ATTACHMENT 1 – PQ 6221
ATTACHMENT 2 – PQ 6221
ATTACHMENT 3 - PQ 6221
Interactions with ‘threatened and protected’ species recorded on Department of Fisheries’ catch reporting systems 2006 -2011.
SPECIES NAME 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Albatross, General 3 Bird, General 2 Cormorant, General 9 11 1 5 2 Crocodile, Freshwater 93 A Crocodile, General 4 16 4 8 17 10 Crocodile, Saltwater 1 1 Dabchick 2 1 Darter, Australian 3 10 2 4 4 3 Dolphin B 40 22 17 23 20 19 Duck, General 2 2 1 Duck, Musk 15 3 1 Heron, General 1 Muttonbird, General 78 1 5 21 11 Pelican, Australian 1 Pipefish C 127 97 123 157 117 52 Ray, Manta 2 1 1 2 1 4 Sawfish, Dwarf D 2 1 3 3 2 Sawfish, Green D 3 10 5 79 9 11 Sawfish, narrow/knifetooth D 15 38 41 83 20 51 Sea birds 1 3 3 36 1 Sea horse 13 8 36 12 17 5 Sea lions E 2 2 Sea snake F 593 1040 612 856 1056 1141 Seal, NZ fur seal G 2 4 7 6 5 1 Shag, General 9 6 13 7 Shark, Great white 9 14 22 12 9 14 Shark, Grey nurse 36 74 68 93 91 62 Shearwater, Flesh-footed H 1203 1136 1131 1057 Shearwater, General 1 32 308 63 188 Tortoise, General 525 A 1 Tortoise, Short-necked 3 Turtle, flatback I 1 Turtle, General I 24 33 31 31 20 53 Turtle, green I 9 3 5 5 8 5 Turtle, Leatherback I 1 1 1 Turtle, Loggerhead I 3 2 1 Turtle, olive ridley I 3 Whale, General J 1 2 3 A - reported in Lake Argyle fishery by one operator new to the fishery; 78% of tortoises released alive; 19% of crocodiles released alive. B – 17% released alive. C – estimated over 25% released alive. D – estimated over 80% released alive across the three species. Includes sawfish misreported as sawsharks and distributed to species level in proportion to the species reported catch. E – survival rate zero F – estimated at least 60% released alive. Over 90% released alive in fisheries where life status more fully reported. G – 17% released alive H – estimated 20% released alive. Numbers in table include estimated captures from surveys I – 97% released alive across all species J – all released alive TABLED PAPER ______
(1) The gross value of production for the Pilbara Demersal Scalefish Fishery (trap, line and trawl) in 2010 was estimated to be $10.9 million. An estimate for the value of the fishery for 2011 is currently unavailable.
(2) The gross value of production for the Pilbara Trawl Fishery in 2010 was estimated to be $6.5 million. An estimate for the value of the Pilbara Trawl Fishery for 2011 is currently unavailable.
(3)(a) The current population (size) of dolphins in the Pilbara is unknown. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Report 2008/048 Reducing Dolphin Bycatch in the Pilbara Finfish Trawl Fishery indicates that most dolphins interacting with the fishery are common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).
(3)(b) There are no estimates available of the proportion of the common bottlenose dolphin population expected to come into contact with the Pilbara Trawl Fishery. The Pilbara Trawl Fishery operates in less than 7% of the waters of the North Coast Ecosystem Management area that are less than 200m deep. It could therefore be expected that the proportion of the population expected to come into contact with the Pilbara Trawl Fishery will be small.
(3)(c) There is no estimate of the sustainable mortality of dolphins in the Pilbara Trawl Fishery. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the current levels of mortality would affect the sustainability of the common bottlenose dolphins in the Pilbara. Key points to support this conclusion include:
· The reduction in other sources of dolphin mortality in the region. Up until 1986, foreign fleets operated in the North West areas covering more extensive areas and with higher levels of effort. These sources of mortality have not occurred for nearly 30 years; · Since the formal establishment of the Pilbara Trawl Fishery, trawling has only been permitted in Areas 1, 2, 4 and 5 Attachment 1, which equate to less than 7% of waters less than 200m deep area in the North Coast Ecosystem Management area, with currently only three vessels operating in this fishery. · The Pilbara trawl fishery has been accredited under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. · As part of the EPBC approvals there has been extensive investment and effort by the Department and industry to understand and reduce dolphin interactions. · Changes to gear and vessel operations over the last decade have been successful in substantially reducing the numbers of dolphins that are captured each year. · Provisioning of the dolphin population by the fishery (through ready access to a food supply of fish concentrated in trawl nets) may be promoting population growth.
(3)(d) N/A
(3)(e) N/A
PQ 6221 Page 1
(4)(a) The current population sizes of knifetooth sawfish (also called the narrow sawfish) and Green sawfish in Western Australian waters are unknown. The key habitat areas for green sawfish are largely inshore and are generally spatially segregated from the Pilbara Trawl Fishery, which is not permitted to operate within inshore regions. Similarly, the main distribution of the knifetooth sawfish is also centred in nearshore, riverine and estuarine areas and these are a considerable distance from the Pilbara Trawl Fishery’s permitted operating area.
(4)(b) There are no available estimates of pre fishing populations.
(4)(c) N/A
(4)(d) N/A
(4)(e) While the sustainable level of mortality to avoid localised depletion is unknown, the Pilbara Trawl Fishery reported interactions with 19 green sawfish and 13 narrow sawfish in 2010, with most released alive (17 of the 19 green sawfish and 10 of the 13 narrow sawfish). Mortality rates are therefore very low and given that the bulk of the populations will be nearshore and largely outside the fishery grounds it is extremely unlikely that the mortality of around 2 to 3 individuals per annum respectively from these two species could affect the sustainability of populations in the Pilbara region.
(5)(a) Statutory catch data collected from the fishery does not identify pipefish, seahorses, or sea snakes to species level.
In a 2002 bycatch survey, (See Stephenson PC and Chidlow J 2003. ‘Bycatch in the Pilbara Trawl Fishery’ Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) Project Final Report. 80p.), only the Elegant Sea snake Hydrophis elegans was reported as taken in the trawl fishery. Results of this survey reported only two species of sygnathids; small quantities of the spiny seahorse Hippocampus histrix and larger quantities of the pallid pipefish Solegnathus hardwickii. Since this survey, the trawl effort has reduced by around 30%, indicating that interactions have also likely declined. Furthermore, both species have extensive distributions across northern Australia and it is likely that the risks to sustainability posed by the Pilbara Trawl Fishery are negligible
(5)(b) The three species recorded by Stephenson and Chidlow are listed marine species under the EPBC Act.
(5)(c)&(d) There are no estimates of dropout rate for any species. Given the small size and /or cylindrical bodies of these taxa, it is likely that many will pass through the 100mm mesh of Pilbara Trawl Fishery nets.
(6) Within the Pilbara Trawl Fishery, trawling is only permitted within Areas 1, 2, 4 & 5 as shown in the figure at Attachment 1. Trawling effort is also limited to a maximum number of hours as determined each year, with effort levels reduced by about 50% since the fishery was formally established in 1998.
There are only three vessels operating in the fishery, which are monitored by the Department’s satellite Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) to ensure that vessels only operate in permitted areas and within permitted effort levels.
PQ 6221 Page 2
(7),(8)&(9) The Department of Fisheries’ understanding of matters related to the relationship between trawling and habitat is guided by the work of Moran and Stephenson (2000) (‘Effects of otter trawling on macrobenthos and management of demersal scalefish fisheries on the continental shelf of north-western Australia’ ICES J. Mar Sci 57; 510 – 516). There are relevant maps contained within that paper. Note that the amount of effort in the fishery has reduced by around 50% since the data for that paper was collected and that the distribution of effort has changed to some extent.
(10) The vulnerability of fish species to the different fishing gears used in the Pilbara is effectively reflected in the proportion of species in the catch of the different gear types. The 2010 Pilbara catch breakdown is contained in Attachment 2.
(11)(a) (i) Location of capture of ASLs
The position data recorded for the Australian sea lion (ASL) interactions in the two years (in deg.min) are: · 2009 a) 34.15 S, 121.20 E · 2009 b) 34.02 S, 123.07 E · 2011 a) 33.58 S, 122.36 E · 2011 b) 34.39 S, 118.29 E
(ii) The sex and age of the captured sea lions
There is no recorded information on the sex or age of these ASLs.
(iii) The colony from which the sea lions are expected to have originated
Given the extensive foraging range of ASLs (potentially in excess of 100 km from a colony), it is not possible to attribute these ASLs to any particular ASL colony. However, the nearest colony to each of the ASL interactions was: · 2009 a) Investigator Island, South Coast (estimated distance ~ 32 km) · 2009 b) Glennie Island, South Coast (estimated distance ~ 9 km) · 2011 a) Kimberley Island, South Coast (estimated distance ~ 42 km) · 2011 b) Hauloff Rock, South Coast (estimated distance ~ 49 km)
(11)(b) By fishers, in their statutory fishing return forms.
(12) There are clear morphological differences between ASL and NZ fur seals. Given the clear morphological differences between sea lions and seals and the experience of crews, misidentification between ASLs and NZ fur seals is unlikely.
(12)(a) Location of capture of NZ fur seals Position data recorded for the five interactions reported in 2010 and the single interactions reported (in deg.min) in each year of 2011 and 2012 are:
PQ 6221 Page 3
· 2010 Latitude Longitude 34.42 S 118.38 E 34.19 S 119.36 E *34.22 S 119.36 E 34.10 S 123.15 E *Two interactions were reported in this position
· 2011: 34.19 S, 123.32 E
· 2012: 34.24 S, 119.36 E
(12)(b) There are clearly visible differences between the two species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) that are likely to inhabit the waters in which the fishery operates. Given the small number of species and clear morphological differences, it is unlikely that misidentification of pinnipeds occurs. Additionally, all fishers have access to Commonwealth protected species identification guides. Training in identifying bycatch species has been provided by Departmental staff during at-sea research with commercial demersal gillnet and longline fishers since 1993.
(12)(c) The amount of gillnet fishing effort occurring in areas of ASL foraging habitat is estimated using reported fishery data and forage range data modelled from satellite tagged ASLs and applied to all known colonies (see Hesp, S.A., Tweedley, J.R., McAuley, R., Campbell, R.A., Tink, C.J., Chuwen, B.M. & Hall, N.G. 2012 ‘Informing risk assessment through estimating interaction rates between Australian sea lions and Western Australia’s temperate demersal gillnet fisheries”. Final report – FRDC Project No. 2009/096 for more details).
When quantified for 2008/09 data, approximately 120,765 kilometre gillnet hours (43% of total 2008/09 effort) overlapped with ASL foraging areas. However, this overlap does not equate directly to the risk of a potential interaction as this needs to be based on gillnets and sea lions being in the same area at the same time. For the most recent completed reporting year (2010/11), the total gillnet effort was approximately 213,000 kilometre gillnet hours, and, assuming a 43% overlap, around 92,000 kilometre gillnet hours is likely to have been expended in modelled areas of ASL foraging habitat.
(13)(a) No
(13)(b) The Department of Fisheries (DoF) has been working with Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) for a number of years to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to the reporting of interactions between commercial fishers and protected species and expects to have the MOU in place in the near future. However, at the time of these incidents the MOU was not in place and, as such, although the interactions with the four Australian sea lions were reported by the fishers to DoF, the information was inadvertently not included in the documents that were provided to SEWPaC as part of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) reassessment process. Notwithstanding this, as soon as DoF realised the information had not been provided to SEWPaC, it engaged with SEWPaC on this matter. In relation to
PQ 6221 Page 4
the interaction information provided to SEWPaC for the purposes of the assessment, it is important to note that the work undertaken with regard to the assessment was focussed on determining the modelled likelihood of potential interactions between the WA temperate demersal gillnet and demersal longline fishery and Australian Sea Lions (using the Hesp et al. FRDC-funded model and observer data) with a view to determining risk levels. The four mortalities (two in 2009 and two in 2011) are consistent with the outcomes of that assessment.
(14) The position data recorded for the sixteen dolphin interactions in the Western Australian Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery (WASDGLF) during the period 2006-2011 (in deg.min) are:
South Coast Gillnet and Longline component Year Latitude Longitude 2006 32.41 S 126.07 E #2006 33.43 S 124.34 E *2008 34.13 S 119.35 E 2009 34.34 S 118.48 E *2009 35.00 S 116.50 E 2009 34.54 S 118.20 E 2011 34.00 S 121.38 E
West Coast Gillnet and Longline component 2006 26.42 S 113.33 E 2006 28.13 S 113.12 E 2006 28.53 S 114.29 E 2006 28.41 S 114.34 E 2008 28.23 S 113.52 E 2009 27.56 S 113.37 E #2010 29.37 S 114.35 E * Dolphin successfully released alive # Two interactions
(15(a) Observers worked on-board 21 commercial fishing vessels to conduct tactical research projects, which mostly studied the biology of the fisheries’ target shark stocks. Whilst on board, researchers also recorded and documented catches of all species, including by-product and bycatch, with a particular focus on protected, rare and otherwise iconic species.
(15(b) Research was conducted in all months (not necessarily each year) but was particularly concentrated between late summer (February) to early winter (June), when commercial fishing effort was highest. Research was conducted over an area between Steep Point (Shark Bay) and the South Australian border.
(15)(c) Commercial fishing was observed around all WA Australian sea lion colonies and throughout now known foraging areas, but was not targeted in these areas.
(15)(d) It is not possible to accurately compare recorded observed fishing effort in units of kilometre gillnet hours with commercial fishing effort reported in kilometre gillnet days (prior to June 2006) because of the different time bases. It is possible to compare effort in
PQ 6221 Page 5
units of kilometre gillnet shots. Using this measure, observed effort for the period was 2.5% of the total effort expended over the period of the observer program (1993 to 2007).
(15)(e) Noting that the observer program ceased in 2007, a measure of the percentage of effort between 1993 and 2012 is not relevant. See the response given above (Q. 15(b)) regarding the percentage of effort observed of the total effort for the period relevant to the observer program.
(16)(a) The overall bycatch limit of 15 Australian sea lions may be broken up by seven sub- areas with limits ranging from one to five, which applies in waters off South Australia.
(16)(b) While there is no formal target, the Department of Fisheries, in conjunction with industry seeks to mitigate impacts on protected species. The recent re-accreditation of the temperate demersal gillnet fisheries indicates that the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment agrees that the impacts are at acceptable levels while noting that the accreditation is subject to actions being undertaken to increase the understanding of risk levels.
(16)(c) N/A
(16)(d) N/A
(17) The Department of Fisheries does not have any empirical data directly related to the other 16 colonies. Nevertheless, it was recognised in the Hesp et al. (2012) model that simulates ASL movements that “for a given demographic (e.g. juveniles or mature females), movements can differ substantially among individuals belonging to different colonies”. While it would have been ideal to model ASL movements based on representative satellite tracking data for individuals from each colony, the limited available satellite tracking data for ASLs in WA meant that it was necessary to “borrow” information from colonies for which there were data to infer, through simulation, the movements for other colonies.
(18)(a) Interactions with threatened and protected species are reported by commercial fishers on compulsory catch returns for non-quota fisheries and on catch disposal records for quota- managed fisheries.
(18)(b) The management of the entire catch recording system (both the Catch and Effort Statistics System (CAESS) and quota monitoring systems (QMS) involves approximately 15 FTEs. Some of these staff work solely on either CAESS or the Western Rock Lobster QMS, while other staff spend part of their time on the purse seine, abalone and pink snapper quota management systems. None of the 15 staff work exclusively on bycatch data, but record all catch data (catch, by-product and bycatch).
(18)(c) Attachment 3 reports all interactions with ‘threatened and protected’ species recorded on Department of Fisheries systems over the period 2006 to 2011. Data for 2012 are not yet complete.
(18)(d) The aim in all cases is to ensure that catches of threatened and protected species are mitigated and that the sustainability of those species is not affected by interactions with fishing gear.
PQ 6221 Page 6