Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Wildlife ... · SESSF since the 2003 strategic...

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Wildlife Trade Operation Re-assessment 2006

September 2006

2

Table of Contents Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. 2

Table of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................ 4

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5

Part 1: Key Management Changes in the SESSF.......................................................... 6 Implementation of SESSF Management Plan................................................................ 6

Total allowable catch (TAC) changes for quota managed species ............................ 7 Changes in catch for major non-quota species in the SESSF ................................... 8 Changes in discarding rates for quota and non-quota species in the SESSF ......... 10

Effort Changes in the SESSF ....................................................................................... 10 Automatic longline effort in the scalefish hook sector of the GHATS....................... 10 Shark hook effort of the SESSF ................................................................................ 11 Gillnet sector effort of the SESSF ............................................................................. 11 Trawl effort in the CTS and ECDWTS....................................................................... 12 Trawl effort in the GABTS ......................................................................................... 12

Spatial Management Measures .................................................................................... 12 Closures implemented since 2003................................................................................ 12

Head of the Great Australian Bight ........................................................................... 12 St Helens Hill closure ................................................................................................ 13 Auto longlining fishing areas ..................................................................................... 14 Voluntary area closures for spawning ling ................................................................ 14 Representative Marine Protected Areas in the South-East Marine Region ............. 15 Victoria Marine National Parks and Sanctuaries ...................................................... 16 Tasmanian State Waters Marine Reserves .............................................................. 17

Closures in place prior to 2003 ..................................................................................... 18 Lord Howe Island and Balls Pyramid ........................................................................ 18 ECDWTS exclusion zone .......................................................................................... 18 Murat Bay................................................................................................................... 18 Cascade Plateau ....................................................................................................... 18 41° south closure....................................................................................................... 18 The Great Australian Bight Marine Park ................................................................... 19 Pages Island (near Kangaroo Island) ....................................................................... 19 Seal Bay closure........................................................................................................ 19 Tasmanian Seamounts closure................................................................................. 19 Tasmanian shark closures ........................................................................................ 20

Implementation of harvest strategies for key quota species including control rules.... 20 Reference points ....................................................................................................... 20 Precautionary tiered catch setting approach and harvest control rules ................... 20 Tier 1.......................................................................................................................... 21 Tier 2.......................................................................................................................... 21 Tier 3.......................................................................................................................... 22 Tier 4.......................................................................................................................... 22 Reference points for non-quota species ................................................................... 23

Part 2. Report on WTO Recommendations................................................................. 24

3

Part 3. Ongoing and Future Management Changes .................................................. 38 SESSF Responses to the Ministerial Direction ............................................................ 38

Harvest strategy framework* ..................................................................................... 39 Stock recovery plans*................................................................................................ 39 Managing non-quota species .................................................................................... 39 Managing risk* ........................................................................................................... 40 Future development................................................................................................... 40 Managing deepwater species* .................................................................................. 40 Orange roughy, oreos and alfonsino......................................................................... 40 Other deepwater species* ......................................................................................... 40 Allocation of SFRs for deepwater shark and oreo species....................................... 41 Fishery independent survey*..................................................................................... 41 Within season quota reconciliation* .......................................................................... 41 Minimising incentives for discarding.......................................................................... 42 Quota species............................................................................................................ 42 Other discarded species............................................................................................ 42 Bycatch reduction measures*.................................................................................... 42 Enhanced monitoring of fishing activity* ................................................................... 43 Cost effective licensing and compliance ................................................................... 43 Spatial closures: gillnetting in the GHATS*............................................................... 43 Spatial closures: CTS*............................................................................................... 44 Spatial closures: GABTS* ......................................................................................... 44 Spatial closures: scalefish hook sector of the GHATS*............................................ 44

Management responses underway prior to the Ministerial Direction ........................... 45 Deepwater dogfish closures*..................................................................................... 45 Industry acoustic survey of blue grenadier during the 2006 spawning season* ...... 45

Ecological risk assessments and the ecological risk management framework ........... 46 Ecological Risk Assessments for Commonwealth fisheries*.................................... 46 Ecological Risk Management Framework................................................................. 46

Commonwealth structural adjustment fishing concession buyout ............................... 46

Appendix 1....................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix 2....................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix 3....................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix 4....................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix 5....................................................................................................................... 57 Appendix 6……………………………………………………………………………………..58 Appendix 7……………………………………………………………………………………..59 Appendix 8……………………………………………………………………………………..60 Appendix 9……………………………………………………………………………………..61

References....................................................................................................................... 63

4

Table of Figures and Tables Figure 1. Great Australian Bight Marine Park, State and Commonwealth Waters......... 13 Figure 2. Locations of the 2005 and 2006 SESSF spawning ling closures.................... 15 Figure 3. Commonwealth MPAs announced for the South-east Region........................ 16 Figure 4. Locations of the Victorian Marine National Parks and Sanctuaries; taken from http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1park_marine.cfm........................................................... 17 Figure 5. The mainland Tasmanian Marine Nature Reserves. ....................................... 17 Figure 6. Basic harvest control rule showing key reference points. ................................ 21 Table 1. SESSF quota species and TAC changes from 2003 to 2007. ........................... 9 Table 2. Catch (tonnes) for major non-quota species in the SESSF............................... 10 Table 3. Total number of hooks set in the auto longline sector of the GHATS. .............. 11 Table 4. Total number of hooks set in the shark hook sector of the GHATS. ................. 11 Table 5. Total gillnet effort (thousand kilometre net lifts) in the GHATS. ........................ 11 Table 6. Trawl fishing effort in the CTS and ECDWTS (combined): total trawl hours and number of shots. ............................................................................................................... 12 Table 7. Trawl fishing effort in the GABTS: total trawl hours and number of shots......... 12 Table 8. September 2003 recommendations by the Minister for Environment and Heritage on the ecologically sustainable management of the SESSF and AFMA’s level of achievement in implementing those recommendations. .................................................. 25

5

Introduction In November 2002 the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) submitted the documents, Strategic Assessment Report of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) and the draft Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan (SESSF Plan), for strategic assessment for the purpose of Division 2 of Part 10 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The SESSF was also assessed in accordance with the wildlife trade provisions of part 13A of the EPBC Act, and to determine whether the SESSF should be accredited for the purposes of the protected species provisions of Part 13 of the EPBC Act.

The Minister for Environment and Heritage was satisfied that the Strategic Assessment Report for the SESSF and the SESSF Plan adequately addressed the current and likely impacts of activities taken in accordance with the SESSF Plan. The Minister also declared the SESSF an approved Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) for three years subject to a number of conditions and recommendations. This authorised export of product derived from the fishery for three years.

Three major outcomes from the 2003 assessment which were given effect as conditions on the WTO approval included:

1) That AFMA is to inform the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) of any changes to the SESSF Plan or any other significant policy documents affecting management of the SESSF;

2) That AFMA is to report annually on the extent to which the performance criteria of the SESSF Plan were met; and

3) The identification of a number of issues that need to be addressed to control medium-term environmental risks in the SESSF. To address these issues, AFMA agreed to implement 18 recommendations by the Minister for Environment and Heritage and to provide DEH with sufficient information to allow assessment of the progress by AFMA in implementing those recommendations.

This report provides a comprehensive account of the progress and achievements made by AFMA and industry to improve the management and ecological sustainability of the SESSF since the 2003 strategic assessment. The report is being presented to DEH for consideration in obtaining a three year WTO renewal for the SESSF.

The report is structured in three major sections. Part 1 documents changes in the management arrangements for the SESSF since AFMA’s 2003 assessment report was submitted. Part 2 outlines measures implemented in relation to each of the Minister’s 18 recommendations under the current WTO. Part 3 describes other proposed initiatives that are underway in the SESSF to further improve management of the fishery.

6

Part 1: Key Management Changes in the SESSF This section provides a comprehensive overview of key management changes in the SESSF that have taken place since the previous strategic assessment report and WTO accreditation in 2003. Key changes include: determination of the SESSF Plan in September 2003; grant of scalefish quota statutory fishing rights (SFRs) in 2005; additional species brought under quota management in 2005 and 2006; implementation of substantial spatial and temporal management measures; and the implementation of harvest strategies for all quota species, including control rules and reference points in 2005 resulting in forecast reductions in TACs for many species in 2006 and 2007.

IMPLEMENTATION OF SESSF MANAGEMENT PLAN The SESSF Plan provides for the management of separate sectors of the SESSF; these being:

• The Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS), previously known as the South East Trawl Fishery encompassing the Commonwealth Victorian Inshore Trawl and Danish seine method;

• The East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector (ECDWTS), previously known as the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Zone;

• The Commonwealth Scalefish Hook, Shark Hook and Gillnet Sectors (GHATS), previously known as the South East Non-Trawl and Southern Shark Fisheries;

• The Commonwealth Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector (GABTS), previously the Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery; and

• Coastal Waters Permits. The full provisions of the SESSF Plan came into effect on 1 January 2005, allowing for the allocation of boat and quota SFRs. The single management plan provides an overarching management framework to manage sectors which have overlapping areas of waters and species. The area of the fishery, sectors and zones within the SESSF are described in Schedule 1 of the SESSF Plan (See: http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/sess/sess/publications/default.htm). Quota and/or boat SFRs were granted to those who satisfied the eligibility criteria listed in the SESSF Plan. Importantly, the SESSF Plan:

1) Provides stable and secure rights for sustainable, long-term industry development;

2) Allows the trading of quota to continue between sectors; and 3) Is a step towards implementing an ecosystem-based approach to

fisheries management in the region.

Quota SFRs for some 20 quota managed species were granted on 1 January 2005. These species were previously managed by individual transferable quotas (ITQs) under a permit system. In order to prevent effort from shifting to non-quota species, on 1 January 2005 quota was allocated for the following additional species:

• Ribaldo; • Oreos basket (the ‘basket’ comprises warty, spiky, rough and black oreo); • Smooth oreo (Cascade Plateau stock); • Smooth oreo (all other stocks); • Deepwater sharks basket1 (Eastern Zone only as bycatch); and • Deepwater sharks basket (Western Zone only as bycatch).

The SESSF Plan was amended in 2005 to allocate quota for the main target species in the ECDWTS and the GABTS, these came into effect on 1 January 2006: 1 For a list of species in the deepwater shark basket see Appendix 1.

7

• Alfonsino (allocated as quota SFRs for the ECDWTS); and • Deepwater flathead, bight redfish, and orange roughy (Albany and Esperance

zones).

Total allowable catch (TAC) changes for quota managed species

Changes in TACs from 2003 to 2007 (projected 2007 TACs) for each quota species are shown in Table 1. In summary, the TACs for 20 species were reduced significantly (shaded grey in Table 1), nine TACs remained the same and five species TACs increased. Stock assessments indicated that large TAC reductions for many species or stocks were necessary for catches to be sustainable and for stocks to rebuild in some cases. For a full report on stock assessments in the SESSF see Stock Assessment for the South East Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2004/05 http://www.afma.gov.au/research/reports/2006/R2004_0287.pdf

Appendices 1, 2 and 3 provide details of actual catches of quota species against TACs for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005.

The addition of new quota species has restricted effort from shifting to these species in the face of decreasing TACs for other species. A brief explanation for the five species in which TACs have increased is provided below. Ribaldo: Catch limits were introduced in 2005 and as a precautionary measure were set at around half of recent catches. Ribaldo is caught as a bycatch when fishing for pink ling using auto longlines. During 2005 a Tier 32 stock assessment under the SESSF harvest strategy indicated the ribaldo stock was in a reasonable state. Further research will be undertaken in 2006 and 2007 to identify scientific gaps and to increase certainty in the assessment. Elephant fish: the catch rate has been stable and the TAC was increased to reduce the potential for discarding as it is caught as a byproduct in targeted fishing for other species. Approximately 60% of the elephant fish TAC is taken each year (see SESSF catch versus TAC summaries). The introduction of quota on this species and other measures in the SESSF has seen the quality of data increase. The original TAC was set based on historic catch figures, but much of the elephant was historically recorded as mixed shark and not included in the stock assessment. Jackass morwong: a Tier 2 assessment was undertaken resulting in a recommended biological catch of 1463t and industry recommended 1200t on the basis of market forces. Mirror dory: The recommended biological catch of for mirror dory in 2006 was 743t. The TAC was set at 643t (a 10% increase from 2004 but a 9% decrease from 2005). The species is not overfished and no overfishing is occurring. Blue Warehou: Blue warehou is now assessed as two stocks, the western stock is not overfished and setting a low TAC based on the eastern stock assessment was driving discarding of marketable fish in the west. The latest stock assessment for blue warehou showed a robust western stock estimated at 51% of original spawning biomass. Unlike previous years, the 2005 stock assessment model for the west incorporated discards resulting in a doubling of the catch rates for high discard years. However, this could not be done in the east as length differences exist between landed and discarded catch. The eastern stock was estimated at 28% of original spawning biomass with a recommended biological catch ranging between 75t and 1606t. The most recent survey results were positive with good catch rates in two out of three areas in the west and in at least one area in the east.

The four primary shark species caught in the SESSF (school shark, gummy shark, elephant fish and sawshark) were managed through quota allocated to fishing permits in 2005 due to long running legal challenges. On 17 May 2006 the AFMA Board agreed to 2 See Precautionary tiered catch setting approach on page 20 for an explanation of Tier levels.

8

lift restrictions on whole package transfers for shark, giving shark fishers the ability to buy and sell variable amounts of quota rather than the whole package they own. This will allow operators to tailor their quota packages to their fishing needs and realise the full benefits of and ITQ system. This restriction was lifted on 1 June 2006 and allows the process of granting SFR’s to commence later in 2006. However, for 2006 and 2007 these species will remain as ITQs managed through quota permits. The main difference between quota on permits and quota SFRs are that permits are granted annually which gives rise to annual appeal rights.

Deepwater sharks and oreo dories will continue to be managed through fishing permits as ITQ’s in 2006, pending amendments to the SESSF Plan to also allocate these species as quota SFRs in 2007. This is subject to further consideration of management of deepwater species in 2006.

Changes in catch for major non-quota species in the SESSF Changes in catch from 2003 to 2005 for the major non-quota species in the SESSF are shown in Table 2. The catches of five species decreased from 2003 (shown in grey) and three species showed minor increases in catch. Four species showed more significant catch increases. The reasons for increased catches are described hereafter. Hapuku and bass gropers: There has been increased targeting of hapuku by the auto longline sector of the GHATS. On 24 August 2004 the auto longline sector was restricted to areas fished as at August 2004, which imposed a constraint on further expansion of the areas in which the method is used. Knifejaw and leather jackets Logbook data and anecdotal evidence by fishers suggest and increased abundance of these species (possibly a cyclical event). Operators have reported actively avoiding fishing grounds when too many leatherjackets have been caught for the market to handle. Knifejaw and leather jackets have also historically been discarded, the increase in landings may reflect that operators are now keeping more. Whiskery shark Increased catches of this species have been reported in the GABTS due to better species identification between gummy shark and whiskery shark and a possible stock recovery linked to the reduction in effort on school shark in South Australia and whiskery shark fishing in Western Australia.

9

Table 1. SESSF quota species and TAC changes from 2003 to 2007.

Grey shading indicates a decrease in the TAC. * Indicates the TAC is taken as bycatch only; 2007 bycatch levels not yet determined and are subject to TAC setting process through implementation of the Harvest Strategy in late 2006. ** Quota used for scientific research is not included in the table.

10

Table 2. Catch (tonnes) for major non-quota species in the SESSF.

Non-quota species common name 2003 2004 2005

Percentage change

from 2003 Angel sharks 277 266 283 2%Barracouta 118 116 91 -29%Boarfishes 192 227 201 5%Bronze whaler 22 24 23 5%Gurnards and latchets 403 428 344 -17%Hapuku and bass gropers 76 109 118 36%Knifejaw 73 90 91 19%Leatherjackets 605 757 791 24%Southern frostfish 142 101 140 -1%Squids, octopus and cuttlefish 1,449 1,125 899 -61%Stargazer 236 289 194 -22%Whiskery shark 27 22 32 16%Source: AFMA Catch Disposal Records

Grey shading indicates a decrease in catch. The major changes are an increase in the take of Hapuka, which is due to a greater proportion of the ling TAC being taken with longlines compared to trawl. AFMA has commenced the collection of otoliths for hapuka and will review management arrangements for this species. The increases in knifejaw and leatherjacket are the result of increased landings rather than discarding in the GABTF. The FIS survey will provide the information to ensure this catch remains sustainable. Squid catches are naturally variable, but the decrease above is also partly due to changes to trawl mesh size designed to reduce the catch of small fish, which also result in a reduction in squid catches.

Changes in discarding rates for quota and non-quota species in the SESSF Discarding of quota and non-quota species is a significant issue in the SESSF. The Ministerial Direction has directed AFMA to address this issue and AFMA has defined the following objectives to reduce discards:

discarding of quota species (or target species in non-quota fisheries) will be illegal from 2007; and

• a 50% reduction of total discards across all fisheries. Appendices 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 outline the levels of discarding identified from the ISMP program.

EFFORT CHANGES IN THE SESSF

Automatic longline effort in the scalefish hook sector of the GHATS

In 1992 one operator was authorised to use automatic longlines on their scalefish hook permit. In 2002 a further 14 operators were given permission to use automatic baiting

11

equipment on their existing longline permits. Effort increased from close to four million hook sets in 2003 to 9.8 million hook sets in 2005 (Table ). AFMA Management does not anticipate that effort will increase substantially higher than the 2005 level as catches are now constrained by TACs for target species. Increased effort by automatic longliners has resulted in lower effort by dropliners, traps, gillnets, trawlers and traps targeting ling and blue eye trevalla in slope waters.

Table 3. Total number of hooks set in the auto longline sector of the GHATS. Year Effort: number of hooks set 2003 3,920,472 2004 8,504,902 2005 9,776,448 Source: AFMA logbooks.

Shark hook effort of the SESSF

Effort in the shark hook sector of the GHATS has decreased since 2003 due to operators actively avoiding school shark and a further shift to targeting gummy shark using gillnets. Hooks are generally more effective at catching school shark than gummy shark and only a couple of operators now use hooks to target gummy shark in areas of high tidal movement where gillnets can not be set.

Very little shark is now taken by hooks, although the number of hook sets has remained insignificant relative to gillnet and auto longline effort. Table 4. Total number of hooks set in the shark hook sector of the GHATS. Year Effort: number of hooks

set (offshore) Effort: number of hooks set (inshore)

2003 246,000 154,000 2004 151,000 96,000 2005 154,000 75,000 Source: AFMA logbooks; see Walker and Gason (2005) in references for a detailed report of catch and effort from 1999 to 2005 in the GHATS.

Gillnet sector effort of the SESSF

Gillnet effort in the GHATS has declined since 2003, mainly due to a slight increase in catch rates of gummy shark (Table ). Significant cuts in effort in this sector in the 1990’s have achieved a stable ‘high catch rate, low effort fishery’ (See Walker and Gason 2005) with current effort levels now well below peak historical levels.

Table 5. Total gillnet effort (thousand kilometre net lifts) in the GHATS. Year Effort: thousand kilometre net lifts 2003 45 2004 45 2005 41 Source: AFMA logbooks; see Walker and Gason (2005) for a detailed report of GHATS monitoring data from 1970 to 2005- copies are available by contacting AFMA.

12

Trawl effort in the CTS and ECDWTS Effort in the CTS and ECDWTS has decreased since 2003 by approximately 13,500 hours or 6,700 shots (Table ). TAC decreases and movement of quota to automatic longliners are largely responsible for the decline in effort. Table 6. Trawl fishing effort in the CTS and ECDWTS (combined): total trawl hours and number of shots. Year Effort: total trawl hours Effort: number of shots 2003 115,380 43,626 2004 113,268 41,075 2005 101,886 36,917 Source: AFMA logbooks.

Trawl effort in the GABTS

Trawl fishing effort in the GABTS has increased by close to 8,500 hours or 1650 shots (Table ). This is largely due to the developmental nature of this fishery, although the shelf part of this sector can now be considered to be fully developed. TACs introduced in 2006 will limit a further increase in effort. All 10 Boat SFRs were also active for the first time in 2005, also limiting scope for further effort increases.

Any scope for increased effort via mid-water trawling for species such as squid with smaller mesh sizes will be carried out under a scientific permit process and thoroughly reviewed on an annual basis. Mid-water trawling for small pelagic species such as mackerel is covered under the Small Pelagics Fishery Management Plan.

Table 7. Trawl fishing effort in the GABTS: total trawl hours and number of shots. Year Effort: total trawl hours Effort: number of shots 2003 23,380 4,601 2004 27,944 5,589 2005 31,818 6,255 Source: AFMA logbooks.

SPATIAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES AFMA has commenced implementation of a system of spatial and temporal closures in the SESSF. Each closure has specific objectives and complements the protection offered by the various closures established in South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales and the recently announced Commonwealth Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the South-east Region. The following section describes the spatial and temporal closures implemented by AFMA as well as the existing State and Commonwealth MPAs in the area of the SESSF since 2003. Subsequently, closures in place prior to the 2003 strategic assessment are described.

CLOSURES IMPLEMENTED SINCE 2003

Head of the Great Australian Bight

The area between Eyre Bluff in South Australia to the Western Australian border, out to 3nm from the SA/WA border for 5nm to the east and then 2nm adjacent to the coast to Eyre Bluff is closed to all targeted shark fishing. This area is specifically designed to protect the pregnant school shark populations known in the area, whilst also allowing operators access to the known gummy shark areas. There are numerous Australian sea lion colonies in the area, and it is also known to be an area of high concentration of great

13

white sharks. This area incorporates part of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park closure for whales that extends out to 1nm from 1 May to 31 October inclusive (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Great Australian Bight Marine Park, State and Commonwealth Waters.

St Helens Hill closure

The closure of St Helens Hill off Tasmania to trawling was initially implemented on 1 January 2003 for a proposed period of three years. However, industry objected to the

14

size of the area initially closed as its inshore boundary affected fishing for market species. The current area closure, defined in SESSF Direction No. 01. forms part of the harvest strategy for Eastern Zone orange roughy. The primary objective of this strategy is to rebuild the stocks of Eastern Zone orange roughy to sustainable levels. St Helens Hill is a significant spawning site for orange roughy in the Eastern Zone and the area closure in conjunction with a precautionary TAC, is expected to re-establish healthy spawning aggregations.

Auto longlining fishing areas

In August 2004 vessels using automatic baiting equipment to fish in the GHATF were restricted by area closures aimed at significantly reducing the take of breeding school sharks. The closures also imposed an immediate constraint on further expansion of the areas in which the method is used. Vessels using automatic baiting equipment are restricted to fish within six defined sub areas and are not permitted to fish in waters shallower than 183m (100 fathoms) to protect shark stocks. The coordinates for the six sub areas are:

Latitudes Longitudes

Sub-area 1 25°S - 29°30’S 154°E-156°E

Sub-area 2 29°30’S - 33°40S 155°40’E - 156°40’E

Sub-area 3 34°S - 34°30’S 132°E - 133°E

Sub-area 4 36°10S - 39°20S 136°E - 136°30’E

Sub-area 5 36°10S - 39°20S 138°E - 140°30’E

Sub-area 6 37°30’S - 46°S 141°E - 150°20’E

Voluntary area closures for spawning ling

Spatial and temporal closures of key ling habitat were implemented to protect the breeding aggregations of this species. Co-operation between AFMA and industry has seen the implementation of a number of voluntary closures for all SESSF operators in Commonwealth waters off Victoria and Tasmania. Voluntary closures were in place from 17 September to 19 November in 2005 and likely dates for closures in 2006 are between 6 September and 5 November. The area closures are: Everard Horseshow, Seiners’ Horseshoe, Ling Hole and Maria Island (Figure 2). The closures are in place for a period of three years and to be monitored by industry. There have been no compliance issues thus far, however industry is on notice that if operators do not abide by the closures, AFMA will ensure that future closures are regulatory. For more detail please see SETMAC (South East Trawl Management Advisory Committee) 90 Agenda item 3.2. http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/sess/sess_commonwealth/mac/2005/setmac90/item03.pdf

15

Figure 2. Locations of the 2005 and 2006 SESSF spawning ling closures.

Representative Marine Protected Areas in the South-East Marine Region

On 5 May 2006 the Australian Government announced an extensive network of MPAs covering 227,000 square kilometres of Commonwealth waters in the South-east Marine Region off Tasmania, Victoria, eastern South Australia and far southern New South Wales. The MPAs are located within the area of the SESSF and have resulted in significant areas of the SESSF being classified under different World Conservation Union categories.

The proposed MPAs are likely to be areas where some fishing is permitted and other forms excluded. Figure 3 shows the MPA network for the South-east Marine Region. Information specific to each MPA, including detailed maps and fact sheets is found at: http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/southeast/index.html

16

Figure 3. Commonwealth MPAs announced for the South-east Region.

The South-east Marine Region’s system of representative MPAs will build on the two existing Commonwealth MPAs in the region (the Tasmanian Seamounts Marine Reserve and the Macquarie Island Marine Park) as well as complementing MPAs established in adjoining state waters.

Victoria Marine National Parks and Sanctuaries

All Victorian coastal waters have been closed to targeted shark fishing since 1988 (through a two carcass trip limit and a ban on large mesh gillnets).

A series of Marine National Parks were implemented by the Victorian Government under the National Parks (Marine National Parks and Marine Sanctuaries) Act 2003. All 13 Marine National Parks and 11 Marine Sanctuaries are now in place. Fishing is prohibited in all of these areas. These parks and sanctuaries now protect 5.3% of Victoria's coastal waters, safeguarding important marine habitats and species, significant natural features, cultural heritage and aesthetic values http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1park_marine.cfm). The Victorian State MPAs complement management of the SESSF by protecting nearshore habitats, which are important nursery and breeding areas for species caught in the SESSF (e.g. school and gummy shark).

A map of the general locations of Victoria’s MPA’s is shown at Figure 4. For a detailed description of all Victorian State MPAs please see, Victoria’s System of Marine National Parks and Marine Sanctuaries: Management Strategy 2003-2010 http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/resources/07_1013.pdf

17

Figure 4. Locations of the Victorian Marine National Parks and Sanctuaries; taken from http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1park_marine.cfm

Tasmanian State Waters Marine Reserves The Tasmanian State MPAs complement management of the SESSF by protecting nearshore habitats important as nursery and breeding areas for species in the SESSF such as school and gummy shark. Tasmania has seven Marine Nature Reserves dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and natural and cultural resources (http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/ALIR-4YY95J?open). The six mainland Tasmanian Marine Nature Reserves are shown at Figure 5.

Figure 5. The mainland Tasmanian Marine Nature Reserves.

18

Of these, the Kent Group Marine Nature Reserve and Port Davey Reserves have been implemented since 2003 and are most significant to the SESSF. (Note: Macquarie Island Marine Nature Reserve 1500km south of Tasmania is not shown and was declared in 2000.)

As part of the planning process in designating the Kent Group Marine Nature Reserve, the Resource Planning and Development Commission concluded that 2-4% of the catch in the GHATS is probably taken from within the Kent Group Marine Nature Reserve. The average catch from 1998-2000 from the two blocks in the area was 134 tonnes, including 102 tonnes of gummy shark.

CLOSURES IN PLACE PRIOR TO 2003

Lord Howe Island and Balls Pyramid

Fishing concessions for the GHATS prohibit fishing activities within 12 nautical miles (nm) of Lord Howe Island and Balls Pyramid. The CTS is prohibited from fishing within 25 nm of Lord Howe Island and Balls Pyramid. This historical exclusion zone has protected the traditional fishing access of local residents from large commercial operations.

ECDWTS exclusion zone

The ‘trawl exclusion box’ for the ECDWTS prohibits all forms of trawling on and around a chain of seamounts called the Eastern Australian Seamounts that lie off the east coast of Australia. This is a very large closure extending from waters off Sydney over 1200km north to waters off Fraser Island. The series of seamounts are significant geological features and include the Moreton, Brisbane, Queensland, Britannia, Stradbroke, Derwent, Barcoo and Taupo Seamounts.

The exclusion zone is consistent with AFMA’s ecologically sustainable development objective, particularly as it relates to the precautionary principle because of uncertainty surrounding impacts of trawling on seamount benthic communities.

Murat Bay

The Murat Bay area in coastal waters off South Australia was closed to the use of nets (gillnets, hauling nets and purse seine nets; see SESSF Direction No. 01 at http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/sess/sess/publications/default.htm). This area has been closed to all operators in all fisheries to protect stocks of bronze whalers, snapper and mulloway. This area was previously closed through permit conditions.

Cascade Plateau

The Cascade Plateau (off the east coast of Tasmania) was closed to all scalefish hook boat SFRs (SESSF Direction No. 01.). The closure was implemented as a precautionary measure until more is known about blue eye trevalla population dynamics and how major fishing effort on mature blue eye trevalla would affect that sector and the blue eye trevalla stock as a whole. This area was previously closed through permit conditions.

41° south closure

All waters south of 41 degrees in the SESSF are closed to gillnetting in waters deeper than 200 metres. This closure was introduced in 1977 due to the selectivity of gillnets and their ability to target blue eye trevalla and to limit the capture of state managed species like striped trumpeter, but also to protect species vulnerable to deep sea gillnetting in the area, such as gulper sharks.

19

The Great Australian Bight Marine Park

The Great Australian Bight Marine Park (Commonwealth Waters) was declared in April 1998. The park is managed by DEH in accordance with the management plan for the marine park under the EPBC Act. The plan describes all activities allowed and the provisions in place to manage those activities. For further details of the closure please see the Great Australian Bight Marine Park Management Plan 2005-2012 at: http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/gab/plan/pubs/gab-plan.pdf

The Park is made up of two components: 1. The Marine Mammal Protection Zone (MMPZ), which provides protection particularly for southern right whales and Australian sea lions and complements the State Marine Park in South Australian waters that was established for this primary purpose. The management plan defines that:

• The MMPZ will be closed to all boat access (other than right of innocent passage) from 1 May to 31 October every year;

• Commercial fishing outside of the seasonal closure may be allowed in accordance with a Permit from the Director of National Parks; and

• The MMPZ is only relevant to fishing operations operating within 3nm of the South Australian coast.

2. The Benthic Protection Zone (BPZ) was established to preserve a representative sample of the unique seafloor plants, animals and sediments of the area. The management plan defines that:

• No activities that adversely impact on the benthos, the subsoil beneath the benthos or associated flora and fauna will be allowed in the BPZ;

• Demersal (bottom) trawl fishing will not be allowed in the BPZ; • Other commercial fishing may be allowed in accordance with a Permit from the

Director of National Parks; and • This area is closed to all Commonwealth GABTS boat SFRs.

A map of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park is shown at Figure 1 (taken from): http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/coasts/gabmp/index.html

Pages Island (near Kangaroo Island)

An area extending 1nm around both North and South Pages Islands is closed to fishing with AFMA permits. This area was identified as having potential high interactions with great white sharks and Australian sea lions by commercial fishers in the region. The Pages Islands have Australia’s largest colony of Australian sea lions and South Australia are currently considering an MPA around the islands.

Seal Bay closure

Seal Bay and Bales Beach are closed to all fishing using a fishing permit for South Australian Coastal Waters Sector. Seal Bay is one of the largest breeding areas for Australian sea lions, and represents more than 10% of the total known population of the Australian sea lions in Australia. For Seal Bay closure coordinates see SESSF Direction No. 01. This area was previously closed through permit conditions.

Tasmanian Seamounts closure

The Tasmanian Seamounts are located approximately 170km south of Hobart. This area has been closed to trawling due to the high number of endemic benthic species in the area and is now incorporated in part of the MPA network.

20

Tasmanian shark closures

The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Water has implemented a complex system of school and gummy shark nursery areas where all school and gummy shark are protected from recreational and commercial take. No longlines or droplines may be used in these areas and netting has recently also been banned. The shark nursery areas include: Blackman Bay, D'Entrecasteaux Channel, East Coast waters, Frederick Henry Bay, Norfolk Bay, Georges Bay, Great Oyster Bay, Mercury Passage, Pitt Water, Port Sorell, River Derwent, and River Tamar. These areas were identified as important nursery areas by CSIRO research in the 1940’s and 1950’s. For further information see Tasmania Fisheries legislation (Scalefish) Rules 2004 (S.R. 2004, No. 91).

IMPLEMENTATION OF HARVEST STRATEGIES FOR KEY QUOTA SPECIES INCLUDING CONTROL RULES In 2005 a Harvest Strategy Framework (HSF) was developed and implemented in the SESSF and was used to determine TACs for the majority of SESSF quota species for the 2006 fishing year. The current harvest strategy sets out quantitative reference points and control rules that aim to maintain stocks at a target level, and reduce catches when stocks decline below that level to allow stocks to return to target biomass levels. If a stock declines below a specified limit reference point, targeted fishing should cease.

Reference points

Reference points have been set for all SESSF quota species. Assessments for these species indicate that: • orange roughy (some stocks), eastern gemfish, blue warehou and school shark are

overfished. A recovery plan has been drafted for school shark and recovery plans for other species are being considered and developed by relevant RAGs; and

• redfish is classified as growth overfished. In 2006 trawl mesh size regulations have been changed to prevent the capture of small fish, including juvenile redfish. Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program (ISMP) discard data showed a decrease in juvenile redfish discards from 36% in 2004 to 16% in 2005, largely due to voluntary uptake of modified gear, including square mesh panels and larger cod end mesh sizes.

Precautionary tiered catch setting approach and harvest control rules

The harvest strategy framework is set up so that increasingly precautionary catch limits are set for those species AFMA has less knowledge about. This is achieved using a ‘four tiered’ approach which.

The aim under each tier is to determine and advise on a “recommended biological catch” (RBC), based on information available for each species or stock and on application of an explicit “harvest control rule” (HCR). HCR’s are mathematically defined for each tier level outlined below. Relevant RAGs advise on which species and stocks belong at which tier level, and SESSRAG determines the tier level for each stock based on the level of information available. The RBCs provide the best scientific advice on what the total mortality (landings plus discards) should be for each species/stock to achieve the management objective.

In the notation used below F30 represents the fishing mortality rate that would cause the spawning biomass to decline to 30% of its unfished levels; B40 represents the biomass at 40% of unfished levels, B20 the biomass at 20% of unfished levels, etc. It is

21

recommended that BLIM be set at B20. If stock levels are below B20, the stock is designated as currently overfished.

Tier 1

The Tier 1 harvest control rule (HCR1) will apply to species and/or stocks where there is a robust quantitative assessment that provides estimates of current biomass levels (BCUR) and where estimates are available for B40, B20 and F40. The formula for calculating FTARG is as follows:

FTARG = F40 where BCUR > B40

FTARG = F40 * (BCUR/B20 – 1) where B40 > BCUR > B20

FTARG = 0 where BCUR < B20

The RBC is calculated by applying FTARG to the current biomass BCUR to calculate the total catch (including discards) in the next year, using the agreed base case assessment model:

RBC = Catch[FTARG � BCUR]

At Tier 1, BLIM = B20, the maximum value for FTARG = F40 and the breakpoint in the HCR occurs at B40. A schematic representation of a Tier 1 harvest control rule is shown in Figure 6.

Biomass

Exploitation rate

FLIM

FTARG

BLIM

Figure 6. Basic harvest control rule showing key reference points. Exploitation rates in excess of FLIM constitute overfishing, while biomasses below BLIM correspond to the stock being declared as overfished. FLIM is fixed, but FTARG will decrease as uncertainty about the assessment increases.

Tier 2

The Tier 2 harvest control rule (HCR2) will apply to species and/or stocks where there is a less robust quantitative assessment that provides estimates of current biomass levels

22

(BCUR) and where estimates are available for BF=M, B20 and M. The formula for calculating FTARG is as follows:

FTARG = M where BCUR > BF=M

FTARG = M * (BCUR/B20 – 1) where BF=M > BCUR > B20

FTARG = 0 where BCUR < B20

The RBC is calculated by applying FTARG to the current biomass BCUR to calculate the total catch (including discards) in the next year, using the agreed base case assessment model:

RBC = Catch[FTARG � BCUR]

At Tier 2, BLIM = B20, the maximum value for FTARG = M and the breakpoint in the HCR occurs at BF=M which is the equilibrium biomass that would occur under an F = M fishing mortality rate.

Tier 3

The Tier 3 harvest control rule (HCR3) will apply to species and/or stocks where there are robust estimates of natural mortality rate M and current fishing mortality rate FCUR, but no direct estimates of current biomass BCUR. Since there is no quantitative assessment, the RBC can not be calculated by applying a target fishing mortality rate to an estimate of current biomass. Instead, the RBC is calculated by varying the current catch level up or down depending on whether FCUR is above or below the target fishing mortality rate, which for Tier 3 is set at FTARG = M. The current catch level CCUR is calculated as the average catch over the past 4 years (where catch = landings + estimated discards). The formula for calculating the RBC is:

RBC = 1.2 * CCUR FCUR < 0.5M

RBC = 1.1 * CCUR 0.75M > FCUR > 0.5M

RBC = CCUR M > FCUR > 0.75M

RBC = 0.9 * CCUR 1.25M > FCUR > M

RBC = 0.8 * CCUR 1.5M > FCUR > 1.25M

RBC = 0.5 * CCUR 2M > FCUR > 1.5M

RBC = 0 FCUR > 2M

At Tier 3, the definitions of BLIM, BTARG and FTARG are harder to determine. In general, F=M is the target fishing mortality rate, and F = 2M is the fishing mortality rate at which it is assumed that the stock should be designated as overfished. Whether HCR3 results in more precautionary harvest levels than HCR2 (or HCR1) will need to be checked via an MSE analysis. Estimates for FCUR at Tier 3 will generally be derived from “catch curve” analyses.

Tier 4

The Tier 4 harvest control rule (HCR4) will apply to species with the least amount of information about current stock status. At this tier level, there is no reliable information available on either current biomass or current exploitation rate. It is assumed that there is information available on current catch levels and on trends in catch rates. The steps in calculating the RBC for HCR4 are as follows:

23

1. Calculate current catch level CCUR as the average catch (landings plus discards) over the past NC years, where NC will depend on the period of “stable” effective (= binding) TACs. The default for NC is suggested to be 4 years.

2. Calculate the slope of the trend in CPUE over the past NS years. NS will depend on whether trends in CPUE tend to be relatively stable, or cyclic. For “stable” stocks, it is suggested that NS = NC (i.e. 4 years). For “cyclic” stocks, NS would need to be set at >= 2 cycle periods.

3. Calculate the RBC as RBC = (1 + � * slope) * CCUR

where the value of � is yet to be determined, and may need to increase as the (negative) slope increases.

The definitions of overfishing and overfished are even harder to determine at Tier 4, and further development is ongoing to ensure that the rules are sufficiently precautionary.

The SESSF HSF are largeley consistent with the draft Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy that will apply to all Commonwealth-managed fisheries. Some minor inconsistencies are currently being reviewed and will be implemented in the 2007 assessments to recommend TACs to take effect form 1 January 2008.

Reference points for non-quota species

Reference points were set in 2004 for the following non quota species: • boar fish, • broadnose seven gill shark, • bronze whaler shark, • deepwater dogfish, • dogfish, • draughtboard shark, • hapuku, • pencil shark, • ribaldo, • skate, whiskery shark and • wobbegong shark.

All catches of these species are monitored and upper reference points have been set for all species. Where appropriate, AFMA has also set lower reference points that indicate if species catches and possibly abundance are falling. If a reference point is triggered, AFMA must complete an assessment of the reason for this, within 12 months.

24

Part 2. Report on WTO Recommendations This section provides a summary of the achievements and progress made by AFMA towards implementing the 18 recommendations made by the Minister for Environment and Heritage in 2003, as conditions of the current WTO. The 18 recommendations and the level of achievement against those recommendations are provided in table format for purposes of brevity and clarity (Table 8). Additional detail against each recommendation is found at the relevant reference.

25

Table 8. September 2003 recommendations by the Minister for Environment and Heritage on the ecologically sustainable management of the SESSF and AFMA’s level of achievement in implementing those recommendations.

Minister for Environment and Heritage Recommendation

Level of Achievement as at June 2006

1. A report to be produced annually and presented to the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) and to include a statement of the extent to which the performance criteria of the SESSF Plan were met in the year; and information sufficient to allow assessment of the progress of AFMA in implementing the following recommendations 2-18 as stated below.

A detailed report was provided in AFMA’s 2003/04 and 2004/05 Annual Reports (see websites below) and will again be presented in 2005/06. DEH agreed thes annual reports were sufficient to meet the performance reporting requirement.

AFMA’s 2003/04 Annual Report (pp. 141-146)

http://www.afma.gov.au/information/publications/corporate/annual/ar03_04/ar03_04_00.pdf

AFMA’s 2004/05 Annual Report (pp. 207-216)

http://www.afma.gov.au/information/publications/corporate/annual/ar04_05/ar04_05_complete.pdf

2. Section 7(1)(b) of the draft SESSF Plan be amended to:

“that data is collected, appropriately verified and analysed to enable:

i). timely evaluation of the effectiveness of the management measures implemented to maintain the resources of the fishery at, or rebuild those resources to, an acceptable level; and

ii). timely modification of those management measures.”

Draft SESSF Plan was amended prior to being finalised (see extract from SESSF Plan below; taken from www.comlaw.gov.au):

7 (1) (b)that data is collected, verified (if necessary) and analysed to enable: i. timely evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures implemented to

maintain the resources of the fishery at, or rebuild those resources to, an acceptable level; and

ii. timely modification of those measures

3. AFMA will develop a single document within two years that describes the structured monitoring program required under Section 6(a) of the SESSF Plan. The program will address priority monitoring issues such as discarding rates, threatened and listed species interactions and appropriate levels of observer coverage

The resource assessment group (RAG) system for the SESSF was restructured to provide more ecosystem-based assessments. SESSF RAG was created to conduct strategic work across the entire SESSF, including a draft data plan for the SESSF. The plan will not be finalised until after the 2005 Ministerial Direction has been addressed and implemented.

The strategic research plan and data collection, analysis, validation and utilisation

26



and fishery independent studies in all sectors of the fishery.

strategy (from Natural Heritage Trust data plan project) have been drafted. Priorities have been set and agreed on by the SESSF MACs, however, the plan will not be finalised until after the Minister’s Direction has been addressed and implemented, as priorities are likely to change.

In 2005 the GABTS implemented a fishery independent survey (FIS) for its two main target species (bight redfish and deepwater flathead) and this survey will continue again in 2006 (for more information see Knuckey et al. 2005). A FIS is being developed for the other sectors, with the design phase of the survey having commenced in early 2006.

4. Section 6(f) of the draft SESSF Plan be amended to:

“setting TACs, harvest strategies and reference points for non quota species”


6 (f) setting TACs, and determining harvest strategies and reference points, for non-quota species;

5. AFMA to establish a schedule to develop and implement, within three years, harvest strategies, including decision rules and reference points, for quota species and high risk non quota species identified from the ecological risk assessment (ERA) process. Harvest strategies will include:

monitoring of landed catch;

TACs or trigger ranges/levels of acceptable catch; and

development of management responses when reference points or trigger ranges/levels are reached.

In 2005 a Harvest Strategy Framework (HSF) was developed and implemented in the SESSF and was used to determine TACs for the majority of SESSF quota species for the 2006 fishing year. The SESSF HSF establishes the following control rules: • Reduce fishing mortality when stocks decline below 40% of unfished biomass

(or equivalent); • Cease targeted fishing for stocks that are below 20% of unfished biomass; and • Enable bycatch TACs to be set for stocks below 20% of unfished biomass only

in circumstances where achieving a zero catch level would have a severe impact on the rest of the fishery and only if stock recovery within an acceptable time frame is still achievable at low levels of catch.

In 2004 stock assessments were conducted on flathead, jackass morwong, blue

27



grenadier, Cascade Plateau orange roughy, blue warehou, spotted warehou, saw shark and elephant fish. Reference points have been set for all quota species. Assessments for these species indicate that: • orange roughy, eastern gemfish, blue warehou and school shark are

overfished. Recovery plans are in place for orange roughy and school shark. Recovery plans are not yet in place yet for eastern gemfish and blue warehou, however these are being developed by the relevant RAG with a view of having these implemented by the end of 2006;

• redfish is classified as growth overfished and trials are under way to refine harvest methods through technical gear modifications to trawl nets to reduce capture of juvenile redfish.

Reference points were set in 2004 for the following non quota species: boar fish, broadnose seven gill shark, bronze whaler shark, deepwater dogfish, dogfish, draughtboard shark, hapuku, pencil shark, ribaldo, skate whiskery shark and wobbegong shark. All catches of these species are monitored and upper reference points have been set for all species. Where appropriate, AFMA has also set lower reference points that indicate if species catches and possibly abundance are falling.

If a reference point is reached, AFMA must complete an assessment of the reason for this, within 12 months.

6. Within three years AFMA will identify and implement management responses to fishing impacts identified from the ERA process, taking into account known fishing impacts on:

vulnerable and/or overfished species;

ERAs were drafted for all sectors of the SESSF during 2003-04. The methodology used for these assessments contained a number of limitations, resulting in a large degree of uncertainty in the results produced. The ERA methodology has since been refined to reduce the uncertainty in the results, with the assessments for the major sub-fisheries of the SESSF currently being updated and drafts were supplied to AFMA in by 30 June 2006 for the major sectors of the SESSF. In the mean

28



listed threatened species under the EPBC Act in the fishery;

species with low productivity; key species in the food chain such as squid and jack

mackerel; areas of localised depletion; cumulative gear impacts across the life cycles of

species in the SESSF and adjoining fisheries; and species with increasing levels, or significant

potential for increased levels, of catch landings.

time, the draft ERA results from 2004 have provided some direction on which species require management actions. At this stage no formal assessment of the cumulative risk across fisheries will be possible as the methodology is not yet complete.

AFMA has developed an ecological risk management framework to ensure a consistent process is followed across all fisheries in responding to the results of the ERAs. Draft ERAs have been received and management responses will be considered at the August AFMA Board meeting. Once the ERA results have been endorsed by the sector’s stakeholders, AFMA and the stakeholders will use this framework to examine the underlying causes of the higher risks and develop appropriate management responses to mitigate these risks. AFMA expects to apply this framework to the SESSF as a priority.

7. Sections 12c) and 16c) of the draft SESSF Plan be amended to:

“c) must take into account:

i) all fishing mortality from all sectors within the fishery and overlapping or adjacent fisheries for the species; and

ii) the ecological implications of harvesting the TAC; and

iii) the distribution and population structure of the species.”


12 (c) and 16 (c) must take into account: (i) all fishing mortality from all sectors within the fishery and

overlapping or adjacent fisheries for the species; and (ii) the ecological implications of harvesting the TAC; and (iii) the distribution and population structure of the species; and (iv) the precautionary principle; and

8. Section 7(g) of the draft SESSF Plan be amended to:

“that stocks of quota species, and other species for which reference points have been determined, are


7 (g) that stocks of quota species, and other species for which reference points

29



above the reference points for the species.” have been determined, are above the reference points for the species;

9.

Within two years, as an interim measure, AFMA will implement management actions to monitor the level of those non-quota species identified as high risk in the ERA process and implement appropriate precautionary management controls to ensure harvest levels are ecologically sustainable. Harvest strategies for high-risk non-quota species must be developed before allowable catches of that species may be increased.

Draft ERAs have been developed for all sectors of the SESSF. Assessments are currently being updated and are expected to be completed, in draft form, by June 2006. The time frame for meeting this requirement for ERA high risk species has been delayed by the refinements of the ERAs, although the draft ERA results from 2004 will have given some direction on which of the non-quota species to implement management actions.

In 2005 and 2006 the following high-risk ‘non-quota’ species were brought under quota management to control catches and included as a new quota species in Schedule 2 of the SESSF Plan: smooth dory, ribaldo, shark basket, oreo basket and alfonsino. To reduce catches of these species and because of concerns about possible overfishing, the TACs for all of these deepwater species were set at half the previous years.

Quota SFRs were granted for the three main target species in the GABTS: bight redfish; deepwater flathead; and orange roughy in the Albany and Esperance Zone. These were included in Schedule 2 of the SESSF Plan.

A survey to identify the species, range and abundance of gulper sharks (Harrisons, endeavour and southern dogfish) was conducted in the western part of the fishery (129º-136ºE). High risk species and habitats will be considered in June 2006.

10. AFMA will develop and implement within three years a system of spatial and temporal management to assist the fishery to be managed in an ecologically sustainable manner. The system of strategic closures will take

AFMA limited the area of automatic longline fishery to that fished before 31 May 2004 and autolongline fishing was prevented in an area south of Kangaroo Island to limit the catch of school shark.

Several fisheries closures off South Australia have been implemented to assist in

30



account of impacts of fishing on:

species and populations identified by the ERAprocess as high risk;

the recovery of overfished stocks;

important spawning / pupping / juvenile / feeding / refuge grounds;

benthic habitats and associated impacts on productivity of quota and non quota species;

species vulnerable to particular methods of fishing such as deepwater dogfish;

various stages of the life cycle of species (eg ling, blue eye trevalla and sharks);

species and associated habitats taken as target species by other fisheries; and

species or habitats fished at particular depth ranges by particular gear types.

the recovery of school shark by protecting important habitat areas for pregnant school shark. All known school shark pupping areas are already closed to fishing.

A closure of the St Helens Hill area off the east coast of Tasmania is part of a strategy to aid the recovery of the orange roughy stock in this area of the fishery.

In 2005 the CTS and GHATS implemented voluntary closures to protect ling spawning aggregations. Also, a number of key quota holders in the CTS voluntarily constrained catches of blue grenadier to support sustainable stock management.

Deepwater Assessment Group has recommended potential areas for closure in the Western sector of the orange roughy fishery for 2007.

Further spatial closures are being progressed through the Minister’s Direction to AFMA.

In 2005 assessments shifted from a biomass strategy to an internationally accepted fishing mortality strategy to better enable spatial measures to be taken into account in TAC setting processes.

On 5 May 2006 the Australian Government announced an extensive network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) covering 227,000 square kilometers of Commonwealth waters in the South-east Marine Region off Tasmania, Victoria, eastern South Australia and far southern New South Wales. The MPAs are located within the area of the SESSF and have resulted in significant areas of the SESSF being classified under different World Conservation Union categories.

11. As an initial measure for the proposed system of spatial management, AFMA will, within two years, implement precautionary management for the development of new fishing grounds. AFMA will broadly identify, for each fishing sector and associated gear types, those areas that have never been fished by those sectors and

A precautionary management regime to control the expansion of current fishing grounds was proposed for the SESSF in response to the Ministerial Direction.

AFMA has not defined the areas fished by all methods up to the end of 2002. This was not deemed practical at certain spatial scales, although AFMA is now consulting on other measures.

31



associated gear types prior to the end of 2002. Expansion of fishing activity to new areas for the particular sectors and gear types will be under structured precautionary management arrangements to ensure ecologically sustainable harvesting.

Automatic longlining was a relatively new method of fishing in 2002. AFMA has limited fishing for this method to areas fished at May 2004 and implemented additional closures. Further, automatic longlining is not permitted to be used in waters shallower than 183m.

The AFMA Board has agreed in principle to close 20% of all features in the GABTF upon which orange roughy may aggregate (e.g. seamounts) to fishing activity. GABMAC is further investigating the matter and will provide advice on the location of these closures during 2006.

In December 2005 the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation directed AFMA, in accordance with section 91 of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991, to take immediate action in all Commonwealth fisheries to: • Cease overfishing and recover overfished stocks to levels that will ensure

long-term sustainability and productivity; • Avoid further species from becoming overfished in the short and long term;

and • Manage the broader environmental impacts of fishing, including on

threatened species or those otherwise protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

As a result of this Direction AFMA is working with stakeholders to identify key areas for spatial management.

The Direction places obligations on AFMA to implement specific management measures, including spatial management which is being progressed through relevant MACs and RAGs in 2006.

12. AFMA will ensure that the strategic compliance program required under Section 6(j) of the SESSF Plan identifies and implements appropriate tools to effectively monitor and validate compliance with all management measures,

A compliance risk assessment is undertaken annually for the GHAT, SET and GAB fisheries to identify areas of non compliance and to focus enforcement efforts. The compliance plan for the fishery describes the risks in more detail and the controls that effectively mitigate these risks. The SESSF data plan outlines data

32



including spatial management, administered under the SESSF Plan.

improvements for the SESSF, including validation of compliance and management data.

13. AFMA, in consultation with industry and other stakeholders:

develop and implement management arrangements to significantly reduce the current total level of quota and non- quota discards in the SESSF within threeyears; and

within 12 months, as part of the bycatch plan, determine target reduction levels and baselines for future discarding in the fishery that are acceptable to DEH.

The integrated scientific monitoring program (ISMP) has been implemented across all sectors of the SESSF except the gillnet sector to estimate the level of discarding. The ISMP will operate in the gillnet sector later in 2006. Discard estimates are taken into account in the annual stock assessment TAC setting processes. Revised SESSF bycatch action plan (BAP) will identify specific actions to address discarding.

New mesh size regulations were introduced in the CTS in 2006 related to cod end mesh sizes and escapement panels to reduce bycatch of small and juvenile scalefish species. For details of the direction see:

http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/sess/sess_commonwealth/notices/docs/20060210_gear.pdf

The GABTS has agreed to reduce discards by 10% in 2006 and has committed to producing a plan to reduce discards by 50% by 2008. The fishery has moved to use T-90 extenders (mesh modifications) to reduce discards. Discard levels are relatively low in the GHATS and it is unlikely that gear modifications will reduce these. A comprehensive study of different gillnet mesh sizes has shown that the current gillnet mesh sizes used (between 150mm and 165mm) have the lowest bycatch of all mesh sizes studied between 50mm and 200mm. In the auto longline sector, operators voluntarily cut school sharks off at the snood to enhance survivability.

The EFTO1A logbook which is used in the CTS, has been amended in order to allow for the reporting of discards. This is a voluntary measure, however reporting has been highly encouraged by the South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA) and AFMA. The GABTS logbook was amended to provide for the reporting of discards in 2004 and in 2005 was further amended to collect more

33



specific discard data. Compliance with discard reporting has been very high.

The BAP was considered by AFMA’s Environment Committee in August 2005 and as a result was revised and further considered by the SESSF MAC meetings in November 2005. SETMAC agreed to defer consideration for public release of the draft BAP until it is revised to take into account matters raised by the Ministerial Direction and AFMA response.

A discards strategy is being developed for MAC consideration.

AFMA implemented a system of net panels in the CTS designed to reduce the take of small fish in 2006. Fisheries Officers monitor compliance with these requirements as part of the Compliance Plan.

14. Effective management requirements to use discard and other bycatch mitigation measures will be introduced at the conclusion of a trial and development period of up to three years. AFMA will monitor the extent of uptake of mitigation measures and introduce mandatory measures where voluntary uptake of measures is insufficient.

A mandatory requirement to fit seal excluder devices to mid water trawl nets in the winter blue grenadier processing/freezing component of the CTS was implemented in 2005.

A new SESSF Direction (No. 05 Gear Requirements for the Commonwealth Trawl Sector) came into effect on 14 January 2006. This Direction is the result of gear modification work undertaken by industry in an effort to reduce bycatch, including the catch of small or juvenile quota species. Work will continue to measure the performance of the modifications including ongoing gear development and trials to improve selectivity.

This Direction requires that codends conform to one of the following options:

(a) 90 mm single twine mesh; or

(b) Double twine mesh of at least 102 mm (4 inch) or greater; or

(c) 90 mm double twine mesh, with one or more of the following prescribed bycatch reduction modifications:

A single large square mesh panel (at least 90 mm) in the upper side of the

34



codend bag (dimensions 15 bars X 20 bars); or

A single large rotated mesh (T90) panel (at least 90 mm) in the upper side of the codend bag (15 meshes X 18 meshes).

A review of the codend designs adopted and their performance will be undertaken in July 2006.

A number of outcomes were agreed by industry in June 2006 as a way forward to address bycatch issues in the royal red prawn fishery, these included:

1 Collect information

a. ISMP to work on Wollongong and Sydney vessels. b. Information on catch composition and gear design (sweep length,

boards, mesh size / any panels) and fishing practices depth etc. c. Fishermen to record gear / bycatch details in logbook.

2 AFMA to arrange permits for fishing vessels to trial modified gear to compare with traditional gear (e.g. escape panel positioning, larger mesh size configurations and bridle configurations).

3 Summarise information of catch by depth and catch by month for different areas along the coast.

4 Meet mid 2007 to discuss results and provide a paper on bycatch reduction in royal red prawn fishery.

15. Section 7(1)(m) of the draft SESSF Plan be amended to:

• “ that, if the stock of a species is found to be below the reference point for the species, effective recovery strategies are implemented within 12 months to ensure that, to the extent that the deficit of the stock is attributable to factors related to the management of the fishery, the depleted stock is rebuilt above the reference


7 (1) (m) that, if the stock of a species is found to be below the reference point for the species, effective recovery strategies are implemented within 12 months to ensure that, to the extent that the deficit is attributable to factors related to the management of the fishery, the depleted stock is rebuilt;

35



point.”

16. Section 8 of the draft SESSF Plan be amended to:

“(3A) for paragraph(3)(d), actions that must be required include, as appropriate:

a) Defining and implementing appropriate bycatch limits;

b) Setting targets for bycatch reduction; and c) Implementing bycatch reduction measures within

set time periods.”


(3) A by-catch action plan must: (a) set out appropriate by-catch limits; and (b) require action to ensure that: (i) information is gathered about the impact of the fishery on

by-catch species; and (ii) all reasonable steps are taken to minimise incidental

interactions with seabirds, marine reptiles, marine mammals and fish of a kind mentioned in sections 15 and 15A of the Act; and

(iii) the ecological impacts of fishing operations on habitats in the area of the fishery are minimised and kept at an acceptable level; and

(iv) by-catch is reduced to, or kept at, a minimum, and below a level that might threaten by-catch species, including, as appropriate, by:

(A) meeting targets for by-catch reduction set in the plan; and

(B) implementing by-catch reduction measures within time periods set in the plan.

17. Section 8(4)(b)(iv) of the draft SESSF Plan be amended to:


36



“(4) in developing a BAP, AFMA must take into account:

(b) the requirements under the EPBC Act for the protection of:

(iv) listed threatened ecological communities.”

(4)In developing a by-catch action plan, AFMA must take into account: (b) the requirements under the EPBC Act for the protection of: (iv) listed threatened ecological communities.

18. AFMA, in consultation with industry, DEH, researchers and other stakeholders, to further assess and reduce the extent of interactions of seals, cetaceans and seabirds across all sectors of the SESSF, and interactions with sygnathids in the trawl sectors and white sharks in the gillnet and hook sector. AFMA will, for all of the above species:

within 12 months, establish robust data collection and reporting systems, including adequate observer coverage, to quantify the extent of interactions;

within three years, assess, trial and implement as appropriate, mitigation or avoidance measures including further trials of bycatch exclusion devices and spatial or temporal closures.

For seals and sea lions, AFMA will, within 18 months extend across the trawl sectors management measures assessed as effective to help reduce interactions with seals and sea lions.

For sygnathid and seabird species, AFMA will, within two years, assess under the ecological risk assessment process the risks of fishing activities in the SESSF to sygnathid and seabird species and develop appropriate

In line with the memorandum of understanding between AFMA and DEH AFMA is currently preparing a report on interactions with protected species in the period 1 April 2006 to 30 June 2006.

Tori poles are mandatory on all automatic longliners to deter seabirds from taking baited hooks. The automatic longline sector has worked closely with the Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) for seabirds team and has met all requirements of the TAP through uptake of a suite of mitigation measures suitable for each vessel type (e.g. weighted lines). Given the diversity of vessels each operators can choose from a range of mitigation measures to meet specific targets. From 2002 to the end of 2005 over 3.3 million hook sets were observed in the automatic longline sector of the GHATS (an average of 13.34% of hook sets observed over this four year period).

26 seabird deaths were reported, primarily by one vessel, which as a result had 100% observer coverage and adopted strict mitigation measures until the issue was resolved. No reported interactions have been reported with any other protected species during this period in this sector.

The CTS ISMP was modified in 2003 - 2004 to record additional data on protected species interactions in this sector of the fishery.

Trials to investigate effective seal capture mitigation techniques continued in the CTS. A large part of the work has involved trialling of seal excluder devices as a physical means of reducing seal capture. AFMA is currently investigating the recent catch of Australian fur seals in the blue grenadier fishery to determine if all

37



management response to the outcomes of the ERA. reasonable steps were taken to avoid interactions.

In August 2004 the Head of the Great Australian Bight, between Eyre Bluff and the SA/WA border was closed to protect sea lions, great white shark and school shark. North and South Pages Island were also closed at this time to all fishing to protect great white sharks and sea lions. Seal Bay and Bales Beach were closed to all fishing to protect sea lions.

The Industry Code of Conduct recommends that operators do not set gillnets within two nautical miles of seal colonies.

An industry based project to monitor seal interactions in the CTS has been funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation for the period 1 Jan 05 to 30 June 06.

Education and awareness and extension program to improve threatened, endangered and protected species reporting and to establish a baseline of interactions was implemented in 2005.

38

Part 3. Ongoing and Future Management Changes This section provides an overview of the key management changes and ongoing initiatives that are underway in the SESSF to further improve management of the fishery. The four major changes expected in the coming months for the SESSF include:

I. Specific responses to the December 2005 Ministerial Direction; II. Proactive management responses underway prior to the Ministerial Direction; III. ERAs and the ecological risk management framework; and IV. An expected reduction in fishing capacity resulting from the structural adjustment

fishing concession buyout.

The following sub-sections describe each of these changes and how they will further improve the ecological and economic sustainability of the SESSF. AFMA expects proposed management changes marked with an asterisk in the heading to be implemented by the end of 2006, whereas those not marked are expected to be implemented in 2007 or 2008.

SESSF RESPONSES TO THE MINISTERIAL DIRECTION In December 2005 the then Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation directed AFMA, in accordance with section 91 of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991, to take immediate action in all Commonwealth fisheries to:

a) Cease overfishing and recover overfished stocks to levels that will ensure long-term sustainability and productivity;

b) Avoid further species from becoming overfished in the short and long term; and c) Manage the broader environmental impacts of fishing, including on threatened species

or those otherwise protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The Minister also directed that AFMA take a more “strategic, science-based approach” to setting catch and/or effort levels in all Commonwealth fisheries through the development and implementation of a Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy.

Other key aspects of the Direction relevant to the SESSF are: a) Evaluate whether boat SFRs and boat permits are an impediment to autonomous

adjustment and if so, phase these out by 2010; b) Minimise incentives for discarding by ensuring it is factored into the setting of catch

limits; c) Enhance the monitoring of fishing activity. For example, through increased use of

vessel monitoring systems with daily reporting, on-board cameras and observers; d) Establish a system of independent surveys for all major Commonwealth fisheries by 1

January 2007 to increase the transparency and integrity of catch and effort information; and

e) Identify and implement any required spatial closures in fisheries.

AFMA is required to report to the Minister on progress toward implementing the Direction in May 2006, November 2006 and May 2007. The following actions are proposed in response to the Ministerial Direction, however many are currently being further developed at industry workshops and reviewed by relevant MACs and RAGS.

39

Harvest strategy framework*

In 2005 a Harvest Strategy Framework (HSF) was developed and implemented in the SESSF and was used to determine TACs for the majority of SESSF quota species for the 2006 fishing year. For more detail on the development of the HSF see the Harvest Strategy for the SESSF Workshop held on 23-24 June: http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/sess/sess_commonwealth/mac/2005/setmac90/workshop.pdf

When fully implemented the HSF will: Reduce fishing mortality when stocks decline below 40% of unfished biomass (or

equivalent); Cease targeted fishing for stocks that are below 20% of unfished biomass; and Enable bycatch TACs to be set for stocks below 20% of unfished biomass only in

circumstances where achieving a zero catch level would have a severe impact on the rest of the fishery and only if stock recovery within an acceptable time frame is still achievable at low levels of catch.

All species or stocks are assigned to a tier (one through four) according to the level of information. Stocks in tier one have robust and generally agreed stock assessments whereas stocks in tier four only have catch and effort analysis to ascertain sustainable catch limits. The HSF will automatically determine more precautionary catch limits for lower tier stocks.

The HSF will establish a recommended biological catch (RBC) for each species or stock to which it is applied. The RBC represents the total mortality (including discards and State catches) that a species or stock is able to sustain.

The SESSF partially implemented this harvest strategy framework during the 2006 TAC setting process. Some areas of the framework are being revised and the framework will again be used to set 2007 TACs for all species.

Stock recovery plans*

Explicit stock-specific recovery plans will also be developed to support recovery of overfished stocks. Recovery plans will clearly define:

a reference point (for many species or stocks for which the unfished biomass (B0) is not known an agreed reference point for rebuilding must be specified);

a timeframe to reach the reference point; a monitoring program; and ways to limit fishing mortality (including discards and catches in other jurisdictions if

required).

In 2006 stock recovery plans will be developed for orange roughy (all overfished stocks), eastern gemfish and school shark. Regulations may be implemented to give effect to some aspects of these recovery plans.

Managing non-quota species

In future, estimates of sustainable catch limits for all species taken in the SESSF will progressively be evaluated under the SESSF HSF and the TACs on quota species will be able to be reduced to constrain catches of associated non-quota species. AFMA will also consider limiting the proportion of catches of non-quota species that may be landed in any trip, to prevent unsustainable targeting of non-quota species.

40

Managing risk*

ERAs will be completed for all Commonwealth fisheries during 2006. ERAs identify the risks that fishing poses to the ecological sustainability of the marine environment and help prioritise management needs. Many of AFMA’s future fisheries management decisions will be based on the outcomes of the ERA process.

Future development

AFMA’s intends to address the broader ecological impacts of fishing and prevent species from becoming overfished in future by generally limiting the SESSF to the areas and species that have been fished to date. Any proposals to expand the fishery beyond these areas and species will need to be conducted in accordance with a development application process, to be established in consultation with the SESSF MACs. This will ensure that individuals wishing to expand the fishery beyond today’s description will support the associated costs of doing so, and ecological damage and overfishing can be prevented from occurring in such situations in future.

Managing deepwater species*

Except for some targeted fishing for orange roughy, alfonsino and oreos, most waters below approximately 700m in the SESSF will be closed to fishing from 1 January 2007 to enable the rebuilding of deepwater species from overfishing and to take a more precautionary approach to possible fishing impacts on deepwater ecosystems. The management responses being developed to help protect the main species taken in deepwater in the SESSF are described below.

Orange roughy, oreos and alfonsino

Orange roughy; alfonsino and oreos are able to be selectively targeted. Fishing for these species or stocks will be able to continue under sustainable catch limits established under the SESSF HSF in the following areas:

GABTS, Albany and Esperance Zones to target orange roughy; CTS on the Cascade Plateau to target orange roughy and byproduct catches of oreos;

and ECDWTS to target alfonsino.

Formal stock assessments for stocks of oreo species that are taken in association with orange roughy will be undertaken in 2006 or 2007 to ensure that current catches are sustainable. Stocks of oreo species will be managed as a byproduct of targeted orange roughy fishing and the TACs for these will be determined explicitly on the basis that they are companion species. If stock assessments indicate that stocks of oreo species are overfished or subject to overfishing, AFMA will reduce the TACs for orange roughy to manage effort on these species and separate ITQs for oreo stocks may not be required.

A stock assessment for alfonsino will be undertaken in 2006 or 2007 to ensure that current catches are sustainable and a TAC will be determined that includes alfonsino taken outside of the area of the ECDWTS (both on the high seas and elsewhere within the SESSF).

Other deepwater species*

It is still uncertain whether the current levels of catch of the deepwater shark and oreo species are sustainable. To ensure that these species do not become overfished in future, the SESSF HSF will be applied to determine precautionary catch levels for the 2007 fishing year. Until sustainable catch limits for deepwater sharks and oreo’s can be determined, fishing below

41

700m will not be permitted by any method in all zones of the SESSF except in the areas defined above to target orange roughy and alfonsino.

Allocation of SFRs for deepwater shark and oreo species

In 2005 AFMA allocated ITQs for a basket of deepwater shark species and a basket of oreo species, as well as individual ITQs for smooth oreo. The TACs for all of these deepwater species were set at half the previous years catch because of concerns about possible overfishing.

At this stage the ITQs for these species are being issued as a permit condition and the SFRs have not been granted. Given the proposal above to prohibit fishing for all methods in waters deeper than 700m and to manage oreo species as a bycatch of orange roughy fishing, AFMA Management will be consulting with the relevant MACs on whether to proceed with the allocation of quota SFRs for the deepwater shark and oreo baskets and smooth oreo.

Fishery independent survey*

Currently the first two years of a FIS have been successfully completed in the GABTS. The FIS will be capable of producing a relative index of abundance for the main target species in 2007 and commonly caught byproduct and bycatch species in future years, depending on the variability of catches.

A fishery independent survey (FIS) will be implanted in the SESSF. This will be based on the model developed by the GABTS developed in 2005. The FIS will provide independent indices of abundance for the main SESSF quota species. Data from the FIS will greatly enhance confidence in stock assessments, provide an independent and verified source of information on the abundance of non-target and bycatch species across the fishery and provide information on the recovery of overfished species or stocks. The SESSF FIS will also provide essential information on the abundance of non-quota and key bycatch species as well as an effective means of monitoring stock recovery for several overfished species. The survey design will be completed in the 2006-07 financial year and the survey proper will commence in 2008.

Within season quota reconciliation*

AFMA is planning to require concession holders to reconcile quota within 28 days of 31 August 2006 and within 28 days of 31 December 2006. The additional reconciliation periods are aimed at reducing the likelihood of concession holders being over their quota entitlements at the end of the fishing season and to improve the security of investments made by all operators. Further initiatives include:

Improved quota monitoring to ensure that catch does not exceed the TAC. Progressively moving to monthly quota reconciliation for all fisheries to ensure that

quota is closely monitored and fishers can reconcile as soon as possible after any overcatch occurs.

The quarterly quota reconciliation process will be formally evaluated after two years to ensure that the intended outcome of preventing over-quota catches and improving the operation of the quota market is being achieved.

Ensuring that operators have uncaught quota prior to the commencement of fishing and that they are prevented from continuing to fish during the fishing year until they reconcile all of their over-quota catches will have a beneficial effect on discard rates across the fishery.

Whilst it is acknowledged that more frequent reconciliation will not prevent discarding from occurring during fishing operations, it will prevent operators who are over-quota

42

on one or more species from going back to sea to continue fishing and discarding those species.

Minimising incentives for discarding AFMA’s policy document Future Operating Environment for Commonwealth Fisheries (http://www.afma.gov.au/information/newsroom/media/2005/mr20051216_future.pdf) has defined the following objectives to reduce discards:

discarding of quota species (or target species in non-quota fisheries) will be illegal from 2007; and

a 50% reduction of total discards across all fisheries.

AFMA will shortly issue all MACs with guidelines to address bycatch. MACs will be asked to respond indicating how they will achieve the bycatch reduction targets set out in the guidelines. The ISMP will be used to estimate the volume of discards on a sector by sector basis.

Quota species

The ISMP indicates that quota species do not make up a significant proportion of the discards across the sectors in which it operates. Quota is the main tool used to limit catches in the SESSF and it is essential that the integrity of the quota system is maintained. Monitoring compliance with this objective will be difficult, but implementing a law that enables AFMA to prosecute offences when they are detected will be a deterrent.

In 2005 the volume of discards for each quota species was explicitly taken into account in the TAC-setting process and in accordance with the Minister’s Direction, which will continue in future.

Other discarded species

AFMA has committed to a reduction of 50% of bycatch across all fisheries. In addition, the ERAs for each sector will identify all species (target, bycatch and protected species) that are at risk across the fishery. AFMA is required to develop management responses to mitigate the impacts of fishing on all high-risk species separate to the 50% reduction. Development of management responses for these species will commence in late 2006 once the ERAs are completed.

Data from the FIS will also enable monitoring of changes in abundance of non-target and bycatch species as part of the annual assessment cycles. The future management strategies for such species will be to:

monitor discard rates; monitor changes in abundance; apply the SESSF HSF to determine sustainable catch limits; and periodically update ERAs.

Bycatch reduction measures*

Recent modifications to trawl gear (otter trawl) are likely to have a positive effect on discard rates in that sector. However, the fishing industry will be required to continue to invest in the development of bycatch reduction devices that improve their gear selectivity and reduces incidental catches, thereby contributing to the reduction of discards.

AFMA will implement changes to fishing gear used by prawn trawl operators to limit sweep lengths on prawn trawl nets to be consistent with the gear used in the NSW Ocean Prawn

43

Trawl Fishery. A draft Direction was sent to Commonwealth trawl boat concession holders on 20 April 2006 outlining further gear requirements scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2006.

This measure will effectively prevent bycatch of juvenile scalefish species during prawn trawling operations and give effect to obligations under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement Agreements to implement complementary management arrangements.

Enhanced monitoring of fishing activity*

To comply with the Ministerial Direction and Future Operating Environment, the SESSF will need to review its need for observer and related monitoring programs. These programs are an integral part of a sound HSF and in the management of ecological risks in Commonwealth fisheries.

Electronic monitoring solutions (E-monitoring) will be pursued by AFMA in order to reduce costs and improve data quantity and quality. E-monitoring includes monitoring fishing operations using vessel mounted camera systems and sensors, fishing position using VMS and catch against quota holdings using electronic quota monitoring. A pilot program using a camera on a gillnet boat in the SESSF has found that nearly all species can be reliably identified in these operations.

VMS will be compulsory for the entire SESSF. Changes to the VMS are required to meet the increased obligations arising from placing VMS on all the fleet. Those fisheries that do not have VMS will be required to fit suitable VMS units by 1 July 2007.

A structured observer program will commence in the gillnet sector of the fishery on 1 July 2006.

Cost effective licensing and compliance

Consistent with the Minister’s Direction, including that many fisheries will be moving to quota management over the next four years, AFMA will be changing some of the ways it does business with the fishing industry to ensure there is a high level of integrity in fishery management arrangements and efficient administrative systems. Key initiatives are:

• E-licensing to provide on-line access to licensing entitlements held by fishers within three years. It will enable industry to self-service licensing and quota transactions and reduce the long-term costs to AFMA and industry.

• Administrative penalties will be increasingly used to improve the cost-effectiveness of compliance. The policy and legal requirements for this will be developed over the next two years with full implementation in 2008.

• Given many fisheries will be moving to TAC/ITQ management over the next four years, AFMA will be working with MACs to develop consistent management frameworks to reduce long-term costs.

Spatial closures: gillnetting in the GHATS*

The primary objective of implementing additional spatial closures in the gillnet sector of the GHATS is to limit catches of all sizes of school shark:

• under present fishing patterns with depleted stocks; and • under likely fishing patterns in the event of stock recovery.

Maintaining present closures and protection of nursery areas in Tasmania contributes to protecting pregnant females entering these areas for pupping and protecting pups, young juveniles and their habitat. Two additional measures to reduce bycatch now and in the future are proposed below.

44

1. Restrict gillnet fishing to waters shallower than 183 metres. Historically, most of the catch of school shark has been taken in shallow waters (generally inside 3nm) or on the edge of the shelf. The restriction of gillnetting and shark hook operators to waters shallower than 183m is primarily designed to reduce the potential targeting of school shark aggregations on the edge of the shelf. This restriction will also prevent gillnets and shark hook vessels from impacting on deeper water species such as gulper sharks.

2. The closure of a large amount of South Australian coastal waters to targeted shark fishing in order to protect mature school and gummy sharks. Closing coastal waters off eastern South Australia (inside 3nm) and selected areas around Kangaroo Is to gillnet operators will prevent the capture of mature school and gummy shark. A similar closure in Victoria is believed to have contributed to the stability of the gummy shark fishery in Bass Strait during recent years. AFMA will be working with the South Australian Government to develop complementary management measures for State operators. This measure will also provide an effective means of reducing potential interactions between gillnets and sea lions.

AFMA will investigate options for current State only operators, including allowing access to Commonwealth waters or phasing out existing line permits and making them non-transferable.

Spatial closures: CTS*

The objectives of implementing additional spatial closures in the CTS are to: • reduce bycatch of juvenile scalefish species; • preserve structured benthic habitat on the shelf; and • protect important school shark habitat in Bass Strait.

Demersal otter board trawling will be restricted as follows: • In Zones 2 and 3 to waters between 50m and 700m; • In Zones 4 and 5 to waters between 150m and 700m; and • Complete ban in Zone 6 (otter board)

The depths restrictions are aimed at preventing expansion of trawling onto structured benthic habitat on the upper shelf and protecting important shark habitats. The depth restrictions are approximations of where it is believed the structured reef habitat occurs within the different zones of the fishery.

AFMA is also aware that there are important Danish seine grounds to the west of Zone 2 and east of Zone 6. The intent of this measure is to protect previously unfished habitat and structured reef habitat from trawling and so it is not intended to exclude fishing from these areas.

AFMA in conjunction with relevant MACs, RAGs and through industry workshops will evaluate catch data and fishing behaviour to ascertain whether proposed spatial management measures outlined in this document provide adequate protection for dogfishes in the areas of the CTS and GHATS. If required, AFMA will develop and implement an appropriate management response by 2007.

Spatial closures: GABTS*

The objective of implementing an additional spatial closure in the GABTS is to protect known populations of gulper shark in the area of the fishery. A fishery closure to protect gulper sharks within the area between 133°E and 136°E will be implemented after further industry consultation and based on the results of a future survey.

Spatial closures: scalefish hook sector of the GHATS*

The objectives of implementing additional spatial closures in the scalefish hook sector are to:

45

• further reduce catches of school shark; • protect remnant populations of gulper sharks.

To achieve this automatic longline fishing will be restricted to waters between 300m and 700m in all Zones where the method is permitted. The current depth restriction preventing them from fishing shallower than 183m largely prevents interactions with gummy shark and provides protection to most school shark. Extending this limit to 300m will virtually eliminate the catch of school shark by automatic longliners.

AFMA, in conjunction with relevant RAGs and MACs will evaluate catch data to ascertain whether proposed spatial management measures outlined in this document provide adequate protection for gulper sharks in the areas of the CTS and GHATS of the SESSF. If required, AFMA will develop and implement an appropriate management response by 2007.

MANAGEMENT RESPONSES UNDERWAY PRIOR TO THE MINISTERIAL DIRECTION

Deepwater dogfish closures*

During July and August 2005 two automatic longline vessels conducted an automatic longline survey in waters approximately 250 to 700m deep from 129ºE to 136ºE. The main purpose of this survey was to determine the abundance and distribution of gulper sharks in the area, of which three species have been nominated under the EPBC Act. Gulper sharks only occurred in the eastern part of the survey area, mainly between 133º30’E and 135º30’E. Very few gulper sharks were caught west of this area (noting that the survey did not occur west of 129ºE). Subsequently, GHATMAC has proposed:

a) that a 60nm closure for automatic longliners be implemented between 133º45’E and 134º45’E;

b) that the remainder of the area between 129ºE and 136ºE be opened for automatic longline fishing; and

c) that the area be closed to trawling between 300-700m.

There is a strong commitment from GHATMAC to develop mitigation measures to protect gulper sharks, and while spatial and temporal closures seem the most obvious, there are a range of possible mitigation measures being explored. GHATMAC’s advice on this matter will be provided to the AFMA Board for consideration in August 2006.

Industry acoustic survey of blue grenadier during the 2006 spawning season*

An application for research funding to conduct an acoustic survey of the blue grenadier spawning stock was submitted to SETMAC at its March 2006 meeting and supported for funding through the levy base. The aim of this research is to generate an absolute abundance estimate of the size of the spawning stock of blue grenadier and to add an additional point in the relative index of abundance established in previous surveys conducted between 2002 and 2005. The survey will significantly reduce uncertainty surrounding previous survey results and provide management with greater confidence in setting a precautionary and sustainable TAC.

GABTS harvest strategy:

The GABTS in conjunction with AFMA have agreed to a stepwise approach to developing the fishing in slope waters in this fishery. For each species a series of precautionary triggers are set that trigger:

46

1. the collection of biological data (otoliths and length frequencies);

2. the analysis of biological data;

3. a full stock assessment; and

4. cessation of fishing.

The GAB Industry Association has developed a data collection plan to ensure that data is collected, even though triggers on some species have not yet been met.

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTS AND THE ECOLOGICAL RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Ecological Risk Assessments for Commonwealth fisheries*

To assist fisheries better manage their impact on all aspects of the marine environment, AFMA is developing ecological risk assessments (ERAs) for all major Commonwealth fisheries. The ERAs assess the impact a fishery has on all aspects of the marine ecosystem, providing fisheries with a priority list of ‘at-risk’ components. This allows fisheries to prioritise their research, data collection, monitoring and management from an ecological perspective. AFMA intends for the ERAs to be the key assessment tool for determining the ecological priorities for AFMA managed fisheries into the future, with initial assessments for all major fisheries to be completed by December 2006.

ERAs for each of the key sectors of the SESSF were drafted during 2004 and 2005 and discussed with stakeholders on a number of occasions. A report on first stage ERA’s, Ecological Risk Assessment for Australian Commonwealth Fisheries Final Report Stage 1: Hazard identification and preliminary risk assessment (July 2004) is found at: http://www.afma.gov.au/research/reports/2004/r01_0934.pdf

AFMA has now received the final drafts of the ERAs for the SESSF and is in the process of finalising these assessments. AFMA expects these to be finalised by July 2006.

Ecological Risk Management Framework

To provide direction to fisheries in using the ERA results, AFMA is developing an Ecological Risk Management framework to ensure a consistent process for responding to the ERA outcomes is followed across different fisheries. This framework, while based on the outcomes of the ERAs, is being designed to incorporate all environmental management and reporting requirements for fisheries. This will streamline efforts within fisheries, allowing for better coordination of environmental management within a fishery and between fisheries.

Development of the risk management framework for the SESSF will be a priority over the second half of 2006.

COMMONWEALTH STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT FISHING CONCESSION BUYOUT On 23 November 2005, the Australian Government announced the $220 million Securing Our Fishing Future Initiative to help secure Commonwealth fish stocks and a profitable future for the fishing industry. The centrepiece of the initiative is a $150 million allocation for a one-off, voluntary tender process to allow individual fishing businesses to exit the industry. The competitive tender process is aimed at reducing excess fishing capacity in fisheries that are

47

subject to overfishing or at significant risk of overfishing and the SESSF (excluding the GABTS) is one of four target fisheries in the tender process. For more detail see: http://www.daff.gov.au/fishingfuture

48

Appendix 1 2003 Catch vs TAC for SESSF quota species by catch sector

Species Targeting practices 2003`

TAC (t) 2003 Trawl Catch (t)

2003 Gillnet, Hook and Trap catch (t)

Blue eye trevalla

Targeted by dropliners, also taken as incidental catch by trawlers off western Tasmania and when targeting alfonsino in the ECDWZ.

690 42.8 556.6

Blue grenadier Targeted by trawlers, mainly off western Tasmania during winter.

9 000.1 8 473.9 8.9

Blue warehou

Historically have been targeted by gillnet, longline and trawlers targeting has been reduced in recent years

300 251.69 2.1

Flathead

Targeted by Danish seiners, mainly operating out of Lakes Entrance

3 500 3 494.2 0.8

Gemfish (eastern)

Histoically have been targeted on their spawning run up the east coast of NSW, now are mainly caught as byproduct

100 72.4 2.7

Gemfish (western)

Caught mainly in the winter blue grenadier trawl fishery off western Tasmania and in the GAB trawl fishery on the shelf.

300 173.6 3.9

Jackass morwong

Targeted by trawlers in southern NSW and eastern Bass Strait is driven by markets. Also caught as byproduct by Danish seiners and trawlers in the GAB

960 742.8 3.6

49

John dory

Primarily caught as byproduct in tageted flathead, redfish and jackass morwong shots by trawlers and Danish seiners in southern NSW and eastern Bass Strait

240 164.9 0.1

Ling

Targeted by trawlers, manly in winter off western Tasmania, also by demersal longlines (including auto liners) and gillnets.

2160 1 131.9 477.5

Mirror dory

Mainly taken as byproduct by trawlers, historically high catches were taken when targeting eastern gemfish

576 669.52 0.5

Ocean perch

Some of the catch is targeted by trawlers, the remainder is taken as byproduct by trawlers, Danish seiners and dropliners

500 338.9 34.8

Orange roughy (eastern)

Targeted by trawlers targeting large aggregations

820 772.2 0.0

Orange roughy (southern)


340 210.3 0.0

Orange roughy (western)


450 243.3 0.0

Orange roughy (Cascade Plateau)

Targeted by trawlers targeting a breeding aggregation

1 500 1538.3 0.0

Redfish

Targeted by trawlers in southern NSW, also taken as byproduct by Danish seiners targeting flathead and morwong

1 575 678.7 0.8

Royal red prawns Targeted by deep water prawn trawlers targeting them with smaller mesh

500 188.2 0.0

School whiting

Mainly taken as targeted catch of Danish seiners, some as byproduct of targeted flathead shots

1 500 564.3 0.0

50

Silver trevally

Mainly taken as byproduct by trawlers, gillnets and line methods

320 123.1 2.5

Spotted warehou

Targeted by trawlers mainly during winter from depths of 150-250m, also caught as byproduct in gillnets targeting blue warehou

4 488 3 046.4 12.6

Gummy shark

Targeted by gillnets and demersal longlines, also caught as byproduct by trawlers

1 698.7 62.5 1 578.1

School Shark

Historically have been targeted by gillnet and longline, also taken as byproduct by trawlers

273.2 20.7 198.5

Sawshark Taken as byproduct by gillnets, demersal longlines and trawlers

384.1 89.2 197.3

Elephant fish

Mainly taken as byproduct by gillnets, also by trawlers and demersal longlines. Deepwater chimaeras are also covered by this quota and are caught as byproduct by trawlers

87.3 28.3 44.5

Appendix 2 2004 Catch vs TAC for SESSF quota species by catch sector

Species Targeting practices 2004`

TAC (t) 2004 Trawl Catch (t)

2004 Gillnet, Hook andTtrap catch (t)

Blue eye trevalla


621 83.76 566.9


7 000 6 391.5 9.9

51

Blue warehou


296.7 260.3 1.7

Flathead


3 464.2 3 381.9 0.9

Gemfish (eastern)

Histoically have been targeted on their spawning run up the east coast of NSW, now are mainly caught as byproduct

100 77.1 2.7

Gemfish (western)


300 146.2 3.7

Jackass morwong


956.7 754 4.4

John dory


238.6 165.8 0.1

Ling


1 799.5 903.5 850.4

Mirror dory


576 521.5 0.1

52

Ocean perch


500 298.2 85



720 667.8 0.0



100 80.5 0.0



450 247.4 0.0



1 500 321 0.0

Redfish


1 575 498.5 1.0


500 172.2 0.0

School whiting


1 450.3 400 0.0

Silver trevally


318.1 138.4 2.0

Spotted warehou


4 039 3 311 0.3

Gummy shark


1 700 65.6 1 620.3

School Shark


327 20.3 192


258 98.6 209.1

53

Elephant fish


128 42.2 32.6

Appendix 3 2005 Catch vs TAC for SESSF quota species

Species Targeting practices 2005 TAC (t) 2005 SESS Catch (t)

Blue eye trevalla


621 496.127


5 000 4 292.991

Blue warehou


300 258.937

Deepwater Shark East

92 68.156

Deepwater Shark West

216 99.676

Flathead


3 150 3 002.853

Gemfish (eastern)

Histoically have been targeted on their spawning run up the east coast of NSW, now are mainly caught as

100 88.157

54

byproduct

Gemfish (western)


300 156.616

Jackass morwong


960 803.715

John dory


240 102.723

Ling


1 400 1 400.391

Mirror dory


700 590.495

Ocean perch


500 372.014



720 653.887



100 95.243

55



450 281.042



1 300 1 175.043

Redfish


1 300 532.834


500 166.487

School whiting


1 500 455.099

Silver trevally


320 96.714

Spotted warehou


4 400 2 907.718

Gummy shark


1 717.2 1 645.365

School Shark


243.65 205.298


434.4 320.402

Elephant fish


130 84.835

Oreo

Mainly taken as byproduct during targeted orange roughy fishing

200 159.441

56

Ribaldo

100 95.254

Smooth Dory

50 38.021

Smooth Dory Cascade

100 67.86

Appendix 4 Deepwater shark species included in the basket quota

Common Name

Scientific name

brier shark Deania calcea longsnout dogfish Deania quadrispinosa bareskin dogfish Centroscyllium kamoharai Portuguese dogfish Centroscymnus coelolepis golden dogfish Centroscymnus crepidater owstons dogfish Centroscymnus owstonii plunkets dogfish Centroscymnus plunketi black shark Dalatias licha smooth lanternshark Etmopterus bigelowi short-tail lanternshark Etmopterus brachyurus pink lanternshark Etmopterus dianthus lined lanternshark Etmopterus dislineatus blackmouth lanternshark Etmopterus evansi pygmy lanternshark Etmopterus fusus southern lanternshark Etmopterus granulosus blackbelly lanternshark Etmopterus lucifer mollers lanternshark Etmopterus molleri slender lanternshark Etmopterus pusillus

57

Appendix 5 - Discarding of quota species for 2004 – CTS, GHATS, GABTS (from ISMP annual reports) Species Discard Rate % Estimated discard

weight (t) Estimated retained weight (t)

GABT target species

Bight redfish 0.07 0.62 838.31 Deepwater flathead 1.09 25.36 2304.05 Orange roughy 0.01 0.03 149.81 CTS Blue Eye Trevalla 0.00 0.00 84.26 Blue Grenadier 1.62 26.76 6441.53 Blue Warehou 51.37 381.44 261.96 Flathead 4.06 228.38 3607.03 Gemfish (Eastern) 51.94 83.21 87.32 Gemfish (Western) 6.04 8.92 137.87 Jackass Morwong 4.54 47.32 759.61 John Dory 0.33 1.74 189.7 Mirror Dory 16.32 170.31 565.31 Ocean perch 96.25 235.29 304.62 Orange Roughy 0.12 3.74 2791.57 Pink Ling 0.08 0.8 904.25 Redfish 36.08 377.44 537.87 Royal Red Prawn 5.65 43.46 220.69 School whiting 1.11 26.36 654.19 Silver Trevally 1.56 7.4 464.35 Spotted Warehou 21.12 1183.28 3310.34 Total non-quota 66.86 12863.36 5562.73 GHaT Blue Eye Trevalla 0.24 1.4 553.44 Blue Grenadier 4.01 0.43 9.51 Blue Warehou 0.00 0.00 0.38 Flathead 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gemfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gummy Shark 6.74 0.32 3.63 Jackass Morwong 2.36 0.06 2.5 John Dory 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mirror Dory 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ocean perch 4.4 1.6 84.96 Ling 0.07 0.59 835.63 Redfish 0.00 0.00 0.18 Ribaldo 0.72 0.98 133.63 Royal Red Prawn 0.00 0.00 0.00 School Shark 7.65 0.57 6.7 School Whiting 0.00 0.00 0.00 Silver Trevally 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spotted Warehou 0.00 0.00 0.02 Total non-quota 74.1 180.65 69.85 * Data drawn from the following number of shots – CTS 833, GHATS 231, GABTS 173.

58

Appendix 6 - Discarding of quota species for 2005 – CTS, GHATS, GABTS (from ISMP annual reports) Species Discard Rate % Estimated discard

weight (t) Estimated retained weight (t)

GABT target species

Bight redfish 0.01 0.09 847.4 Deepwater flathead 0.33 5.71 1728.22 Orange roughy 0.00 0.00 206.3 CTS Blue Eye Trevalla 0.00 0.00 46.59 Blue Grenadier 29.17 525.55 4282.78 Blue Warehou 46.89 273.92 311.37 Flathead 5.24 195.14 3002.5 Gemfish (Eastern) 44.98 77.65 83.21 Gemfish (Western) 1.09 1.64 147.68 Jackass Morwong 9.44 38.61 797.78 John Dory 2.23 3.53 102.69 Mirror Dory 6.72 52.73 590.44 Ocean perch 70.43 58.78 295.92 Orange Roughy 0.47 13.16 2520.64 Pink Ling 0.25 2.21 756.32 Redfish 16.29 126.18 532.27 Royal Red Prawn 4.13 40.29 166.49 School whiting 4 37.5 455.11 Silver Trevally 0.08 0.1 96.04 Spotted Warehou 5.76 434.83 2907.6 Total non-quota 71.55 13947.56 4590.02 GHaT Blue Eye Trevalla 0.00 0.00 436.62 Blue Grenadier 8.72 1.02 9.79 Blue Warehou 0.00 0.00 0.5 Flathead 0.00 0.00 0.01 Gemfish 5.74 0.95 13.58 Gummy Shark 0.00 0.00 4.26 Jackass Morwong 0.00 0.00 4.36 John Dory 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mirror Dory 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ocean perch 0.84 0.65 76.13 Ling 0.25 1.59 625.8 Redfish 0.00 0.00 0.01 Ribaldo 1.12 0.57 50.36 School Shark 18.8 0.59 2.36 Silver Trevally 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spotted Warehou 0.00 0.00 0.05 Total non-quota 88.61 327.47 37.83 * Data drawn from the following number of shots – CTS 950, GHATS 147, GABTS 217.

59

Appendix 7 – Discarding of top 50 non-quota species (from ISMP data) for 2005 – GABTS (Data drawn from 217 trawl shots). Species Catch (kgs) % retained % discarded LATCHET 49374.7 2% 98% WIDE STINGAREE 27371 0% 100% CHINAMAN-LEATHERJACKET 27344 85% 15% SPONGE 20005 0% 100% ORNATE ANGEL SHARK 18813 69% 31% BARRACOUTA 12160 0% 100% FIDDLER RAY 10719 0% 100% SMOOTH STINGRAY 7177 0% 100% YELLOW-SPOTTED BOARFISH 6645 100% 0% SANDY-BACKED STINGAREE 5000 0% 100% PIKED DOGFISH 4740 0% 100% GUMMY SHARK 4320 99% 1% DEEPWATER BURRFISH 3823 0% 100% SWALLOW-TAIL 3484.2 0% 100% ARROW SQUID 3449.5 68% 32% KNIFEJAW 2922 61% 39% JACKASS MORWONG 2777.5 82% 18% QUEEN SNAPPER 2386 100% 0% COMMON SAW SHARK 2380 53% 47% EAGLE RAY 1443 0% 100% RED GURNARD 1207 97% 3% JACK MACKEREL 1162.5 1% 99% SOUTHERN SHOVEL-NOSE RAY 1153 0% 100% BLACK STINGRAY 1074 0% 100% RUBYFISH 1059.1 0% 100% RINGED TOADFISH 1020 0% 100% WOBBEGONG 1010 94% 6% PORT JACKSON SHARK 969 0% 100% LONG-FINNED BOARFISH 883.5 6% 94% SOUTHERN CALAMARI 836 100% 0% DEEPWATER STARGAZER 828.5 0% 100% GREEN-EYED DOGFISH 794 3% 97% SNAPPER 791 100% 0% RUDDY GURNARD PERCH 784.5 0% 100% OCEAN PERCH - OFFSHORE 678 91% 9% AUSTRALIAN TUSK 506.8 99% 1% SOUTHERN CONGER EEL 474 99% 1% BLACK-SPOTTED GURNARD PERCH 453.5 95% 5% * FAMILY * DASYATIDIDAE 450 0% 100% SILVER TREVALLY 413.7 76% 24% WHITLEY'S SKATE 408 0% 100% GEMFISH 364 92% 8% VEILFIN 348.5 35% 65% SERGEANT BAKER 335.5 0% 100%

60

HAPUKU 335 100% 0% HARD CORAL 328 0% 100% REDBAIT 312 0% 100% THETIS FISH 267.7 1% 99% RUSTY CATSHARK 253 0% 100% YELLOW-EYED SNAPPER 204.3 73% 27% SPIKY OREO 194 7% 93%

Appendix 8 – Discarding of top 50 non-quota species (from ISMP data) for 2005 – CTS (Data drawn from 950 trawl shots) Species Catch (kgs) % retained % discarded CHINAMAN-LEATHERJACKET 77434 34% 66% BARRACOUTA 55462 7% 93% SOUTHERN FROSTFISH 26839 21% 79% NEW ZEALAND DORY 25757.9 0% 100% JACK MACKEREL 24754.2 3% 97% ROUND-SNOUTED GURNARD 19853.4 0% 100% PIKED DOGFISH 16760 20% 80% TOOTHED WHIPTAIL 16379 0% 100% ARROW SQUID 15373.5 99% 1% RUBYFISH 11207 0% 100% CUCUMBER FISH 10608.5 0% 100% ANGEL SHARK 9421 98% 2% GROOVED GURNARD 8901.5 1% 99% GREEN-BACKED STINGAREE 8590.5 0% 100% DRAUGHTBOARD SHARK 8207 14% 86% DEEPWATER BURRFISH 7410 0% 100% GARGOYLE FISH 7358.5 0% 100% WHIPTAILS/RATTAILS 7122 0% 100% ##SQUIDS 6818 96% 4% GROOVED AND ROUNDSNOUTED GURNARD 6816 0% 100% SPOTTED SWELLSHARK 6185 54% 46% LATCHET 5763.5 80% 20% COMMON SKATE 5043 0% 100% SILVER DORY 4749.6 41% 59% PORT JACKSON SHARK 4584 0% 100% WHITLEY'S (MELBOURNE) SKATE 4551 33% 67% SPECKLED STARGAZER 4411 98% 2% REDBAIT 3665 0% 100% XMAS CRAB 3383 3% 97% KING DORY 3005 100% 0% FUR SEALS 2870 0% 100% GREY MORWONG 2725.6 88% 12% * FAMILYS * MONACANTHIDAE/BALISTIDAE 2580 43% 57% BRIER SHARK 2492 97% 3% MOSAIC LEATHERJACKET 2489.5 44% 56%

61

WHIPTAILS 2486 0% 100% SPIKY OREO 2478 77% 23% SPINY FLATHEAD 2387 0% 100% BIGHT SKATE 2376.5 4% 96% ORANGE PERCH 2344 1% 99% THETIS FISH 2338 0% 100% GREEN-EYED DOGFISH 2292 12% 88% FIDDLER RAY 2219 76% 24% THREE-SPINED CARDINALFISH 2139.3 0% 100% VELVET LEATHERJACKET 2138.8 23% 77% BLACK STINGRAY 2126 15% 85% RED GURNARD 1993.5 94% 6% SANDY-BACKED STINGAREE 1959 29% 71% SOUTHERN WHIPTAIL 1923 0% 100% LITTLE NUMBFISH 1710 0% 100% PLATYPUS SHARKS 1652 94% 6%

Appendix 9 – Discarding of top 50 species (from ISMP data) for 2005 – GHATS (Data drawn from 147 fishing gear shots). Species Catch (kgs) % retained % discarded GREEN-EYED DOGFISH 16825.5 0% 100% HAPUKU 4979 100% 0% ENDEAVOUR DOGFISH (GROUP CODE) 2902 0% 100% DRAUGHTBOARD SHARK 2013 0% 100% BIGHT SKATE 1382.2 0% 100% PLATYPUS SHARK 623.5 0% 100% PIKED DOGFISH 499 0% 100% GREY SKATE 445 0% 100% EAGLE RAY 428 100% 0% POLYPRION OXYGENEIOS 282 100% 0% SAWTAIL SHARK 262.5 0% 100% MOLLER'S DEEPSEA SHARK 260 0% 100% SPOTTED SWELLSHARK 209 0% 100% AUSTRALIAN TUSK 197 100% 0% BIGHT GHOST SHARK 190 96% 4% BLUE SHARK 183 97% 3% KNIFEJAW 182 100% 0% SOUTHERN CHIMAERA 162 83% 17% BRIER SHARK 124 94% 6% SMOOTH LANTERN SHARK 99.5 0% 100% SPINY GURNARD 90 100% 0% OILFISH 83 24% 76% BASS GROPER 73 100% 0% BLACK STINGRAY 72 0% 100% SHARPNOSE SEVEN-GILL SHARK 55 89% 11%

62

* FAMILY * DOGFISHES 44 0% 100% BLACK SHARK 43 0% 100% SWOLLEN-HEADED CONGER EEL 43 0% 100% WOBBEGONG 40 100% 0% BARRACOUTA 36 31% 69% SOUTHERN WHIPTAIL 34 0% 100% WHIPTAILS 34 0% 100% ALFONSIN 32.5 100% 0% BROWN STINGAREE 25 0% 100% SOUTHERN CONGER EEL 22 14% 86% MORWONG 21 100% 0% TOOTHED WHIPTAIL 20.5 0% 100% * FAMILY * SKATES 19 0% 100% WHIPTAILS/RATTAILS 18 0% 100% BLUE-SPOTTED FLATHEAD 16 100% 0% SAND FLATHEAD 16 100% 0% ENDEAVOUR DOGFISH 11 64% 36% LATCHET 11 100% 0% SKATES 11 0% 100% ##HEXANCHUS VITULUS 10 0% 100% BLUNTNOSE SIXGILL SHARK 10 100% 0% KING CRAB (TASMANIAN GIANT) 10 60% 40% FIDDLER RAY 9 0% 100% RED GURNARD 9 100% 0% * FAMILY * CUCUMBERFISHES 8 0% 100% BIGHT REDFISH 7 71% 29%

63

References Knuckey, I., Koopman, M., Gason, A. and R. Hudson (2005). Preliminary resource survey of the Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery. Fishwell Consulting/ Primary Industries Research Victoria, Queenscliffe.

Koopman M, Talman SG, Gason ASH, Stokie TK and Berrie, SE. (2005 a). Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program - South East Trawl Fishery Annual Report 2004. Report to Australian Fisheries Management Authority Project No. R03/1551. Primary Industries Research Victoria, Queenscliff.

Koopman M, Gason ASH, Talman SG. Stokie TK and Berrie, SE. (2005 b) Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program – Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery Annual Report 2004. Report to Australian Fisheries Management Authority Project No. R03/1553. Primary Industries Research Victoria, Queenscliff.

Talman SG, Brown LP, Gason ASH (2004 a) Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program – Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery Annual Report 2003. Report to Australian Fisheries Management Authority Project No. R03/1552. Primary Industries Research Victoria, Queenscliff.

Talman SG, Koopman M, Gason ASH (2004 b) Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program – Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery Annual Report 2003. Report to Australian Fisheries Management Authority Project No.R03/1551. Primary Industries Research Victoria, Queenscliff.

Talman SG, Brown LP, Gason ASH (2005) Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program – Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery Annual Report 2004. Report to Australian Fisheries Management Authority Project No. R03/1552. Primary Industries Research Victoria, Queenscliff.

Walker, T. I., and Gason, A. S. (2005). GHATF monitoring database management 2004/05. Final report to Australian Fisheries Management Authority Project No. R02/1113 & R03/1383. (December 2005.) 93 + v pp. (Primary Industries Research Victoria: Queenscliffe, Victoria, Australia).

Walker, T. I., and Gason, A. S. (2006). Half-yearly GN01a Shark Catch and Effort Data Summary for Gillnet Hook and Trap Fishery 1999–05. SharkRAG 2006/03 (6–7 March 2006).

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Wildlife ... · SESSF since the 2003 strategic...

Documents

Transcript of Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Wildlife ... · SESSF since the 2003 strategic...