 
45 
alr6240 21w 
Harrison, P.G. (1979). Reproductive strategies in intertidal populations of two - 
occuring seagrasses (Zostera spp.). Can.J.Bot. 57: 263-268. 
Hootsmans, M.J.M., Vermaat, J.E. & Van Vierssen, W. (1987). 
	 Seed-bank 
development, germination and early seeding survival of two seagrass species 
from the Netherlands : Zostera marina L. and Zostera no/ti! Hornem. Aquat. 
Bot. 28: 275-285. 
Howard R.K. (1982). Impact of feeding activities of epibenthic amphipods on 
surface-fouling of eelgrass leaves. Aquat. Bot. 14: 91-97. 
Keddy, C.J. & Patriquin, D.G. (1987). Reproduction of annual eelarass : variation 
among habitats and comparison with perennial eelgrass (Zostera marina L.). 
Aquat. Bot. 27: 243-256. 
McRoy, C.P. & Helfferich, C. (1980). Applied aspects of seagrasses. In Handbook of 
Seagrass Biology: all ecosystem perspective. Phillips, R.C. & McRov, C.P. 
(eds). Garland STPM Press, New York. pp. 297-344. 
Muelilstein, L.K., (1992). The host-pathogen interaction in the wasting disease of 
eelgrass, Zostera marina. Can. J. Bot., 70: 2081-2088. Muehlstein. L.K.. 
Porter, D. & Short, F.T. (1988). Labyrinthula sp., a marine slime mold 
producing the symptoms of wasting disease in eelarass. Zostera marina. Mar. 
Biol., 99: 465-472. 
Orth, R.J. & Van Montfi
-ans, J. (1984). Seagrass relationships with an emphasis on the 
role of micrograzing: A review. Aquat. Bot. 18: 43-69. 
Pate, J.S. & McComb, A.J. (1981). The BioloD. , of Australian Plants. University of 
Western Australia Press, Western Australia. 
Petersen, H.E. (1933). Wasting disease of eelgrass (Zostera marina). Nature,132: 
1004. 
Petersen, H.E. (1934). Wasting disease of eelgrass (Zostera marina). Nature, 134: 
143-144. 
Philippart, C.J.M. & Dijkema, K.S. (1995). Wax and wane of Zostera no/ti! Hornem. 
in the Dutch Wadden sea. Aquat. Bot., 49: 255-268. 
46 
M(p. co) 
g 
1 Pokorny, K.S. (1967). Labyrinthula. J. Protozool., 14: 697-708. 
Reim. C.E. (1934). Wasting disease of Zostera in American waters. Nature, 134: 416. 
Renouf. P.W. (1934). Zostera disease on the coast of County Cork, I.F.S. Nature, 
133: 912. 
Robblee. M.B., Barber, T.R., Carlson. P.R., Durako, M.J., Fourqurean, J.W., McRoy, 
C.P. & Helfferich, M.D. (1977). Seagrass ecosystems. Marcel Dekker INC, 
New York. 
Muehlstein, L.K, Porter, D., Yarbro. L.A.. Zieman, R.T. & Zieman, J.C. (1991). Mass 
mortality of the tropical seagrass Thalassia testudinum in Florida Bay (USA). 
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.. 71: 297-299. 
Robertson, A.I. & Mann. K.H. (1984). Disturbance by ice and life-history adaptations 
of the sea<zrass Zostera marina. Mar. Biol. 80: 131-141 
Short. FT., Poehugs. B.W. & Den Hartog.., C. (1988). Comparison of a current 
eelgrass disease to the wasting disease in the 1930s.
- 
	 Aquat. Bot., 30: 295- 
304. 
Short. FT.. Muelilstein, L.K. & Porter. D. (1987). Eelgrass wasting disease: cause 
and recurrence of a marine epidemic. Biol. Bull., 173: 557-562. 
Short. FT., Porter, D., lizumi, H. & Aioi, K. (1993). Occurrence of the eelgrass 
pathogen Labyrinthula Lostera in Japan. Dis. Aquat. Org
... 16: 73-77. 
Sterrenburg, F.A.S., Erftemeijer, P.L.A. & Nienhuis, P.H. (1995). 
	 Diatoms as 
epiphytes on seagrass in South Sulawesi (Indonesia) comparison with growth 
on inert substrata. Botaaica Marina, 38: 1-7. 
Talbot, M.M.B., Knoop, W.T. & Bate, G.C. (1990). The dynamics of estuarine 
macrophytes in relation to flood/siltation cycles. Bot. Mar. 33: 159-164. 
Tomlinson, P.B. (1974). Vegetative morphology and meristem dependence - the 
.foundation of productivity in seagrasses. Aquaculture 4: 107-130. 
47 
4114
(p% 67) 
Vergeer, L.H.T. & Den Hartog, C. (1991). Occurrence of wasting disease in Zostera 
Aquat. Bot., 40: 155-163. 
Vergeer, L.H.T. & Den Hartog, C. (1994). Omnipresence of Labyrintintla in seazass. 
Aquat. Bot., 48: 1-20. 
Walker, D.I. & McComb, A.J. (1992). Seazrass degradation in Australian coastal 
waters. Mar. Poll. Bull., 25: 191-195. 
Whelan, P.M. & Cullinane, J.P. (1987). The occurrence of -wasting disease" of 
Zostera in Ireland in the 1930's. Aquat. Bot., 27: 285-289. 
48 
00/02.T42) 
2?- 
9.0 : APPENDIX ONE 
A list of the eleven species of seaorass from which Lab_vrinthu/a was isolated from 
during investigations conducted by Ver2eer S.: Den Hartog (1994). 
Zostera marina (L.) 
Zostera 17171C1-01Zata (Den Hartog) 
Heterofostera tasmanica (Martens ex Aschers) 
Posidonia ocean/ca (L.) 
HCIOChile 2111111erViS (Forssk.) 
Cvmodocea nodosa (lieria) 
Svringodizim isoetifoliuni (Aschers.) 
Thalassiaodendron ciliatum (Forssk.) 
Ruppia cirrhosa (Peta2ana) 
Thalassic; restudinum (Banks ex Konnig) 
Halophila ova/is (R.Br.) 
49 
: 
./ 	 • 
‘, 
	
••• 	
• 
, . 
a80x 
/, 
A P_aTi tResurvey of 
Long-Term Seagrass Monitoring 
Sites within the -Great Sandy 
Strait and ( Tin, Can Inlet 
November 1,996 
nn• • 
^ 
CX3 	 v 
• 
; 
- 	 • 
_ 
CI3 
.. • 
• 
• 	 (. 
• 
e.; • 
• 	 (/' 
r 
r 
IT. 
•• 
• 
; 
• 
Fisheries Research Consultants 
A Part Resurvey of 
Long-Term Seagrass Monitoring 
Sites within the Great Sandy 
Strait and Tin Can Inlet 
November 1996 
Conducted on behalf of: 
Cooloola Fishermans Festival Association Inc. 
By: 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
185 Main Road 
Wellington Point, Qld. 4160. 
Phone (07) 3207 5135 
Fax (07) 3207 5640 
Contact Dr John Thorogood 
FRC Ref: 96.09.01 
January, 1996 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
FRC 
 Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Contents 
Introduction 
1 
Methodology 	
2 
Results 
4 
Discussion 
8 
References 
11 
Appendix A - Morphological and density data for processed seagrass samples 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Introduction 
This report presents the findings of the November 1996 part-resurvey of long- 
term seagrass monitoring transects established within the Great Sandy Strait in 
June 1994 (Fisheries Research Consultants, 1994). 
Financial constraints limited the resurvey to three of the nine established 
transects: Transect 4B - Boonooroo; Transect 6A - Kauri Creek and Transect 7A - 
Bullock Point. These transects provided an assessment of regions in Great Sandy 
Strait where seagrass loss had been reported 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 1 
(p. 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Methodology 
Kauri Creek was reached, transects surveyed and samples collected using a boat 
provided by Mr Joe McLeod. The other two transects were surveyed and sampled 
on foot. Transects were resurveyed using an automatic level, staff and stadia (as 
was used in establishing each transect). 
Along each transect, the qualitative character of surface sediments, and the 
distribution and abundance of seagrass and algae was recorded with'seagrass 
samples collected from a number of points along each transect, to provide a 
quantitative comparison with samples taken in June 1994 and March 1995. 
Seagrass sampling methodology was based upon collecting all living vegetative 
matter from within a 0.04 m 2 
 quadrat. For each sample, species composition Was 
determined by careful sorting; the number of shoots of each species were counted 
to provide a measure of density; five randomly selected shoots from each species 
were measured to describe morphology; and plants of each species were divided 
into above (shoots) and below (roots and rhizomes) ground components, oven 
dried to total desiccation, and weighed to provide a measure of above and below 
ground biomass. 
Seagrass at each site was described in-situ in the accompanying 
.cield notes. The 
benefit of 'laboratory processing' of samples is to provide a detailed 
characterisation of each sample that may be statistically compared with samples 
taken over the past three years, and with the data bases of other organisations (e.g. 
CSERO Fisheries, QDPI Fisheries). 
In addition an aerial over-flight from Tin Can Inlet over Maroom, over Garry's 
Anchorage, and over Bullock Point was conducted to assess broad-scale patterns in 
seagrass and macroalgae distribution. 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 2 
2 arpt 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Results 
The following pages contain a characterisation of each transect. 
Glossary of abbreviations used in the following tables  
When following a species-- of seagrass, (sml) refers to the small or fine 
morphology; (med) to the medium or transitionary morphology, and age) to 
the large or broad morphology. 
Under ' Samples ' - Sg refers to seagrass. 
NB. Seagrass and sediment dominance is presented as: most dominant/next 
dominant. 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 3 
FRC 
 Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Bearing : 50 
	 Date : 24 Nov. 1996 
Location character : Mainland, undeveloped 
Location description : Running east from the small bay immediately to the north 
of the mouth of Kauri Creek The peg is located within the roots of the dense 
fringing mangrove forest. The transect crosses the broad intertidal flat comprised 
of soft silts, firm sands heavily worked by crabs and fine sands / silts supporting 
moderate seagrass meadows. 
- Point Distance 
	 Height Time 
	 Description 
	 Samples 
	
from 
	 below 
	
datum 
	 datum 
	
(m) 
	 (cm) 
	
0 	 0 	 0 	 13:45 Lone Avicennia marina tree 3m tall, 
pneumatophores, v. muddy sand. 
	
1 	 50 	 4 	 <2% Zost era capricorni (patch), low epiphyte cover, 
mud/sand. 
	
2 	 165 
	 6 	 Bare, sand (anoxic beneath surface) 
	
3 	 221 
	 12 	 <1% Z. capricor-ni and Halophila ovalis 
	 Sg (patchy and sml) sand. 
	
4 	 266 
	 14 	 <1% Z. capricorni and H. avails (patchy and sml), 
sand. 
	
5 	 347 	 15 	 «1% Z. capricorni, hard sand. 
	
6 	 453 	 33 	 14:08 10% Cymodocea semdata , <1% H. ovalis, 
	 Sg muddy sand. 
	
7 	 504 	 75 	 10-15% H. croalis, sandy mud. Sg 
	
8 	 571 
	 86 	 15-20% H. ovalis„ stronger rhizome, sandy mud. 
	
9 	 701 
	 86 	 14:35 20-25% H. avails / C. serrulata, sand. 
	 Sg 
	
10 	 926 
	 99 	 14:56 10% Z. capricorni / H. ovalis . Red bands on 
	 Sg Z. capricorni and red pigment on H. avails 
leaves. Sand. 
11 	 1154 
	 106 	 15:05 15% C. serrulata, sand Sg 
12 	 1434 	 101 	 15:14 <5% Halodule uninervis, 5cm long, 3nun wide, 
Very hard sand ridge, with pebbles and shell 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 4 
Transect : 6A 
•••nn•••••••••••• Nov. '96 
June '94 
-50 
500 
	 1000 
Distance from Datum (m) 
-100 
-300 
0 
1500 
-150 
-200 
-250 
ze# 
He
ig h
t  b
e l
ow
  D
a t
um
  (c
m)
  
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Shore Normal Profile - Transect 6A - Kauri Creek 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 5 
VAD 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Bearing : 80 
	 Date : 26 Nov. 1996 
Transect character : Mainland, small unsewered village 
Location description : Approx. 800 m south of Boonooroo boat ramp, 50 in to the 
south of the prominent two storey house with the green roof. The row of 
houses visible from the water front an extensive claypan. At the seaward edge 
of the daypan stunted Avicennia marina trees occur in small dumps. The 'peg' 
is located immediately seaward of a clump of Avicennia. Intertidal flats extend 
several hundred meters into the Great Sandy Strait. 
Samples 
Transect : 4B 
Point Distance 
from 
datum 
(m) 
Height 
below 
datum 
(cm) 
Time Description 
0 0 0 Peg amongst mangrove roots. Firm silt and 
iron stone pebbles. 
1 49 58 13:30 <5% Z. capricorni (sparse), few shoots, mainly 
rhizome, sand/pebbles. 
2 107 78 5% Z. capricorni / H. ovalis, sand/grit 
3 165 88 13:45 5%Z. capricorni / H. malls, sand/grit. 
4 220 96 13:50 5-10% Z. capricorni / H. oval is, sand/grit. 
5 255 110 13:55 Bare except for algae (Dictyota, Chondrus, 
Hydroclathus 
	 - attached by holdfast to shells). 
6 700 ? 14:30 Bare 
sg 
sg 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 6 
S. 
S. 
S. 
• •n•• • 
0 
He
ig h
t  b
e l
ow
  D
a t
um
  (c
m)
  
-50 
-100 
-150 
-200 
-250 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Shore Normal Profile - Transect 4B - Boonooroo 
--- Nov. '96 
March '95 
June '94 
4,11. 
••• 
••n. . 
1000 	 1200 0 	 200 	 400 	 600 	 800 
Distance from Datum (m) 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 7 
Peg amongst mangrove roots, fringe A. marina 
and Rhizophora stylosa , mud. 
Bare, mud. 
Bare, mud, some algae Cladophora 
C. semdata (3 shoots only - very loosely rooted), 
mud. 
5-10% Z. capricorni (clean), mud. - 
. 20% Z. capricorni / H. avails , mud (all sites 
muddier where bare). 
5% H. malls , heavy epiphyte and sediment 
on leaves, mud. 
25% Z. capricorni (clean), mud. 
<5% H. unirzervis, mud. 
5-10% Z. capricorni (patchy), mud. 
sg 
sg 
sg 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Bearing : 220 
	 Date :25 Nov. 1996 
Location character : Mainland, periodic camping, etc. 
Location description : Extending from the mangrove fringe of the southern side 
of Pelican Bay (the peg is located within the roots of a Rhizophora stylosa), the transect extends across an elevated zone of relatively firm bare sediment, then 
parallel with the bank. soft silts supporting seagrass, across a shallow channel to a silt bar running 
Point Distance 
	 Height Time 
from 
	 below 
datum 
	 datum 
(in) 	 (cm) 
Description 
Samples 
Transect : 7A 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
178 
276 
361 
0 
75 
128 
95 14:40 
4 414 67 1455 
5 477 57 
6 541 62 15:11 
7 622 57 15:25 
8 678 75 15:40 
9 685 83 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 8 
---- Nov. '96 
March '95 
June '94 
• 
• 
• fe
e ..... 
• 
e
e 
• 
4/
e 
e 
250 
	 500 
	 750 
Distance from Datum (m) 
0 
1 
1 000 
if(70.1 '411?) 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Shore Normal Profile - Transect 7A - Bullock Point 
The characteristics of seagrass samples processed from _ each transect are 
presented in Appendix A. 
Aerial Survey 
The aerial survey showed an overall reduction in the distribution of seagrass 
and an increased abundance of macroalgae, compared with previous surveys. 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 9 
Re(p-Ig2) 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Discussion 
Changes in the shore normal profile were apparent at each resurveyed location_ 
At Boonooroo there has been a very gradual shoaling, with ridges and channels 
apparent in the 194 and '95 surveys smoothed out. The channel at Bullock Point 
has migrated shoreward. Profile alterations were most obvious at Kauri Creek 
where sedimentation has infilled the offshore channel, described in June, 1994. 
The gross sediment characteristics_of each location appear similar to those 
recorded in June, 1994 and March 1995, -with the exception of Kauri Creek where 
the grain size has increased from silt to sand with increasing distance from 
shore. 
At Boonooroo the Halodule uninervis that replaced the 1994 Zostera capricorni 
has in turn, been replaced by a sparse regrowth of Z. capricorni and Halo phila 
ovalis. The -overall abundance and distribution of seagrass has been 
significantly reduced since March 1995. Whereas in 1995 there was a 70% cover 
of H. uninervis over the first 300 m, the sparse regrowth of Z. capricorni and H. 
ovalis covers only 5-10% of the substrate. In 1995 seagrass was found along the 
entire survey (1,066 m) to a depth below datum of 239 cm. In November 1996, 
despite the substrate profile and sediment grain size remaining similar to that 
recorded in previous years, the substrate is now devoid of seagrass 255 m from 
the peg at a depth below datum of about 110 cm. This section of the survey is 
now characterised by macroalgal species e.g. Dictyota and Chondrus attached by 
holcifasts to shells. 
The overall abundance of seagrass has also declined at Kauri Creek. Community 
composition has also altered, although the overall distribution of seagass along 
the transect line has changed little. Z. capricorni and C. serrulata which each 
covered about 70% of the substrate at 500 m and 560 m, respectively, in 1994, 
have been replaced by a 10-15% cover of H. ovalis. Inshore of 450 m the 
substrate is generally bare, as it was in 1994, with sparse and patchy occurrences 
of Z. capricorni and H. ovalis. Seagrass distribution seaward of approximately 
1000 m from the peg, remains sparse and patchy with C. serrulata being the 
dominant species. 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 10 
gyp / 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
At Bullock Point the overall distribution of seagrass has decreased since March 
1995, and community composition has also changed. The lush Z. capricorni 
bed fringing the channel in 1995 has been lost, with no seagrass regrowth. 
However the nearby beds of C. serrulata has been replaced by Z. capricorni . 
Seagrass distribution seaward of approximately 650 m remains sparse with Z. 
capricorni being the dominant species. 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
	 ii 
FRC 
 Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Summary 
The part-resurvey indicates that no substantial change has occurred to the 
physical environment at Boonooroo and Bullock Point, whereas the offshore 
depth profile at Kauri Creek has shallowed by up to 1.5 m with the infilling of a 
channel. A 129 cm reduction in the vertical distribution of seagrass was evident 
at Boonooroo (a very significant change), whilst at Kauri Creek and Bullock 
Point the overall distribution has not changed significantly. All transects 
displayed significant reductions in seagrass abundance, especially Boonooroo, 
and in most cases this was concomitant with a change in species composition. 
Since March 1995, Boonooroo has lost moderately dense (70% cover) beds of H. 
uninervis , whilst Kauri Creek and Bullock Point have lost low to moderately 
dense (30 -70%) beds of C. serrulata and Z. capricorni respectively. Seagrasses at 
all transects were relatively free from epiphytes compared to previous surveys, 
however, broad-scale aerial' survey indicated that macroalgal cover had 
increased within the study area. 
At each location, samples taken from within areas of seagrass indiacted that 
shoot density, leaf morphology, and biomass remain within the range of 
measurements of these parameters made in 1993 (Fisheries Research 
Consultants, 1994b), 1994 (incomplete data set), and 1995 (Fisheries Research 
Consultants, 1995). For most samples of each species, below ground biomass 
exceeds above ground biomass, indicating a capacity for recovery following the 
loss of the above ground component (by for example grazing, or desiccation). 
Whilst only a part resurvey, this study suggests a significant acceleration in the 
trend of declining seagrass distribution within the Great Sandy Strait, first 
reported by FRC in 1992 (Fisheries Research Consultants, 1993). 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 	
12 
z 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
References 
Fisheries research Consultants. 1993. A Study of the Marine and Intertidal 
Habitats of the Great Sandy Region. Report prepared on behalf of the 
Marine Parks Branch, Queensland Department of Environment and 
Heritage. 
Fisheries Research Consultants. 1994. Establishment of Long-term Seagrass 
-
Monitoring Sites within the Great Sandy Strait and Tin Can Inlet. 
Consultancy report prepared for the Queensland Department of 
Environment and Heritage, and the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's 
Organisation, 3Opp + appendices and plates. 
Fisheries Research Consultants. 1994b. A resurvey of the Seagrasses of the Great 
Sandy Strait and Tin Can Estuary, November, 1993. Consultancy report 
prepared for the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, 
34pp + appendices and plates. 
Fisheries Research Consultants. 1995. A Part resurvey of long-term Seagrass 
Monitoring Sites within the Great Sandy Strait and Tin Can Inlet, March 
1995. Consultancy Report prepared for Central Coast Regional Office, 
Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage. 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 	 13 
FRC Coastal Resource and Environmental 
Appendix A Morphological and density data for processed seagrass samples 
Site Species Mean 
Leaf 
Length 
(mm) 
Mean 
Leaf 
Width 
(mm) 
Number of 
shoots/0.04m2 
above 
	 : 	 below 
ground biomass 
KC4 Z. capricorni 48 0.8 13 . 	 , 0.07 
	 0.18 7 C. serrulata 52 3.5 15 0.25 	 0.72 8 H. ovalis 25.5 9.8 20 0.17 
	 0.3 8 C. serrulata 47 3 1 0.005 
	 0.01 10 H. ovalis 29 10 35 0.2 	 0.3 10 C. serrulata 79.5 4.5 10 0.4 
	 0.52 11 H. avails 6.2 2.6 32 0.34 
	 0.92 11 Z. capricorni 63 1.4 7 0.03 
	 0.06 12 C. serrulata 57.8 4.4 8 0.5 	 0.73 12 H. uninervis 54.8 1.1 7 0.1 	 0.2 B 3 H. ovals 15 4 13 0.01 
	 0.01 3 Z. capritorni 39.3 0.8 42 0.1 	 0.35 5 H. ovalis 21 7.6 39 0.28 
	 0.93 BP 5 Z. capricorni 79.2 1.9 20 0.31 
	 0.2 6 H. ovalis 17 7 4 0.005 
	 0.005 6 Z. capricorrzi 103.8 2 63 3.4 	 3.21 7 H. ovalis 18.6 7 11 0.04 	 0.07 
KC = Kauri Creek 
B = Boonooroo 
BP = Bullock Point 
• - . 
Part-resurvey of long-term seagrass monitoring sites within the Great Sandy Strait 
.45/UL/W 07;qf rg; 
REPORT ON ILLEGAL TAKE OF DUGONG IN THE GREAT BARRIER 
-REEF REGION AND IN PROPOSED DUGONG SANCTUARY AREAS 
n)tzoduction 
The time frame adopted for this review has focused on the period January 1996 to 
1 .1ebruary 1997, "the review period". 
Overview of levels of Illegal take 
Northern Great Barrier Reef (i.e. north of Cooktown) 
iii the Hopevalc Aboriginal Community there is one report of about 11 dugong 
carcasses being found at the mouth of the Starcke River 2 weeks before Christmas 
iT)95, This incident was brought to the attention of DoE and GBRMPA staff by 
studznts from James Cook University and can be substantiated. This report was 
published in the local and State print media. 
In the Lockhart River Aboriginal Community reports have been received of several 
ciligong being taken from the Shelburne Bay area. This information comes from direct 
sightings by the ranger previously attached to the Heathlands National Park Base. 
There appear to be no current permits under the Nature Conservation Act or State or 
Commonwealth Marine Park regulations for this take. 
Soutir2.71) Great Barrier Reef (i.e. south of Cooktown to Hervey Bay). 
There is little data available to establish the level of take by either netting or traditional 
hunting in the southern Great Barrier Reef Region. 
From information available in the DoE strandings database and similar scientific records 
tIlere are records of stranded dugongs which have been mutilated and of other apparent 
i.UCiflpt5 by fishers to dispose of dugong which have become entangled in fishing nets. 
t is understood that this matter is dealt with in other reports such as those by Tony 
Preen and Nina,M-orissette which contain discussion of possible causes of mortality in 
the broader cont23u
-and speculation on the proportions of overall mortality 
	 may 
1)0. aUributed to netting. 
P i. ogecution s 
To date there has only been one proposed prosecution by the Department of 
Environment of an alleged offender involving the use or take of dugong, This stems 
from investigations by Northern Region staff and is presently with the Crown Law 
Office in Brisbane. 
Cone m; ion 
Tri order to have any tangible success in establishing levels of illegal take either by way 
of netting or hunting a long term enforcement strategy needs to be developed and 
implemented. This strategy would need to cover both the northern and southern Great Ilai-rier Reef as well as the Torres Straits, the Gulf of Carpentaria and also, the Moreton 1:= ay area. A More accurate indication of the level of take by hunting in the northern 
(kcal: Bather Reef and netting in the southern Great Bather Reef, particularly the 
Page 1. 
ZS/E1Z/9? 09 	 4 
Shoalwater Bay area would be a likely outcome of this strategy. This strategy would 
require substantial additional resources. 
T M Christensen 
Enforcement Co-ordinator 
Marine Parks Section, Department of Environment 
Date: 14 February 1997 
Page 2. 
uq
ufl
o  
P o
d  
Av
e  J
Oi
EW
II E
OL
IS
  
;ti
Bi
Er
ils
  Ap
ue
s  
m
eu
p  
Jc
e  
Ae
me
H  u
. let
im
os
  
0 	 CD 
25/02/97 09:4Y Pg b411, 
5* z c 0 
@ 
CD 	 13 	 E 
* Co 	 r ‹ 
03 	 ,i2 	 as 	 co 
w 	 a 	 iol k< 	 X) 	 = 
43 	 co w 	 0_ 
W 
= 	 .< 
I
• 
C) 1 C) m " a- 	 g 1' 	 g 
.< ..‹ 	 0 	 0 	 g 	 C) 
-n 	 -n 	 -LI 	 "0 	 m 
co 	 -n 	 -TI 	 03 
tj 	 $1 
ER 0 03 03 D 
17 
:1 
 
0 	 —4 	 Pa 	 ro 	 CA) 	 0 	 .ra. 
og 0E  
a 8 
p 	 5 3 
cl
d8
O
u
0A
1. 1
1  
uo
loe
u  
5io
om
ur
i3u
l H NUM
BER  O
F
 ILLEGAL  NETS
 RECO
RDED  O
R  CONFISCATED IN 
 tHE 
 GREA
T BARRIER
 REEF 
ergency measures 
r aA I 11 - 1J11.1 	 • V .11- 1.3 of.....3 11-1, 
PRELIMINARY REPORT 
JLe. 4.1 L 	 J 
30(p/ 5 
INTERAGENCY DUGONG WORKING GROUP 
GREAT BARRIER REEF MINISTERIAL COUNCIL 
Action arising from 
decisions of the 22nd Meeting Brisbane 30 November 1996 
INFORMATION ON Iliki 
CONSERVATION STATUS OF DUGONG IN THE TORRES STRAIT AREA 
ISSUES 
At its 22nd Meeting, the GBR Ministerial Council approved a serie 
for dugong conservation in the Great Barrier Reef and AdjacenIeteis: 
the concerns has been the major declines in surveyed areas of theiSou ern 
	
Mi 	 ou and more southerly areas in which dugong have been ab 	 1, the nistenlcil noted  
that 
for the Environment undertook to investigate such !maw& review appropriate 
Agenda him 2 (e) 
 
	
Strait and whilst beyond the jurisdiction of GBRMIat 
	
, , 11,0z,p, The Council also had brought to its attention major..,loss o verugong in the Torres 
..,...-, 	 .101m, 	 . 
- 	 , 
	
.1,„, 	
"MonwectIth Minister 
strategies to advance conservation. 
:.-. Hunting, capture, distribution and consumption  	 dugong andiart es are very imporyin the 4. 0. 
culture of Tones Strait Island peoples anilipastal fciiikizi;":01 ,00pssinfdape York and PNG and . 
the fisheries continue to be a major sourceP 5t rqejfiqn thos&ipommunities. There is 
in long-e .din::ainl ' 'tenance of the traditional activities and 1e considerable community interest. 
concern that the resources 
	 ,i)r,l'ing less 4btlndant. 
. ,.. 
1 BACKGliQUND 
IF 	 0 
.. 
	 the Torres Strait region, the major direct 
.0livellW 
anthropogenic source of inortalty is traditionalinMting. Illegal hunting of dugong for sale has been 
.', 
reported t4,0:41m.,..,:g,it nows ,. appear to be prevalent The limited mortality that may occur in gillnet 
bycatc 14:.titigiiiigOthe rei161Walonsidered to come primarily from illegal shark fishing by lik,i!il' 	 , 44 ; Indcati Ian vessels during,the inbli tgi season. With activity by Australian fisheries patrols in the 
 ATIFlian sector, this hilt-pa' "Ift is noWikely to occur primarily in PNG waters. There has been no 
.4 
mbioe,#tal catch of dugoel,reported from the important prawn trawl fishery in the Strait. 
II' - 	 . 2 . 	 ,t,.. • 	 - 
., 
 , es in seagras•istributiodind abundance have occurred in the Torres Strait area, some Majort...4,,,  i 	 ,i, 
associate ,, , excegtic? hl rainfall, flooding and increased turbidity. Associated with such changes 
have been Ch4es igeindition of dugong, movement and changes in local abundance, but the 
relationships a .nlir -E-  	 re,4 ot et understood. 
evii-' 
Biological status 
It is not clear what information the Ministerial Council had available to it on the conservation status 
of dugong in the Torres Strait area on which they based their comment. The following are the main 
points that arise from recent assessments: 
• There is a anecdotal evidence that dugong densities in areas that are favoured hunting grounds in 
Torres Strait are possibly very much lower that they once were. Some hunters report that they 
cannot achieve the catch rates of the past for dugong, while turtle catches can be maintained with 
? 	 ‘' 	 -similar effort; 	 . 	 : 	 - 	 . 	 6, 	 • - 	 ..f1 
0.14.73C-DOC 13 Risvry. Mg 1231 
le the focus of pi. , 
.bat Barrier Reef 
Current effects on 
_L.., ...A, 
	 • 	 A.Ao •.• .•• 
	 U 
300.Z5 
ae/ial surveys carried out in 1983 (partial) 1987 and 1991 indicate that the Tones Strait remains 
the single-most important area of dugong abundance in Australian waters, with estimates of 13,319± SE 2136 (reanalysis of 1987 survey) and 24,225 (±SE 3,276) for the 1991 survey; 
(Marsh and Lawler 1992, Marsh 1996, TPZJA 93-94); 
— results of the most recent survey, completed in November - December 1996, are not yet 
available; 
the most likely explanation for the increase in the estimate of dugong density in the 1991 survey, 
most marked in the Papuan coastal, western Ton-es Strait and Southern Strait blocks, is 
immigration of dugong from adjacent waters, rather than variable bias in the survey methods or 
an inc,-ease in the resident population (Marsh et al in press); 
preliminary assessments of population structure in the region indicate that dugong in the SE 
Asian (Indonesia/Philippines) region are distinct from Australian populationhin which at least 
three genetic groups occur on the east coast (Torres Strait, GBR and SE 9,031iisland groups, 
"nice!, cited in Marsh, 1997); 
	
1V •I''' — it IS thus extremely unlikely that the increase in the 1991 almmdatta." „ ate reflects migration .,—,A, .. 
from areas in the GER in Which there have been marked declingsvp 
o .00 	
. dugong hunting is carried out at differing intensities within ,e TSPZ, with inikrecent activity 
in the Top Western and Western Islands, less in the Centrat4Orands and little iiiIllEastern 
Islands, where turtle catches continue to be most impox*? 
,'.  
**Ali?. 
	
- ., 16,§r.i3r,,,, 
y—, estimated wet weight of dugong landings between juk w 2  1991 and Ma 1993, was !uglier than $k,s1241i.' 	 "0.11Rik.. landings for any other component of the trad1t1o#41 ,
. isheries eattAp. the TSPZ, with significant 
inter-annual variability in catches; 
c the estimated annual catch of 1226 (±SE 204) for 1991 r a. 	 , the Australian Sector was higher , 
than estimates for catches in the mid-7kand 80s, with an etini ate for 1994 of 860 (±SE 241); 
,4 'gases in the pre-reproductive 
es 
ifemales;  
"1 --ea: 	 lipng meat in some areas that may reflect over- -, 
es 
 , inter-c1464nity trade opyiras- 
 tage of dugong meat beyond that required to 
eds,
1,gt. 
woe ; 
so-and dugong may maintain effective effort even at low dugong 
lev 
	 ecent catches in PNG waters and those to the south of the TSPZ; 
surve of the TSPZ will provide an improved basis for an assessment, 
undance. 
 is taken as the reference point, there are real concerns that, 
s Strait dugong fishery may not be sustainable. Essential for an 
on status of the dugong of the Ton-es Strait are: 
more a 
	 stunate of the absolute abundance of dugong in the area 14 	 or 
catch statis , or PNG and in the adjacent waters to the south; 
current life history parameters for dugong from the TSPZ and region; 
improved understanding of population structure and seasonal and other movements. 
CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF THE TORRES smArr DUGONG HUNT IN THE 
AUSTRALIAN SECTOR 
The Ton-es Strait Treaty, entered into by Australia and Papua New Guinea in 1985, deals with 
sovereignty and maritime-boundaries in the area, and provides-for protection of the way of life and 
trOUe3_TSCD3C 13 Iftemerf. 1 
	 1 PM 
dugong may respond to food shortag67,140,rd fecundi 
period or calving interval, with evidence of sign ificant  
may have been associated with seagrass daback a nl  
b:Fi0 Additional causes for concerrI4e; 
'pl114 10.1. 
possible selective ta 
	 ult 
"Tones Strait region which 
1 	 inform9n 
• 
the most recent a4 
evegAfAthe 1991 _estimate' , 
receri4*ti levels in the 
4:1ge,}1;.1 .-• assessmet), 
	 the cons 
estimates of hi 
estimation of 0 
meet immediate, 
combined hunting u
densitieS7,44-,1,1,, dk; 1441* -'4411,1 
-2 
Go, —1 I 	 .1.4 • CP 	 • 
30(p. 3) 
livelihood of traditional inhabitants and the marine environment (TSPZJA report 1993/94). The 
Treaty establishes the Seabed Jurisdiction and Fisheries Jurisdiction lines, with Australian 
sovereignty recognised by PNG of fifteen islands or cays north of that line, including the inhabited 
islands of Boigu, Saibai and Dauan (Laffan 1991, TSPZJA 1995). Where part of a fisheries stock 
under joint management by Australia and PNG extends beyond the Protected Zone, the Treaty allows 
the provisions ofjoint management plans to be extended to what are termed "outside but near areas" 
(see attached figure from.TSPZJA 1995 for dugong and turtle areas). 
Management objectives adopted for the.dugong and turtle fisheries of the TSPZ and adjacent areas 
(TSPZJA 1995) are: 
0 to promote he conservation of turtle and dugong stocks; and 
The sale of dugong and turtle meat is prohibited, with a recognition by mos Mmunities of the 
0 to restrict the taking of dugong and turtle to traditional inhabitants fishing for traditional 
purposes. 
those needed for weddings, funerals and other special occasions.,,. ugong do continbe to form, 
TSPZJA reports recognition by Torres Strait communities that dugoq 
however, an important component of the normal diet of commun '!; es on some isla:r "ttik 
status of the species globally and the need for conservation act:wriiitho: • 41' ,,Orres Strait region. The 
nould be restricted to 
etitAIN'' The Torres Strait Dugong Sanctuary: After consultatio90,1 Torres Strait communitte 
	 arge 
,ot , 0 10- 
segment of the rSPZ.and adjacent area to the east and Svas designiaas a dugong sanctuary, in 
which all hunting of dugong was nominally banned from 185 Limitipbapacity for surveillance and 
enforcement, the isolation of much of the area and 
	 iil  incorpOou, .1404 tensive areas of lower dugong 
density identified in the more recent aerial survey series haver 
	 questions about the efficacy of 
the sanctuary as a component of managaingf9r  dugong m th"dV.': 4region. There have been suggestions 
that its boundaries should be renegotiated, pr 
	 protect4areas are considered for 
, ;p:i55:0y# 
establishment in areas of higher density of dugong 
	 tSaalfre; :119 81, Marsh, Harris and 
Lawler 1997 in press). 
.64 
Other management
-related r„a 0 ities: 
Dugong hunting in the TSPVand  40ent areas r ., r, , ited to traditional inhabitants only, using the 
traditional wap or spear'Alumimum. lginghies wiiitt'utboards are used, rather than canoes. There are 
currently other no limits for huntinffort, numbernthunters or catch for dugong or turtles in the 
TSPZ and adjacent areas, with the  	 .0,-. , ..0.0 ott directed at surveys and catch monitoring and 
, -  . 	 ,..,, 
school and community  
:',4'.;!,1 .P.Z`I-r'n  
'''.10a wildlife 	
,.; Since th 	 .qtltel.:•.,nimifforji . ,
.imogram in Dam market in the late 1970s-early 1980s and a ban on 
1.0.g . 	 .,...,, .......,..!,.. 
	
' 	 -4 	 1. rt • 
	
ince 	 ,Ilie a sale or itieab,., thereAnis, been no systematic recording of dugong takes in PNG, although 
.1*PA5itt,.. 
tke . i e Autn9xity contimpito monitor dugong passing through Daru market. 
	
1.;:• 	 ,. 
	
,,.. 	 1.„. , 	 441 ustalian sector, itteffitoring of Marine fisheries catches in 1991-1993 under a CSIRO project 
, 
ued in 1994 asirpint CSIRO/AFMA project and was re-established in late 1995 by 
0 
	 CKX)13 114.00C 13 Febasry0907 tzln PU 
'404 41100'' 
• 
,46 
was co 
AFMA '`,.4.N provide:4;0 basis for estimates of the traditional take of dugong in the Australian 
Sector of 	
.4001' 
A Schools Pro 
	 ifas also been conducted by AFMA in schools in the Australian Sector, with the 
duel objectives o educating and informing the school community, and future hunters, about turtle and 
dugong conservation and management issues, and collection of catch data. There have been 
modifications to the data collection methods to increase reliability and estimates of catches and 
recording effort. Appointment of part-time time community rangers under the CEPANCRM program 
and development of cooperative programs with the Island Coordinating Council (ICC) provide an 
important base from which further community involvement and participation in the development of 
management programs for the traditional hunts can develop. It is essential that such inititives are 
coordinated with those of the ICC and the MaSTERS initiative, with support for parallel 
developments in the PNG sector. 
3 
9 research and researc 
tida A 	 itoo- 
avoperation WI
ll1nformation  from a s. 
1` 
i Biodive 
February 
Action Officer Gordon Anderson 
Marine Policy and Coordination 2500237 
es; 
" at, 
' 
qucati grams; 
agen 	 developing complementary actions; 
nt areasvan the east and west coasts of Cage York. 
• 	 :M.A. 1.1 
30(sp.) 
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE 
Marsh and others (1986,1996, 1997) have argued that successful conservation of dugong in the 
Torres Strait area will depend on recognition of the special significance of dugong to Torres Strait 
Islanders and the Aboriginal communities of the area and the cooperation and direct involvement of 
indigenous hunters and communities in management and habitat protection. They have argued 
si-ronc,ly that the area is too large and remote for management based on external surveillance and 
c.:,iforceinent and that such an approach is inappropriate. In addition to a range of proposed research 
projects related to management, specific suggestions for further community-level action include: 
maintenance and expansion of the schools monitoring program; 
development of wider community information program in cooperation.:ovr ith o".. ZICC; 
cooperative development of community-based management plans for the #06* hunting 
communities of Boigu, Mabuiag and Badu; 
Go 
. ,4101411'. fostering wider community involvement in development of all aspeOstOt pgong management 0 
,45!:". 
 and research in the region and a recognition of a formal role andlriesx)insi 1bikiltir,. management; 
 
0 a community role in determining priorities and direction fopAugong conservatlictio, on in the 4 NAt3i .„1.•}. 
region. 
 
1- 	 4111,41'1.11% development of lon.ger-term strategy for training an 
	 ro
• 
vision of resources of indigenous 
community rangers to develop the capacity for eff.,4.4., 	 and susta: Id involvement in dugong 
, 	 .„.1.., 	 ..„.:. 
5 management and research.. 
	 ,....ii 
Cc,..rguraunity consultation and workshop 
Recognising the broad interest in the regicug e range of conitn64irties involved, a suggestion has 
been made that a workshop should be held &Torre 	 Islar4emntmities, at which the major 
 
Lstes and priorities could be addressed froriii4ommlihr ' - pctiveW"The workshop would 
0.1 , provide an opportunity for information on current stapitfo lie teiged to a broader section of the 
.ddr. , communities and could examine d provide i- . 	 :*on: 
e., 
Or' icluding Asion of the current Dugong Sanctuary and other 
i109 development Q mmunity-b. 
	 managemen "tans and a regional context; 
community angpgram a d suport  equirede;   for effective operation. 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
REFERENCES 
0 	 11.0UGL73C-130C 13 Fawn% OW 
priorities for conserv rn 
 
possible sanctuary,p 
4 
-Lae LPG/ 2f 
	 -LG. • EPA. 
	 ry • 
• 
;••i 
1•01•11 
1=4 
%Poem/ 
ttt 
.."••••-• 	
• 	
; .; 
ti1.1*.A 
1 (p • /I 
INTERIM POLICY - TRADITIONAL HUNTING 	 Al 
DUGONG 	 MPA 	 161 
Item 	 3(d) 
DRAFT POLICY 
une 1996 
The Authority has now received the final report on the "status of dugong in the 
southern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park"(Marsh et al 1995). The report states 
that " dugongs in the Region have declined by approximately 50% over the past 
eight years from an estimated 3479 + s.e. 459 in 1986/87 to 1682 + s.e. 236 in 1994. 
Over a large section of the region this decline is over 80%."(Marsh et al 1995) All 
staff should read and become familiar wifn -the contents oi this report, copies 
have been distributed to Regional and District Offices of the Department of 
Environment. 
The report further states that "Applying the criteria of the latest 
.IUCN Red List Categories (rucN 1995), the population of dugongs in the southern Great Barrier 
Reef is Critically Endangered, the worst of the threatened categories. 
Inclusion in the Critically Endangered category means that a taxon is "facing an 
extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future" (IUCN 
1995). 
The report identifies several threats to dugongs but does not identify 
any single 
threat or event which might have lead to this decline. Traditional hunting is identified as but one of many threats. It is clear however that the situation 
of dugongs is such that hunting of dugongs in the area from south of Cooktown is no longer ecologically sustainable. 
This is a sensitive policy issue as the refusal to grant hunting permits may have a 
significant impact on indigenous rights and culture and could cause some 
backlash. Rather than making a statement banning hunting outright tha Authority would prefer to work in a cooperative manner with indigenous 
peoples to meet both World Heritage and indigenous traditional responsibilities 
for survival of the species. The Authority is undertaking a program of 
consultation and negotiation with indigenous groups in the affected area to 
further develop a series of agreements and long term policy on traditional 
hunting. 
Whilst this process is in progress the following interim measures 
should be followed by staff when approached by indigenous people about traditional hunting:- 
3/(p). 
;?) 
INTERIM POLICY - Traditional Hunting in the GBRMP south of Cooktown. 
Whilst this policy specifically addresses indigenous hunting of dugong it does not 
blame hunting for the decline of dugong. The causes of the decline in the 
dugong population have not been specifically identified but potentially include 
loss of seagrass (habitat and food source), disturbance and strike by vessels, 
entrapment in mesh nets (including beach protection) and effects of pollution. 
These other threats will be addressed in specific policies and management plans. 
Take time to explain the seriousness Of the situation for dugongs as indicated by the most recent survey report. (Marsh et al 1995). This may require acknowledgment of local knowledge of apparently healthy populations of dugong. Put this population into a regional perspective which indicates that 
all animals need to be preserved to maintain a breeding population to ensure 
future recovery to a regionally healthy population. 
Acknowledge traditional rights, do not apportion blame for dugong decline to 
hunting. Accept csimments and criticism raised about the effects of trawlers, 
gill nets ark: btlier-threats to dugong. Advise of actions in place to begin to 
mitigate other threats and appeal to traditional responsibilities which require 
maintenance, of the species for future generations. A handout brochure is 
available which can be used as a prompt and give away. 
If an application to hunt dugong is lodged, accept the application but advise that a permit will not be recommended based on a responsibility to ensure 
continuance of the species (Assessment Criteria 13AC(4)(c) & (d), 13AC(5)(a) 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations). 
Evaluation of the current status of dugongs against assessment criteria 
13AC(4) (a), (f) and (j) should indicate that hunting can no longer be 
recommended. During assessment local information should be sought from 
indigenous groups on traditional responsibilities for conservation of species 
and quote against criterion 13AC(4)(b). Advise the applicant of their 
reconsideration and appeal rights Regulation 22(2) & (5) should the permit be 
refused (as the assessing officer you may be recommending refusal, you are 
not refusing the permit). (GBRMP Regulations) 
Advise applicant that a program of consultation and negotiation- is being 
developed to talk to indigenous people and groups about this issue. Ask for 
contact details if the person would like to be involved. Tell them that they 
will be contacted about meetings by someone from GBRIvIPA. Pass the contact details on to the: 
Indigenous Liaison Coordinator (Mr Ross Williams), or 
Manager, Indigenous Culture Liaison Unit (Mr Greg Smith), or in their 
absence: 
Assistant Planning Officer (Ms Janet Slater), 
at GBRIVIPA Townsville. 
If someone claims an exemption under Section 211 of the Native Title Act 1993, you should refer to either the: 
Legal Officer GBRMPA (077) 500867, 
Manager Indigenous Cultural Liaison Unit GBRMPA (Mr Greg Smith) (077) 500850, or 
Manager Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Interests, Department 
of Environment Brisbane (Mr Terry Piper) (073) 2277797. 
2 
H. 3/(p3) 
.. GREAT BARRIER REI 
MARINE PARK AUTHORITY 
DUGONGS 
IN TROUBLE 
David Michael, 
Lockhart River Art Gang 
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has run research programs to check the 
numbers of dugongs in the Great Barrier Reef area since 1987. In 1987, approximately 
3479 dugongs were counted in the area near Cooktown south to Bundaberg. Another 
counf
-
o.f,the same area in 1992 found approximately 1857 dugongs. As a result of the large 
decrease in numbers of dugong during these two surveys a further survey was 
conducted in 1995 with only approximately 1682 dugongs counted. 
These figures show that dugong numbers have 
dropped to less than half since 1987. Some local 
populations have dropped by as much as 80% with 
only one local area showing an increase in dugong 
numbers. Unfortunately, in most of the areas, 
populations are so small that they cannot afford to lose 
any more breeding animals. 
Scientists say numbers are so low, in the southern Great 
Barrier Reef area from near Cooktown to Bundaberg, 
that the population of dugongs is 'Critically' Endangered meaning dugongs in the 
immediate future face an extremely high risk of extinction. 
Scientists think that there is a combination of many reasons which may have caused the 
loss in numbers, including loss of seagrass, boat strikes, pollution, trapping in nets 
(including protection nets for swimmers and commercial gill nets) and hunting. 
The following things are now being done to try and stop the loss of animals. 
A Turtle and Dugong Management Strategy has been developed by the Great Barrier • 
Reef Marine Park Authority. 
Aboriginal people in Bowen, Mossman and Rockhampton have voluntarily elected to 
stop hunting dugongs until they recover to a healthy number. In some other areas, 
people have agreed to very tight restrictions on hunting. 
Banning 
 of some types of gill nets in Shoalwater Bay have been agreed to by the 
commercial fishers of the area. 
Dugong numbers have 
fallen to less than 1/2 
 
since 1987 
1987 Approx. 3479 
1992 Approx. 1857 
1995 Approx. 1682 
3104 
GREAT BARRIER REEF 
.• MARINE PARK AUTHORITY 
A management plan is being developed for other action to protect dugongs in 
Shoalwater Bay. 
Nets to protect swimmers from sharks have been removed from some areas of 
Queensland (nets now only occur off Cairns, Townsville and Mackay) and replaced 
with drum lines to target sharks. 
Gillnetting is a recognised problem of dugong deaths and capture. The management 
agencies are working together with the fishing industry to develop new management 
plans and ways to reduce the impacts on dugongs. Queensland has rules which 
restrict net size and strength and requires the fisher to be near &cf.. , p:_el-at all times to 
stop accidental dugongs or turtles deaths. 
Work is being done by farmers and landcare groups to reduce the amount of pollution 
running off farms into the sea which might affect seagrass. 
Staff of management agencies must consider and comment upon the possible dangers 
of proposed resort developments (or other major projects) on seagrass areas and 
dugongs. 
Research is under way to identify important feeding and breeding areas (seagrass 
areas). 
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Queensland Department of 
Environment, which manage the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, have national 
and international responsibilities for making sure that there are healthy dugong 
populations for the future. It is understood that indigenous peoples hold the same 
responsibility by traditional law and custom. Elders from several areas have recently 
expressed concern about the drop in dugong numbers over the past ten years, and have -- 
taken action to see that dugongs are not hunted. 
We would like to seek your help and cooperation in managing this problem by not 
hunting dugong in the area until dugong numbers have recovered to safe numbers, 
which in most areas will take many years. 
Staff of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Queensland Department of 
Environment will be visiting your area shortly to discuss this issue with you. 
If you would like any other information before then or would like to pass on information 
please contact - Ross Williams (077) 500 716 or Janet Slater (077) 500 731 
(free call number 1800 802 251) 
at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
_. 
- Great Barrier Reef • 
MPA 161 
' Marine Park Authority - 
Item 
3 (d) 
TRADITIONAL HUNTING OF-DUGONGS - INTERIM -- 
POLICY 
RECOMMENDATION 
That the Authority: 
adopt the document "Interim Policy - Traditional Hunting Dugong" dated June 1996 as interim 
policy for use by staff of the Authority 
and the Queensland Department of Envirorunent when assessing 
applications for traditional hunting of dugongs in the area from 
Cooktown to the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef 
Marine Park (decision MPA 91/15 on guidelines for permits for hunting of dugongs refers); and 
decide to proceed cautiously with the introduction of the interim 
policy, in recognition of the need for further consultation with 
indigenous groups and others, in order to develop a co-operative 
approach to managing all threats to dugongs. 
BACKGROUND 
James Cook University has been commissioned to conduct surveys of 
dugong numbers in the GBRMP since 1987. The most recent report on 
surveys conducted in 1994 states that dugong numbers in the area Cooktown south have declined 
by approximately 50% with some local areas declining by as much as 
80%. The decline is so serious that 
researchers are now stating that dugong in the area meet IUCN criteria for being listed as "Critically Endangered".(Marsh et al 1995) 
Traditional hunting has not been blamed in isolation for the loss of 
dugongs. It is acknowledged as being but one of many threats to dugong. 
MPA 146/8 developed a draft Turtle and Dugong Management Strategy. 
Recent decisions by the Authority in regard to the population decline in the southern area concern: 
proposals for regulations or plan of management to deal with gill 
netting deaths in Shoalwater Bay (MPA 156/3), 
the setting of a course of action 
to address a number of probable causes (MPA 159/9), and co
mmencement of management planning for dugong populations in the area (MPA 159/10). 
ISSUES 
The situation of dugongs in the area is so serious that loss from all means 
_must be stopped if dugongs are to survive and recover to a healthy population. 
le Authority cannot meet its international obligations for management 
of the World Heritage Area, or its legislative 
responsibilities for management of the Marine Park, unless an effective strategy is being -nplemented to protect .dugong. 
DRICIN: Planning and Environmental Management EDITION: 27/6/96 PAPERS: 
Al 
3/ ('p. 5) 
MPA 
	 161 
Great Barrier Reef 
Marine Park Authority Item 
	 3(d) 
The Authority has a policy of permitting traditional activities whilst they 
remain ecologically sustainable. The serious decline in dugong numbets 
in the area south of Cooktown indicates that traditional hunting for 
dugongs can no longer be considered ecologically sustainable. 
Banning of hunting, whilst not taking serious action to mitigate all 
threats to dugong, is culturally offensive to indigenous communities. 
The loss of the right to traditionally hunt is seen to be a serious erosion of 
indigenous rights as well as a serious breach of legal responsibility, by 
management agencies, for management of the environment. 
Staff propose that the Authority work in a cooperative manner with 
indigenous peoples to meet both World Heritage and indigenous 
traditional responsibilities for survival of the species. The .Authority is 
undertaking a program of consultation and negotiation with indigenous 
groups in the affected area to further develop a series of agreements and 
long-term policy on traditional hunting. 
Whilst this process is in progress, interim measures, set out in the 
document "Interim Policy - Traditional Hunting Dugong" dated June 
1996 (attachment Al), should be followed by staff of the Authority and the Queensland Department of Environment when approached by 
indigenous people about traditional hunting, and in particular when 
assessing applications for traditional hunting of dugongs in the area from 
Cooktown to the southern boundary of the Marine 
-Park. 
CONSULTATION 
Comments from all Regional Offices of the Department of Environment 
have been incorporated
-. 
Bowen, Ayr, Whitsunday, Shoalwater Bay and Mossman Aboriginal 
groups have been involved in the process through permit negotiations. 
All have already agreed to cease hunting until dugong numbers recover 
to safe levels. Work is currently proceeding with Mackay Councils of 
Elders who have greatest concern over stopping hunting. 
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND PRIORITY 
Very high priority. A liaison officer will need to spend some three 
months of effort in the Mackay area working through issues with the two 
Councils of Elders. Additional liaison work will be required in the 
Townsville/Cairns area. Travel to be calculated into the 1996/97 budget 
for the Indigenous Cultural Liaison Unit. 
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION 
It is proposed to implement the interim policy immediately. Public 
announcements are not encouraged until the policy is finalised. 
However, the public will be able to access the decision and the policy as 
well as the paper by Professor Marsh et al. 
Liaison with targeted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups to 
commence in July to disseminate information about the status of dugong 
and discuss actions being implemented to address identified issues. A 
final policy on hunting will be developed through this process. 
ORIGIN: Planning and Environmental Management 
	 EDITION: 27/6/96 PAPERS: 
	 Al 
7 
MPA 161: TOWNSVILLE 
12 JULY 1996 
Item 3 c Da o-da Mana ement: First Suarterl Pa ment 1996-97 
The Authority: 
noted that for a period commencing 1 July, 1996 there will be no approved 
annual program in place for day-to-day management of the GBR_IvIP for 1996/97; and 
DECIDED to ratify the agreement reached by members through 
correspondence to authorise the Chairperson to approve payment of the first 
quarterly claim for day-to-day management for 1996/97 to cover ongoing 
salaries, wages and associated operating costs only in accordance with supply funding principles. 
MPA 161/7 
REFERRED TO QDoE (1,2,3,4,5), QDPIFF (1) AND QWP (1), FOR INFORMATION 
Item 3(d) Traditional Hunting of Dugongs: Interim Policy 
The Authority DECIDED to: 
adopt the document "Interim Policy - Traditional Hunting Dugong" dated June 
1996 as interim policy for use by staff of the Authority and QDoE when 
assessing applications for traditional hunting of dugongs in the area from 
Cooktown to the southern boundary of the GBRMP (decision MPA 91/15 on 
guidelines for permits for hunting of dugongs refers); and 
proceed cautiously in the introduction of the interim policy, in recognition of 
the need for further consultation with indigenous groups and others, in order 
to develop a cooperative approach to managing all threats to dugongs. 
MPA 161/8 
REFERRED TO QDoE (2,3,4,5), QDPIFF (1) AND QWP (1), FOR INFORMATION 
Item 4 Regulation of Ship Sourced Sewage 
Noting the development of regulations to control discharges of sewage from vessels 
within the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995, the Authority DECIDED to recommend development of complementary legislation for the 
	
_ GBRMP, subject to confirmation of support from the Queenstand Department oi
-Transport. 
MPA 161/9 
REFERRED TO QDoE (1,2,3,4,5), QDPIFF (1) AND QWP (1), FOR INFORMATION 
Item 5(a) Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee: Report of the 55th Meeting 
The Authority received formally the reports from the GBRCC on its 55th meeting 
and considerd the Committee's advice. 
"Is 
Fax from ; 
oi MAC6AYCIMBRIATION GROUP 	 PHONE NO. : +079 530808 
Mackay Conservation Groupt.s . 
PO Box 826 Mackay Q 4740 
• Environment Centre 156 Wood Street Mackay 
1,b 
Phone 530 808 Fax 5-3eat08. 
 
25 February 1997 
Dr Ian McPhail 
Chair 
Great Barrier Ref Marine Park Authority 
TOWNSVILLE 4810 
By facsimile: (077) 726 093 
Dear Dr McPhail, 
We are writing to reaffirm our support for your commitment to ensure the recovery of 
dugongs in the southern GreatBarrier Reef region. 
The best available scientific evidence shows that gill netting is ecologically unsustainable 
primarily because of its impact on dugong populations. Subsequently it is our position 
that gill netting should be prohibited throughout the dugongs range, especially in the. 
propoaed Great Barrier Reef dugong sanctuaries. 
Yours sincerely, 
Jacki Wirth 
Coordinator 
P I 	 .4.71 • ..1.1 	 Jitil• 	 J. 
Feb. 25 1997 04:00PM P01 
Wildlife Queensland  
Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 
Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch 
33. 
n'CL- J2r5 
27/02/97 
facsimile 
Dr Ian McPhail 
Chairman CIBRMPA 
Dear Ian, 
Li KG ENI 
INTERINI DUCONG PROTECTION 
I refer to the AMCS "interim &gong protection Stratea", as al tioulated at the last 
GI3R Advisory Conuttit tee meetiAg ol last. week: 
Althoush our next general meeting is lot until the 19/3/97, the policy has been 
discussed with our branch executive and as may members that I could coataet. 
We are all of the opinion that gill netting inside dugout; sanctuaries should be 
prohibited, and that the branch policy should be the samo as that policy taken by the 
QCC, NQCC and the Human Society (all represented at the Advisory meeting). 
Because of the precarious state of dugong populations between Townsville and 
Mackay, we call on the GIIRM.PA to take the strongest possible measures to stop 
this animal becoming locally extinct. 
Could you please convey the con1ent of this letter to the State and Federal 
Environment ministers at tomorrows meeting (28/2/9.7) 
Ian Sutton 
Branch Coordinator 
phone/fax 079 464 170 
' 
	 ••nnn•••n-+ 
P.O. Kiliftil'FROSERPINE, Q. 4800 
	 Recycled 
Z 42.A. 1 L.A.'s.. 	 • •-n 	 • • 7 
Robert Hill 
Minister for the Environment 
C/0 Parliament House 
Canberra ACT 2601 
25th February 1997 
Regarding dugong nrotection 
Dear Mr Hill; 
eGrulr GPC.,I 	 1.4.1 • 	 U • 
	 A. 
CJ IL) b3LS / Afa 	 P EJ 1 trie
• e 
 
'Sle-O t2S1-4 po box 323 
north cairns 
q .1 d 4 8 7 0 
cominos house 
27-29 greensIopes Si 
:e1:070 321 746 
fax:070533 779 
email.-pagasu.s:calnec 
As you are about to decide the future of Australia's dugong population, we wish 
to bring a few of our concerns to your attention. 
The numbers of dugong have decreased in the southern Great Barrier Reef region by 
80% from 1987 to 1994. Within years we could see this magnificent marine mammal 
become extinct. The urgency for protection of the dugong has been well recognised 
by the scientific community and even your own ministry. 
We are yet to see action on this matter initiated. 
The Draft Emergency Protection Measures (DEPM) which have been proposed by 
the state and federal governments do not provide necessary protection for the 
dugong. 
.40..,Ukotr,44%.%%404. 
• 
In order to effectively protect the dugong., 
to he b  made, some of which may have rarkeations for certain industriec 446,11 
Pishing industry. Short term strategig 
	 proposed by both levels of 
government are no longer acceptatl 
	 'community. 
.44,0 
4•0' 	 s'ef:"?;, 
-ernment to : 
'1.4 OM ft,• 
prohibit use of gi1nctsirTubng 
 soctuaries, a practice which has accounted for . 	 • • 
approximately 6 % of du n strodings between 1995 and 1996 and has been 
proven by the be 
	
aab çiei ti1ic evidence to be unsustainable; 
..••v 
range in favour of replacement by drum lines 
e alternative; 
prohibit trawling.on: 
We therefore call on you and gi) 
' declare new marinc.milOttart f dugong protection; 
ftr • 	 4"ge AT: %ft 
f. 
remove shark nets 
which have been 
f*" implement a moratonu . 
	 • 
habitats; 
4:::tvomm, 
voe 
prohibit use of underwater r 
g. 
	
a
- 	 •• 	 •,n•••,.. 	
, 	 :....:+0;• 
elo ents adj,ac,.. _Up ...critical dugong 
,..,*:•,.;:i...:5, 	 "-, 
0t•n
littg•ly.":64"k,-....441.;(9.00;,*?zu,„
- 	 kk.. 
	
"Awo,.• 	 V•IP.w4,',104,,,..z. lor. 04,t,:.4f4.***.ig:t,.+4 ...• 
	 ' 
	
-.4*ft...v., 
	
-
-.1weit•ipsi,W>,,,At•Ywil. • 
S in WAitir 
' • <**":1;t5.0.: 
	 VV•ik,:: '''',,Vg3 
	 , , 4 
.. . :::, • ...,,,:-.::, 
	 ,-;., 
°:.,,,,-.H''",:x . .k.:-;.%% . 
	
"•%.'4e.iAKI*4*, '4..., 4, ,. .... .. 
	 iA;,•,4,,,..:x ? 
ni::Ztt: Lelz,.
..1‘.....;,,, ..,2...
..1,..zri,' 
'W.Aft.WW.maftts.k 
	
...$A4'... 
	
''',Q?, 
	 , , , ..,,,,44,..` 
 
sm<itx 
. 
.•'''' ..W••n•; ,N,Q4•:%: 
:44,,M<sMi• 	 , 
1 	
* 
lax from ;tWtl 5:1S 	 4/ 131GeW 	 ; 
	
CJIU b33 /I 	 P.UZ 
34e 1)% 47) 
• implement enforceable controls on vessel speeds in dugong habitat. 
Only with the implementation:of these significant measures will human impacts on 
the dugong be reduced, enabling a king term recovery of dugong numbers in the 
southern Great Bather Reef region . 
Present and future communities in Australia rely on you to protect these rare species 
from extinction and we are looking forward to see a strong implementation plan that 
addresses our concerns. 
Regards 
Jamie Machin 
Marine Biologist 
Cairns and Far North Environment Centre (CAFNEC) 
c.c 	 Ian McPhail 
Chairman - Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
c.c 	 Brian Littleproud 
Queensland minister for the environment 
3611ps 
Dugong management in the Northern Great Bather Reef 
Joan Phillips, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 
February 1997 
Dugongs in the northern Great Barrier Reef region, north of Cooktown, 
have not shown the widespread decline detected in the southern Great 
Barrier Reef. However the northern region is the most important dugong 
habitat in the GBR, and one of the most important in Australia. In 
November 1996 the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council considered a 
package of emergency measures to eliminate or substantially reduce dugong 
mortality in the Great Barrier Reef area. The Ministerial Council agreed to 
nine interim Dugong Protection Areas south of Cooktown, plus a possible 
two more in Bathurst Bay and Princess Charlotte Bay in the northern 
region. 
A preliminary assessment of existing information has been made and the 
following approach to dugong protection in the northern Great Barrier Reef 
is proposed: 
The following areas are recognised as significant areas for dugong north of 
Cooktown: 
the Starcke coast between Lookout Point and Cape Melville 
Bathurst Bay 
Princess Charlotte Bay 
Port Stewart to Colmer Point (south of Chester R) 
Campbell Point to north of Friendly Point 
Temple Bay 
Shelburne Bay 
Lloyd Bay is a possible additional area of significance for dugong. 
Although the above areas are listed as discrete units, it is likely that dugong 
populations move between them. For example, the Starcke coast and 
Bathurst Bay may be utilised by the same population. This is probably true of 
any two adjacent areas. Researchers have consistently rated the northern 
Great Barrier Reef region as a whole is the most important dugong habitat 
in the Great Barrier Reef (e.g. Marsh and Corkeron 1996). 
It is not recommended that a formal dugong sanctuary status be placed on 
the above key areas, but that the areas be listed as significant and measures 
clearly identified to ensure protection and maintenance of populations and 
habitat. The management intent proposed for the Far Northern Section 
includes a primary objective of biodiversity protection. All of the key areas 
for dugong also contribute to the broader aim of biodiversity protection, and 
most are important to indigenous people. These values may be confused in 
the public's mind if the areas are identified solely or formally as dugong 
sanctuaries. 
3 sr(p. 
Existing and recommended protection measures for dugong in the northern 
GBR are set out below. A considerable amount of protection is afforded to 
dugong through the existing zoning plans. Changes proposed for the Far 
Northern Section through the current review will, if agreed to, provide 
additional protection for- dugong and dugong habitat, as well as fulfilling 
other management objectives. Measures are also proposed for 
Commonwealth waters in the Cairns Section north of Cooktown, and in 
State waters in both the Cairns and the Far Northern Section. The processes 
for implementing the latter suite of measures are outside the current Far 
Northern Section review, and implementation should be considered along 
with measures in the southern GBR. 
1. Starcke coast 
This area straddles the Cairns and Far Northern Sections. The existing level 
of protection through zoning in the GBRMP is at first glance very high. 
North of the section boundary the area is zoned Scientific Research, 
Preservation and Marine National Park 'B'. South of the boundary is zoned 
National Park. However several factors are acting to reduce the level of 
protection. A State Marine Park has yet to be established adjacent to the Far 
Northern Section, hence waters above LWM and in estuaries are not 
managed in a complementary way to waters in the GBRMP. Netting takes 
place, for example, adjacent to the existing Preservation Zone and Scientific 
Research Zone. The National Park Zone in the Cairns Section has a 
boundary 100m offshore from LWM. Inshore of this boundary, waters 
(including State waters) are zoned Habitat Protection and netting is carried 
out. It is possible that this area is subject to considerable hunting pressure, 
particularly in the southern parts. 
Recommendations: 
Amend the Cairns Section Zoning Plan to bring the National Park Zone 
inshore to LWM. 
Implement netting closures in State waters to HWM and into the 
mouths of estuarine streams, using the same mechanisms as for 
southern DPAs. 
Develop traditional hunting plans with the Hopevale community. 
2. Bathurst Bay 
Along with Starcke, this area is arguably the most significant for dugong in 
the northern Great Barrier Reef. There is a considerable amount of 
commercial netting in Bathurst Bay. Measures proposed by QCFO for this 
area are believed to be unlikely to significantly reduce incidental dugong 
mortality due to netting. For a number of reasons, the draft proposals for the 
Far Northern Section include changing the zoning for this area from GU'B' 
to MNP'B', with a narrow inshore strip of Marine National Park 'A' east of 
the Muck River mouth. This change, if implemented, will eliminate 
commercial netting in the GBRMP. Complementary zoning in State waters 
awaits the establishment of the State Marine Park. The area is not believed 
to be used for traditional hunting of dugong. 
3 r0). 
Recommendations: 
Retain the proposal in the Far Northern Section Draft Zoning Plan to 
change the zoning of Bathurst Bay to MNP'B' and MNP`A'. 
Implement netting closures in State waters to HWM and into the 
mouths of estuarine streams, using the same mechanisms as for 
southern DPAs. 
3. Princess Charlotte Bay 
Although Princess Charlotte Bay/Bathurst Bay was not one of the areas of 
highest dugong density, about half the total numbers of animals observed in 
the survey area were observed in this block (Peter Corcoran, pers. comm.). 
The area is also an important area for commercial fishing, in particular for 
netting, crabbing and trawling (in the northern part of the Bay). No changes 
to the zoning are proposed for the main part of the Bay, but it is proposed to 
rezone the area around the Cliff Islands and Tune Reef to MNP'B'. An 
important area for dugong, west of Bathursi Heads, is currently excluded 
from the Marine Park. 
Recommendations: 
Implement netting closures in parts of the Bay e.g. W of Bathurst Heads 
to about the Normanby R, and N from about 14 021', using the same 
mechanisms as for southern DPAs. 
Retain the proposal in the Far Northern Section Draft Zoning Plan to 
change the zoning around the Cliff Islands and June Reef from GU'B' to 
MNP'13`. 
4. Port Stewart to Colmer Point (south of Chester R) 
This area is currently zoned GU'B'. An area adjacent to Port Stewart is 
currently excluded from the Marine Park. No changes to zoning are 
proposed for the Far Northern Section Draft Zoning Plan. 
Recommendations: 
Implement netting closures using the same mechanisms as for southern 
DPAs. 
5. Campbell Point to north of Friendly Point 
In the existing Zoning Plan, this area is mostly MNPIT, but significant 
dugong habitat extends north of this zone. The inshore area in this vicinity 
was one with the highest densities of dugongs observed in the 1995 surveys. 
Friendly Point may be becoming a focus for hunting from the Lockhart 
River community. 
Recommendations: 
Propose in the Far Northern Section Draft Zoning Plan to extend the 
boundaries of the existing MNP'B' north to the Bobardt Point exclusion 
area to take in significant dugong habitat. 
Develop traditional hunting plans with the Lockhart River community. 
3 C(?, ti,) 
6. Temple Bay 
For a number of reasons, the draft proposals for the Far Northern Section 
include changing the zoning for this area from GU'B' to MNP'B'. 
Recommendations: 
Retain the proposal in the Far Northern Section Draft Zoning Plan to 
change the zoning of Temple Bay to MNP'B'. 
Implement netting closures in State waters to HWM and into the 
mouths of estuarine streams, using the same mechanisms as for 
southern DPAs. 
7. Shelburne Bay 
The area was observed to have one of the highest densities of dugong in the 
1995 surveys. It is currently zoned MNPF. No changes are proposed in the 
Far Northern Section Draft Zoning Plan. The Margaret Bay area north of 
-
Cape Grenville is currently excluded from the Marine Park. The Wuthathi 
people have suggested to the Authority that this area be managed as a 
dugong sanctuary. 
Recommendations: 
Retain the existing zoning of MNP'B'. 
Implement netting closures in State waters to HWM and into the 
mouths of estuarine streams, using the same mechanisms as for 
southern DPAs. 
Futher assess the Margaret Bay area east of Shelburne, and develop 
management arrangements in consultation with traditional custodians. 
8. Other areas 
Lloyd Bay 
There is some anecdotal suggestion of a localised decline in the dugong 
population due to hunting pressure. 
Develop traditional hunting plans with the Lockhart River community. 
Retain proposal in the Far Northern Section Draft Zoning Plan to change 
zoning from GU'B' to MNP'B'. 
Corbett Reef and Hedge Reef 
The report of the northern deep-water seagrass survey (1995) stated that 
areas of deep-water seagrass habitat close to Corbett Reef and at various sites 
on the outer shelf should be considered for special protection as dugong and 
turtle habitat. 
Retain proposal in the Far Northern Section Draft Zoning Plan to change 
zoning of northern Corbett Reef from GU'A' to GU'B' to protect 
deepwater seagrass. 
Fax from : +61 78 351481 
•••• ••• 	 • •n1, •n•••n• 	 Ilia" aa • Man • • Nal •41 	 • a :an • VI a • SO Pa/ 
07/83/97 11:58 " • Pq : 2 
QFIVIA - ZAC Meeting, Townsville 
19th Nov 1996 
Notes on seagrasses and Seagrass-dugong interactions in the Hinchinbrook 
Region. 
Warren Lee Long and Robert Coles 
Northern Fisheries centre, PO Box 5396, cairns 0 4870. 
Seagrass habitats in the Hinchinbrook region (including Dunk Island to Cape Cleveland) 
werefirst mapped in 1987 during a broadscale survey between Cairns and Bowen (see 
attached Map, from Coles et al. 1992). That survey indicated where the main areas of 
seagrass habitat occurred and noted that seagrasses in the Hinchinbrook Island area are 
important regionally (Lee Long et al. 993). The nearest large areas of seagrass are to the 
south around Townsville, and dugong populations in Hinchinbrook Island area probably use 
seagrasscs in a region which extends at least from Dunk Island to Cape Cleveland. 
A detailed survey of Dunk Island to Cape Cleveland in October 1996 (one month ago) 
provides the only source of quantitative data to assess changes in seagrasses in the region 
since 1987 (Queensland Department of Primary Industries unpublished information). This 
survey included repeat checks of approximately 10% of sites from the 1987 survey (both 
seagrass and non-seagrass sites). 
Draft maps from the recent detailed survey indicate significant increases in the distribution 
of seagra.sses across the region since the 1987 broadscale survey. Most noticeable were increases in the area of sub-tidal seagrass habitat in Missionary Bay and from Cape 
Pallarenda to Cape Cleveland. However, we have no measure of any other year-to-year 
changes in seagrass distribution and abundance for the region between 1987 and now. 
Anecdotal information (eg., Mellors, pers comm. Dr John Collins, pers comm.) has indicated 
a possible decrease in seagrass distribution and abundance in the region during 1990 and 
1991. These sources only mention intertidal seagrasses, and no information exists on changis--- 
in sub-tidal seagrasses for those years. No quantitative data means we have no real measure - 
of year-to-year losses or increases, and more importantly, no idea of the scale of any changes. Therefore we cannot make any confident comment about the likely impacts on seagrass grazers such as dugongs and green sea turtles. We require detailed annual surveys at a 
number of localities to reliably measure long-term variations in seagrasses across regions. 
At this point it is believed that small
-scale losses of seagrass are likely to affect dugong population movements and dugong populationfecundity (birth rates), but not likely to be the 
most important cause of mortalities (Marsh, pers comm.). 
Large
-scale changes in seagrass distribution and abundance would more likely effect dugong 
mortaliv rates (eg., the 1992 seagrass and dugong losses in Hervey Bay, Preen, Lee Long 
and Coles 1995, Preen and Marsh 1995). 
Hinchinbrook Region seagrasses and dugongs. Townsville ZAC 19 Nov 1996 
96115g034oc 
In.,. • • • K., 	 - • a. V* • ,“ 5 /5 	 111J GBRMPA LIBRARY 
1111 
	 IC 1j 1j 141 
5 An• 
II 
Fax from : +61 70 351401 
	
07/03/97 11:58 Pg: 3 
Coastal seagrasses in northern Queensland are often restricted to the intertidal and immediate 
sub-tidal depths to less than 5 m. The relatively turbid coastal waters of northern Queensland limit light penetration and therefore inhibit seagrass photosynthesis and growth at greater depths. Thus the primary food source of dugongs in the Hinchinbrook region, as for many other parts of the Queensland coast, is along the relatively narrow band close to shore. This area overlaps with some of the main areas of gill netting in these regions, and presents 
immediate high risks to dugongs of capture in gill nets. If the area of subtidal seagrass 
habitat is small, there are few alternative feeding areas for dugong. 
It is also possible that increases in day
-time boat traffic may also cause dugong to retreat to 
offshore areas during the day and concentrate their inshore feeding activity to night time. 
This would increase the likelihood of encounters with gill nets. 
References 
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., fielinke, S.A., Bennett, R.E., Miller, K.J. and Derbyshire, K.J. (1992). 
Seagrass beds and juvenile prawn nursery grounds Cairns to Bowen. Queensland Department of Primary Industries Information Series QI 92012. 64 pp. 
Lee Long, W.J., Coles, R.G., Derbyshire, KJ., Miller, K.J. and Vidler, K.P. (1992). Seagrass beds and 
juvenile prawn and fish nursery grounds, Water Park Point to Hervey Bay, Queensland. Queensland Department of Primary Industries Information Series QI 92011. 
Lee Long, W.J., Mellors, LE. and Coles, R.G. (1993). Seagra.sses between Cape York and Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44(1), 19-31. 
Preen, A., Lee Long, W. J., and Coles, R. G. (1995). Flood and cyclone related loss, and partial 
recovery, of more than 1000 km2 of seagrasses in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. Aquatic Botany, 52:3-17. 
Preen. A. and Mg j 1,2, 
	 4.esponse of dugongs to large-scale loss of seagrass from Hervey Bay, Aus rci is Mr 
 isearch 22;507-519- 
it 
Cost 
	  
Accession 
No 	  
CaB No. 
4c-173S 
Asr\\ 
Rdefi 
.491 
Hinchinbroolc Region seagrctsses and dugongs. Townsville ZIC 19 Nov 1996. 9611803.doc