Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery

10051 5th Street N., Suite 105 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702‐2211 Tel: (727) 563‐9070 Fax: (727) 563‐0207 Email: [email protected]

President: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

Full Assessment Exmouth Gulf prawn trawl fishery

Public Comment Review Document

Prepared for

MG Kailis

Prepared by

MRAG Americas, Inc.

June 2015

Assessment Team: Richard Banks, Kevin McLoughlin, and Robert J. Trumble

MRAG – Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery Public Comment Draft Report page i Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ...... iv 1. Executive Summary ...... 7 2. Introduction ...... 11 3. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 12 4. Description of the Fishery ...... 15 4.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought ...... 15 4.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 15 4.3 Principle One: Target stock status and harvest strategy (P1) ...... 28 4.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 48 4.5 Principle Three: Management ...... 112 5. Evaluation Procedure ...... 169 5.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 169 5.2 Previous assessments ...... 170 5.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 170 5.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 170 6 Traceability ...... 176 6.1 Eligibility Date ...... 176 6.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 176 7 Evaluation Results ...... 178 7.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 178 7.2 Summary of Scores ...... 178 7.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 180 7.4 Recommendations ...... 180 7.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 181 7.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment ...... 181 References ...... 182 General References ...... 182 1.1 Principle 1 References ...... 188 1.2 Principle 2 References ...... 189 1.3 Principle 3 References ...... 197 Appendices ...... 201 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 201 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 201 Appendix 1.2: Conditions ...... 283 Appendix 2: Client Action Plan – Exmouth Gulf ...... 290 Appendix 3 Report Support Documents ...... 296 Appendix 3.1: Productivity Sensitivity Analysis (DoF) ...... 296 Appendix 3.2: Exmouth Gulf Fishery Harvest Strategy ...... 305

MRAG – Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery Public Comment Draft Report page ii Appendix 3.3: Ranked Risk Assessment for Multiple Fisheries (RRAMF) Methodology (After Evans, R. and Molony, B. W. 2010) ...... 313 Appendix 3.4: ETP Species in the Exmouth Gulf Region ...... 318 Appendix 4: Harmonisation ...... 324 Appendix 5. Peer Review Reports ...... 329 Appendix 6. Stakeholder submissions ...... 386 Appendix 7. Surveillance Frequency ...... 394 Appendix 8. Client Agreement ...... 395 Appendix 9 Objections Process ...... 396

MRAG – Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery Public Comment Draft Report page iii List of Abbreviations AAC Aquatic Advisory IFAAC Independent Allocation Committee Advisory Committee AFMA Australian Fisheries IFM Integrated Fisheries Management Authority Management ALC Automatic Location IMCRA Integrated Marine and Communicator Coastal Regionalisation of Australia AMM Annual Management IMS Introduced Marine Meeting Species ARMA Aquatic Resources IOD Indian Ocean Dipole Management Act AS/NZS Australia and New Zealand ITQ Individual Transferable Safety Management Quota Standards BAP Bycatch Action Plan IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature BMSY Biomass at Maximum JAMBA Japan-Australia Migratory Sustainable Yield Bird Agreement BRD Bycatch Reduction Devices KPI Key Performance Indicator CA Consequence Analysis LOW Letters of Warning CALM Conservation and Land LENS List of Exempt Native Management Species CAMBA China-Australia Migratory MAC Management Advisory Bird Agreement Committee CI Confidence Interval MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveilence CITES Convention on International MDS Multi-dimensional Scaling Trade in Endangered Species CMS Convention on the MFL Managed Fishery Licence Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals CoA Commonwealth of Australia MRAG Marine Reseource Assessment Group CO Compliance Observer MSC Marine Stewardship Council COAG Council of Australian NBPMF Nickol Bay Prawn Governments Managed Fishery CoC Chain of Custody NPWCA National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 CPL Carnarvon-Peron Line NTA Native Title Act CL Carapace Length NCWHAC Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific OCP Operational Compliance and Industrial Research Plan Organisation CSMPA Composite Square Mesh OCS Offshore Constitutional

MRAG – Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery Public Comment Draft Report page iv Panels (Aft) Settlement CSMPF Composite Square Mesh OPMF Onslow Prawn Managed Panels (Forward) Fishery CSWA Circular, Straight-Vertical- PSA Productivity- Bars, Wide-Bar-Spacing, Susceptibility Analysis and Accelerator CW Carapace Width PSMA Public Sector Management Act DEC Department of Environment RBF Risk Based Methodology and Conservation WA DoE Department of Environment RMADP Research, Monitoring, Assessment and Development Plan DoF Department of Fisheries ROKAMBA Republic of Korea- WA Australia Migratory Bird Agreement DPaW Department of Parks and RRAMF Risk Ranked Assessment Wildlife WA for Multiple Fisheries EBFM Ecosystem Based Fisheries RSNA Rectangular, Straight- Management Vertical-Bars, Narrow- Bar-Spacing and Accelerator EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone SAFE Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effects EG Exmouth Gulf SAT State Administrative Tribunal EGPMF Exmouth Gulf Prawn SB Shark Bay Managed Fishery ENA Extended Nursery Area SBBSMNMF Shark Bay Beach Seine Mesh Net Managed Fishery ENSO El Niño/La Niña Southern SBCIMF Shark Bay Crab Interim Oscillation Managed Fishery EOI Expression of Interest SBPMF Shark Bay Prawn Managed Fishery EPBC Act Environment Protection and SBPTOA Shark Bay Prawn Trawler Biodiversity Conservation Operators’ Association Act ERA Environmental Risk SBSMF Shark Bay Scallop Assessment Managed Fishery ESD Ecologically Sustainable SKM Sinclair Knight Merz Development ETP Endangered, Threatened and SLA Service Level Agreement Protected FAM Fisheries Assessment SRE site Short Recovery Methodology Experimental site FAS Act Fisheries Adjustment SRR Stock-Recruitment Scheme Act 1987 Relationship FED Fish Exclusion Devices TACC Total Allowable Commercial Catch FHPA Fish Habitat Protection TEP Threatened, Endangered Areas and Protected FMO Fisheries and Marine T&E Teleosts and Officer Elasmobranchs

MRAG – Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery Public Comment Draft Report page v FRDC Fisheries Research and TPSA Tiger Prawn Spawning Development Corporation Area FMSY Fishing Mortality Rate at UoC Unit of Certification Maximum Sustainable Yield FRMA Fish Resources UWA University of Western Management Act Australia FRMR Fish Resources VFAS Voluntary Fisheries Management Regulations Adjustment Scheme GCB Gascoyne Coast Bioregion VMS Vessel Monitoring System GDSF Gascoyne Demersal WA Western Australia Scalefish Fishery GDC Gascoyne Development WAFIC WA Fishing Industry Commission Council GIS Geographical Information WAMSI Western Australian Systems Marine Science Institution GVP Gross Value of Production WC Act Wildlife Conservation Act ICU Industry Consultation Unit WTO Wildlife Trade Organisation BMSY Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield

MRAG – Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery Public Comment Draft Report page vi

1. Executive Summary This report provides details of the MSC assessment process for the Exmouth Prawn Trawl Fishery. The assessment process began in August, 2014 and has reached the Public Comment Draft Report in May, 2015. This report is the Public Comment Draft Report for the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery. The assessment team consisted of Richard Banks (Team Leader, Principle 3 and shared responsibilites for Principle 2), Kevin McLoughlin (Principle 1 and shared responsibilities for Principle 2), and Dr Robert Trumble. One site visit was held from 26 October to 5 November in Perth and Exmouth, Western Australia. The fishery occurs off Western Australia, in the waters of Exmouth Gulf, a tropical gulf, 22 º S, within the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion of Western Australia, immediately east of the Cape Range Peninsula approximately 1,100 km north of Perth. The Gulf is a marine embayment open to the north covering approximately 2,200 km2 (White 1975) and extending approximately 40 km east to west and 80 km north to south. The assessment covers two species – Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) and Western King prawns (P. latisulcatus). Vessels in the EGPMF use low-opening demersal otter trawl nets in quad-rigged formation. Six boats operated in the fishery in 2014. Each trawl shot ranges from 60 to 200 minutes in duration. The first part of the season (between April and July) focuses primarily on brown tiger prawns, which arrive first on the trawl grounds. When the Central and Eastern area of the fishery closes around August to protect spawning tiger prawns, fishing effort shifts to the Northern Area of the Gulf to target western king prawns, which peak in abundance during August and September. Fishing effort normally continues into November. The current status of the brown tiger prawn and western king prawn is summarised in Flood et al. (2014). These two species are classified as having sustainable stocks in the EGPMF. DoF considers that there is a low risk that recruitment overfishing is occurring for these species (Kangas et al., 2014). Other retained species include a number of invertebrate species, other prawns (blue endeavour, coral and banana), a small number of crabs and squid, cuttlefish and octopus. All are identified as low risk species. The fishery captures a wide range of fish and a smaller number of invertebrate species. A rigorous assessment of the wide-ranging MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team. Detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in Appendix 1.1 of this report. On completion of the assessment and scoring process at the client report stage, the assessment team concluded: The Unit of Certification species, Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) and Western king prawn (P. latisulcatus) could be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries V 1.3. Blue endeavours Metapenaeus endeavouri) were considered as a separate UoC, but were transferred to P2, following a failure to reach SG 80. The recommendations include further work on blue endeavours to bring the scoring to above an SG 80 level.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 7

Summary of the evaluation results Principle 1 examines the status of the target stocks and whether the management system maintains the reproductive capacity within safe and rational limits. Exploited populations should be maintained at levels of abundance sufficient to maintain their productivity and reproductive capacities for yields over the long term, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and rebuild stocks that have become depleted.

SUMMARY

Overall scores for Principle 1 species were as follows:

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) 80.6 Western king prawns (P. latisulcatus) 80.6

Principle 2 examines five components which are considered to cover the range of potential ecosystem elements that may be impacted by a fishery, taking into account the status, management strategies and information relevant to each of these components.

SUMMARY

Overall scores for Principle 2 were as follows:

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) 84.3 Western king prawns (P. latisulcatus) 84.3

Principle 3 examines the structure and performance of the management system.

SUMMARY

Overall scores for Principle 3:

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) 95.9 Western king prawns (P. latisulcatus) 95.9

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 8

Harmonisation with other MSC assessments The targeted stocks have not been the subject of another MSC assessment. The P1 and P2 outcomes of the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl assessment are therefore not harmonised with any other fishery. The fishery shares a management system with Shark Bay Prawn Trawl fishery and the Western Australia Western Rock Lobster fishery, which requires harmonization with the Governance and Policy (PI 3.1) of the management system (Appendix 4). These are now harmonised (Condition 7).

Conditions and recommendations

Seven conditions and 4 recommendations were put forward by the team:

Condition 3 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy Performance to manage bycatch Indicator d. Sufficient data continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectivness of the strategy). Condition Provide sufficient data to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species

Condition 4 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species Performance The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP Indicator species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species b. Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Condition Demonstrate that direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species, with emphasis on sea snakes and sawfish.

Condition 5 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of Performance fishery impacts on ETP species, including: Indicator  Information for the development of the management strategy;

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 9

 Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. a. Sufficient information is available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. b. Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. Provide sufficient information to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Condition Provide relevant information sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, especially sea snakes and sawfish.

Condition 6 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types b. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the Performance fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on Indicator the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. c. Sufficient data continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures.) Provide sufficient data to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and provide reliable information on the spatial Condition extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

Collect sufficient data to detect any increase in risk to habitat.

Condition 7 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. Performance The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are Indicator involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties c. The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved Condition Demonstrate that the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

Recommendations

There are four recommendations:

Recommendation 1: Strengthen the basis to support knowledge of the impact of the fishery on retained species other than brown tiger prawn and western king prawn. A substantial amount of fishery-independent information has been collected from spawning stock and recruitment surveys of the fishery. Analysis of this information has the potential to improve on the current catch-based reference levels adopted in the EGPMF harvest strategy.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 10

Recommendation 2: Further to Recommendation 1, develop arguments for advancing blue endeavour prawns as a P1 species, which may be assessed during an expedited audit. This includes four subcomponents:

1.1.1: Develop reference points that are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. These should be consistent with the reference points developed for brown tiger and western king prawns.

1.2.1: Demonstrate that the harvest strategy for blue endeavour prawns is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.

1.2.2: Demonstrate that well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached

1.2.3: Demonstrate that sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy.

Recommendation 3: An explicit reference to habitats in the BAP and a closer evaluation of the likely encounterability with sponges and the impact of trawl gear on these fauna.

Recommendation 4: Strengthening commitment to continuous data collection should be specified as a Bycatch specific objective within the BAP.

2. Introduction

This report sets out the draft results of the assessment of the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery, Western Australia carried out by MRAG Americas, Inc. against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The purpose of this report is to provide background information, evaluation of the fishery, and justification for scoring the performance indicators provided by the MSC in the generic assessment tree of the Fishery Assessment Methodology, as defined in the Guidance to MSC FAM Version V1.3. MRAG conducted no primary research as part of this assessment, and relied on existing information to conduct the analysis. The report intends to clearly set out key issues for consideration during annual surveillance audits and for subsequent recertification.

The record of document amendments is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Document Amendment Record

Version Start End Client Draft 3 November, 2014 11 March, 2015 Peer review draft 23 February, 2015 8 May, 2015 Public comment draft 8 May, 2015 4 June,2015 Final report and determination Certification report

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 11

Unit of Certification The fishery assessed for MSC certification is defined as:

Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery

There are two species covered in the prawn fishery, each representing a separate unit of certification.

 Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus)  Western king prawn (P. latisulcatus)

Geographical Area: The Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery operates in the waters of Exmouth Gulf, a tropical gulf, 22 º S, within the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion of Western Australia, immediately east of the Cape Range Peninsula approximately 1,100 km north of Perth. The Gulf is a marine embayment open to the north covering approximately 2,200 km2 (White 1975) and extending approximately 40 km east to west and 80 km north to south.

Method of Capture: quad rigged otter trawl

Stock: Exmouth Gulf brown tiger prawn and Western king prawn stocks

Management System: The fishery is managed through a combination of input controls (limited entry, seasonal closures, gear restrictions and operational controls), implemented under the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Limited Entry Fishery Notice 1989.

Client Group: MG Kailis

Table 2: Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl, Client Group Vessels

Vessel Name Licenced Fishing Boat Number Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Licence Portland Road LFB F424 1002 Latitude LFB F581 1105 Sea Fury K LFB F624 1102 Queen Star LFB F515 1005 Rex K LFB F626 1099 Point Cloates K LFB F841 1104

3. Authorship and Peer Reviewers

Assessors Mr. Richard Banks, lead assessor. Richard Banks has considerable MSC experience having served as the Lead Assessor on the PNA free school skipjack full assessment, as well as the Australian Northern Prawn and Spencer Gulf King Prawn fishery assessment. Mr. Banks is trained in the MSC risk-based framework (RBF). Richard has also designed several fishery improvement plans in South East Asia and the Pacific, and has acted as external reviewer to a number of MSC assessments on behalf of WWF. Richard is also co-author of the blueprint MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 12

for sustainable tropical shrimp trawl fisheries, prepared for WWF. He has over 30-years’ experience in fisheries management, research and consultancy covering all regions of the World. Richard currently works as an advisor to PNA, FFA and MFMR as an offshore tuna advisor. He is an economist and fisheries management and policy programming specialist having worked on similar issues for international agencies including FAO, World Bank, ADB and the European Union in more than 70 countries. Richard has also worked with a number of Australian Commonwealth and State Fisheries. Richard holds a Bachelors degree in Fisheries Economics and a Masters in Agricultural Economics from the University of Portsmouth, and Imperial College, London, respectively.

Mr. Kevin McLoughlin. Kevin McLoughlin has over 25 years’ experience in fisheries science and currently works as a fisheries consultant. His recent work includes Marine Stewardship Council assessments and pre-assessments in Australia and Fiji. In addition, he has undertaken review of fisheries assessed under the World Wildlife Fund Common Wild Capture Fishery Methodology. Previously, as a Senior Fisheries Scientist with the Bureau of Rural Sciences, he engaged in a wide range of international and domestic fisheries issues with close links to Government policy. Responsibilities included production of BRS Fishery Status Reports—these have had a major influence on the direction of Australia’s fisheries management and policy. Mr McLoughlin represented BRS on many committees and groups such as Australian Fishery Management Authority fishery assessment groups (including for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, the Northern Prawn Fishery, the Bass Strait Scallop Fishery, and the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery), DAFF’s Shark Implementation Group for implementation of the National Plan of Action for Sharks, and others. He represented Australia on scientific issues at the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and was Chair of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch for its first 3 annual meetings. In 2006 he led Australia’s delegation during 2 weeks of scientific meetings of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna in Tokyo. His responsibilities with BRS required a high level of interaction with policy and industry clients, and with international organisations.

Dr. Robert J. Trumble. Bob Trumble has wide-ranging experience in marine fish science and management, fishery habitat protection, and oceanography. Dr. Trumble joined MRAG Americas in 2000 as a senior research scientist and became Vice President in 2005. Previously, he served 14 years as Senior Biologist of the International Pacific Halibut Commission in Seattle, Washington, 10 years in various research and management positions at the Washington Department of Fisheries, and six years with the US Naval Oceanographic Office. At MRAG, Dr. Trumble performs project planning, assembles research teams, and conducts research, with a focus on improving management of aquatic ecosystems and the resources and fisheries they support. He has led the MRAG MSC certification activities since 2007, has served on MSC assessment teams, provided MSC peer reviews, and has taken numerous MSC trainings, including the risk-based assessment. His projects have included managing the Pacific herring fishery for Washington state, preparation and review of fishery management and habitat management plans, review of technology to support or replace onboard observers, provision of observer services, development of bycatch management and control, preparation of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, and conducting workshops on fishery issues. Dr. Trumble has extensive experience working with government agencies, commercial and recreational fisheries groups, Indian tribes, and national and international advisory groups. He received appointments to the Scientific and Statistical Committees of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Groundfish Management Team of the North Pacific

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 13

Fishery Management Council, the affiliate faculty of Fisheries at the University of Washington, and the Advisory Committee of the Washington Sea Grant Program. Dr. Trumble has published in peer-reviewed journals and symposium proceedings, presented invited papers at national and international meetings, and written reports for government agencies. Dr. Trumble received a B.S. degree in Oceanography from the Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, an M.S. degree in Fisheries from the College of Fisheries, University of Washington, and a Ph.D. in Fisheries from the College of Fisheries, University of Washington.

Peer Reviewers Cameron Dixon has a Ph.D. in fisheries biology and over 20 years’ experience in fisheries stock assessment and management. While his primary expertise is in prawn trawl fisheries (including the MSC certified Spencer Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery) and abalone dive fisheries, he has also worked with many other finfish, crustacean and molluscan fisheries that use trawl, trap, net and line methods. He has worked extensively throughout Australia and also within several regions of the Pacific including Vietnam, Thailand and Japan. Cameron has led stock assessment research programs, authored management plans and harvest strategies, and developed Fishery Improvement Programs (FIPs) to Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standards that were independently audited by a CAB (MRAG). Dr. Kevin Stokes has experience in all three MSC Principle areas. He has acted as assessor, peer reviewer and auditor for MSC assessments around the world, has carried out pre- assessments for clients, has supported clients during certification and re-certification assessments, and was actively involved in MSC default assessment tree, performance indicator and scoring guideline developments. Kevin was Chief Scientist with the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd (SeaFIC) from 2000 to 2009, having previously worked for 15 years in the United Kingdom at the Lowestoft fisheries laboratory. Kevin has extensive fisheries science, policy and operations experience and has worked globally with and for industry and government. He currently runs his own consulting company (stokes.net.nz Ltd), providing science, policy and management support to varied clients around the world.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 14

4. Description of the Fishery

4.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought

The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification is "The fishery or fish stock (=biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (=vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock) and management framework."

Unit of Certification The fishery assessed for MSC certification is defined as:

Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery

There are two species covered in the prawn fishery, each representing a separate unit of certification.  Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus)  Western king prawn (P. latisulcatus)

Method of Capture: quad rigged otter trawl

Stock: Exmouth Gulf brown tiger prawn and Western king prawn stocks

Management System: The fishery is managed by the Western Australia Department of Fisheries through a combination of input controls (limited entry, seasonal closures, gear restrictions and operational controls), implemented under the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Limited Entry Fishery Notice 1989.

Client Group: MG Kailis

Table 3: Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl, Client Group Vessels

4.2 Overview of the fishery

The Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery (EGPMF) operates in the waters of Exmouth Gulf, a major tropical gulf within the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion of Western Australia,

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 15

immediately east of the Cape Range Peninsula approximately 1,100 km north of Perth (Figure 1). The Gulf is a marine embayment open to the north covering approximately 2,200 km2 (White 1975) and extending approximately 40 km east to west and 80 km north to south. The Gascoyne Coast Bioregion represents a transition between the fully tropical waters of the northern coast and the temperate waters of the southwest region. The waters off the Gascoyne Coast are strongly influenced by the southward-flowing Leeuwin Current, generated by flow from the Pacific through the Indonesian archipelago. This tropical current becomes evident in the North West Cape area around Exmouth Gulf and flows along the narrow continental shelf where it supports a diverse marine ecosystem (Fletcher & Santoro 2013).

Water depths in Exmouth Gulf range from approximately five metres along the sloping southern and eastern shores to ~ 20 m in the northern and western regions. Rainfall in the region is extremely low and, coupled with minimal river flow entering the Gulf, creates a relatively stable hydrological environment (Penn & Caputi 1986). This changes, however, with the seasonal occurrence of tropical summer cyclones, which can bring extreme winds, heavy rainfall and increased runoff, altering salinity and turbidity within the Gulf.

Key habitats within the Gulf include mangroves, intertidal mudflats, coral reef, seagrass and mud / sand bottom areas. The Gulf supports a number of tropical fish and invertebrate species, as well as protected species such as dolphins, marine turtles, elasmobranchs (e.g. sawfish), sea snakes and sea horses and pipefish.

Figure 1. Locality of Exmouth Gulf (black box) within the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion of Western Australia

Fishery Development Industrial fishing for penaeid prawns along the WA coastline started in the early 1960s, with two major fisheries developing at Shark Bay (26 º S) and Exmouth Gulf (22 º S; Penn et al. 1997). The Exmouth Gulf fishery began in 1963, initially with 12 boats targeting primarily banana prawns (Penaeus merguiensis) using single-rigged trawl nets. As the fishery MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 16

expanded in the following years, the target species changed, with brown tiger prawns becoming increasingly more important. Currently, the two main target species of this fishery are brown tiger prawns (P. esculentus) and western king prawns (P. latisulcatus).

The key changes to the management of the prawn fishery in Exmouth Gulf throughout time are detailed in Kangas et al. (2008). Limited entry to the fishery was first introduced in 1965, with the trawl fleet developing incrementally to a maximum of 23 vessels in 1979 (Penn et al. 1997). Fishers could initially operate at anytime, anywhere within the Gulf, but they primarily stayed in the central areas. As the fishery developed and the understanding of spatial and temporal variation in prawn abundance increased, closed nursery areas and closed seasons over part of the fishing grounds were introduced to permit prawns to grow to an acceptable market size before being harvested (Meany 1979).

By 1975 all boats were towing twin-rigged nets, with the sizes of each net headrope being either 10.97 m (6 fathom [ftm]) or 12.8 m (7 ftm). As older fishing boats were replaced by larger boats, the engine power increased. This increased engine power resulted in an increase in the size of net headrope towed to a maximum of 14.6 m (8 ftm) nets in twin gear configuration.

A collapse of the Exmouth Gulf brown tiger prawn stock in the early 1980s led to increased levels of monitoring and the implementation of additional fishery closures (Kangas et al. 2008). For example, a specified tiger prawn spawning area (TPSA) was to be closed when the commercial catch rate fell below a pre-determined level to maintain an adequate breeding stock of this species. Between 1984 and 2009 a Voluntary Fishery Adjustment Scheme (VFAS) reduced the number of licenses in the EGPMF from 23 to 15. However, the operator of the fishery, MG Kailis, has subsequently elected to use a smaller number of vessels, 6 in 2013.

The prawn fishery in Exmouth Gulf came under formal management in 1989, when the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Limited Entry Fishery Notice 1989 was introduced. This notice, which is now referred to as the management plan for the fishery, included the formal legislation of a number of management measures, including seasonal opening and closing, gear standardisation and spatial closures. The boundaries of the EGPMF and the extent of the permanently closed areas as legislated under the management plan are outlined in Figure 2.

Restructures of the fishing fleet occurred in the 1990s, with further industry-funded licence buy-backs and the commencement of trialling more-efficient, quad-rigged trawl gear. Since 2000, all licenced vessels in the EGPMF have been using quad-rigged gear, and the number of vessels has gradually reduced to six (Table 4).

The estimated employment in the EGPMF in 2013 was 24 individuals, including skippers and crew, with 23 additional support staff based in Exmouth Township and Fremantle. Within the Exmouth area, the fishery is one of the major regional employers contributing to the economic viability of the Exmouth Township. There is a high degree of vertical integration within the EGPMF, with the fishing company that owns the boats undertaking direct marketing of the product into domestic and overseas markets. For this reason, prices quoted for prawns and other byproduct species are based on an overall average price, taking into account the abundance of each grade of product landed. The total estimated value of the fishery (including byproduct) in 2013 was AUD 6.8 million (Sporer et al. 2014).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 17

Total nominal effort in the EGPMF for the 2013 season was 9,503 hours (quad-rigged gear), an increase compared to the extremely low nominal effort of 7,042 hours recorded in 2012 (Sporer et al. 2014). The adjusted effort (to twin gear) in 2013 was 17,124 hours, which is the second lowest in 40 years, after the 2012 record low (Figure 3, Table 4).

Figure 2. Main fishery boundaries and management areas of the EGPMF

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 18

Exmouth Gulf Annual Prawn Landings and Adjusted Effort 1800 600 1700 King 1600 Tiger 1500 500 1400 Effort 1300 1200 400 1100 1000 900 300 800 700 600 200

Landings (tonnes) Landings 500 400 300 100 200 Adjusted Effort (100 Hours) 100 0 0 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 Year Figure 3. Annual adjusted (to twin gear) fishing effort and catches of brown tiger prawns and western king prawns in the EGPMF between 1963 and 2013 (Preliminary 2014 catches to late October 2014 are: brown tiger prawn 142 t; western king prawn 165 t)

Fishing Gear and Methods Vessels in the EGPMF use low-opening demersal otter trawl nets in quad-rigged formation (Figure 4). Six boats operated in the fishery in 2013, towing a total of 292.6 m (160 ftm) of net headrope. There were two different headrope sizes towed during the 2013 season: four boats towed 10.97 m (6 ftm) nets and two boats towed 14.63 m (8 ftm) nets.

Otter boards are attached to the extremities of each net (Figure 4), with the height of the fishing gear set by the height at the point where they are connected to the otter boards. Forces produced by water flowing over the otter boards open the trawl nets laterally. This lateral spread controls the catching efficiency of trawl gear and determines the area swept. Generally, the headrope and footrope are spread between 60 % and 85 % of their length. Attached to the footrope is the ground chain. The ground chain is designed to skim over the sand instead of digging into the seafloor. As the ground chain travels over the sea floor, it disturbs the prawns so they rise into the oncoming net. The low-opening nets used have the headrope as a lead-ahead, which acts as a net veranda and is set in front of the footrope. This ensures that prawns disturbed by the ground chain do not pass over the headrope, which maintains the catch efficiency of the nets.

Each trawl shot ranges from 60 to 200 minutes in duration. Historically, all boats were “wet boats” and landed retained product ashore for processing at the Learmonth processing facility (Sporer et al. 2013). However, starting in the 2012 season, all six boats were fitted with freezer storage capacity for processing at sea.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 19

Tiger Western Blue Adjusted catch king endeavour Banana Total Nominal effort No. Year (t) catch (t) catch (t) catch (t) prawn (t) effort (hrs) (hrs) boats 1963 15 1 S 52 68 1799 1799 12 1964 33 17 S 60 110 2063 2063 6 1965 135 16 S 57 208 8380 8380 13 1966 420 72 S 39 531 11097 11097 15 1967 704 41 S 22 767 16651 16651 17 1968 212 167 S 379 17667 17667 17 1969 473 77 105 655 26245 26245 17 1970 888 208 295 1391 38764 38764 20 1971 234 135 150 519 29706 29706 20 1972 673 364 210 1247 45039 45039 22 1973 596 278 277 1151 47296 47296 22 1974 514 206 223 1 944 41478 41478 22 1975 1239 312 450 2 2003 45066 45066 22 1976 745 233 286 17 1281 49726 49726 22 1977 639 340 237 1 1217 51035 51035 22 1978 883 377 423 1683 54388 54388 22 1979 572 272 328 1172 51097 51097 23 1980 647 216 191 1054 52710 52710 23 1981 320 298 256 874 46712 46712 23 1982 116 374 239 729 42183 42183 23 1983 77 309 268 654 37748 37748 21 1984 167 313 252 732 38487 38487 19 1985 226 483 310 1019 43108 43108 19 1986 372 520 237 1129 44570 44570 19 1987 529 490 190 1209 45959 45959 19 1988 445 320 336 1101 42781 42781 19 1989 231 326 301 858 39531 39531 19 1990 564 389 198 5 1156 36008 36008 16 1991 340 442 175 957 36182 36182 16 1992 339 504 193 1036 34376 34376 16 1993 355 420 245 1020 37745 37745 16 1994 682 377 217 1276 36820 36820 16 1995 306 502 293 9 1110 36331 36331 16 1996 205 370 137 59 771 35097 35097 16 1997 253 430 121 11 815 36833 36833 16 1998 377 508 170 3 1058 33953 35628 15 1999 451 471 543 2 1467 32756 34903 15 2000 82 299 122 62 565 27415 33447 13 2001 208 330 131 1 670 27043 33023 13 2002 395 244 170 809 26358 32186 13 2003 633 231 225 1089 27161 33167 13 2004 629 436 282 0 1347 24874 32165 12 2005 416 449 203 1068 24039 31097 12 2006 258 442 199 899 21184 27511 12 2007 248 342 200 790 16278 24650 9 2008 576 279 315 0 1170 18123 28119 9 2009 412 284 132 1 829 17971 27851 9 2010 388 254 138 0 779 16606 25787 9 2011 749 97 130 3 979 13220 20532 9 2012 46 157 51 33 288 7042 12814 6 2013 95 331 85 74 585 9503 17124 6 Table 4: Catch and effort of major prawn species in the EGPMF between 1963 and 2013. Preliminary 2014 catches to late October 2014 are: brown tiger prawn 142 t; western king prawn 165 t; blue endeavour prawn 94 t, banana prawn 22 t. The number of boats represents the maximum number of vessels fishing during any one month. S = small quantities.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 20

Figure 4. Standard historical twin-rig otter trawl (a) and current quad-rig otter trawl (b) configurations used in the EGPMF (Adapted from Stirling 1998) All trawl nets in WA are required to be fitted with bycatch reduction devices (BRDs). BRDs fall into two categories: primary BRDs (i.e. grids) are those that physically exclude large organisms allowing them to pass out of the net; and secondary BRDs, such as square mesh panels (‘fish exclusion devices’ [FEDs]), are more passive devices that take into account the behavioural differences between target and bycatch species in order to allow bycatch species to escape (Broadhurst et al. 2002).

Since 2002, the industry has also used ‘hopper’ or ‘well’ in-water sorting systems, which provide an improved quality of prawns and reduces mortality of some bycatch species (Ocean Watch Australia 2004). Hoppers allow for the catch to remain in flow through seawater for an extended period, thereby maximising the survival of discarded species.

Trawling by vessels in the EGPMF generally occurs in approximately 30 % of Exmouth Gulf each season, and in 2013, ~ 22 % of the Gulf was trawled (247 nm2). The trawling effort is focused predominantly on mud and sand habitats in the deeper, central and north-western parts of Exmouth Gulf (Figure 2).

The annual cycle of operation for the EGPMF is dynamic and depends on the strength and timing of prawn recruitment. The harvest strategy adopted for the EGPMF aims to allow prawns to reach optimal market sizes before fishing commences, as well as to provide protection to the spawning stocks through temporal closures of key spawning areas throughout the season.

Fishing during the first part of the season (between April and July) focuses primarily on brown tiger prawns, which arrive first on the trawl grounds. When the Central TPSA and the Eastern Area of the fishery (Figure 2) closes around August to protect spawning tiger prawns, fishing effort shifts to the Northern Area of the Gulf to target western king prawns, which peak in abundance during August and September. Fishing effort normally continues into November, and in 2013, fishing ceased on 10 November, with 144 days of the season actually fished (Sporer et al. 2014). Metapenaeus spp., predominantly blue endeavour prawns, are also caught when targeting tiger prawns and king prawns.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 21

The fishery also retains a variety of smaller prawn species, including banana (Penaeus merguiensis), and coral prawns (various species but primarily Metapenaeopsis crassissima), and other species, such as blue swimmer crabs (Portunus armatus), squid, cuttlefish (Sepia spp.), bugs (Thenus spp.) and octopus.

Fishery Management The fishery is managed by the Department under the following legislation:  Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA)  Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 (FRMR)  Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Management Plan 1989 (EGPMF Management Plan)  Managed Fishery Licence (MFL) condition  Section 43 Order - Prohibition on Commercial Fishing (Muiron Islands Marine Management Area) Order 2008  Section 43 Order - Prohibition on Commercial Fishing (Ningaloo Marine Park) Order 2005  FRMA Section 7(2) instruments of exemption  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Export Exemption) An overview of the components of the fishery-specific management system for the EGPMF is provided below. The Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA)1 provides the overarching legislative framework to implement the statutory management arrangements for EGPMF and contains the head powers to determine a management plan. WA management plans are subsidiary legislation which set out the operational rules that control managed commercial fishing activities and should be viewed in conjunction with other specific relevant subsidiary legislation and strategies in place for the fishery. The management plan provides the power to issue and restrict the number of authorisations and regulate other conditions and grounds relating to fishing. There is also power to set the capacity of the fishery under a management plan. The FRMA also sets out the procedure for determining and amending a management plan.

The Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 (FRMR)2 contain a number of requirements pertaining to all commercial fisheries in WA. For example, regulation 64 requires commercial fishers to submit mandatory catch returns in the form approved for that fishery. Licensees in the EGPMF are required to report retained species catches, effort, any endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species interactions and fishing location in statutory daily logbooks.

The Exmouth Gulf Prawn Limited Entry Fishery Notice 19893, (the Management Plan), is the primary statutory management instrument for the EGPMF. The Management Plan was

1 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_345_homepage.html 2 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1458_homepage.html 3http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/subsiduary.nsf/0/1A100722EE48EA0D482576E4001AA85C/$file/11a+exmout h+gulf+prawn+27-07-04.pdf

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 22

established as a Notice under the previous State Fisheries Act 1905; however all existing management plans established under section 32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 were transitioned under section 266 of the FRMA when it was established in 1994. The Management Plan implements the following set of statutory measures to meet the fishery-specific management objectives for the EGPMF:  Limited entry: The number of managed fishery licences (MFLs) in the EGPMF is limited to 15. Each licensed fishing boat operating in the EGPMF must be documented on a MFL, and all persons commercially fishing in the EGPMF must hold a commercial fishing licence. Six vessels are presently active.

All 15 MFLs in the EGPMF are held in the name of a single fishing company — MG Kailis Pty Ltd.

 Areas of the fishery: The Management Plan prescribes the following boundary and areas of the EGPMF:  The overall waters of the fishery (Figure 2);

 The boundaries of a permanently closed prawn nursery area in the eastern and southern section of Exmouth Gulf (Figure 2);

 An area in which gear may be trialled no more than 14 days before the opening of the fishery with codends open and during daylight hours; and

 A port area closure within three nautical miles of Exmouth Marina.

 Annual closed season: The EGPMF is closed to fishing each year between November and March / April pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan. Seasonal closure and opening is based on prawn biology and historical fishery information, and season-specific dates vary each year, depending on lunar phase (i.e. after the full moon).

For the 2013 season, official opening and closing dates were set at 8 April and 14 November. The timing and extent of fishing within this set period are flexible and based on both fishery independent and fishery dependent information. In 2013, fishing actually commenced on 15 May and ceased on 10 November.

 Permanent temporal closure: Fishing is only allowed at night when the fishery is open (daytime closures apply from 0800 hrs to 1800 hrs). This measure greatly reduces trawler visibility and conflict with other marine users.

 Gear specifications: Clause 11 of the Management Plan sets out the statutory ‘default’ net, otter board and ground chain specifications that the fishery must adhere to. In order to increase the overall operational efficiency of the fleet through the development of fishing technology within a sustainable management framework, the fishery has, in recent

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 23

years, implemented the use of quad-net gear and otter boards with dimensions other than what is provided in clause 11. However, the fishery must operate to an overall headrope limit (gear capacity). Licensed fishing boats are permitted to use the alternative gear (and restricted to the headrope limit) by way of an exemption to clause 11.

Clause 15 of the Management Plan limits the size of a licenced fishing boat that may be used to operate in the fishery (i.e. the 375 boat unit rule). To provide the licensee with the opportunity to optimise the economic returns generated by the fishery within a sustainable management framework, the fleet no longer has to comply with the 375 boat unit rule, however; there is an overall limit on the size of the boat used to fish in the fishery. This allowance is provided by way of an exemption to clause 15.

 Vessel Monitoring System: Fishing activities (location and intensity) are monitored by the Department via a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), with all licenced fishing boats operating in the EGPMF required to install an operational Automatic Location Communicator (clause 16A of the Management Plan).

The annual closed season in the EGPMF is implemented by virtue of an annual statutory notice made by the Director General (as the Chief Executive Officer) pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan. This framework provides the power for the Director General to statutorily open and close the EGPMF annually without the need for an amendment to the Management Plan. The annual notice is the statutory instrument that caps the maximum number of days that fishing is permitted each season, and also prescribes spatial management areas within the fishery that are used to manage the distribution of fishing effort during the season.

The FRMA provides the head power to implement statutory management measures alternative to existing arrangements. Exemptions are often used when measures are being trialed, prior to them being implemented permanently (e.g. in the Management Plan). Two such Exemptions are currently in place for the EGPMF:  Gear specifications: Exemption 2056 (valid until 31 December 2014) permits a licensed fishing boat operating in the EGPMF to fish using quad-rigged trawl nets and otter boards being no greater than 290 cm (114 inches) in length and 107 cm (42 inches) in height. The Exemption also restricts the total allowable headrope length (excluding try nets) to be used at any one time to 395.02 m (216 ftm). In 2013, six licensed fishing boats towed 74 % (292.6 m [160 ftm]) of the total allowable headrope length.  Maximum size of licenced fishing boat: Exemption 2202 (valid until 31 December 2015) permits a licensed fishing boat operating the EGPMF to be larger than the prescribed 375 boat units; however, the Exemption limits the size of the boat used to fish in the fishery when operating under the authority of the Exemption to a maximum of 24.99 m.

The EGPMF fleet is required to have BRDs in the forms of grids and fish exclusion devices (FEDs), such as square mesh panels, in each net. This requirement is currently implemented via a MFL condition. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 24

Following the establishment of the Ningaloo Marine Park and Muiron Islands Marine Management Area, trawling closures were implemented in the north-eastern area of Exmouth Gulf pursuant to section 43 of the FRMA.

The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 - 2019 (Department of Fisheries (DoF, 2014a) outlines the long and short-term fishery-specific management objectives; a description of the performance indicators used to measure performance against these objectives; reference levels for each performance indicator; and associated harvest control rules, which articulate pre-defined, specific management actions designed to maintain each resource at target levels and achieve the management objectives for the fishery. The monitoring and assessment procedures for the collection and analysis of data to underpin the harvest strategy and determine stock status and fishery performance are described.

This document also includes a description of the management measures that have been adopted for the fishery and how the specific operations of the fishery may be adjusted in response to performance against each of the target, threshold and limit reference levels. Consultation and decision making processes, together with compliance measures are also included to ensure stakeholders are provided with a fully transparent description of the key processes that are used to manage the fishery.

Once the EGPMF is opened to trawling (via a notice made by the Director General pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan), fishery-independent and fishery-dependent (monitoring daily catch rates) information informs the timing and extent of fishing for prawns in each management area during the season, in line with the harvest strategy. While the in- season openings and closing of areas are non-statutory, they are monitored by VMS.

A program of bycatch reduction and assessment of biodiversity impacts have in place for the EGPMF for more than a decade. The EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (DoF, 2014b), the most recent plan, aims to:  Develop and implement cost-effective strategies to pursue continual improvement in reducing bycatch;  Review relative changes in bycatch due to bycatch mitigation and extend information on best practice to industry;  Develop measures to further reduce interactions with, or impacts on, ETP species;  Respond to adverse impact on Exmouth Gulf ecology from prawn fishing activity; and  Develop measures to better utilize what would otherwise be discarded.

In addition to the sustainable fishing framework as set out in the EGPMF Harvest Strategy, a cooperative framework is applied for decisions predominantly aimed at meeting economic objectives. This consists of non-statutory “openings” and “closings” of the management areas where the determination of actual areas to be fished within the fishery is done through agreement with the licensee. The licensees and the Department collaborate to make decisions regarding the timing and extent of the areas to be fished, including the extent of moon closures. This approach provides the licensee with the opportunity to maximise returns by managing fishing effort on small and soft prawns, which have a lower market value.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 25

Marine Protected Areas The Ningaloo Marine Park4 (State Waters) and Muiron Islands Marine Management Area are State-managed marine protected areas occurring within the EGPMF boundaries (Figure 5).

Ningaloo Marine Park was gazetted in 1987 and is located in the north-western part of Exmouth Gulf. Operators in the EGPMF are permitted to trawl in the general use / unzoned areas within the waters of the fishery but not in recreational areas and sanctuary zones.

The Muiron Islands Marine Management Area was gazetted on 30 November 2004 and covers the North and South Muiron Islands and Sunday Island north of Exmouth Gulf. Trawling is permitted in the general use / unzoned areas within the waters of the fishery but is prohibited in sanctuary zones.

The Management Plan for the Ningaloo Marine Park and Muiron Islands Marine Management Area 2005 – 20155 was formally approved by the Minister for the Environment on 7 January 2005.

Figure 5. Ningaloo Marine Park and Muiron Islands Marine Management Area and areas of overlap with the north-western waters of the EGPMF

4http://parks.dpaw.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/downloads/parks/Ningaloo%20Marine%20Park%20Zones %20January%202014.pdf 5 http://ningaloo- atlas.org.au/sites/default/files/Ningaloo%20Marine%20Park%20(State%20Waters)%20Management %20plan%202005-2015.pdf MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 26

State marine parks and reserves are vested in the WA Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and managed by the WA Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) on behalf of the State Minister for the Environment. WA marine parks and reserves are established under section 13 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 19846 (CALM Act).

Marine parks and reserves in WA are created for one of three purposes:  Marine nature reserves for scientific and conservation purposes;  Marine management areas providing an integrated framework for high conservation value and intensive multiple use; and / or

 Marine parks for the protection of natural features and aesthetic values. Section 62 of the CALM Act gives effect to a zoning scheme to manage activities within the Park. This legislation classifies the marine parks into general use, sanctuary, recreation and special purpose zones, consistent with the final marine park plan. Following the making of the section 62 CALM Act notice, the Department of Fisheries gazettes orders under section 43 of the FRMA to manage fishing in the marine parks, consistent with the permitted and prohibited activities outlined in the Marine Park Plan. The Department of Fisheries leads enforcement of fisheries legislation within marine parks and reserves.

The Department gazetted two orders under section 43 of the FRMA to manage fishing in the Ningaloo Marine Park and Muiron Islands Marine Management Area:

 Prohibition on Commercial Fishing (Ningaloo Marine Park) Order 2005; and

 Prohibition on Commercial Fishing (Muiron Islands Marine Management Area) Order 2008. The Ningaloo Marine Park (Commonwealth Waters)7 sits to the west of the EGPMF in Commonwealth waters outside three nautical miles and was declared by proclamation under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (NPWC Act) on 7 May 1987. The Commonwealth Department of Environment (DoE) is lead agency for marine parks and reserves management in Commonwealth waters.

On 17 November 2012, the (then) Minister for Environment declared 40 new Commonwealth marine reserves across Australia, including the North-west Marine Region (known as the “North-west Marine Reserves Network”). The North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network8 covers 335 437 km2 and includes 13 Commonwealth Marine Reserves in waters outside State waters (beyond three nautical miles).

Transitional arrangements are currently in place (meaning no “on-water” changes to existing fishing activities) until such time as a management plan is given effect. The North-west Marine Reserves Network is currently under review by the Commonwealth DoE.

6 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_193_homepage.html 7 http://laptop.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/publications/pubs/ningaloo-plan.pdf 8 http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-reserves MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 27

Environmental Factors There are a number of environmental factors influencing prawn fisheries in Australia, including temperature, rainfall, ocean currents and extreme weather conditions. Extended periods of elevated temperatures in shallow nearshore waters may affect the distribution of prawn nursery habitats, such as seagrasses, as well as the growth and survival of various life stages of penaeid species (Hobday et al. 2008). Catches of prawns may also be impacted through changes in rainfall, which is predicted to slightly decrease in northern Australia (Hobday et al. 2008).

A key factor influencing prawn stocks in WA is the flow of the Leeuwin Current along the coastline. A relationship exists between strength of this current (measured as the sea level height in Fremantle, WA) and the catches of western king prawn in Shark Bay (Lenanton et al. 1991; Caputi et al. 1996; Lenanton et al. 2009). It is suggested that higher catches are related to stronger flows during the March to June period, which has a positive effect on the catchability, growth and survival of prawns (Caputi et al. 1996).

Cyclones may also have significant impacts on the catches of prawns in Exmouth Gulf. Early (December to January) cyclones can have a negative impact on small size prawns due to high mortality in shallow nursery areas. Cyclones may also cause destruction of shallow seagrass areas, reducing available nursery habitat within the Gulf. Alternatively, cyclones can positively influence prawn landings by increasing water turbidity and triggering prawns to move onto the trawl grounds. In 1999, when the Category 5 Cyclone Vance reduced the cover of seagrass in Exmouth Gulf to less than 2 %, brown tiger prawn landings declined from about 400 t to less than 100 t, despite the presence of a good spawning stock. When the seagrass recovered after 2 – 3 years, brown tiger prawn landings increased to their pre- cyclone levels (Loneragan et al. 2004).

The 2010/11 marine heatwave event in WA (Pearce et al. 2011), and continued higher than average temperatures in the summers of 2012 and 2013, may have contributed to recent extremes in the abundance of brown tiger prawns through fluctuations in recruitment in Exmouth Gulf. In 2011, the brown tiger prawn recruitment and landings were one of the highest recorded, which led to a very high spawning stock abundance; however, in 2012, the lowest recruitment was observed, resulting in a very low catch. This in turn resulted in a low spawning stock in 2012, although it was still at levels that have historically resulted in moderate recruitment (Sporer et al. 2013). Since 2012, the level of recruitment of brown tiger prawns is slowly increasing but presently is not at average levels.

4.3 Principle One: Target stock status and harvest strategy (P1)

Stock biology and structure

The principal species taken by the fishery are the western king prawn (Penaeus latisulcatus) and brown tiger prawn (P. esculentus). Blue endeavour prawns (Metapenaeus endeavouri) are also a significant proportion of the total catch. Various species of coral prawn are also caught and banana prawns (P. merguiensis) are taken sporadically when environmental conditions are suitable. The assessment team has determined that none of the species under assessment is a key low trophic level species.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 28

Brown tiger prawn: The brown tiger prawn is endemic to Australian waters and is found in warm waters from Sydney north around to Shark Bay in Western Australia, living offshore in depths up to 200 m but chiefly in waters to depths of 20 m. The main spawning season in Exmouth Gulf is between August and October (Penn and Caputi 1986). The longevity of brown tiger prawns is generally 2–3 years. They reach sexual maturity at six to seven months. Individuals of this species grow very rapidly early in life, which means that they attain an economically valuable size at about eight months of age. Fishing thus concentrates on the 0 + and, to a less extent, 1 + (residual) individuals (Kangas et al. 2014).

Genetic studies indicate a small differentiation between the functionally-independent populations of this species in Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf, and a larger differentiation of these stocks from those in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Moreton Bay in Queensland (Kangas et al. 2014). Brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf are treated as a separate stock for management purposes.

Western king prawn: The western king prawn is widely distributed throughout the Indo-West Pacific region (Grey et al. 1983). In Australian waters the species occurs in South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory, Queensland, and down the east coast to northern New South Wales. Living on hard bottoms of sand, sandy mud or gravel, the species prefers shallow marine water to depths of around 90 m. Western king prawns typically use marine to hypersaline coastal embayments and estuaries as nursery areas (Kailola et al. 1993). In Exmouth Gulf the species occupies the hypersaline nursery sand flats along the eastern Gulf. Spawning of this species occurs throughout the year in tropical areas but the peak spawning period in Exmouth Gulf extends from May to October. The western king prawn is a fast growing species and is highly fecund, reaching sexual maturity at six to nine months. The life cycle of western king prawns is generally 2–3 years. As with brown tiger prawns, individuals of this species grow very rapidly early in life and attain an economically valuable size at about eight months of age. Fishing thus concentrates on the 0 + and, to a lesser extent, 1 + (residual) individuals (Kangas et al. 2014).

Electrophoretic studies on western king prawns have demonstrated genetic differences among populations sampled in WA, the Gulf of Carpentaria and South Australia. The populations of western king prawns in Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf function as independent, self-sustaining stocks, with distinct adult and juvenile habitats and independent variations in recruitment and abundance and are treated as separate stocks for management purposes.

Information and monitoring Research and monitoring of the EGPMF has been conducted since the commencement of the fishery in the early 1960s. The range of information available to support the harvest strategy for the EGPMF is shown in Table 5.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 29

Table 5: Summary of monitoring activities in the EGPMF (from Kangas et al. 2014)

Data type Fishery- Use in stock Areas of data Frequency of History of data dependent or assessment/ other collection data collection collection independent purpose

Daily logbook Dependent Catch and effort trends, Detailed, by shot Daily (shot-by- Since 1963 calculation of latitude and shot since 1998) commercial catch rates longitude Compulsory and area trawled since 2008

Processor Dependent Validation of logbook Exmouth Gulf Monthly Since 1963 unloads catches

VMS Dependent Verification of boat Exmouth Gulf Every fishing Since 2001 locations for logbook season analysis

Recruitment Independent Catch rates provide Parts of northern, March and April Since 1985 for surveys indices of recruitment central and brown tiger strength for brown tiger eastern Exmouth prawns and western king Gulf prawns and are used to Since 2003 for predict catches for western king season prawns Catch rates and size composition data are also used to inform the rolling opening / closures of different fishery areas during season

Spawning stock Independent Catch rates provide an TPSA (Q1 and Q2 August, Since 1984 surveys (for index of spawning stock fishing grounds) September and brown tiger abundance, which is October prawns only) used to update the SRR Provides information on sex ratios and the reproductive stage of female prawns

Biological Dependent and Patterns of growth and Exmouth Gulf Occasional Since 1970s information independent reproduction, stock structure

Commercial catch information Commercial catch and effort statistics (for both target and byproduct species) have been collected from the Exmouth Gulf trawl fleet since 1963 using daily logbooks (Kangas et al. 2014) (Table 5). It is a legal requirement that participants in the fishery submit accurate and complete catch and effort returns. Daily logbooks have been completed by all skippers in the Exmouth Gulf prawn fishery since 1963 and have been a compulsory requirement since 2008 (Kangas et al. 2014). Prior to 1998, catches and nominal effort were reported by 10×10 nm blocks or fishing grounds but are now recorded by the latitude/longitude of the start location for each trawl shot. Fishers record the start position, start time, duration and mean depth of each trawl, as well as the catches of each retained species in each trawl, interactions with any endangered, threatened and protected species, and environmental data (water temperature and

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 30

moon phase). Logbook sheets are completed daily and returned to the Department after each fishing period (approximately monthly) (Kangas et al. 2014).

Unload information and prices have been provided by processors since the early 1960s and are used to validate the logbook data. Daily logbook estimates of catches are adjusted (scaled up or down) to actual landings as recorded in processor returns, which provide the most accurate measure of the total retained catch in the fishery.

The catches recorded in the daily logbooks are often analysed according to historical fishing grounds in Exmouth Gulf (Error! Reference source not found.). Analyses of the catches between 1998 and 2013 (excluding 2000) demonstrate that the majority of the total catch of prawn species was taken on only four of the 10 grounds; Q1, Q2, R1 and S2 (Figure 6) (Kangas et al. 2014). Assessments and surveys are mainly focused on catch rate data from these grounds for this reason.

Figure 6. Percentage of total (a) prawn catch and percentage of each species (b) in the total catch by each fishing ground in Exmouth Gulf between 1998 and 2013 (excluding data for 2000 due to incomplete logbook records) (from Figure 6.6 of Kangas et al. 2014).

Figure 6 shows that the majority of the total catch is comprised of brown tiger prawns and western king prawns, with the exception of substantial catches of blue endeavour prawns in the R1 fishing ground. Catches in Q1 and Q2 are dominated by brown tiger prawns, whereas those in S2, and to a lesser extent in R1, are dominated by western king prawns (Figure 6). The majority of the catch of brown tiger prawns is taken from Q1, Q2 and R1, whereas the majority of the catch of western king prawns is taken in R1 and S2. The large percentage of western king prawn catch taken from R1 highlights the importance of this fishing ground for this this species. DoF conclude on the basis of analyses of catch by fishing ground that commercial catch rates in Q1 and Q2 provide good indices of abundance of brown tiger prawns and that those in R1 and S2 provide good indices of abundance of western king prawns (Kangas et al. 2014).

Analyses of catch data at a finer spatial scale (i.e. by 1 nm blocks) further illustrate distribution trends for years of differing abundances (Kangas et al. 2014). For example, in 2006, when brown tiger prawn abundance was low, and in 2011 when abundance was very high, brown tiger prawn catches were most concentrated within the central fishing area (i.e. in fishing grounds Q1 and Q2) and in R1, which lies adjacent to Q1 (Figure 7). For western king prawns, catches in the same two years were concentrated in the northern fishing area, in the grounds R1 and S2, and were relatively far less in the central fishing area (Figure 8).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 31

Figure 7. Spatial distribution of catches of brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf in a year of low catches (2006, left) and a year of high catches (2011, right) (Kangas et al 2014).

Figure 8. Spatial distribution of catches of western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf in a year of high catches (2006, left) and a year of low catches (2011, right) (Kangas et al. 2014).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 32

Commercial effort and catch rate information Nominal effort in the EGPMF is obtained from the daily logbooks and is recorded as hours trawled. Prawn vessel gear configuration changed from twin to quad-rigged gear in 1998. During the 1999 fishing season the performance of twin gear (2 nets with 7.5 fathom headrope) and quad gear (4 nets with 4.5 fathom head-rope) was compared using catch rate data from fishery-independent surveys and from logbooks completed by commercial fishers. A conversion ratio was developed for twin to quad gear to allow for an adjustment of the brown tiger prawn catch rates so that the entire time series is comparable. Although the adjusted effort takes into account changes in the headrope length, it does not consider the changes to gear design, net material and fishing technology (e.g. better navigational equipment and depth sounders linked to seabed mapping) have led to incremental increases in fishing power over the history of the fishery, nor does it account for different levels of skipper experience. DoF has not undertaken catch rate standardisation of these data. The performance of the fishery is monitored primarily using catch rate data obtained from standardised fishery- independent surveys.

Assessment approach Stock assessment processes typically use formal quantitative procedures to draw statistical inferences about stock abundance or exploitation rates relative to values such as BMSY or FMSY. For the EGPMF there is considerable information for the target species on biology and fishing, but the “stock assessment” process does not attempt to make specific inferences about status. Instead, agreed indicators (primarily based on surveys, catch rates and length distributions) are presented so that pre-agreed management actions can be triggered and guided according to the adopted harvest strategy. The suite of reference points is complex, including a wide range of in-season and annual measures which are used to guide annual harvest strategy setting and in-season, adaptive management.

Brown tiger prawn and western king prawn stock status in the EGPMF are annually assessed, primarily through monitoring of fishery-independent and fishery-dependent catch rates for the two species (used as indices of recruitment and spawning stock levels) relative to specified reference points. Although these abundance indices represent key indicators for the stocks, other information collected throughout the season (e.g. commercial catches, effort and environmental data) is also evaluated to provide insight on, for example, any environmental factors affecting prawn recruitment.

Fishery-independent recruitment surveys are undertaken in March and April each year (prior to the fishing season commencing) to provide abundance (and size/grade) information from the key recruitment areas for both brown tiger prawns and western king prawns within Exmouth Gulf (Error! Reference source not found.). The mean catch rate data for each of the two target species from these surveys are used as indices of recruitment strength (derived from the previous year’s spawning). These are compared against species-specific reference points and used to inform the timing of the openings of different management areas within the fishery for the fishing season. For each species, the relationship between the recruitment index and annual landings (between April and November) is also used to provide a catch prediction for the season.

Dedicated fishery-independent surveys are also undertaken to measure the spawning stock abundance of brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf during the key spawning period (August- October), when the tiger prawn spawning areas are closed to fishing. The mean brown tiger prawn catch rate, calculated based on all three spawning stock surveys undertaken, provides MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 33

an index of spawning stock abundance for this species and is compared annually against species-specific reference points.

Figure 9. Fishing grounds in Exmouth Gulf used for analysis of catch and effort data

Fishery-independent spawning stock surveys are not currently undertaken specifically for western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf. Instead, the mean commercial (fishery-dependent) catch rate of this species in fishing grounds R1 and S2 during August and September is considered by WA Fisheries to represent an appropriate index of spawning stock abundance. The catch rates are derived from key western king prawn fishing grounds during the spring spawning period for this species, at a time when the fleet is focusing their fishing effort on western king prawns (the brown tiger prawn fishing grounds are closed). As with brown tiger prawns, the index is assessed annually against specified reference points (Kangas et al. 2014).

Real-time monitoring of commercial catch rates of brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf is used to determine when to cease fishing in the Central TPSA and Eastern Area (Error! Reference source not found.) prior to the key spawning period of this species (August- October). Due to the relatively clear spatial separation of catches of the two target species in Exmouth Gulf, the effort in the fishery can be apportioned by species when determining catch rates (Kangas et al. 2014). Brown tiger prawn catch rates in the Central TPSA are monitored daily as they fall closer to the target level (25 kg/hr), with the area closing to fishing this level is reached over two consecutive nights. If the Central TPSA and Eastern Area re-opens to fishing for the latter part of the fishing season (dependent on spawning stock survey catch

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 34

rates), the commercial catch rates will also be used to determine when these areas close at the end of the season.

Logbook information is only provided by skippers at the end of each fishing period (typically every 3-4 weeks). Real-time monitoring of catch rates and prawn size (grade) in the EGPMF is achieved through daily boat catch electronic reporting (i.e. email) as well as regular phone communication with research staff. Nightly trawl activity and catches are evaluated by researchers at the Department to decide when areas open and close. This detailed catch rate and size structure information is important for managing the fishing effort on brown tiger and western king prawns throughout the fishing season.At times, industry initiates area closures to prevent capture of small prawns, notifying the Department so these closures are documented. The industry cannot open any areas without consultation.

Survey sampling techniques (Kangas et al. 2006)

• Sampling is carried out using conventional fishing gear (quad gear) on commercial boats. The same two survey vessels are used. • Trawl duration is 30 minutes to 2 hours, reflecting real fishing times in this fishery. • Systematic sampling in the same sites each survey period. These sites were determined using historical fishing patterns and the natural topography of the Gulf. • Recruitment surveys are carried out three times a year, early March, late March and early April. 13 sites are sampled over three nights during each period. • Spawning stock surveys are carried out three times, a month apart in August, September and October. 15 sites are sampled over five nights during each period. • Sampling is undertaken over the quarter moon phase for each survey. • For each site, the start and end (and if turns are made) latitude and longitude are noted so that trawl distance can be calculated, the total catch (all prawn species) is recorded and a representative sample (~200 prawns) of tiger prawns is collected for each trawl. • The total catch (all species) is verified at unloading and all samples (males and females separated) are measured individually and added to the total.

4.3.1: Brown Tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) 4.3.1.1: Stock status (P 1.1.1)

The assessment approach undertaken by DoF does not provide information on stock abundance or exploitation rates relative to values such as BMSY or FMSY. However, as indicated above, brown tiger prawn and western king prawn stock status in the EGPMF are annually assessed through monitoring of fishery-independent and fishery-dependent catch rates for the two species (used as indices of recruitment and spawning stock levels) relative to specified reference points. The latest MSC certification requirements provide guidance on the use of proxy indicators and reference points for BMSY and PRI (the stock point where recruitment would be impaired) (MSC CR v2.0, GSA2.2.3.1). SA2.2.3 of MSC CR v2.0 “confirms that teams may allow the use of surrogate or proxy indicators and reference points in scoring both stock biomass and exploitation rate. The terms “likely”, and “highly likely” are used to allow scoring by either qualitative or quantitative approaches.

Examples of qualitative interpretation include analogy with similar situations, plausible argument, empirical observation of sustainability and qualitative risk assessment. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 35

Examples of quantitative interpretation include the use of measured data from the relevant fishery, statistical analysis, quantitative risk assessment and quantitative modelling.”

Assessment of the brown tiger prawn status in Exmouth Gulf is available for 2013, with some information from 2014 surveys also available (provided by Errol Sporer, WA Fisheries). In 2013, the brown tiger prawn spawning stock index (i.e. the mean catch rate from the fishery- independent spawning stock surveys conducted in fishing grounds Q1 and Q2, which are key brown tiger prawn spawning areas) of 22.6 kg/hr was between the target (25 kg/hr) and limit levels (10 kg/hr) (Figure 9). In 2014, the mean brown tiger prawn spawning stock index for fishing grounds Q1 and Q2 was 27.7 kg/hr, slightly above the target level. As has often been the case over the history of the fishery, in 2013, the mean catch rate recorded in Q2 (30.4 kg/h) was greater than in Q1 (14.7 kg/hr). In 2014, the Q2 mean catch rate was 33.5 kg/hr compared with the Q1 level of 21.9 kg/hr. The brown tiger prawn spawning stock index in 2014 was slightly greater than in 2013 (22.6 kg/hr) and 2012 (17.3 kg/hr) but far less than in 2011, when the highest ever abundance of brown tiger prawns was recorded in Exmouth Gulf (80.8 kg/hr) (Figure 9).

Q1 - 100 Q2 - Mean Q1/Q1

Spawning Index (kg/hr) Index Spawning Target

Limit 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Figure 9. Mean spawning stock index (kg/hr) for brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf between 1970 and 2014, relative to the target and limit reference points (25 and 10 kg/hr, respectively). Note that prior to 1989, the mean value reflects catch rates in area Q1 only (Source: Kangas et al. 2014) The trends exhibited by the fishery-independent recruitment survey catch rates for brown tiger prawns in statistical areas Q3 and P2 have been similar over the history of the fishery (Figure 10). In 2014, the brown tiger prawn recruitment index (i.e. the mean catch rate from the recruitment surveys conducted in fishing grounds Q3 and P2) of 42.0 kg/hr was just above the target level (40 kg/hr), and thus well above the limit (10 kg/hr) (Figure 10). Following the exceptional recruitment recorded in 2011 (82.0 kg/hr), the index fell to below the target in 2012 (21.5 kg/hr) but has since progressively increased to the current level. As a consequence of the brown tiger prawn recruitment index in 2012 and 2013 being below the target level, commencement of fishing in both of these years was delayed until subsequent sampling in the brown tiger prawn areas indicated that the catch rates had risen to above the target level. In 2014, despite the mean index brown tiger prawn being just above MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 36

the target for commencing fishing, the opening of the season was again delayed to prevent early fishing on western king prawns (see below). The reasons for the low levels of recruitment of brown tiger prawns in 2012 and 2013 compared with 2011 are not well understood. However, given that the level of spawning stock in 2011 was at a record high, it is believed that the environmental conditions in 2011/12 must not have been favorable for successful recruitment. There is some evidence that recent recruitment has been impacted by a current lack of seagrass coverage in key brown tiger prawn nursery habitats in Exmouth Gulf. Research has shown the link between the extent of structured habitat and brown tiger prawn recruitment (Loneragan et al. 2013). Several hypotheses for the reduced recruitment are under investigation; however, it is thought that warmer water temperatures in recent years may have led to the loss of seagrass and/or algae in the nursery areas. Over the history of the fishery, levels of brown tiger prawn spawning stock similar to those recorded in the last two years have resulted in moderate recruitment and therefore, under normal environmental conditions (i.e. no elevated temperatures, no negative cyclone impacts, vegetated nursery areas), recruitment should not be impaired.

120 a) Q3 1st 2nd 3rd Mean

100

40 Recruit Index (kg/hr) Index Recruit 20

0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

120 b) P2 1st 2nd 3rd Mean

100

40 Recruit Index (kg/hr) 20

0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

120 c) Q3 and P2 combined

100

40 Target Recruit index (kg/hr) index Recruit

20 Limit

0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Figure 10. Mean recruitment index (kg/hr) and individual survey indices for each of the three recruitment surveys for brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf between 1985 and 2014, relative to the target and limit reference points (40 and 10 kg/hr, respectively) (Source: Kangas et al. 2014)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 37

Brown tiger prawn landings in the last two years (46 t in 2012 and 95 t in 2013) have been as low as previously recorded throughout the history of the fishery. The dramatic decline in catches in 2012 from 2011 (749 t) is not associated with excessive effort in 2011, which was the lowest effort observed since the late 1960s. As mentioned above, the low brown tiger prawn recruitment levels appear to be associated with lack of availability of structured vegetated habitats in nursery areas in Exmouth Gulf. Although the stock abundance is low, it is not unprecedented in the history of this fishery with a collapse in the early 1980s associated with overfishing, and in 2000 associated with cyclone impacts on nursery habitats. Note that the effort shown in Figure 3 is total adjusted fishing effort directed at all prawn species, including the two target species. This trend is useful for understanding changes in total effort but is not used directly in assessment. The indices of recruitment and spawning stock abundance that are used as the key performance measures for the target species are based on effort directed on each species. 4.3.1.2: Reference points (P 1.1.2) A range of annual and in-season reference points are used for managing the harvest of brown tiger and western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf (Table 1 from the EGPMF Harvest Strategy is reproduced at Appendix 3.2. The reference points are predominately based on a combination of fishery-independent and fishery-dependent catch rates, which represent the primary performance measures for the fishery and are designed to preserve sufficient spawning stock whilst also providing industry the opportunity to optimise economic efficiencies. Additional reference points (e.g. related to the size of prawns) also exist which trigger openings/closures of different areas in the fishery throughout the season. For reference points associated with stock performance, three levels are in place; target, threshold and limit. Target levels correspond to stock levels at or above BMSY and limit levels correspond to stock levels below which future recruitment levels will be directly affected. Consistent with the EGPMF Harvest Strategy (DoF 2014a), threshold levels are intermediate levels between the target and the limit and designed to ensure that management actions are taken before a stock triggers the limit level. The recruitment target catch rate of 40 kg/hr for brown tiger prawns is used to determine when to commence fishing for this species during the season. Because this fishery operates under an escapement policy, this effectively means that the brown tiger prawn fishing grounds are not fully opened to fishing unless the catch rate of this species is above the recruitment target level. The spawning stock target catch rate of 25 kg/hr for brown tiger prawns is well above the point of inflection in the current Stock-Recruitment relationship (SRR) (Figure 11). This target level was originally 12-14 kg/hr but has been modified through time to account for fishing gear and efficiency changes. The relatively low catch rate associated with this target level is consistent with prawns being able to be fished to reasonably low abundance levels due to their life history strategies (short life span, high fecundity and high natural mortality), and that the stock has recovered from these low stock levels in the past. The recruitment threshold level that is currently used for brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf is 10-40 kg/hr and the spawning stock threshold level is 10-25 kg/hr. The limit catch rate level of 10 kg/hr for brown tiger prawns applies to both the recruitment index (below which fishing for this species does not commence) and the spawning stock index. This current limit reference point is considered to be sufficiently conservative because values of the spawning stock index between the target (25 kg/hr) and the limit (10 kg/hr) have

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 38

still generated acceptable recruitment levels of this species the following year (Figure 12). The value of the limit reference point is derived from the SRR (Figure 11), adjusted for fishing gear and efficiency changes over time. The fishery-independent surveys are based on a pre-determined experimental design. Onboard research staff ensure that the survey program is conducted in the same way each year, using the same vessels to the extent possible (a single vessel has been involved in approximately 90% of the surveys (pers. comm. Errol Sporer, DoF, 20 May 2015). The impact of changes in gear such as change to the use of quad gear has been analysed and is accounted for in the assessment. However, the lack of information on the uncertainty in the survey estimates and the need to present confidence intervals has been identified as a shortcoming in the assessment approach, resulting in a condition for this performance indicator.

Figure 11. Relationship between spring spawning stock, autumn recruitment and January- February rainfall for the Exmouth Gulf brown tiger prawn stock, including three regression lines representing the expected recruitment under January and February rainfall conditions of (A) 0 and 200 mm, (B) 0 and 0 mm, and (C) 300 and 0 mm, respectively. Data points are given as 75/76 (23,38) where the numbers in parentheses represent in sequence, January rainfall and February rainfall (in mm) in the recruitment year (1983/84 data point included but not used in regression) (Source: Penn & Caputi 1986)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 39

100 02 93 90 10 80 07 08 70 03 04 89 60 97 01 50 98 90 09 94 96 13 40 95 92 99 06 91 05 30 12 00 11 20 Limit Target

Recrut Q3 P2 (kg/hr) Recrut index and 10

0 0 102030405060708090

Spawning index Q1/Q2 (kg/hr) Figure 12. Spawning stock index (year Y) and recruitment index (year Y+1) for brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf between 1989/90 and 2011/12. The current spawning stock target level of 25 kg/hr, limit reference point of 10 kg/hr, and the year of spawning are shown (Source: Kangas et al. 2014)

4.3.1.3: Harvest strategy (P 1.2.1) The harvest strategy for brown tiger and western king prawns in the EGPMF is based on a constant escapement harvesting approach (Kangas et al. 2014). The use of a this type of approach recognises that short-lived prawn species exhibit naturally variable annual recruitment and that, regardless of this level of recruitment in any year, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient spawning stock is maintained, whilst also providing industry the opportunity to optimise market value. A detailed biological understanding of the two target species in the fishery has underpinned the development and application of in-season temporal and spatial closures in the fishery that contribute to the constant escapement harvest strategy and also generate economic benefits for the fleet (i.e. by minimising harvest of small-sized prawns which are less valuable than larger prawns). This harvesting approach has contributed to a high level of cooperation from industry regarding adherence to regulations. The fishing season is generally open from April through November each year with specific opening and closing dates set according to the lunar phase. After the season opening, the actual commencement and extent of fishing in particular management areas throughout the season is determined based on fishery-independent monitoring (recruitment and spawning stock surveys) and real-time fishery-dependent monitoring (commercial catch rates). The EGPMF harvest strategy involves constant monitoring of stock status of brown tiger and western king prawns, from just prior to the commencement of fishing in each year to the end of each fishing season, based on a combination of fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data. In-season monitoring of catch rates and size-based performance measures for the two target species is used to determine (based on defined control rules) when to open and close certain areas of the fishery, to provide protection to spawning stocks, prevent growth overfishing and help facilitate optimal economic harvesting of the stock by industry. At the end of the season, the stocks of brown tiger and western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf are assessed based on inter-annual trends in recruitment and spawning stock indices (against specified reference points), together with additional information on annual landings, fine- scale spatial data on patterns of fishing effort and catch, and size composition data. The end-

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 40

of-season assessments are linked to control rules which ensure that, if stocks are considered to be at risk of other factors adversely impacting recruitment (i.e. environment), measures are in place to provide protection for the stocks during the next fishing season. The reference points developed for brown tiger and western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf are based on a detailed understanding of the biology of these species, considering key aspects such as their longevity, growth, movements and reproductive biology, including SRRs (Penn and Caputi 1986). This, combined with the long history of detailed monitoring of the key target species (i.e. since the inception of the fishery), has led to a good understanding of the level of spawning stock abundance of each species required to ensure that fishing does not impact on recruitment success. Throughout much of the history of the EGPMF, brown tiger prawns were the primary focus of management with respect to sustainability, as this species has been found to be the most vulnerable to overfishing. This reflects the different reproductive and behavioural characteristics of brown tiger prawns compared with western king prawns. For example, tiger prawns spawn over a more restricted period of the year in Exmouth Gulf and have a greater catchability due to their reduced tendency to burrow.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 41

EXMOUTH GULF ANNUAL OPERATIONS

Season opening date determined based on prawn biology and migration onto the trawl grounds, with consideration for the lunar phase.

Recruitment surveys undertaken in March and April Mean catch rate for tiger and king prawns from surveys used to predict catches for the current season and inform the temporal and spatial extent of rolling area(s) openings using in-season control rules (also dependent on prawn size information).

Central TPSA and Eastern Area closed to fishing when the commercial catch rate falls below target level, or at the start of the August moon closure (whichever is first).

Tiger prawn spawning stock surveys undertaken in TPSA during August-October Mean tiger prawn catch rate from the first two surveys used to inform potential re-opening of the TPSA using in-season control rules.

Following re-opening of TPSA, daily monitoring of commercial catch rates of tiger prawns used to inform closure of the TPSA using in-season control rules.

If, at any time during the fishing season, the majority of western king prawns in commercial catches are small-sized (i.e. >50% size grade 21/30 or smaller), cease fishing in Northern Area.

Season closes as per season arrangements.

Figure 13. Flowchart of the general annual harvest strategy operations in the EGPMF (Source: Kangas et al. 2014) 4.3.1.4: Harvest tools (P 1.2.2) Well-defined harvest control rules are in place for the EGPMF that are consistent with the constant escapement harvest strategy for the fishery (DoF 2014a). The control rules are directly responsive to changes in the catch rate and size-based performance measures for brown tiger prawns and western king prawns, which are critical for ensuring sustainability of the stocks of these species. The harvest control rules for the EGPMF are designed to meet the ecological objectives of the fishery by minimising fishing of vulnerable life stages (e.g. pre-spawning and small prawns), whilst also optimising economic efficiencies. In-season control rules govern the timing and duration of fishing in particular areas of the fishery throughout the season, with

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 42

annual control rules in place to ensure that the season arrangements are effective in maintaining sufficient spawning stock so that recruitment is not impaired. Figure 13 illustrates how they guide the annual operations of the fishery. The legislated season start date in the EGPMF is set based on the historical understanding of the prawn biology and migration onto the trawl fishing grounds, which includes consideration of the lunar phase. Commencement of fishing, however, does not occur in Exmouth Gulf until results are available from fishery-independent recruitment surveys (see below). Catch rates (and, for western king prawns, size information) from recruitment surveys determine when and what areas of the fishery open to fishing for the first part of the season. Catch rates above the target levels for brown tiger and western king prawns allow areas to open, while catch rates below the targets (but above limits, i.e. in the threshold range) trigger a review of the spatial and temporal extent of areas opened. Catch rates below the limit result in an area remaining closed to fishing. Note that, in addition to the above harvest strategy control rules, industry may decide to maintain some additional ‘industry closures’ for economic reasons. The involvement with industry in making decisions ensures that the economic outcomes are explicitly considered. Note that these economic decisions are secondary to any management decisions required for conserving the stocks. During the early part of the fishing season, the commercial catch rate of brown tiger prawns is monitored approximately weekly using data from the fishery-dependent monitoring program, along with informal discussions with industry. When the commercial catch rate falls to around 45 kg/hr, i.e., 20 kg/hr above the target spawning stock level, it becomes monitored daily as catch rates may then decline more rapidly. Each season, the key brown tiger prawn spawning areas (i.e. the Central TPSA and Eastern Area) are closed to fishing on either (a) when commercial catch rate in the Central TPSA has fallen to near the target catch rate level of 25 kg/hr (over two consecutive nights), or (b) on 1 August (or appropriate moon phase), whichever comes first. Fishery-independent brown tiger prawn spawning stock surveys are undertaken in the closed spawning areas between August and October to obtain a standardised index of spawning stock abundance of this species. If the brown tiger prawn spawning stock index is well above the target level (25 kg/hr) after the second spawning stock survey, then the timing and re- opening of the Central TPSA and Eastern Area is considered in consultation with industry. If the areas re-open, fishing is once again ceased in the Central TPSA and Eastern Area when the daily commercial catch rate of brown tiger prawns declines to the target level of 25 kg/hr prior to 1 November, or to a level of 19 kg/hr after 1 November (i.e. outside of the key spawning season for this species). Towards the end of the EGPMF fishing season, when small western king prawns (smaller than 21/30 grade) start to increase in abundance (i.e. contribute ~50% or more of the catch), fishing on western king prawn grounds (Northern Area) ceases in order to to prevent growth and recruitment overfishing. Note, however, that fishing for brown tiger prawns in the Central TPSA and Eastern Area may still continue until the end of the fishing season if commercial catch rates in these areas are high and they remain open to fishing (see above). Control rules associated with the spawning stock indices for brown tiger and western king prawns are in place to ensure the effectiveness of the annual operations of the fishery in maintaining sufficient spawning stock. Catch rates above target levels result in no changes to season management arrangements for the following year. Catch rates below the target level (in the threshold range) trigger a review of management arrangements for the next season, MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 43

which may subsequently result in management action if sustainability is considered to be at risk. Catch rates below the limit will trigger a review of the fleet’s spatial fishing patterns and catch rates to investigate why stock abundance is low. This will either result in more severe management action to protect the stock, or a change in monitoring if spawning stock index is considered to be inaccurate.

4.3.2: Western King Prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus)

4.3.2.1: Stock status (P 1.1.1) The fishery-dependent spawning stock index for western king prawns (i.e. mean commercial catch rate in R1 and S2 fishing grounds during August and September) has fluctuated around and above the target level since 1998 (Figure 14) but has not fallen below the limit. The preliminary commercial catch rate for August/ September 2014 (primarily in the R1 and S2 grounds) was 30.5 kg/hr, above the target level and well above the limit reference level. In November 2014, the night after all fishing ceased in the EGPMF for the year, a survey of four sites was undertaken in the key grounds for the western king prawns. The mean catch rate of western king prawns for these sites was 22.5 kg/hr, well above the limit reference level.

60 Aug Sep Mean 50

40 (kg/hr)

rate 30 Target catch

20 Mean

10 Limit

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 14. Mean commercial catch rates (kg/hr) of western king prawns in areas R1 and S2 in Exmouth Gulf during August and September between 1998 and 2014, relative to the target (25 kg/hr) and limit (15 kg/hr) reference points. Note that 2000 data are not included due to incomplete logbook records and the 2014 data point includes only August (Source: Kangas et al. 2014) In 2014, the western king prawn recruitment index (i.e. mean catch rate from the April fishery-independent recruitment survey conducted in fishing grounds R1, S2 and S1, which are key western king prawn recruitment areas) of 23.0 kg/hr was between the target (30 kg/hr) and limit (15 kg/hr). This level of recruitment of western king prawns was the lowest recorded since the recruitment surveys for this species commenced in 2002 (Figure 15), although still above the limit reference point. As a result of the low recruitment index in 2014, fishing on western king prawn grounds was delayed until mid-July (with additional surveys undertaken in May and June), thus reducing overall effort on this species.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 44

120

100

80 (kg/hr)

60 index

40 Survey 20

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 15. Mean recruitment index (kg/hr, ± 95% CI) for western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf between 2003 and 2014, relative to the target (30 kg/hr, solid black line) and limit (15 kg/hr, dashed red line) reference points. Survey sites, which are sampled in April, are located in fishing grounds R1 and S2 (with an additional site in S1) (Source: Kangas et al. 2014) In the last four years, the annual western king prawn landings have been lower than in all but the very early years of the fishery. In the years prior to the mid-1980s, much of the fishing effort in the fishery was directed towards brown tiger prawns. Due to low brown tiger prawn abundance in the early 1980s, effort was shifted on to western king prawns. With the increased effort towards this species, landings remained relatively stable until 2000 when there was a substantial decline for four years, apparently associated with impacts of Cyclone Vance. After 2004 the annual western king prawn landings returned to normal levels for three years but have declined since 2007 and reached a very low level in 2011, which was also reflected in a low recruitment index. The low king prawn catches in 2011 could be partially attributed to more targeted fishing effort on brown tiger prawns due to this latter species’ very high abundance that year. A slight recovery was observed in 2012 with landings back to normal levels in 2013. In 2014 effort has been restricted on western king prawns due to the low level of recruitment and the small size of prawns at the time the fishery commenced. At present (November), the annual landing for 2014 is expected to be around 168 t, slightly above the predicted level of 100 to 150 t. Total fishing effort in the last four years has been restricted in this fishery because of low recruitment levels of either target species (by implementing delayed fishing and spatial closures). Also, to a small extent, the lower catches over the last five years also reflect a shift in fishing patterns related to focusing on brown tiger prawns when the season commences. As western king prawns have a longer breeding period than brown tiger prawns and lower catchability due to their burrowing behaviour, they have long been considered to be less vulnerable to overfishing than brown tiger prawns. However, due to the observed low abundance (recruitment survey indices and catch predictions) in recent years there has been an increased focus on management of western king prawns, including management actions to control effort and timing of effort.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 45

4.3.2.2: Reference points (P 1.1.2) The recruitment target level catch rate of 30 kg/hr for western king prawns is used, in combination with a size-based target (> 50% of prawns larger than 21/30 grade), to determine when to commence fishing for this species during the season (Appendix 3.2). Because this fishery operates under an escapement policy, this effectively means that the western king prawn fishing grounds are not fully opened to fishing unless the recruitment target levels for this species are achieved (Kangas et al. 2014). The size-based target for western king prawns is economically driven and represents the optimum market size for this species, but also prevents growth and recruitment overfishing during the first part of the fishing season (April to July). Because the spawning period of the western king prawn is protracted, some individuals will have had a chance to spawn in the previous spring/summer and contribute to egg production. The same reference point is used to determine the closure of western king prawn fishing grounds at the end of the fishing season, which occurs when small individuals (smaller than 21/30 grade) increase in abundance (i.e. contribute >50% of the catch) (Kangas et al. 2014). This reference point is based on biological information and industry input, allowing these small prawns to grow to a larger size for the commencement of the fishery in the following season. The spawning stock target level catch rate for western king prawns of 25 kg/hr is considered by DoF to be a conservative reference point because there is no clear SRR for this species and represents the catch rates observed between 2002 and 2013 (excluding the lowest values), when recruitment has been relatively consistent. The fishery catch for the western king prawn is kept consistent with the catch-based target reference level (DoF 2014a), recognizing that below normal fishing effort results in catches below the target range. The recruitment threshold level for western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf is 15-30 kg/hr and the spawning stock threshold level is 15-25 kg/hr. In contrast to brown tiger prawns, there is no evidence to suggest that western king prawns have been overfished in Exmouth Gulf. There was no negative impact on catches or recruitment levels of this species in the period after the early the 1980s, when increased effort was shifted onto western king prawns (after the brown tiger prawn collapse). The current limit catch rate level of 15 kg/hr for western king prawns applies to both the recruitment index (below which fishing for this species does not commence) and the spawning stock index (Kangas et al. 2014). This is at the lower end of the range of recruitment index values observed over the last 12 years, when there has been no evidence of recruitment overfishing. The comparison between the spawning stock index for western king prawns in August and September (i.e. during the spring spawning period and when fishing effort is directed on this species) and the recruitment index the following April does not show any declining trend (

Figure 16). DoF suggest that this indicates that the stock is not likely to have experienced spawning stock levels which would impact recruitment levels and therefore the 15 kg/hr limit reference point is considered conservative (Kangas et al. 2014). The spawning stock catch rates are derived from key western king prawn fishing grounds during the spring spawning period, at a time when the brown tiger prawn grounds are closed and effort is focused on king prawns, hence are considered to be reflective of abundance at this time. The fishery-independent surveys are based on a pre-determined experimental design. Onboard research staff ensure that the survey program is conducted in the same way each MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 46

year, using the same vessels to the extent possible (a single vessel has been involved in approximately 90% of the surveys (pers. comm. Errol Sporer, DoF, 20 May 2015). The impact of changes in gear such as change to the use of quad gear has been analysed and is accounted for in the assessment. Confidence intervals are given for the western king prawn recruitment index (Figure 15), indicating that the 95% confidence intervals approach the limit reference level in some years. However, the lack of information on the uncertainty in the fishery-dependent spawning stock index has been identified as a shortcoming in the assessment approach, resulting in a condition for this performance indicator.

80 05/06 70 03/04 04/05

(kg/hr) 12/13

60 02/03 07/08 t+1 50 08/09 09/10 Index 40 11/12 06/07 30 10/11 20 13/14

Recruitment 10 0 0 1020304050 Spawning stock index t (kg/hr)

Figure 16. Spawning stock index for western king prawns in August and September (year t) and recruitment index in April (year t+1) in Exmouth Gulf between 2002 and 2013, with the limit reference point (15 kg/hr) represented as the dashed line (Source: Kangas et al. 2014).

4.3.2.3: Harvest strategy (P 1.2.1) As described for brown tiger prawn in 3.3.2.3, above. 4.3.2.4: Harvest tools (P 1.2.2) As indicated in 3.3.2.4 above there are well-defined harvest control rules in place for the EGPMF that are consistent with the constant escapement harvest strategy for the fishery (DoF 2014a). The control rules are directly responsive to changes in the catch rate and size- based performance measures for brown tiger prawns and western king prawns, which are critical for ensuring sustainability of the stocks of these species. Figure 13 illustrates how the harvest strategy guides the annual operations of the fishery. Commencement of fishing does not occur in Exmouth Gulf until results are available from fishery-independent recruitment surveys. Catch rates (and, for western king prawns, size information) from recruitment surveys determine when and what areas of the fishery open to fishing for the first part of the season. Catch rates above the target levels for brown tiger and western king prawns allow areas to open, while catch rates below the targets (but above limits, i.e. in the threshold range) trigger a review of the spatial and temporal extent of areas opened. Catch rates below the limit result in an area remaining closed to fishing.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 47

Towards the end of the EGPMF fishing season, when small western king prawns (smaller than 21/30 grade) start to increase in abundance (i.e. contribute ~50% or more of the catch), fishing on western king prawn grounds (Northern Area) ceases to prevent growth and recruitment overfishing. Control rules associated with the spawning stock indices for brown tiger and western king prawns are in place to ensure the effectiveness of the annual operations of the fishery in maintaining sufficient spawning stock. Catch rates above target levels result in no changes to season management arrangements for the following year. Catch rates below the target level (in the threshold range) trigger a review of management arrangements for the next season, which may subsequently result in management action if sustainability is considered to be at risk. Catch rates below the limit will trigger a review of the fleet’s spatial fishing patterns and catch rates to investigate why stock abundance is low. This will either result in more severe management action to protect the stock, or a change in monitoring if spawning stock index is considered to be inaccurate.

4.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

The EGPMF is the second largest prawn trawl fishery in WA and is located in the relatively sheltered waters in and to the north of Exmouth Gulf in the Gascoyne region. Management of the fishery includes the use of a sophisticated set of aerial based zoning, closed seasons, fixed and variable closed areas, along with a variety of biological controls along with VMS monitoring of the fleet. Environmental concerns associated with trawl fisheries are often centred on physical disturbance to benthic habitat and ecological impacts to the associated benthic or demersal communities. As well as managing impacts on target species, the fishery has taken steps to minimise wider ecosystem interactions. Trawling is restricted to a relatively small area of the Exmouth Gulf region, which mainly occurs over sandy/muddy substrates. There is some separation of the main fishing grounds for brown tiger prawn and western king prawn, however there is sufficient overlap to consider ecosystem impacts across the fishery as a whole. The same gear is used for targeting both species and the gear specifications in the Management Plan apply across the EGPMF. A substantial amount of research has been undertaken on the environmental impact of trawl fisheries both globally and throughout Australia. Within Exmouth Gulf, the Department and the Exmouth Gulf prawn fishing industry have conducted research on:  The use of BRDs (i.e. grids and square mesh panels) to reduce trawl bycatch, ETP species interactions and improve the quality of retained species catch;  Trawl bycatch species composition; and  The impact of trawling on faunal abundance and assemblages within the Gulf. A program of bycatch reduction and assessment of biodiversity impacts has been in place for the EGPMF for more than a decade and a bycatch action plan has been developed for the fishery, the EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014b). DoF is required to report on the progress of each commercial fishery against the major ESD objectives adopted from the National ESD Framework for Fisheries (Fletcher et al. 2002) (there is further description of the ESD process in the Overview of the Fishery, Section 3.2, above). The ESD report for the EGPMF (i.e. Kangas et al. 2006) provides a comprehensive

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 48

overview of fishery information, a major component of which is the explicit determination of the operational objectives, performance measures and indicators used to assess the performance of the fishery. An internal risk assessment for the EGPMF under the ESD framework was completed in 2008. In 2014, an internal risk assessment was conducted on target, byproduct, bycatch and endangered, threatened and protected species for the EGPMF using productivity- susceptibility analysis methodology. As well as considering retained target species, the EGPMF Harvest Strategy (DoF, 2014a) incorporates measures for retained non-target species, bycatch and other ecological components. The outcomes of these approaches are discussed in the relevant sections below.

4.4.1: Retained species (P 2) In addition to brown tiger and western king prawns, the EGPMF retains variable quantities of other prawn species, finfish and small invertebrates as byproduct. In 2013, catches included: 84.9 t of blue endeavour prawns (Metapenaeus endeavouri), 74.3 t of banana prawns (Penaeus merguiensis), 2.4 t of coral prawns (various species), 2.9 t of squid, 7.4 t of blue swimmer crabs (Portunus armatus), 2.7 t of cuttlefish, one tonne of bugs (Thenus australiensis) and less than one tonne of octopus (Table 6). The retained byproduct as a percentage of total annual retained catch is shown inTable 7.

Table 6. (Source: Table 4.2 of Kangas et al., 2014). Retained byproduct (tonnes) for the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery 2003–2013. N/A indicates data not available. *Note fishers have not been permitted to retain sharks since November 2006.

Catches (t) Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Blue endeavour prawns 225 282 203 199 200.1 315.1 132.4 137.6 130.1 50.6 84.9 Banana prawns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.8 33.5 74.3 Coral prawns N/A 47.0 32.0 58.0 39.0 12.0 25.2 18.0 0.8 11.5 2.4 Bugs 5.8 6.8 9.6 1.3 1.6 3.3 2.0 2.2 1.2 0.5 1.0 Blue swimmer crabs 20.8 32.8 18.1 10.8 8.0 25.3 10.1 16.4 57.4 2.1 4.7 Squid 76.0 77.3 58.1 6.1 9.5 7.6 5.7 17.2 5.7 2.6 2.9 Cuttlefish 12.5 8.8 10.1 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.7 Octopus 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.7 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.4 Fish 2.1 7.4 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sharks* 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 49

Table 7. Retained byproduct as a percentage of total annual retained catch for the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery 2003–2013. N/A indicates data not available. *Note fishers have not been permitted to retain sharks since November 2006.

Percent of annual catch Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Blue endeavour prawns 18.6 18.4 16.9 20.3 23.6 25.8 15.2 16.5 12.5 16.5 14.2 Banana prawns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 10.9 12.4 Coral prawns N/A 3.1 2.7 5.9 4.6 1.0 2.9 2.2 0.1 3.8 0.4 Bugs 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 Blue swimmer crabs 1.7 2.1 1.5 1.1 0.9 2.1 1.2 2.0 5.5 0.7 0.8 Squid 6.3 5.1 4.8 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.7 2.1 0.5 0.8 0.5 Cuttlefish 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 Octopus 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Fish 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sharks* 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.4.1.1: Outcome status (P 2.1.1) Although there is no formal stock assessment process for retained non-target species, total catch is used to assess the annual level of exploitation of each species’ stock. For each species, acceptable catch ranges / levels have been set to reflect the historical catches of these species as follows: • prawn species (i.e. blue endeavour prawns, banana and coral prawns): annual catch ranges based on historical catches during the period 1989 – 1998; and • all other retained non-target species: annual upper catch range based on historical catches during the period 1990 – 2010, with catch level modified by removing the highest catches from the range to reflect the opportunistic nature of retention of these species by fishers. The acceptable catch levels / ranges are as follows:

Blue endeavour prawns: 120 – 300 t

Coral prawns: 20 – 100 t

Banana prawns: 0 – 60 t

Squid: ≤ 80 t

Blue swimmer crabs: ≤ 40 t

Cuttlefish: ≤ 25 t

Bugs: ≤ 15 t

Octopus: ≤ 5 t

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 50

Catches of retained species other than brown tiger, western king and endeavour prawns rarely exceed 5% of the total annual retained catch (Table 7). Blue endeavour prawn catches have averaged approximately 18% of the total catch over the last 10 years. Banana prawns did not exceed 5% of the annual catch in most years, but have reached 10.9% and 12.4% of the annual catch in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Coral prawns and blue swimmer crabs both exceeded 5% of the annual catch in one of the last 10 years. Blue endeavour prawns are a “main” retained species for the fishery. Although banana prawns do not reach 5% of the total catch in most years they are considered as a “main” retained species in this assessment due to their high catches in 2012 and 2013. Blue endeavour prawns are a by-product species whose distribution partly overlaps that of both brown tiger and to a lesser extent, western king prawns, and are caught when fishers are targeting these two species. Catches of banana prawns are highly variable and relate to the amount of rainfall in the region, with consecutive high rainfall years providing the optimal conditions for banana prawn recruitment. Banana prawns are only targeted in those years when abundance is higher and aggregations are evident, and the higher banana prawn landings in 2012 (34 t) and 2013 (74 t) correspond to the relatively higher rainfall experienced by the region over the summer months in these years. Catches of coral prawns throughout the past two decades have ranged from 0 t to 116 t. Since 2008, coral prawns have not been generally retained by fishers due to low market values (Sporer et al. 2013). Additionally, coral prawns are small and many of them pass through the codend mesh and are not retained. Catches of all other retained non-target species have been below their maximum acceptable annual catch level since 2010, with the exception of blue swimmer crabs in 2011 (58 t), which was above the maximum catch level. Blue swimmer crabs, like other non-target species, are incidentally captured by the fishery, and catches vary depending on local abundance.

Blue endeavour prawns

The EGPMF catches the majority of the commercial landings of blue endeavour prawns in Western Australia. Annual catches in the EGPMF averaged approximately 200 t for the period 2001 to 2010, but have since declined in line with the lower effort in the fishery. There is no formal assessment for blue endeavour prawns. They are a by-product species whose distribution partly overlaps that of both brown tiger and to a lesser extent, western king prawns, and are caught when fishers are targeting these two species. Endeavour prawns are considered to be more resilient to fishing pressure due to their smaller size and lower catchability, as well as the lower level of targeting in Exmouth Gulf compared to brown tiger and western king prawns (Kangas et al. 2006). Blue endeavour prawns are typically smaller than brown tiger and western king prawns, hence are less vulnerable to the fishing gear. A significant portion of the blue endeavour prawn breeding biomass is protected by the brown tiger prawn spawning closures (Flood et al. 2014). Additional protection is afforded to blue endeavour prawns by their distribution for much of the year in permanently closed inshore nursery areas. The introduction and extension of moon closures in the fishery has increased protection of this species, which is known to have higher catchability during full moon periods (Kangas et al. 2006). As part of the fishery-independent recruitment surveys of brown tiger and western king prawns (at standardised sites on separate key fishing grounds for the two species), researchers MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 51

also record the abundance of endeavour prawns on these grounds providing a potential annual recruitment abundance index for this species. In 2013, the mean abundance index (catch rate) for blue endeavour prawn on the brown tiger prawn grounds of 9 kg/hr was below the 15 year mean (13 kg/hr) but within the range observed during these years (6 to 35 kg/hr) (Flood et al. 2014). On the western king prawn grounds the mean abundance index of 7 kg/hr, was also below the 6-year mean (2007-2012) of 14 kg/hr but was within the range observed (2 to 38 kg/hr) during those years. There has been no declining trend in the fishery independent survey catch rates over the periods sampled on either of these fishing grounds. As a result, the biomass of the management unit is not considered by WA Fisheries to be recruitment overfished (Kangas et al. 2014). With respect to fishing mortality, a target catch range is set at 120 to 300 t, based on historical catches between 1989 and 1998 (Flood et al. 2014) (Table 4). Total catch in 2013 (85 t) was below the target catch range and below the average catch over the past 15 years (201 t). Low overall effort was expended in this fishery in 2013 (33% less effort than the mean annual effort recorded between 2007 and 2011) due to low brown tiger prawn stock abundance. The level of fishing effort on the brown tiger prawn fishing grounds is normally around 60% of the total annual effort. In 2013 it constituted only 25% of total effort, thus resulting in a lower than average effort on blue endeavour prawns. In 2014, the preliminary catch of blue endeavour prawns (to late October) was 94 t with effort again being low for the year (Fletcher and Santoro 2014). WA Fisheries consider the breeding biomass of blue endeavour prawns in the EGPMF to be at sustainable levels because a significant portion of the biomass is protected by the brown tiger prawn spawning closures as well as the more inshore distribution of blue endeavour prawn biomass in closed areas for most of the fishing year. WA Fisheries has undertaken a PSA for the EGPMF (Appendix 3.1). Overall scores for blue endeavour prawns were as follows: Productivity 1.14; Susceptibility 2.33; overall PSA score is 2.59, implying a low risk. The 2008 ESD risk rating for Impact on breeding stocks was Moderate (Kangas et al. 2006).

Banana prawns

Banana prawns are at their southern distribution limit in Exmouth Gulf, with more regular abundances occurring further north. This species prefers shallow estuarine and intertidal areas to depths of 45 m. They live in turbid waters most of their lives, inhabiting sheltered mangrove creeks as juveniles and medium and low-energy coastlines as adults. Banana prawns tend to aggregate during daylight hours, so the normal daylight fishing ban that operates for this fishery greatly reduces the potential effort on banana prawns in the EGPMF (Kangas et al. 2006). Low levels of banana prawns are present in Exmouth Gulf each year, but these levels occasionally increase when environmental conditions are favourable (i.e. consecutive years of higher rainfall levels). Therefore, the fishery only catches this species in reasonable numbers during years when cyclonic activity and associated high rainfall has occurred (Kangas et al. 2006). Catches of banana prawns have been sporadic with a maximum of 62 t in 2000, after Cyclone Vance in 1999 and Cyclone Steve in 2000, when daylight fishing was permitted for a short period of time to take advantage of the increased abundance of banana prawns. In most years the catch level is close to zero (see Table 6). In 2013, 74 t banana prawns were landed. The

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 52

higher banana prawn landings in 2013 correspond to the relatively higher rainfall experienced by the region over the summer months. Under current arrangements DoF consider that the fishery has only a remote likelihood of having an impact on the banana prawn stock. The 2008 ESD risk rating for Impact on breeding stocks was Negligible. The 2014 PSA score is 2.59, implying low risk.

Coral prawns

Coral prawns are distributed throughout Exmouth Gulf. They are generally small, with many passing through the codend mesh and therefore not captured by the fishing gear. Coral prawn landings are highly variable due to their low value and therefore, lack of targeting by the fleet and generally low rate of retention. Landings of coral prawns tend to supplement the catch when the target species are in low abundance, particularly in a year when brown tiger prawn abundance is low (Kangas et al. 2006). Only 2 t were retained in 2013, likely due to the shorter season and low effort targeting these prawns. DoF consider it unlikely that this species will be fished to maximum acceptable levels, generating a low risk to coral prawn stocks in Exmouth Gulf (Kangas et al. 2006).

The 2008 ESD risk rating for Impact on breeding stocks was Low. The 2014 PSA score is 2.59, implying low risk.

Blue swimmer crabs

In WA, blue swimmer crabs are found from Albany in the southwest region of WA to the Northern Territory border. Blue swimmer crabs inhabit a wide range of inshore and continental shelf areas, from the intertidal zone to at least 50 m depth. There is a comparatively small area of Exmouth Gulf where blue swimmer crabs are captured by trawlers, with extensive refuge areas provided within the permanently closed nursery areas and in the deeper waters of the continental shelf adjacent to the Gulf. Fishers retain blue swimmer crabs at a minimum size of approximately 115 mm carapace width (CW; 137 mm spine to spine). This is well above the size at maturity (90 – 110 mm CW) in Exmouth Gulf and larger than the legislated minimum size of 127 mm spine to spine. The larger commercial minimum size limit was introduced on a voluntary basis in the fishery in 2007, although all fishers adhere to it. Fishers are also not allowed to retain egg-bearing females under the Management Plan. The high catch of blue swimmer crabs in 2011 (58 t) is considered to be due to high crab abundance on the trawl grounds, possibly caused by crabs being flushed onto the trawl grounds due to high rainfall in the early part of the fishing season. Since this time, catches have been maintained at acceptable levels, with 4.7 t of blue swimmer crabs retained in 2013, below the historical catch range of 8 to 58 t. This is likely to be due to the low effort in the fishery during these years and the spatial distribution of fishing activities throughout the Gulf. DoF consider it likely that the fishery would only have a negligible impact on the breeding stock levels of blue swimmer crabs, resulting in an overall negligible risk rating (Kangas et al. 2006). The 2008 ESD risk rating for Impact on breeding stocks was Negligible. The 2014 PSA score is 2.59, implying low risk.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 53

Bugs

Bugs have an extensive distribution and wide geographical range. Small amounts of bugs are generally caught in the central and northern portion of Exmouth Gulf (Kangas et al. 2006). In 2013, the EGPMF caught one tonne of bugs.

Under current arrangements, DoF consider the fishery has only a remote likelihood of having an impact on this stock resulting in a negligible risk to the stock (Kangas et al. 2006).

The 2008 ESD risk rating for Impact on breeding stocks was Negligible. The 2014 PSA score is 2.59, implying low risk.

Cephalopods

Over the past 20 years, the catches of squid, cuttlefish and octopus have ranged between 6 – 99 t, 0 – 31 t and 0 – 3 t, respectively. The low value of squid since 2008 has meant low retention by fishers over this period (see 4a). Given the biological characteristics (i.e. short life span, fast growing, and high fecundity), population size, wide distribution, and the small catches of these species by the EGMPF, the fishery is considered to have a remote chance of having an impact on cephalopod stocks resulting in a negligible risk (Kangas et al. 2006). The 2008 ESD risk rating for Impact on breeding stocks was Negligible. The 2014 PSA score is 2.59, implying low risk.

Finfish

The use of BRDs in the form of grids and square-mesh panels are required in all prawn trawl fisheries in WA, with mandatory implementation in the EGPMF in 2002/03. There has been a minimal take of these species since the introduction of these measures and finfish are typically not retained.

The 2008 ESD risk rating for population impacts was Negligible. No finfish species were assessed as high risk in the 2014 PSA assessment.

Ranked Risk Assessment DoF also undertook an assessment of the risk to individual bycatch fish species in the EGPMF using a Ranked Risk Assessment for Multiple Fisheries (RRAMF) (Evans & Molony 2010) aimed at examining cumulative levels of impact. This assessment was focussed on bycatch rather than by-product and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.5.1. The method provides a rapid and relatively inexpensive method for DoF to conduct a multi- fishery risk assessment and was undertaken using information across the Gasgoyne bioregion. Although the focus of the study was bycatch, some of the teleost species examined would potentially be retained. All bycatch species received low to moderate risk scores using this method for the fisheries in this bioregion. 4.4.1.2: Retained species management (P 2.1.2)

The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014–2019 includes the long-term management objective of maintaining spawning stock biomass of each retained non-target species at a level where the main factor affecting recruitment is the environment. Performance indicators, reference levels MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 54

and control rules have been developed for all retained species in the EGPMF (DoF 2014a; Appendix 3.2). There is a strategy in place to manage fishery impacts on retained non-target species, which utilises a number of management measures under the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Management Plan 1989 and operational activities (as per the EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014– 2019) including: limited entry; gear controls; seasonal closures; spatial closures; temporal closures; and reporting. These management measures reduce the impact of the fishery on retained non-target species stocks by limiting the annual amount of fishing activity via seasonal, temporal and spatial closures. For example, permanent nursery closures protect non-target prawn stocks in addition to the targeted brown tiger and western king prawns. Daylight bans on trawling also reduce the potential effort on banana prawns, which tend to aggregate during daylight hours (Kangas et al. 2006). The management strategy includes acceptable catch levels for all main retained non-target species based on historical catches. Blue endeavour prawns are the major non-target species taken by the fishery, averaging approximately 18% of the total catch over the last 10 years. Reference points for blue endeavour prawns have not been developed to the same extent as for brown tiger prawns and western king prawns. The measures in place to manage brown tiger prawns (and to a lesser extent, western king prawns) are considered by WA Fisheries as adequate in limiting the extent of fishing on blue endeavour prawns. However, information on endeavour prawn recruitment levels is collected during recruitment surveys and more formal reference level could potentially be developed for this species. The stated target for the species is that annual catch is within an acceptable catch range (120 – 300 t) (DoF 2014a). The harvest strategy suggests that there is a threshold reference point such that the annual catch is above the acceptable catch range for two consecutive years and a limit reference point of the catch being above the acceptable catch range for three consecutive years (DoF 2014a). If the limit is breached then management strategies to further protect the breeding stock will be investigated and may be initiated. Similar arrangements are in place for other retained species, with acceptable catch ranges as presented above (under 4.4.1.1). There are additional measures in place to reduce the impact of the fishery on blue swimmer crab populations, including a voluntary minimum commercial size (137 mm spine to spine), which is larger than the legal minimum size (127 mm spine to spine), and a prohibition on the retention of egg bearing females. At-sea and aerial patrols are conducted by the Department to monitor compliance with regulations. If monitoring indicates a need to reduce trawl impacts on byproduct species in Exmouth Gulf, this may be achieved through extending the use of current management tools, such as spatial and temporal closures, targeted harvesting strategies to optimise expenditure of effort, a reduction in overall fishing effort and the use of mechanical or other devices, such as BRDs and hoppers / handling techniques. DoF indicate that the strategy is achieving its objectives on the basis that (i) the stable catch histories of the main retained non-target species and (ii) an experimental survey-based study that found no difference in the abundance, species richness, evenness or diversity of fish and invertebrates (including each of the main retained species) between trawled and untrawled areas in Exmouth Gulf (Kangas et al. 2007).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 55

4.4.1.3: Information (P 2.1.3) Research and monitoring of the EGPMF has been conducted since the commencement of the fishery in the early 1960s. The range of information available to support the harvest strategy for the EGPMF is shown in Table 5. Catch information since 2003 is shown in Table 6 and Table 7. Extensive information available on retained species from the regular fishery- independent surveys undertaken for the fishery. Catches of all retained non-target species have been reported by fishers to the Department in daily logbooks since the fishery began in 1963. These logbooks became compulsory in the fishery in 2008 and include information on all retained species, effort, ETP species interactions and fishing locations (detailed shot-by-shot longitude and latitude). The logbooks are checked by the Department’s research staff on a monthly basis and any possibly erroneous entries or gaps are checked directly with skippers or the fishing company. The information provided in logbooks is also verified by unload data, which have been provided to the Department on a monthly basis since the fishery began. Additionally, the use of VMS has been in place in the EGPMF since 2001. VMS enables the Department to monitor a boat’s location and speed with particular attention paid to the surveillance of closed areas. VMS monitoring of boats is undertaken for the entire season. Annual spatial data validation is undertaken using GIS, and random checks of data entry are made through using VMS location records.

4.4.2: Bycatch species (P 2.2)

4.4.2.1: Outcome status (P 2.2.1) The bycatch contains large numbers of small non-commercial fish species that are generally not taken by other sectors. Bycatch species are returned to the water following capture; survival rates of returned fish are thought to be low, but are high for many invertebrates (e.g. crustaceans; Kangas et al. 2007). The fishery captures a wide range of fish and a smaller number of invertebrate species. Approximately 18 species groups were recorded as bycatch during a series of square mesh panel trials in 2008 and 2009 (Kangas et al, 2014). The primary bycatch species observed during these trials (Table 8) included: Large-scaled grinner (brushtooth) lizardfish (Saurida undosquamis); Whipfin ponyfish (Equulites leuciscus); Common silver belly (Gerres subfasciatus); Spotted stinkfish (Repomucenus clacaratus); Fourlined trumpeter (Pelates quadrilineatus); Trumpeter whiting (Sillago maculata); and Multiple crab species (i.e. Portunus rubromarginatus; P. armatus; Charybdis truncata; and C. anisodon). DoF has identified these species as main, using their own more conservative limit of 3%. From another assessment methodology applied by DoF (Evans & Molony 2010), none of the species under 3% are identified as high risk. A Ranked Risk Assessment for Multiple Fisheries (see below) determined that none of the species are vulnerable, so the assessment team used the DoF definition of main species.

The 2014 PSA assessment included nine bycatch species, which were identified as species of highest abundance (> 3 % of total catch) within Exmouth Gulf (and Onslow) during the biodiversity study undertaken in 2002 – 2003 (Kangas et al. 2007). All species were assessed as being at low risk, with individual species scores provided below (Appendix 3.1 for PSA information).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 56

Elasmobranchs rarely feature in the bycatch with many large sharks excluded from trawl nets by grids (Kangas & Thomson 2004). A small very number of elasmobranchs are caught and these might include brown reticulated singarees (Dasyatis leylandi). Catches of this species are at around 0.1% of the total catch (Kangas et al., 2014). It is also noteworthy that the bycatch survey also occurred in the extensive areas where trawling does not occur, so may include species not taken in the prawn fisheries (Kangas et al. 2007). In addition, the shallows of Exmouth Gulf support an abundant and diverse invertebrate community, which is attributed to the spatial isolation, high organic productivity and extensive seagrass beds and carbonate sand flats. Whilst many of these species may reside on or in the sea floor where trawl gear operates, overall levels of interaction are likely to be low. In addition most invertebrates caught have a low level of mortality.

Table 8: Main finfish and invertebrate species caught during research trials in the EGPMF

Finfish species Proportion of No. of fish per Family Common Name Species nm (Mean across all sites) Mullidae Goatfish, Asymmetrical Upeneus asymmetricus 4.66% Scorpionfish, Spot Fin Scorpaenidae Waspfish/Bullrout Paracentropogon vespa 4.65% Platycephalidae Flathead, Rusty Inegocia japonica 4.48% Callionymidae Stinkfish, Gross's Callionymus grossi 3.78% Leiognathidae Ponyfish, Zig-Zag Leiognathus moretonensis 3.40% Haemulidae Javelinfish, Blotched Pomadasys maculatus 3.03% Monacanthidae Leatherjacket, Hair-finned Paramonacanthus choirocephalus 2.96% Invertebrate species Portunidae Swimmer crab Portunus tenuipes 5.24% Portunidae Swimmer crab P. rubromarginatus 3.35% Source: Kangas et al. (2007)

DoF ran a Productivity Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) workshop in September, 2014 to assess vulnerability of main bycatch (as well as retained and ETP species). These outputs (Appendix 3.1) were then discussed in the stakeholder workshop held on Tuesday 28 October, 2014. The MRAG assessment team concurred with the PSA outcomes, and no changes were made to bycatch scoring for the EGPMF, with all species assessed as low risk. It is noteworthy that as BRDs are now mandatory in the fishery, the bycatch data used from Kangas et al. (2007) overstates the commercial bycatch of the contemporary trawl fishery. A summary of the scores is shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Summary PSA assessment

Common name Scientific name PSA score Risk Level MSC score Asymmetrical goatfish Upeneus asymmetricus 2.09 Low 93.4 Hair-finned Paramonacanthus 2.01 Low leatherjacket choirocephalus 94.8 Trumpeter s Pelate quadrilineatus 2.18 Low 91.7 Scorpionfish Paracentropogon vespa 2.09 Low 93.4 Gross’ stinkfish Callionymus grossi 2.09 Low 93.4

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 57

Threadfin emperor Lethrinus genivittatus 2.18 Low 91.7 Orange-spotted toadfish Torquigener 2.18 Low pallimaculatus 91.7 Goodlad’s stinkfish Callionymus goodladi 2.09 Low 93.4 Rusty flathead Inegocia japonica 2.09 Low 93.4 Zig-zag ponyfish Equulites moretoniensis 2.01 Low 94.8 Blotched javelinfish Pomadasys maculatus 2.09 Low 93.4 Other portunid crabs Portunus 1.83 Low robromarginatus 97.3

The justification for these scores is shown in Appendix 3.1. DoF also undertook an assessment of the risk to individual bycatch fish species in the Exmouth Gulf prawn fishery using a Ranked Risk Assessment for Multiple Fisheries (RRAMF) (Evans & Molony 2010). This assessment was undertaken across the Gasgoyne bioregion and included the Shark Bay Prawn Managed Fishery (SBPMF), the EGPMF, the Shark Bay Snapper Fishery and the Gascoyne charter fishery. Of the 21 most frequently captured species, none of the bycatch were rated as highly susceptible to trawling. The RRAMF is designed to overcome the differences in fisheries data collection methods that include use of a variety of measures and variable observer coverage ranging from < 1 % to 20 % of the actual fishery catch in WA fisheries. To overcome these issues the RRAMF method compares the ranks of the relative amount of bycatch from each fishery and compares the ranks of the species catch within each fishery. This method provides a rapid and relatively inexpensive method for DoF to conduct a multi-fishery risk assessment. It also enables managers to prioritise which fisheries have the greatest impact and which species may require more biological and ecological study to understand the risks of multiple fisheries (Evans & Molony 2010). Of the 11 fisheries (commercial and recreational) identified in the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion, data were available for only five (as above). However, much of these data were from relatively old studies and many changes in gear and/or fishing effort have occurred in the fisheries since then (Evans & Molony 2010). For example, the EGPMF data was collected during the BRD trials in 2002 – 2003, using nets without grids. As BRDs are now mandatory in the fishery, the bycatch data used in the study does not reflect the commercial bycatch of the contemporary trawl fishery (which is lower than the amount that was used by Evans & Molony [2010]). The study focused on teleosts and elasmobranchs, due to the limited data available on invertebrates. The RRAMF was conducted as a three-step process; firstly, four initial variables were used to reduce the number of species to a manageable list. The list reduced from 412 to 122 in the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion (Evans & Molony 2010 (Appendix 1)). The second stage involved assignment of the biological and fishery impact parameters to the sub-set of species and the weighting of these parameters based on comparative catch abundance in each fishery. The overall risk was calculated using a formula to present the most vulnerable species (Evans & Molony 2010). The third step was a qualitative notation for each of the species based on the latest scientific and fisheries knowledge of that species. This list focussed on the top twenty ranked species for each Bioregion, with the notation providing advice on the species’ risk assessment relative to other species (Evans & Molony 2010). No species from the Bioregion scored higher than ~ 45 % of the 23 point maximum risk assessment score for teleosts and elasmobranchs (Appendix 3.3). Elasmobranchs featured highly in the risk assessment, and held nine of the 20 top places in the Gascoyne Coast MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 58

Bioregion. Many elasmobranchs had higher scores than most teleosts due to their life history characteristics rather than the impact of fisheries. Taeniura meyeni (black-blotched sting-ray) and Rhyncobatus spp. (white spot shovelnose ray) had the highest average score (8.59), non- weighted score (8.5) and the highest overall score with the parameters ‘size and management’ (10.06) in the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion. The Rhyncobatus spp. result is the accumulation of a number of species and therefore is not the most vulnerable in this Bioregion. Both are recorded at 0.00% in the EGPMF. 4.4.2.2: Bycatch species management (P 2.2.2) Figure 17 indicates the key management actions that have contributed to reductions in bycatch in the fishery since its commencement.

There is a strategy in place to manage fishery impacts on bycatch species, which utilises a number of management measures under the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Management Plan 1989. These are further endorsed in the operational activities as per the EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019) and the Bycatch Action Plan (2014-2019) including:  Limited entry;  Seasonal closures;  Spatial closures;  Temporal closures; and  Gear controls and the use of hopper sorting systems

Figure 17: Key Management Changes in the EGPMF

Source: DoF. 2014b

Fishing effort in the EGPMF has changed dramatically since the beginning of the fishery in 1963. During the first year of operation, the fishery consisted of 12 boats each towing a single-rigged net to target banana prawns. In 1965, the fishery moved to limited entry, with MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 59

15 licences. By 1979, the number of licences had increased to 23, with the all boats towing twin-rigged nets. Between 1984 and 1990, two Voluntary Fishery Adjustment Schemes (VFAS) were introduced, reducing the number of licences to 16. In 1998, boats started trialling quad gear. By 2007, all boats were using quad gear, with the fleet gradually reduced to nine vessels over the 1998 - 2007 period. In 2009, a third VFAS removed one more licence from the fishery. For the 2012 season, the number of fishing boats was reduced from nine to six and has since remained at this level. Gear controls in place to restrict fishing effort include a maximum headrope capacity, which was set in the EGPMF Management Plan at 395.02 metres (216 fathoms). This headrope allocation was originally used in the twin-rig trawl configuration, with a maximum size equal to two 13.72 metre (7.5 fathoms) nets; however, a headrope of only 292.6 metres (160 fathoms) was utilised in 2012 – 2014. Fishing effort is also restricted by the number of available fishing days during the year. Seasonal opening and closing dates were first introduced in the fishery in 1984, with the aim to delay the season opening to fish brown tiger prawns. The fishing season is generally open from April to November and closes each year with an aim of a maximum of 200 fishing nights. Daily trawl hours are also restricted as brown tiger and western king prawns are primarily nocturnal. Since 1978 a system of spatial and temporal closures has been used in the management of the EGPMF. The initial nursery area (permanently closed to trawling) for the target species was extended in 1986 and again in 1990, and now it covers vast inshore seagrass areas (see Figure 1) used by turtles as feeding grounds and acts as a significant refuge for syngnathids and solenostomids. A number of management areas have also been introduced throughout the history of the fishery (i.e. the Central Tiger Prawn Spawning Area [TPSA], the Eastern Area and the Northern Area). These areas are opened or closed throughout the season depending on commercial catch rates and size of prawns. Apart from managing target species in the EGPMF, the spatial and temporal management regime in the fishery has significantly reduced the area and time available for fishing, thereby affording additional protection to benthic habitats and as a result providing sanctuary for a number of vulnerable species. Gear controls in place that are linked to bycatch reduction include  a maximum ground chain link diameter (10 mm) to address the impact the chain has on benthic habitat and non-target species,  a maximum otter board height to restrict the vertical net opening and facilitate escapement of non-target species over the top of the net,  a maximum board length to address shoe contact with the benthic habitat and non- target species,  the use of a Texas drop chain arrangement to promote passage of unwanted flora and fauna underneath the net,  the mandatory use of TEDs (grids) in all nets, and  the mandatory use of FEDs (square mesh panels) in all nets. A significant amount of resources have been invested in bycatch reduction. In 2002/03 several BRDs were implemented in the fishery, namely grids and FEDs. In 2005,

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 60

representatives from the United States State Department (National Marine Fisheries Service - NMFS) assessed the grid arrangement used in Exmouth Gulf and found it to be compliant with the US TED (grid) regulations in place at the time9. Re-assessment by the NMFS occurred in August 2014 (Wakeford, 2014) and a number of concerns were raised:  The relatively small size of the grids, especially with the larger 8 fathom nets,  The presence of an internal netting ramp upstream of the grid, and  The absence of sufficient buoyancy in the form of floats. The operator in the EGMPF is addressing these for the start of the 2015 fishing season (April). Not only have these measures been used successfully in similar fisheries (e.g. Northern Prawn Trawl), but testing also supports a high degree of confidence that they will work in Exmouth Gulf. In 1998/99, experimental trials of grids were undertaken in WA using grid types used in other Australian trawl fisheries and in the United States (Watson & Taylor 1996; Robins & McGilvray 1999; Olsen 1999). A few fishers also trialled several grids independently, however, subsequent adoption by industry of some of the grid-types trialled during this experimental phase showed that these grids were not effective in eliminating large animals and / or bycatch without substantial loss of target species under some conditions. An FRDC-funded project (i.e. Kangas & Thomson 2004) was initiated to tailor BRD usage to the specific requirements of a number of WA trawl fisheries, including the EGPMF and the SBPMF. Although there are some similarities in fish species between Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf, there are differences in bottom type and bycatch affecting the efficiencies of BRDs and their impact in the fishery. In order to tailor BRDs to the different fisheries, key fleet personnel travelled to Queensland and met with personnel experienced in the design, construction and use of BRDs and used this information to decide which BRDs to trial in each fishery (Kangas & Thomson 2004). Exmouth Gulf skippers began trialling this BRD gear in 2001, in conjunction with the change from twin (two 7.5 fathom nets) to quad (four 4.5 fathom nets) trawl gear. Two BRDs (i.e. Popeye and Fitti) were purchased from Queensland for trialling; bottom opening grids were also trialled during 2001, but some prawn losses were experienced, and boats moved to trialling top-opening grids in the 2002 season (Kangas & Thomson 2004). Commercial catch and bycatch information for the EGPMF is available from both grid and square mesh. Departmental observers were used to record commercial catch and bycatch for most trawl shots conducted, with a ‘shot’ defined as the trawl of four nets with two ‘control nets’ on one side of the vessel and two ‘BRD nets’ on the other side of the vessel, with shots lasting between 30 minutes and three hours. The categories recorded for each side were: total bycatch weight or volume (including small or juvenile fish, crustaceans, echinoderms and molluscs); target species catch and component that was soft and broken (western king, brown tiger, endeavour and coral prawns); and numbers of sharks, rays, sea snakes, sponges and turtles (i.e. endangered, threatened and protected species; Kangas & Thomson 2004). During the trials, a total of 246 trawl shots comprising 589.7 hours were recorded by onboard observers in the EGPMF. There were significant differences between grid-types for the proportion of total bycatch (baskets) taken on the grid side compared to that of the control

9 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/27/2014-15164/certifications-pursuant-to- section-609-of-public-law-101-162 MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 61

side, with a 9 % reduction in overall bycatch for the most commonly used grids compared to the control nets (Kangas & Thomson 2004). There was no significant difference between shark catches in nets with a grid and the control nets. This is mostly likely because the majority of sharks captured in the EGPMF are less than 1.5 m in length and are able to pass through the gaps between the grid bars. Ray catches were reduced by 56 % in nets with grids compared to control nets (Kangas & Thomson 2004). Two experimental trials of grids and secondary BRDs were also completed on established prawn-trawl grounds in Exmouth Gulf in August 2000 using two chartered commercial prawn trawlers. The experiments were done using two port nets in a quad-rig system (each with a headline length of 8.2 m), with a standard mesh size of 52 mm in the body and 47 mm in the codend. All tows were done over a combination of sandy and light coral bottoms in depths ranging from 13.7 to 18.5 metres and at speeds (across the bottom) of between 3.5 and 4.6 knots (Kangas & Thomson 2004). In these experiments, a grid was tested on its own and in combination with a modified composite square mesh panel aft (CSMPA) codend against a control net. The grid comprised an aluminium grid (Figure 18) sewn at an angle of 45 ° into an extension piece made from 47 mm diamond-shape mesh measuring 100 meshes in circumference and 20 meshes in length. A zipper was attached to the posterior end of the extension to facilitate changing codends. Two rectangular panels of flexible mesh were sewn anterior to the grid and bottom opening escape exit, respectively. The first panel extended to the grid, while the second extended past the base of the grid (Kangas & Thomson 2004). Two codends were constructed and rigged with zippers so that they could be attached posterior to the extension containing the super shooter grid. The first codend was a conventional design and comprised 47 mm diamond-shaped mesh with a circumference of 80 meshes and a length of 70 meshes. The second codend was identical in materials, circumference and length, but included a composite square-mesh panel located in two positions in the net. The control codend represented normal commercial codends and was made entirely from 47 mm diamond-shaped mesh measuring 80 meshes in circumference and 100 meshes in length. The zippers were used to alternately attach the conventional and CSMPA codends posterior to the extension containing the grid. These configurations were compared against the control codend, using only the two port-side nets of the quad-rigged gear (i.e. two separate paired comparisons: grid only – with no secondary BRD vs. the control; and the grid with the CSMPA codend vs. the control). Three replicate 90-minute tows of each paired comparison were made on each night, providing a total of six replicate comparisons over two nights (Kangas & Thomson 2004). Results from the experimental trials indicated that compared to the control, the grid only and the grid in combination with the CSMPA-codend significantly reduced the weight of bycatch (by 8 % and 53.5 %, respectively) and the numbers and weights of some finfish species (i.e. leatherjacket, heart-headed flathead, small-toothed flounder, trumpeter whiting, goatfish and trumpeter). Slightly fewer total prawns were retained in both the codends with the BRDs than in the controls (Kangas & Thomson 2004).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 62

Figure 18. Diagrammatic representation of (a) the super shooter grid used in Exmouth Gulf and (b) its location in the prawn trawl net (Source: Kangas & Thomson 2004)

In 2014, MG Kailis, the operator, pioneered the bigger JW grid to suit its larger vessels (FV Portland Road, and FV Latitude). In September 2014, Austral grids were deployed on one of the MGK trawlers towing 8 fathom nets, and the skipper was very pleased with the results (cleaner catch with less net damage in the throat). During the 2015 season the JW grid will also be evaluated against the Austral grid, with parameters of interest being: bycatch reduction, prawn loss, prawn size composition, prawn quality, and quantification of the debris present in the grid region and codend. The results will determine whether MGK adopts the Austral grid or JW grid in future seasons, keeping in mind that one or the other may be better for specific applications. Square mesh panel trials were conducted in the fishery in 2008 and 2009. For 18 of the fish species recorded, total numbers caught were reduced by 28 – 47 % (with a 33 % reduction in weight) when using square mesh panels compared to standard diamond codends. Fish species with over a 50 % reduction in individual numbers caught using square mesh panels included catfish, monocle bream, javelinfish, threadfin bream, trevally, lethrinids and small sharks (DoF, unpublished data). Currently the square mesh panel is made from 160mm stretched mesh, and measures 3 bar wide by 5 bar long (c. 240 x 400mm) (4). Previous studies (Broadhurst et al. 2002, Brewer et al. 2004; Wakeford 2006; Heales et al. 2008) with such devices have shown that it is quite common for fishermen/net-makers to underestimate how closed up the codend meshes

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 63

become when fishing, and as a consequence an insufficient number of meshes are attached to the lateral edges, and too many are attached to the longitudinal edge. The former error results in the window being compressed laterally, and as a consequence pleats form through the large mesh section; understandably, these pleats reduce the size of the large mesh openings, and intuitively would compromise the effectiveness of the device. MG Kailis has now adapted the square mesh panel to prevent a reduction in size and in a central position. FEDs are currently being inserted in the same position (centrally in the top panel at 20 meshes posterior to the leading edge of the codend) and in the same fashion (30 meshes across, 9 meshes deep) according to appropriate Company guidelines (Wakeford, 2014). Figure 19. Austral grid equipped with an appropriate sized Dynex netting extension and codend (i.e.150 meshes around)

In-water hopper sorting systems on prawn vessels add another level of protection for bycatch survival (Dell et al. 2003). Hoppers are large, water-filled tanks that receive the catch directly from the nets, making for more-efficient sorting and thereby reducing the time the catch spends out of water (Oceanwatch 2004). Fish mortality is reported at about 2 - 5:1, but with very significant reductions experienced since the mid-seventies when it was around 20:1. DoF applies a continual monitoring and improvement process to minimise the impacts of the trawl gear in the EGPMF. This is facilitated through the Bycatch Action Plan, implemented

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 64

as from 2014, which supersedes an earlier Bycatch Reduction Matrix (BRM). The BRM was developed by the Department in 2010 for all trawl fisheries in WA. BRM actions relevant to bycatch included an assessment of:  Ongoing monitoring and experimentation of exclusion grids  Ongoing monitoring and experimentation of escape panels, including square mesh and the T90 meshes  Ongoing modifications to the hopper systems under trial to minimise bottlenecking of bycatch in the hopper chute and ensure that bycatch is returned to the water quickly and in premium condition  Seasonal and/or spatial closures  Ongoing Monitoring of new bycatch reduction strategies and technology  Limits to total area trawled Incompleteness and accuracy of reporting on bycatch in the EGPMF is acknowledged in the Bycatch Reduction Matrix (DoF, 2010). Up until the adoption of the Bycatch Action Plan, there had been no action on bycatch data collection or at least no additional data have been made available, but the BAP specifically lays out a commitment to a bycatch monitoring programme through the application of fishery-independent surveys to collect bycatch (non-retained) species composition data every three years; and providing verification either by provision to introduce a Crew Member observer programme and to introduce independent monitoring to validate crew reporting (e.g. program using cameras or observers). Independent (scientific) ETP and bycatch observer data is currently being incorporated into the standard research survey programs for Exmouth Gulf (Bellchambers, op. cit.). Crew-member observer program (CMOP) as an ongoing data collection system requires investigation. Although there is no a recent estimate of the volume of fish and invertebrates discarded, the sustainability of these species has been assessed through the ecological risk assessment process (Both by either by PSA or a RRAMF), and none were assessed as being at high risk from fishing in the EGPMF. Risk assessments are to be repeated where new species-specific data may improve the assessment. 4.4.2.3: Information (P 2.2.3) Like most trawl fisheries, bycatch in the EGPMF comprises of a large number of taxa in low abundance, with the majority of species being uncommon or having little biological information available (Kangas & Thomson 2004). Thus, it is not practical to monitor and evaluate the sustainability of each species using traditional methods. However, as bycatch cannot be eliminated entirely, it is important to determine and monitor which species can or cannot sustain the impact of fishing and which species may be suitable as indicator species to reflect trawl impacts on the total suite of bycatch species (Kangas et al. 2007; Kangas & Morrison 2013). As a minimum, therefore, a list of all species that may be affected as bycatch would be required and this should be regularly updated/monitored in order to provide measurement of ongoing performance. Baseline data of faunal abundance and composition in Exmouth Gulf in areas that are both currently open to trawling and adjacent areas closed to trawling is available from an FRDC- funded study conducted in 2002 and 2003 (Kangas et al. 2007). Daily logbook information

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 65

was used to map trawled and untrawled areas within Exmouth Gulf in order to identify sample sites, i.e., sites representing varying levels of trawl effort from both prawn and scallop grounds that were spatially separate in parts of Exmouth Gulf and overlapping in others, and adjacent areas that were closed or open but were untrawled. All of the 26 selected sites were fixed for the survey period (2002 and 2003) and were sampled during three different seasons, i.e. during the start (February / March [2003]), middle (June / July [2003]) and end (October / November [2002 and 2003]) of the trawl season. During each sample, trawls were undertaken using twin-rig demersal otter trawl nets, with a six-fathom (10.97 m) headrope length. Net mesh size was 50 mm, with a 45 mm mesh codend. No BRDs were included in trawl nets. For each trawl, all species of fish and invertebrates were identified, counted and abundance determined as number per nautical mile trawled (Kangas & Morrison 2013). Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) ordinations were undertaken to examine variation in the fish and invertebrate assemblages, with richness, evenness and diversity indices calculated for the sites within the assemblages identified. The DistLM routine (Primer 6) was also used to analyse faunal assemblages for each site incorporating environmental variables (i.e. salinity, water temperature and depth) and whether the site was trawled or untrawled for all 2003 sampling periods combined. BEST10 (Primer 6) was used to identify which environmental variable was most closely correlated with species distribution, diversity and abundance patterns (Kangas & Morrison 2013). Similarity indices for each fish and invertebrate sample taken at trawled and untrawled sties were analysed using PERMANOVA (Primer 6). The spatial distribution and abundance of some of the more abundant fish and invertebrate bycatch species were looked at in detail and included species that were shown to have high, moderate and low catchability (‘vulnerability’; Kangas & Morrison 2013). Since there has been no repeat of the earlier work undertaken in assessing bycatch numbers, the prawn trawl fishery will fall short of the requirement to satisfy the scoring guidance ‘sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species’. The D o E in the 2013 EPBC export licence approval for both Exmouth Gulf a n d Shark Bay prawn trawl fisheries stated: "The department concurs it is likely that impact on bycatch species remains low, however considers that the WA Department of Fisheries should undertake an appropriate level of ongoing research and/or monitoring to ensure that the actions directed through the BAP matrix remain relevant to the fishery." Recommendation 5 in the EPBC assessment explicitly states "WA Department of Fisheries to conduct appropriate ongoing research and/or monitoring to determine whether the actions undertaken in the Bycatch Action Plan Matrix are sufficient to minimise risk to bycatch species in the fishery". Possible incompleteness and accuracy of reporting on bycatch in the EGPMF is acknowledged in the BAP (DoF, 2014b).

4.4.3: Endangered, Threatened and Protected species (P 2.3) 4.4.3.1 Outcome The MSC defines Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species as species that are recognised under national ETP legislation (both federal and state) or listed in Appendix 1 of the CITES International Convention, and which may interact with the fishing gear

10 BEST = Statistical method to calculate biodiversity. PERMANOVA is used to calculate variation in abundance MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 66

deployed in the fishery under assessment. Such legislation relevant to Western Australia includes: International agreements

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979 (CMS or the Bonn Convention)11;

 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)12;  The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment 1974 (JAMBA) 13;  The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Protection of Migratory Birds and their Environment 1986 (CAMBA) 14;  The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea on the Protection of Migratory Birds 2007 (ROKAMBA) 15; and  Any other international agreement, or instrument made under other international agreements approved by the Environment Minister. National and Western Australian legislation

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC)16

 The Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WC Act)17

 The Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA) 18. With reference to the above mentioned legislation, a number of species have been identified as ETPs within Exmouth Gulf. These include marine mammals (dugongs, dolphins and whales), marine turtles, sea snakes, elasmobranchs (sawfishes, sharks and rays), syngnathids and solenostomids (seahorses, seadragons, pipehorses and pipefish) and seabirds and migratory shorebirds. While over 130 EPBC listed species can be encountered in the region, not all are likely to interact with prawn trawling if we consider species behaviour, fishing gear and fishing strategy. For a full list with ETP species in Exmouth region see Appendix 3.4. The fishery meets CITES requirements for all Appendix 1 listed species, most specifically because under the EPBC Act, Part 13 prohibits trade in Appendix 1 listed species.

11 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html 12 CITES Appendices Listing 13 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html 14 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html 15 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html 16 EPBC protection status 17 Current list of WA protected fauna (Specially protected fauna notice- 17 Sept 2013) 18 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_345_homepage.html MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 67

There are national plans of action or recovery for turtles (2005)19, whale shark (2005)20, humpback whale21, blue, fin and sei whales (2005)22, and sharks in general (2012)23. The only one of these to reference EGPMF is the turtle recovery plan, which classifies the fishery as suspected to impact marine turtles but not confirmed. The prescribed action for EGPMF (classified as a priority A fishery) was to develop and implement a Bycatch Action Plan (BAP), which was to be completed by the end of 2001 and implemented in 2002-03 including the compulsory use of TEDs in all prawn fisheries. In response, the EGPMF applied a number of measures to physically reduce overall bycatch and increase the survival of bycatch through the use of BRDs (as grids and square mesh panels) and in-water hopper sorting systems (as referred to earlier (Section 3.4.2). The National recovery plan for humpback whales mentions Exmouth Gulf as resting areas by cow-calf pairs and attendant males during migration to the feeding grounds24.

Fishers in the EGPMF have reported interactions with sea snakes, marine turtles, seahorses and sawfish (Table 10). When captured, ETP species are dealt with in an appropriate fashion, ranging from ensuring turtles are revived first before returning them to the water, to a more rapid return to the water for more sensitive species. Occasionally sawfish and other dangerous species are euthanized if they are tangled in the gear and represent a threat to crew trying to untangle them (DoF, 2014b). The DoE considered level of interaction reported to be within limits of national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species, and the EGPMF has been found to comply with the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. The fishery was most recently re-certified in 2013, with export approval extended to February 2018 with five recommendations, two of these being relevant for ETPs (DoE, 2013). These were:

 WA Department of Fisheries to investigate measures to improve protected species interaction reporting, including species level identification, with particular attention to sea snake species.  WA Department of Fisheries to conduct appropriate ongoing research and/or monitoring to determine whether the actions undertaken in the Bycatch Action Plan Matrix are sufficient to minimise risk to bycatch species in the fishery. Additionally, in 2008, the fishery (in association with the DoF) successfully gained accreditation from the US Department of State for its BRD compliancy. In order to gain this

19 DEH (2003). Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia. Accessed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/6d26f4aa-751e-4b72-9ab0- 984a1d6e0fea/files/marine-turtles.pdf 20 DEH (2005). Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan, 2005-2010. Accessed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/r-typus/pubs/rhincodon- typus.pdf 21 DEH (2005). Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005- 2010. Accessed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/32f6b764-2af1-4251-b79d-c8bf67d8303a/files/m- novaeangliae.pdf 22 DEH (2005). Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 2005- 2010 Accessed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/196d34d7-4cc8-4bb7-95b6- 020c22318132/files/balaenoptera-sp.pdf 23 Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2012). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012, Shark-plan 2 Accessed online at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/environment/sharks/sharkplan2- final/sharkplan2-action.pdf 24 DEH (2005). Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005- 2010. Accessed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/32f6b764-2af1-4251-b79d-c8bf67d8303a/files/m- novaeangliae.pdf MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 68

accreditation, the fishery was required to demonstrate that it has taken specific measures to reduce the incidental take of sea turtles in the trawl gear. The fishery was re-accredited in 2012 and again in May 2014 after increases in the grid size and escape opening were implemented. These increases in the grid size were necessary following the increase in the size of the net headrope and body of the net to accommodate the reduction in boat numbers (Sporer et al., 2013). The accreditation from the US Department of State allows licensees to export product to the US market https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/27/2014- 15164/certifications-pursuant-to-section-609-of-public-law-101-162. Interactions with ETP species are required to be recorded, together with retained catch, effort, and fishing location in statutory daily logbooks. There is an ongoing program to better educate skippers and licences owners. The importance of logbook reporting (including accurate recording of ETPs) is stressed at pre-season skipper briefings (held annually in March) and throughout the year by Departmental staff, conducting research on commercial vessels (Lynda Bellchambers, pers. com. November, 2014). Currently there is no dedicated Observer Program, but the BAP 2014 makes provision to develop protocols to improve consistency of reporting for all ETP species interactions and providing verification either by provision to introduce a Crew Member observer programme and to introduce independent monitoring to validate crew reporting (e.g. program using cameras or observers). Independent (scientific) ETP and bycatch observer data is currently being incorporated into the standard research survey programs for Exmouth Gulf (Lynda Bellchambers, ibid.). However, without these actions implemented, the scoring of the ETP Performance Indicator in this assessment cannot take account of this proposed action in scoring.

Reported ETP interactions are detailed in the Table 1010 below. Note that mandatory reporting of sawfish and the returned status as dead or alive was introduced in 2010. Table 10. Reported interactions with endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species by the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery from 2007 – 2013. Return status indicated when known (A: Alive; D: Dead; U: Unknown)25.

Marine Turtles Sea snakes Seahorses Sawfish Year A D U A D U A D U A D U 2007 13 2008 12 103 1 2009 3 80 2010 7 113 2 37 4 7 2011 28 449 48 4 23 2012 5 1 70 3 2013 10 105 6 1 14

Some species-specific ETP information is available from the biodiversity surveys conducted by Kangas et al. (2007) (Table 11,

Table 12). Species captured during sampling included three turtles species: Flatback (N. depressus), green (C. mydas), and loggerhead (C. caretta) turtles; and five species of sea

25 Since 2010, reporting in the EGPMF fishery has improved and has been able to provide returned status for some species. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 69

snakes: Dubois’s (A. duboisii), golden (A. laevis), short-nosed (A. apraefontalis), olive- headed (D. major) and Stoke’s (D. stokesii) snakes. Some of the marine fish species caught as bycatch in Exmouth Gulf are also listed as threatened and / or protected species (

Table 12). To be noted that no bycatch reduction devices were used during the biodiversity sampling in 2002/3003 (Kangas et al., 2007). This prevents a base line to be used so that the change in total bycatch abundance could not be assessed.

Table 11. Marine reptiles caught in Exmouth Gulf and Onslow during biodiversity sampling by Kangas et al. (2007)

Month / Site Number caught Common name Scientific name Year Turtles 3/04 8 1 Flatback turtle Natator depressus 3/04 8 1 Green turtle Chelonia mydas 7/04 23 1 Green turtle Chelonia mydas 11/04 16 1 Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta 11/04 20 1 Flatback turtle Natator depressus 11/04 24 1 Flatback turtle Natator depressus 11/04 24 1 Flatback turtle Natator depressus Sea snakes 3/04 4 1 Dubois’ sea snake Aipysurus duboisii 3/04 4 1 Dubois’ sea snake Aipysurus duboisii 3/04 5 3 Dubois’ sea snake Aipysurus duboisii 3/04 5 3 Dubois’ sea snake Aipysurus duboisii 3/04 19 1 Golden sea snake Aipysurus laevis 3/04 2 1 Golden sea snake Aipysurus laevis 3/04 2 1 Dubois’ sea snake Aipysurus duboisii 3/04 11 1 Short-nosed sea snake Aipysurus apraefrontalis 3/04 6 1 Olive-headed sea snake Disteira major 7/04 4 1 Stoke’s sea snake Disteira stokesii 11/04 4 1 Dubois’ sea snake Aipysurus duboisii 11/04 19 1 Dubois’ sea snake Aipysurus duboisii 11/04 12 1 Dubois’ sea snake Aipysurus duboisii

Table 12. Protected fish species caught during biodiversity sampling in Exmouth Gulf by Kangas et al. (2007).

Common name Scientific name Number caught White-spotted shovelnose ray Rhynchobatus australiae 5 Winged seahorse Hippocampus alatus 2 Western spiny seahorse Hippocampus antustus 11 Flat-faced seahorse Hippocampus planifrons 5 Zebra seahorse Hippocampus zebra 1 To assess the impacts of fishing on ETP species the DoF has supported the development of the ERA processes for the EGPMF (Kangas et al., 2006). This work has been undertaken to MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 70

ensure the EGPMF is able to respond by managing impacts on species that are likely to be at risk from the fishery, including avoiding the capture of ETP species where possible (Kangas et al., 2006). Issues specific to the EGPMF were identified during an open consultative process involving stakeholder groups in June 2001(Kangas et al., 2006). After the components / issues were identified, a process to prioritise each of these needs was completed using a formal risk assessment process in 2002 (Kangas et al., 2006). The risk assessment framework that was applied during the workshop was consistent with the Australian Standard AS/NZS 4360:1999, using a combination of the level of consequence and the likelihood to produce an estimated level of risk associated with the issues in question. The level of consequence and likelihood were based on the combined judgement of the stakeholders and experts present at the workshop. Issues of sufficient risk (i.e. Moderate, High or Extreme) were considered to require specific management actions, with a full performance report completed for each issue (Kangas et al., 2006). An internal workshop review of the 2002 ERA was undertaken in 2008 (DoF, 2009). As a number of key changes had taken place in the fishery since 2002, the aims of the internal risk assessment workshop were to revisit the risk ratings identified in 2002 and determine whether they were still relevant or whether they required amendment (DoF, 2009). In addition, any possible new risks were identified (DoF, 2009. A summary of the 2008 outcomes is provided in Table 13. On the basis of these ERA results, the EGPMF has been assessed for export approval under the provisions the EPBC Act (impacts on protected marine species, Part 13A) and has been found to meet the Australian Government Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries in 2002, 2008 and 2013 (DoF, 2014b). To be noted that as opposed to retained species and non-ETP bycatch which are included if they are known to be caught, ETP species are usually included in the ERA on the basis that they occur in the area of the fishery, whether or not there has ever been recorded an interaction with the fishery (Griffits et al., 2007). For this reason there may be a higher proportion of false positives for high vulnerability for ETP species, unless there is a robust observer program that can verify that species do not interact with the gear (Griffits et al., 2007).

Table 13. Ecological Risk Assessment (Internal Review) Outcomes 2008 ISSUE RISK RATING 2002 RISK RATING 2008 Sharks Impact and breeding population: No change C0, L5, negligible Sea snakes Impact and breeding population: No change C0, L5, Negligible Syngnathids Impact and breeding population: No change C1, L2, Low Humpack Whales Not assessed Added: C1, L4, Low Green Turtles Impact and breeding population: No change C0, L5, Negligible Loggerhead Turtles Impact and breeding population: No change C1, L4, Low Leatherback Turtles Impact and breeding population: No change C0, L5, Negligible Flatback Turtles Impact and breeding population: No change C0, L5, Negligible Hawksbill Turtle Impact and breeding population: No change C0, L5, Negligible Dugons and Cetaceans Impact and breeding population: No change

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 71

C1, L3, Low (After DoF, 2009)

Evans and Molony (2010) performed a RRAMF for bycatch (as described in Appendix 3.3), including ETPs, over Gascoyne Coast. The risk assessment was based on data collected in 2004 during a major biodiversity survey as a part of a FRDC funded study. The RRAMF was done as two independent assessments, one for teleosts and elasmobranchs (T & E) and one for endangered, threatened and protected species (ETP). Sharks and syngnathids were analysed within T & E assessment at species level and syngnathids were included in ETP assessment as a group (Evans and Molony, 2010).

In RRAMF for T & E, sharks had the highest risk scores in the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion, with Taeniura meyeni (black-blotched sting-ray) and Rynchobatus spp. (white spot shovelnose ray) having the highest average score (8.59) (Evans and Molony, 2010). These scores still classify the species as low-moderate risk. T. meyeni is listed as vulnerable under IUCN conservation status for Chondrichthyans (Cavanagh et al., 2003). However these species were very low in number in the bycatch samples from Exmouth Gulf: T. meyeni - 0.002% of total bycatch, Rynchobatus spp. – 0.003%26.

The RRAMF for the ETPs showed that while most species have high biological risk, the low interaction rates reported by fisheries maintained low to moderate risk categories for all groups considered (Table 14) (Evans and Molony, 2010).

Table 14. ETP species in the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion.

Common Name Scientific Name RRAMF Score Syngnathids (bycatch) Hippocampus angustus 3.86 Cormorant, General Phalacrocorax varius 4.01 Seasnake Hydrophis elegans 4.86 Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas 11.20 Turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 11.20 Turtle, flatback Natator depressus 11.92 Turtle, General Chelonia mydas 12.75 Score is the average risk assessment score out of a possible 25. Where common name refers to a group of species, the most common species for that region was used. Colours represent risk categories as described in Table 9; blue = low risk; green = low-moderate risk; yellow = moderate risk; orange = moderate-high risk; red = high risk. (after Evans and Molony, 2010)

In 2014, an internal risk assessment was conducted on target, retained (primary species), bycatch and endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species for the EGPMF using productivity-susceptibility analysis (PSA) methodology. Seven ETP species / groups assessed to be at medium risk and one ETP group (sawfish) assessed to be at high risk (Table 15). ETP

26See DoF (2004).File: Summary of main bycatch spp. in EGPMF.xlsx

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 72

species assessed to be at medium and high risk have mostly been assessed at this level due to low productivity attributes, rather than interactions with the fishery (DoF, 2014b).

Table 15: Summary of PSA assessment for ETPs

Common name Scientific name PSA score Risk Level MSC score Dolphins, general Family Delphinidae 3,04 Medium 66 Green turtle Chelonia mydas 3.04 Medium 66 Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta 3.17 Medium 60.3 Flatback turtle Eretmochelys imbricate 3.17 Medium 60.3 Hawksbill turtle Natator depressus 3.17 Medium 60.3 Sawfish (green, Pristis spp. 3.68 High 34.8 freshwater, dwarf) Short-nosed sea Aipysurus apraefrontalis 2.62 Low 80.8 snake Sea snakes, general Subfamily Hydrophiinae 2.74 Medium 76.8

Sygnathids, general Hippocampus spp. 2.34 Low 88.3 Air-breathing megafauna (Cetaceans, 3.17 Medium 60.3 Dugongs and Marine Turtles)

High risk species include three species of sawfish. As will be highlighted below, whilst these are encountered, the levels of interaction are highly likely to be low relative to abundance in the Gulf, as most sawfish are estuarine or live in shallow waters (Kangas et al., 2014).

Medium risk species include turtles, which have a high level encounterability (spatial overlap with the gear activity), but mortality is low due to the effectiveness of the TEDs. Dolphins are rarely encountered (Kangas et al., 2014).

The sea snakes vary between medium risk and low risk. The reason for the short-nosed seasnake to score lower than snakes in general is its smaller maximum size relative to other species, 60 cm (http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1115). While the scoring is correct, the lack of information on the species status and level of interaction, and the lack of efficient methods to prevent seasnake capture need to be considered before deciding that the fishery’s impact is acceptable.

Marine mammals

According to Preen et al. (1997), fourteen species of marine mammal are found in the Exmouth Gulf region; dugong, four species of dolphin and nine species of whale (in Morrison et al., 2003).

Trawlers operate at relatively low speeds (around four knots). It is believed that at such speeds, it is highly unlikely that any cetacean or dugong would come in direct contact with a

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 73

trawler or gear as they would actively remove themselves from the trawler’s path (Kangas et al., 2006, Tony Tomlinson, former Exmouth trawl skipper, pers. comm. November, 2014).

Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) found that the speed a ship is travelling when it strikes a whale is directly linked to the severity of the injury the whale will sustain. They estimated probability of a large whale sustaining a lethal injury if struck, at various speeds from existing literature data, using a logistic regression equation (Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007). It was found that the severity of the injury to whales increased with ship speed and that the likelihood of a lethal injury was significantly higher when ships were travelling over 8.6 knots (Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007). This is shown in Figure 20, where it can be seen that the probability of lethal injury increases dramatically with the ship’s speed. At 12 knots, 5 out of 10 struck whales were possibly killed (International Fund for Animal Welfare -IFAW, 2010). These findings support the fact that the speed EGMPF vessels operate has low probability of lethal injury in the case of a boat strike. The consequences of boat strikes on marine meagafauna depend on more complex variables besides the speed of the boat, such as the size and shape of the boat, and the size and weight of the animal (Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007). However, the speed and weight of the boat are more influential than the speed and the weight of the animal and Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) hold that the speed of the boat is a good predictor of the severity of the injury.

Figure 20. Probability of a lethal strike for a ship striking a whale at various ship speeds. Calculated using equations from Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) (from IFAW, 2010). Greg Kaufman, the founder of the Pacific Whale Foundation, maintains that whales’ behaviour is unpredictable and also that calves pose a greater danger because they need to surface more often, about every three to five minutes27. Slow-moving vessels may provide opportunity for whales to avoid a collision or for vessel operators to avoid the whales.

27 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12686535/ns/us_news-environment/t/whales-find-boats-deadly-hazard- hawaii/#.VJglcl4AKA MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 74

However, compelling evidence for either does not exist28. While boat strike is a serious issue affecting large marine animals, the evidence elsewhere suggests that most interactions occur with recreational boats while commercial fishing boats are rarely involved. On the east coast of Australia, in 2003, only 0.001% of the boats responsible for striking marine animals were commercial29. Also, International Whaling Commission Progress Reports on Cetacean Research since 1997, which include reported interactions with human activity, do not show any mortalities or injuries to cetaceans due to interactions with trawl gear in Exmouth Gulf30.

Due to the spatial and temporal closures in place the potential for capture of marine mammals in this fishery is largely diminished (DoF, 2014b). These closed areas provide substantial areas of refuge, particularly over important habitats, such as seagrass (DoF, 2014b). The BAP 2014-2019 states that the move to more efficient quad-rigged gear in 2007 has translated to a reduction in the total length of headrope used in the fishery, which in turn translates to fewer gear interactions between net and ETP species. A voluntary reduction in vessel numbers in 2012 from nine to six further reduced the likelihood of interactions (DoF, 2014b).

As Kangas et al (2006) suggest, prawn trawlers have operated in Exmouth Gulf for over four decades and the anecdotal evidence suggests that populations of dugongs and cetaceans have not changed significantly over that time. This statement is supported by the 2007 aerial survey (Hodgson, 2007).

There were no reported interactions of the fishery with dugongs or cetaceans Kangas et al., 2014) and there is no evidence of unacceptable impact of the prawn trawl fishery on marine mammal species in Exmouth Gulf

Dugongs (Dugong dugon)

ERA 2008: Low (C1, L3)

RRAMF: Not in ETP ranked list

PSA: Medium risk (3.17, MSC: 60.3)

Morrison et al. (2003) hold that there were around 2,000 dugongs moving freely between Exmouth Gulf and Ningaloo Reef. Marsh et al. (2002), estimated in aerial surveys undertaken during 1989 and again in 1994 in Western Australia, around 1,000 dugongs in the Ningaloo Marine Park and Exmouth Gulf. Following supplementary aerial surveys in 1999, Gales and colleagues (2004) reported estimates of less than 200 individuals for each of Exmouth Gulf and Ningaloo Reef and an increase in Shark Bay dugong population, thus suggesting a migration rather than population reduction (Gales et al., 2004). The most recent dugong survey, (Hodgson, 2007), concluded that dugongs in Exmouth and Shark Bay are most likely to belong to the same population and migrate from one place to another for foraging

28 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12686535/ns/us_news-environment/t/whales-find-boats-deadly-hazard- hawaii/#.VJglcl4AKA 29 The Department of the Environment. Nomination for listing a key threatening process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), Retrieved from: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/87ef6ac7-da62-4a45-90ec- 0d473863f3e6/files/nomination-boat-strike-2007.pdf 30 http://www.marinemammals.gov.au/research-and-activities/iwc-initiatives MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 75

(Hodgson, 2007). The estimated population in Exmouth Gulf was 704 (± 354 se) dugongs according to the new improved method for calculating correction factors (developed by Pollock et al., 2006) and 1411 (± 561 se) according to the previously used method. Both estimates suggest the population in this region may have increased since the 1999 survey, which produced an estimate of less than 350 dugongs in the two areas combined (Hodgson, 2007). A statistical comparison between the previous and current survey is needed to determine whether this increase is real. If it is real, the increase could not be explained by increased fecundity levels as the maximum reproduction rate for dugongs is considered to be 5% and no calves were sighted during this survey, supporting the migration hypothesis (Hodgson et al., 2008).

While trawling activity may have severely affected seagrass beds in the past (Marsh et al., 2002), the present impact of prawn trawling activity on dugong is prevented through permanent spatial closures of seagrass areas. Boat strikes are also prevented through the fact that trawling grounds and dugong dwellings do not overlap (Kangas et al., 2006). The 2007 dugong survey (Hodgson, 2007) support this statement (Figure 21). Hodgson et al., (2008) comparing the five aerial surveys found no significant population differences across years when comparing standardised relative (Hodgson, 2007).

A B

Figure 21 Dugong sightings in May/June 2007 (source: Hodgson, 2007). B. Dugong sightings illustration superimposed on the EGPMF map (Kangas et al., 2014). Permanent nursery closure coinciding with dugong sightings.

No interactions of the fishery have been reported with dugongs in 2006-2013 period (Kangas et al., 2014).

Cetaceans

ERA 2008: Low (C1, L3)

Humpback whale: Low (C1, L4)

RRAMF: Not included in ETP ranked list

PSA: Medium risk (3.17, MSC: 60.3)

The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) is the only whale species commonly observed in the Gulf. It migrates to northern waters in winter to breed, then returns south in spring. Females and their young calves use the deeper north-westerly reaches of the Gulf as a

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 76

resting area during their southerly migration to feeding grounds in the Antarctic (Jenner and Jenner, 2000).

Two dolphin species, the bottle-nosed (Tursiops truncatus) and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis) used to be often seen in the Gulf in the past (Morrison et al, 2003). Occasionally four other dolphin species, the common (Delphinus delphis), Risso’s (Grampus griseus), spotted (Stella attenuata) and rough-toothed were also observed (Morrison et al, 2003). With the occasion of 2007 dugong survey, 15 dolphin groups totalling 41 animals were sighted within Exmouth Gulf, mostly occurring within the southern half of the Gulf (Figure 22). The mean group size was 2.73 ± 0.4,3 ranging from 1 to 6 animals. The observers identified 24 bottlenose and 7 Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. Observers from the 2007 survey saw similar numbers of dolphins in Exmouth Gulf as in the 1989 and 1994 surveys (41, 59, and 24 respectively - Preen et al., 1997).

Figure 22. Sightings of dolphins at Ningaloo Reef and Exmouth Gulf in May/June 2007, including those identified to species (Hodgson, 2007). Pink = humpback, brown = bottlenose, and blue = unidentified dolphins.

Dolphins are known to follow prawn trawlers and to feed on the discarded bycatch (Svane, 2005.) The susceptibility to be caught in nets was eliminated with the use of TEDs but they are still at risk of boat strike or caught in the tail hitch or lazy line (Tomlinson, pers comm, 2014).

Another indirect impact may be a behavioural change with dolphins relying of the free meal provided by the trawlers (Svane, 2005). Morrison et al. (2003) hold that the amount of discards resulting from EGPMF is not high enough to have this effect but no specific studies were done to support this idea.

There are no recorded interactions of the EGPMF with whales. One skipper reported, in his 30 years experience, colliding with a whale but with no apparent damage. Skippers will stop the vessels when there is a whale encounter (Tomlinson, pers comm, 2014).

Birds

ERA 2008: not included

RRAMF: Cormorant: Low (4.01)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 77

PSA: not included

There are 35 EPBC listed species of seabirds and migratory shorebirds that can potentially interact with EGPMF fishing boats (Kangas, 2007). Birds can interact with the fishery around the vessel itself, interfering with deployment of nets, possibly leading to strike or entanglement. Seabirds, as well as dolphins, are known to feed on the discarded bycatch (Svane, 2005). In Spencer Gulf, it was concluded that seabirds consume less than 0.03% of the discarded bycatch (Svane, 2005). For Exmouth Gulf, Morrison et al.(2003) argue that the area where fish bycatch is discarded is large and the quantity is not high enough to have an impact. There were no reported interactions of birds with the EGPMF.

Marine Reptiles

Sea snakes

ERA 2008: Negligible (C0, L5)

RRAMF: Low (4.86)

PSA: Medium risk (2.74, MSC: 76.8)

Short-nosed seasnake: Low risk (2.62. MSC: 80.8)

Sea snakes are protected species under EPBC and were highlighted as being of concern since the first 2001 ERA workshop (Kangas et al. 2006). Also, recommendation four of the DoE for certification under the provision of Part 13A of the EPBC Act, specifically refers to improving reporting and identification of sea snakes.

Exmouth Gulf is part of the distributional range of 15 EPBC listed seasnake species including the critically endangered short-nosed seasnake (Aipysurus apraefrontalis) (Kangas et al., 2014).

A study of sea snakes survival following capture in trawlers in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Northern Territory) indicated that a proportion greater than 60 % of sea snakes survived capture in trawl nets (Wassenberg et al., 1994). DoF suggests that it is likely that sea snakes in Exmouth Gulf have a similar level of survival. However, other authors contradict this view. Guinea (2007) holds that incidental catch and death in commercial prawn trawling fisheries appears to be the biggest threat to sea snakes in the North-west Marine Bioregion. High catch rates are exacerbated by the high death rate of snakes caught in trawl nets. Even when retained aboard to recuperate, sea snakes seldom survive (Guinea, 2007). Sea snakes may be more vulnerable to overfishing than other species because of their longevity and low reproductive rates. In addition, females appear to be caught more often than males (Fry, Milton and Wassenberg, 2001), which may increase the impact on the reproductive capacity of the species.

In 2013, 111 sea snake interactions were reported in the EGPMF, with the majority of sea snakes returned to the water alive (Kangas et al., 2014. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most sea snakes caught in the fishery are alive and aggressive when brought to the surface, which is thought to be an indication of health and lack of damage from the trawl (Kangas et al. 2006). Fish escape devices (i.e. a single panel of square mesh located in the top of the net posterior to the grid) have been a statutory requirement in the EGPMF since 2002/03 (Kangas

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 78

et al. 2006). These devices, in combination with grids, have been successful in reducing the incidental capture of sea snakes by as much as 50% during experimental trials in 1995 (Brewer et al., 1998), although later testing indicated only a five per cent reduction (Brewer et al., 2006).

Grids have been shown to increase sea snake survival in the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF) by reducing the weight of the total (all species) catch in the net (Wassenberg, Milton and Burridge, 2001). Fisheye BRDs have also shown very promising results elsewhere, with a 43% reduction being reported in the NPF (Heales et al., 2008). The results of a study by Milton Fry and Dell (2009) in the NPF suggests that the short shot times (i.e. 60 – 180 minutes) in the EGPMF may also be likely to increase the survival of captured sea snakes.

Milton et al. (2008) assessed the sustainability of snake species commonly caught in NPF using a variety of catch data sources, including scientific surveys, scientific and crew member observers, fishery logbooks and previous studies to develop an index of fishing impact (Milton et al., 2008). The method used for risk assessment was Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effects (SAFE). SAFE (Zhou and Grffiths, 2007) is a rapid quantitative method for assessing fishing impacts on data poor species. SAFE method involves two major parts: estimating fishing mortality rate and establishing sustainability reference points (Milton et al., 2008). This is the first quantitative assessment applied to sea snakes (Milton et al., 2008).

Overall, the results from the catch rate analysis have shown that the combined catch rate of all sea snakes has remained relatively stable over the last 30 years in the NPF. The work showed that the estimated impact of trawling on all species is below the sustainability reference points, thus, no species was found to be at high risk due to NPF fishery (Milton et al., 2008).

However, there is evidence that the size structures and catch rates of some species may have changed in the last few years (Milton et al., 2008). Hence, catch rates of sea snake species that have shown localised declines and also have restricted distribution ranges (D. kingii, H. mcdowelli and H. pacificus) should be regularly monitored (Milton et al., 2008).

During the 2007 dugong aerial survey 20 sea snakes were sighted in Exmouth Gulf, however, the author notes that snakes are difficult to be seen from the helicopter (Hodgson, 2007). Most snakes were observed in the northern half (Figure 23), with intense trawling activity.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 79

Figure 23. Sightings of sea snakes, sharks and whales in Exmouth Gulf (in May/June 2007 (Hodgson, 2007).

It was recognised during the MSC pre-assessment that there is limited information on seasnake populations in Exmouth Gulf and that there is a need for species level identification, quantitative estimates of mortality and research on additional mitigation measures for sea snakes (Kangas et al., 2014). In order to address this issue, the Department has developed the EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan (BAP), which includes an overview of ETP species issues, including sea snakes, in Exmouth Gulf and a proposed work plan for future / ongoing monitoring and research (Kangas et al., 2014).

The DoF is committed to develop and implement an education program for industry to increase awareness of the importance of sea snake protection, promote sensible handling techniques and improve species identification through training in sea snake identification to the species level (DoF, 2014b).

Trends in seasnake population in Exmouth Gulf due to trawling cannot be determined because there are no data on biodiversity and abundance before the trawling started. The impact on A. apraefrontalis cannot be assessed due to lack of information. However, the findings of Milton’s and colleagues and the endemic distribution of the species suggests a possibility of localised depletion (Milton’s et al. 2008). Given that this species is protected, the assessors therefore place a condition on monitoring this species. This is consistent with the DoE recommendation four.

Turtles

RRAMF: Medium risk (12.75)

PSA: Medium risk (3.17, MSC: 60.3)

Five species of marine turtles can be found in Exmouth Gulf. Each species risk assessments results are presented in Table 16.

Table 16. Marine turtles species present in Exmouth Gulf and their risk assessment results.

Species ERA 2008 RRAMF PSA

Green turtle Neglijible (C0, L5) Medium (11.20) Medium (3.04, (Chelonia mydas): MSC: 66)

Flatback turtle, Negligible (C0, L5) Medium (11.92) Medium (3.17, (Natator depressus) MSC: 60.3)

Loggerhead turtle Low (C1, L4) Medium (11.20) Medium (3.17, (Caretta caretta) MSC: 60.3)

Hawksbill turtle Negligible (C0, L5) Not assessed Not assessed (Eretmochelys

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 80

imbricata)

Leatherback turtle Negligible (C0, L5) Not assessed Not asessed (Dermochelys coriacea):

In late 1990’s the turtle population for Exmouth Gulf was estimated to be between 3,200 and 4,500 (Preen et al., 1997). Trawling used to be responsible for more sea turtle deaths than any other human-related factor (Bisong, 2000). The compulsory introduction of TEDs considerably reduced the impact.

The latest dugong aerial survey (Hudgson, 2007) reports sightings of 286 turtles in Exmouth Gulf distributed more towards the eastern and southern sections from which a good area is permanently closed to trawling (Figure 24). Most sightings were of single turtles (81%), resulting in mean groups sizes of 1.04 (± 0.04, max = 6). The number reported is similar to the one from 1989 survey (262) but higher than the one from 1994 survey (115) (Hudgson, 2007).

Figure 24. Sightings of turtles in Exmouth Gulf in May/June 2007 (Hodgson, 2007)

EGPMF successfully reduced its interactions with turtles by introducing mandatory grids in 2002/2003. The effectiveness of these TEDs was shown to be 95-100% (Kangas and Thomson, 2004) in reducing turtle by-catch. In 2013 ten interactions were reported, all returned to sea alive.

Green turtles are the most abundant turtles in Exmouth Gulf and have a large distributional range outside of the Gulf (Kangas et al., 2006). Adult green turtles are herbivorous and are likely to forage in the shallow seagrass and macroalgal beds. Despite their high abundance in the Gulf, very few green turtles have been reported throughout the history of the fishery (Kangas et al., 2014).

Loggerhead turtles are less common than green turtles in Exmouth Gulf and have a wider distribution outside the Gulf (Kangas et al., 2006). Loggerheads prefer to forage over open

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 81

substrate, such as the mud / shell substrate that dominates the trawl grounds in the Gulf. It has been suggested that loggerheads may be susceptible to reflex asphyxiation rather than drowning during extended periods of submersion (i.e. in the trawl net). However, there have been very few reported interactions with loggerhead turtles over the history of the fishery. All captured turtles have been returned to the water alive (Kangas et al., 2014).

Hawksbill turtles are relatively uncommon within Exmouth Gulf and there have been no reported interactions with hawksbill turtles over the history of the fishery (Kangas et al., 2014).

Exmouth Gulf is the southern limit of the flatback turtle’s distributional range, and they are relatively uncommon within the Gulf. Given their preferred diet and foraging behaviour, they may occur on the trawl grounds. There have been few reported interactions with flatback turtles over the history of the fishery, with all turtles were returned to the water alive (Kangas et al., 2014).

Four species of marine turtles (green turtle (Chelonia mydas) loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), flatback turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) and hawksbill turtle (Natator depressus)) were assessed as medium risk by the PSA primarily due to the inability of the PSA to fully account for mitigation in the fishery that minimises the interactions with these species. Turtle bycatch mitigation in EGPMF has been addressed with the introduction of the mandatory use of grids in 2002/03. These grids have shown to be effective in the fishery with a 95 – 100 % reduction in turtle bycatch (Kangas and Thomson, 2004). In addition, the fishery has gained certification from the US Department of State; one component of this certification was to demonstrate specific measures to mitigate interactions with marine turtles (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/27/2014-15164/certifications-pursuant-to- section-609-of-public-law-101-162.)

Therefore, given the mitigation measures in place in the EGPMF, and the high likelihood of survival post release, this level of interaction is considered to be a negligible risk to marine turtle populations, particularly as these species have wide distributions both within the Gulf and the greater Gascoyne Coast Bioregion (Kangas et al., 2006). Elasmobranchs

ERA 2008: Negligible (C0, L5)

RRMAF: Medium risk (between 5 and 9)

PSA: Sawfish: High (3.68, MSC: 34.8)

Numerous species of sharks and rays have been identified in the Exmouth Gulf during the biodiversity survey sampling in 2004 (Evans and Molony, 2010). Sharks and rays have been commercially protected in WA under the FRMA since 2007. Recovery plans have been developed for several shark species as well as the second national plan for sharks and are available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-species/sharks.

Sharks have previously been retained as byproduct in the EGPMF. However, in November 2006, all sharks in WA were commercially protected under the FRMA and from 2006 could not be retained without a permit. After the implementation of BRDs in the fishery it is highly likely most large sharks are excluded from trawl nets by the grids (Kangas et al., 2006).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 82

Elasmobranchs featured highly in the ranked risk assessment (RRAMF). However, elasmobranchs, except for sawfish which will be considered separately, have relatively low capture rates as bycatch within West Australian fisheries due to mitigation devices such as bycatch reduction devices (BRDs). In non-selective trawl fisheries in recent years, the catch of large animals, including elasmobranchs, has been reduced by 95-100% from the levels reported in the Exmouth and Shark Bay Prawn Trawl fisheries in the biodiversity study, which were already less than 1% of the total bycatch (Kangas and Thomson, 2004, Evans and Molony, 2010).

Sawfish

PSA: Sawfish: High (3.68, MSC: 34.8)

Four of the world’s seven species of sawfish are found in WA including the freshwater sawfish (Pristis pristis previously microdon), dwarf sawfish (Pristis clavata), green sawfish (Pristis zijsron) and narrow sawfish (Anoxypristis cuspidata) (Kangas et al., 2014). Anoxypristis cuspidata and Pristis clavata are listed as endangered and Pristis zijsron and Pristis pristis as critically endangered under Appendix I of CITES. Sawfish have undergone major global declines in both range and abundance, partially from their vulnerability to entanglement in fishing nets but also through loss of habitat (Morgan, Whitty and Phillips, 2010). Local population size within the Exmouth Gulf region is unknown, although collective evidence has demonstrated a large decline in Pristis spp. in Australian waters in the last 15 – 20 years (Gilles et al., 2006).

In Australian waters, green sawfish have historically been recorded in the coastal waters off Broome, Western Australia, around northern Australia and down the east coast as far as Jervis Bay, NSW (Stevens, Pillans and Salini, 2005). However, there is little data on the species' relative abundance in northern Western Australian waters, although given that this region is less populated by humans than the east coast, it may contain the healthiest populations of the species' in Australian waters (Stevens, Pillans and Salini, 2005). Green sawfish have been recorded in very shallow water (<1 m) to offshore trawl grounds in over 70 m of water (Stevens, Pillans and Salini, 2005). The toothed rostrum of sawfish, combined with their active hunting behaviour, makes them highly susceptible to capture in all fisheries that use nets (Last and Stevens, 2009).

The Australian distribution of the dwarf sawfish was previously considered to extend north from Cairns around the Cape York Peninsula in Queensland, across northern Australian waters to the Pilbara coast in Western Australia (McAuley et al., 2005, Stevens et al., 2008, Last and Stevens, 2009) . However, there is insufficient data available to estimate the total numbers of mature individuals of dwarf sawfish in Australian waters. The dwarf sawfish usually inhabits shallow (2–3 m) coastal waters and estuarine habitats and the species' range is restricted to brackish and salt water (Thoburn et al., 2007). A study in north-western Western Australia found that estuarine habitats are used as nursery areas by dwarf sawfish, with immature juveniles remaining in these areas up until three years of age (Thoburn et al., 2007). Adults are known to seasonally migrate back into inshore waters (Peverell, 2007), although it is unclear how far offshore the adults travel, as captures in offshore surveys are very uncommon. As the majority of fishing in the EGPMF occurs in water depths between 7- 30 m, the spatial overlap of the species’ distribution and fishing effort would be restricted (Kangas et al., 2014).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 83

The freshwater sawfish may potentially occur in all large rivers of northern Australia from the Fitzroy River, Western Australia, to the western side of Cape York Peninsula, Queensland. Whilst the total population of the Freshwater sawfish is unknown, DNA studies have shown that the species, though highly mobile when adult should be considered as populations, rather than a single population in Australian waters (Phillips et al., 2008). A study on the movement patterns of other sawfish species, P. clavata and P. zijsron, showed that the species had a high fidelity to an area, with movements restricted to only a few square kilometers within the coastal fringe, and influenced by tides (Stevens et al., 2008). Similar to the dwarf sawfish, as the majority of fishing in the EGPMF occurs in water depths between 7-30 m (with much of the coastal fringe protected as nursery grounds), this would suggest that the spatial overlap of the species’ distribution and fishing effort would be restricted (Kangas et al., 2014).

Sawfish have also been previously recognised as potentially high risk species in the NPF with a level 2 PSA rating five sawfish species (Pristis microdon, Pristis clavata, Pristis zijsron, Pristis pectinata and Anoxypristis cuspidata) as high risk. The high risk rating was primarily due to a high overlap of the species’ distributions with the NPF, their high degree of endemism and high susceptibility to capture and mortality due to their rostrum teeth entangling in the net mesh. Subsequently the five sawfish species identified as high risk in the NPF level 2 PSA were included in a Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effects (SAFE) which resulted in a lower risk level of all five species. Although the SAFE findings did not consider sawfish to be high risk, given their EPBC status, Pristis microdon, Pristis clavata and Pristis zijsron were included in the NPF priority species for monitoring (Brewer et al., 2007, MRAG, 2012).

Mandatory reporting by the EGPMF of sawfish interactions has been in place since 2010, therefore it is difficult to identify any changes in abundance or interaction rates with these species. Survival rates of sawfish are unknown (DoF, 2011).

The use of grids has been shown to reduce the capture of narrow sawfish (Anoxypristis cuspidata) in the NPF by 73% (Brewer et al., 2006), The reduction in sawfish catch following the implementation of grids in the EGPMF in 2007 is unquantifiable since there are no data available on sawfish interaction rates prior to grid implementation; however, anecdotal evidence from long standing skippers /crew (Tomlinson, 2014, pers comm.) suggests a similar level of reduction may have been achieved. Other studies found only a slight effect (Griffits et al., 2006) or maintain there is no effect due to entanglement before the TED is contacted (Patterson and Tudman, 2009).

Interactions with sawfish have only been reported by the EGPMF since 2010 and interactions are not reported on a species basis due to issues with identification; therefore, it is difficult to identify any changes in abundance or interaction rates. Fourteen interactions were reported in 2013, although the number of interactions has been variable over the past four years (Kangas et al., 2014).

The DoF is committed to develop and implement an education program for industry to increase awareness of the importance of sawfish protection, promote sensible handling techniques and improve species identification (DoF, 2014b).

Additionally, the Department will engage the appropriate agencies to determine if it is feasible to estimate the population of sea snake and sawfish species within Exmouth Gulf in

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 84

order to improve the risk assessment process and / or determine an estimate of the acceptable level of bycatch in the EGPMF (DoF, 2014b).

Teleosts

Syngnathids and Solenostomids

RA 2008: Low (C1, L2)

RRAMF: Low (3.86)

PSA: Low (2.34, MSC: 88.3)

Various species of syngnathids and solenostomids are also found within the Exmouth Gulf. Syngnathid populations may be particularly susceptible to pressures because their biology is characterised by relatively low population densities, lengthy parental care combined with small brood size limiting their reproductive rate, strict monogamy, sparse distribution, low rates of adult mortality, strong association with preferred habitat, and low mobility and small home ranges (Foster and Vincent, 2004, Vincent, 1996). Most seahorse species are more localised than previously thought, and preserving habitats is one of the most important factors in protecting seahorses (Kuiter, 2001, Shorki, Gladstone and Jelbart, 2009). Syngnathids tend to use only certain parts of suitable habitat; for example, they have been recorded occupying the edges of seagrass beds, leaving large areas unoccupied (Scales, 2010). Within Exmouth Gulf, they primarily occur along seagrass beds and detached algal communities (Kangas et al., 2006)31. All syngnathids and solenostomids are listed as Marine species under the EPBC Act.

Syngnathids and solenostomids are incidentally caught by the EGPMF during trawling activities. Evidence from observers and anecdotal reports from fishers indicates that a low number of syngnathids are caught by the fishery, as many pass through the net mesh. In 2013, one interaction with syngnathids was reported (Kangas et al., 2014).

The distribution of syngnathids appears to be specific to seagrass and detached algal communities, most of which are located in areas closed to trawling, reducing the likelihood of interaction. Thus, it was considered unlikely that even a negligible level of consequence would result as trawling occurs over areas unfavourable to these species (Kangas et al., 2006).

4.4.3.2: ETP species management (P 2.3.2)

There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species that is designed to achieve national and international requirements for protection (Dof, 2014b). This strategy utilises a number of management measures under the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Management Plan 1989 and operational activities (as per the EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019). These include reductions in fishing effort, gear controls, spatial and temporal closures and reporting.

Fishing effort in the EGPMF has changed dramatically since the beginning of the fishery in 1963 (see section 3.4.2). For the 2012 season, the number of fishing boats was reduced from

31 Kangas et al. (2006), op.cit. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 85

nine to six and has since remained at this level. The impact on ETPs was reduced as a consequence of reducing fishing effort (Dof, 2014b).

Gear controls in place to restrict fishing effort include a maximum headrope capacity, which was set in the EGPMF Management Plan at 395.02 metres (216 fathoms). This headrope allocation was originally used in the twin-rig trawl configuration, with a maximum size equal to two 13.72 metre (7.5 fathoms) nets; however, only 292.6 metres (160 fathoms) was utilised in 2012 – 2014 (Dof, 2014b). The move to more efficient quad-rigged gear in 2007 has translated to a reduction in the total length of headrope used in the fishery, which in turn translates to fewer gear interactions between net and ETP species (Kangas et al., 2014).

Gear controls in place that are linked to ETP interaction and reduction include:

 the mandatory use of TEDs (grids) in all nets, and

 the mandatory use of FEDs (square mesh panels) in all nets.

The use of grids and square-mesh panels are required in all prawn trawl fisheries in WA, with mandatory implementation in the EGPMF in 2002/03. During BRD trials in 2000 – 2001, grids were found to exclude 95 – 100 % of large animals, including sharks (greater than 1.5 m in length) and turtles (Kangas and Thomson, 2004). The grids were not found to reduce the catch levels of sea snakes, as they can pass through the gird bars and into the cod end (Kangas and Thomson, 2004); however, openings in the tops of nets (i.e. FEDs) have been shown to be successful in reducing the incidental capture of sea snakes by 50 % in other fisheries, such as NPF (Heales et al., 2008, Milton, Fry and Dell, 2009)).

In 2002/03 several BRDs were implemented in the fishery, namely grids and FEDs (DoF, 2014b). For a description of BRD trials see section 3.4.2.

In 2005, representatives from the United States State Department (National Marine Fisheries Service - NMFS) assessed the grid arrangement used in Exmouth Gulf and found it to be compliant with the US TED (grid) regulations in place at the time (DoF, 2014b). Re- assessment by the NMFS occurred in August 2014 and a number of concerns were raised:

 The relatively small size of the grids, especially with the larger 8 fathom nets,

 The presence of an internal netting ramp upstream of the grid, and

 The absence of sufficient buoyancy in the form of floats.

The operator in the EGMPF is presently implementing these changes (DoF, 2014b).

Since 1978 a system of spatial and temporal closures has been used in the management of the EGPMF. The initial nursery area (permanently closed to trawling) for the target species was extended in 1986 and again in 1990, and now it covers vast inshore seagrass areas (see Figure 1) used by turtles as feeding grounds and acts as a significant refuge for syngnathids and solenostomids (DoF, 2014b).

Apart from managing target species in the EGPMF, the spatial and temporal management regime in the fishery has significantly reduced the area and time available for fishing, thereby

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 86

affording additional protection to benthic habitats and as a result providing sanctuary for a number of vulnerable species (DoF, 2014b).

The spatial and temporal measures in place are considered sufficient to minimise impacts from fishing on vulnerable species. In Exmouth Gulf, less than 40 % of the fishery area is open to trawling (Sporer et al., 2013). The limited spatial extent of fishing activities allows for adequate areas of refuge for ETP species throughout the Gulf. Additionally, as trawling occurs over sand / mud substrates, the trawl nets are spatially separated from important habitats for many ETP species, with many of these habitats also protected in permanent fishery closures (Kangas et al., 2014).

Compliance with management arrangements is conducted by Departmental Fisheries and Marine Officers (FMOs) using at-sea and landing inspections. The use of VMS also helps the Department monitor vessel location and speed, increasing compliance with spatial and temporal closures (Kangas et al., 2014).

There is a continual monitoring and improvement process to minimise the impacts of the trawl gear in the EGPMF. This was first facilitated through the application of the Bycatch Reduction Plan matrix developed by the Department in 2010 for all trawl fisheries in WA, which has now been replaced by the Bycatch Action Plan 2014-2018. Within the EGPMF, this includes the use and continued trialling of grids and FEDs, the use of hopper sorting systems, monitoring seasonal and / or spatial closures and ongoing monitoring of new bycatch reduction strategies and technologies (Kangas et al., 2014). The system is underlined by ETP logbook reporting and, as stated earlier, facilitated by annual awareness programmes. These measures have been used successfully in similar fisheries, but in other fisheries, the monitoring of impacts is supported by higher levels of reporting, which include some form of observer coverage (Kangas et al., 2014).

The BAP stipulates that if future monitoring indicates a need to reduce trawl impacts on ETP species in Exmouth Gulf, this may be achieved through extending the use of current management tools, such as spatial and temporal closures, targeted harvesting strategies to optimise expenditure of effort, a reduction in overall fishing effort and the use of mechanical or other devices, such as BRDs and hoppers / handling techniques (DoF, 2014b).

The EGPMF uses a number of measures to physically reduce direct ETP species interactions and increase the survival of captured ETP species, primarily through the use of primary and secondary BRDs (i.e. grids and square mesh panels). The measures are considered to work based on the interaction rates reported in the fishery, which continue to be very low (Kangas et al., 2014) (see Table 10).

Specific management actions

Marine Mammals

Due to the spatial and temporal closures in place the potential for capture of marine mammals in this fishery is largely diminished. These closed areas provide substantial areas of refuge, particularly over important habitats, such as seagrass (DoF, 2014b).

The move to more efficient quad-rigged gear in 2007 has translated to a reduction in the total length of headrope used in the fishery, which in turn translates to fewer gear interactions

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 87

between net and ETP species. A similar argument also stands for the voluntary reduction in vessel numbers in 2012 from nine to six (DoF, 2014b).

Turtles

Turtle bycatch mitigation has been successfully addressed with the introduction of the mandatory use of turtle exclusion devices (TEDs / grids) in 2002/03. These grids have shown to be effective in the fishery with a 95 – 100% reduction in turtle bycatch (Kangas and Thomson, 2004). Additional benefits include a reduction in the numbers of rays by 56% (Kangas & Thomson 2004). The systems are now very effective at minimising turtle captures (DoF, 2014b).

Sawfish

The use of grids has been shown to reduce the capture of narrow sawfish (Anoxypristis cuspidata) in the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF) by 73% (Brewer et al., 2006). However, other studies found only a slight effect (Griffits et al., 2006) or maintain there is no effect due to entanglement before the TED is contacted (Patterson and Tudman, 2009). The reduction in sawfish landings following the implementation of grids in the EGPMF in 2007 is unquantifiable since there are no data available on sawfish interaction rates prior to grid implementation. However, anecdotal evidence from long standing skippers/crew suggests a similar level of reduction may have been achieved (Kangas et al., 2014).

Sea snakes Fish exclusion devices (FEDs; i.e. a single panel of square mesh located in the top of the net posterior [downstream] to the grid) have been a statutory requirement in the EGPMF since 2002/03. These devices, in combination with grids, have been successful in reducing the incidental capture of sea snakes by as much as 50% during experimental trials in 1995 (Brewer et al., 1998), although later testing indicated only a five per cent reduction (Brewer et al., 2006). Fisheye bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) have also shown very promising results elsewhere in the NPF, with a 43% reduction being reported (Heales et al., 2008). The recent introduction of “fish-eyes” into the Queensland prawn trawl fishery is also assessed in Courtney, et al, 2010. In EGPMF skippers began trialling BRD gear in 2001, in conjunction with the change from twin (two 7.5 fathom nets) to quad (four 4.5 fathom nets) trawl gear. Two BRDs (i.e. Popeye and Fitti) were purchased from Queensland for trialling; bottom opening grids were also trialled during 2001, but some prawn losses were experienced, and boats moved to trialling top-opening grids in the 2002 season (Kangas and Thomson, 2004).

Grids have also been shown to increase sea snake survival in the NPF by reducing the weight of the total (all species) catch in the net (Wassenberg, 2001). The results of a study by Milton et al. (2009) in the NPF suggests that the short shot times (i.e. 60 – 180 minutes) in the EGPMF are also likely to increase the survival of captured sea snakes. Kangas et al. (2006) suggest that EGPMF shot times are 60 - 200 minutes. Burke et al (2012) concluded that the popeye fishbox at 70 meshes resulted in an 87% reduction in the number of sea snakes captured. Further testing may reveal that other devices (e.g. Yarrow Fisheye Bycatch Reduction Device) (Heales et al., 2008) are more appropriate for the selectivity of sea snakes in Exmouth Gulf (Wakeford, pers com, Nov 2014).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 88

4.4.3.3: ETP Species Information (P 2.3.3)

All fishers are required to report ETP interactions in statutory daily logbooks. In order to improve reporting accuracy, fishers have been provided with a Protected Marine Species Identification Guide (National Heritage Trust, 2005), which contains a picture and brief description of relevant protected species, specific details to include in interactions reports and current contact details for interaction reports (Kangas et al., 2014).

Since 2010, there has been a focus on improving ETP species reporting in the EGPMF, with many fishers now including species not previously recorded (e.g. sawfish) and return status when known. This information is monitored by the Department and is considered to be sufficient to quantitatively estimate the interactions of ETP species with a high degree of certainty (Kangas et al., 2014). .

The lack of information on the impacts of the EGPMF on species specific sea snake and sawfish populations in Exmouth Gulf is an issue for the fishery. The EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 - 2019 (BAP), sets out a proposed work plan for future / ongoing monitoring and research (DoF 2014b). Data collection actions commenced from August 2014, just, predating the assessment site visit held in Sepetember 2014. The BAP makes provision for fishery dependent and fishery independent data collection. Fishery Fishery Dependent data includes the following:  Daily logbook reporting of all protected species interactions by the Exmouth fishing fleet since 2004. Includes sea snakes (reporting on alive or dead status since 2010), seahorses, turtles, sawfish, and a section for any other protected species.  Purchase of camera equipment in May 2015 for on-board recording of protected species interactions and monitoring of bycatch diversity and quantity. This equipment will be established on one vessel and will be in operation during the normal fishing season (sampling regime yet to be fully determined).  Plans in place to introduce a systematic bycatch sampling regime involving the Exmouth fleet in the latter part of 2015. Frozen bycatch samples collected from predetermined sites to be sent down from Kailis and analysed at the DOF’s Hillarys research facility.

Fishery independent (recruitment and spawning stock surveys) includes the following:  Recording of all protected species captures on surveys since 1999. The number of sea snakes, sawfish, turtles, and other protected species, as well the location, time, depth, weather conditions, moon phase, sea temperature, and gear efficiency at time of capture are noted.  Where possible, recording of the status of the animal at capture (alive or dead) and the release procedure, if applicable (e.g. sawfish), on all surveys since 2005.  Photographs of all sea snakes, sawfish, and turtles captured on all surveys since August 2014. Photo log containing shot information and species-level identification of all photographed captures since August 2014.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 89

 Photographs of the complete catch on the sorting tables, prior to sorting, on most shots for all surveys since August 2014. Gives an indication of bycatch quantity per shot and site, as well as allowing species identification.

This EGPMF BAP 2014-2019 is also designed to address risks to non-target species identified in the most recent EPBC assessment (WTO export approval) which was in 2013 A key issue raised by DoE was the uncertainty in recording information on ETP species and whether the risk to specific marine communities in the EGPMF were acceptable or not. Consequently, the key elements of the BAP relating to ETPs include better reporting of interactions with sea snakes and sawfish, focussing on species identification and indication of condition status (DoF, 2014b).

An earlier assessment of ETP species catches was undertaken in 2002/2003 but monitoring has been restricted to logbook reporting for all ETP species.

BAP 2014 -2019 makes the provision that quantitative ERAs will be used to assess the fisheries-induced risks to selected bycatch and ETP species following the collection of new data collated through. It also maintains that the continued development and undertaking of ERAs should ensure targeted measures can be developed to address remaining ecological risks in the EGPMF. Also that risk assessments are to be repeated where new species-specific data may improve the assessment for species already identified as ‘high-risk’ or following any major change to fishing gear or effort distribution patterns DoF, 2014b). The BAP also proposes to set reference levels, triggers and management actions if required based on the risk assessment outcomes DoF, 2014b).

Previous research in the fishery has focused on reducing the capture of large ETP species, such as sea turtles, through the implementation of grids in trawl nets (Kangas and Thomson, 2004). However, grids have not been shown to significantly reduce the catch of sea snakes to acceptable levels in this fishery. Further, there is limited information on sea snake populations within Exmouth Gulf or on the impact of the fishery on these populations. In order to improve understanding, the Department proposes to develop and implement an education program for industry to increase awareness of the importance of sea snake and sawfish protection, promote sensible handling techniques and improve species identification through training in sea snake identification to the species level. This would form part of the implementation of a Crew-member observer program (CMOP) (DoF, 2014b).

Additionally, the Department will engage the appropriate agencies to determine if it is feasible to estimate the population of sea snake and sawfish species within Exmouth Gulf in order to improve the risk assessment process and / or determine an estimate of the acceptable level of bycatch in the EGPMF (DoF, 2014b).

4.4.4: Habitats (P 2.4) 4.4.4.1: Outcome status (P 2.4.1) The effects of trawling on benthic and demersal habitats are complex and include mortality, short-term impacts and long-term modification impacts. If the trawling intensity is frequent and the productivity and resiliency of the affected habitats is low, recovery may take a long time and ecosystem functions may be affected. In EGPMF habitat impacts associated with trawling for prawns are expected to be mainly on benthic habitats (DoF, 2014a). Baseline information on the habitat types and the associated benthic communities is available from a MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 90

biodiversity survey undertaken in 2002-2004 (Kangas et al., 2007), and habitat mapping based on a comprehensive collation of existing information and completed with data from a fieldwork survey from 2002 (Lyne et al.,2006). Trawling by vessels in the EGPMF generally occurs in approximately 30 % of Exmouth Gulf each season, and in 2013, ~ 22 % of the Gulf was trawled (247 nm2). The trawling effort is focused predominantly on mud and sand habitats in the deeper, central and north-western parts of Exmouth Gulf. Temporal and spatial closures are strategically used during the fishing season as to allow communities of trawled areas to recover. Permanent closures have been designed in part to protect nursery areas, but also vulnerable habitats. Fishing gear restrictions have also, in part, been set to minimize the impact on benthic assemblages, including sponges and other fauna (Kangas et al., 2014).

Exmouth Gulf Overview

Exmouth Gulf is the area comprising a north-eastward extension emanating from North West Cape, a slight south-westward extension along Ningaloo, the eastern and western coastal marine banks of the Gulf up to Locker Point (Lyne et al., 2006). It is distinguished as a major tropical gulf/embayment, one of the largest along the West Australian coast, with a relatively warm and hypersaline southern bay (Lyne et al., 2006). The Gulf supports main commercial fisheries for prawn that rely upon its distinctive eastern and southern mangals, tidal flats and mudflats (Lyne et al., 2006). The western shore comprises dune-backed beaches and supports hard corals south of North West Cape to the Bay of Rest (Lyne et al., 2006). A diverse and rich suite of floral and faunal elements (macroalgae, seagrasses, molluscs, sea whips/sea pens) are found along the northeastern extension of the Gulf which is included as part of the Exmouth Gulf unit (Lyne et al., 2006).

Ningaloo Conservation Zone

The northern part of the Ningaloo Conservation Zone extends into the northwestern corner of the Gulf and it has an important conservational value (Figure 25). Ningaloo Coast is a World Heritage Area, which supports a variety of rare species that contribute to the exceptional biodiversity of the marine and terrestrial site (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1369/).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 91

Figure 25. The overlapping (red circle) of Ningaloo World Heritage Zone and EGPMF. Trawling is permitted in the General Use Area32 (map after Schonberg, 2010).

Dense and extensive filter feeding communities dominated by demosponges, rich in both biomass and diversity (Schönberg, 2010) were recently discovered along the Ningaloo Coast. A subsample of dominant taxa determined by fresh weight yielded 155 different demosponge species from over 350 transects between 18-102 m depth. Data from three successive years of sampling indicated that only a few species were ubiquitous, suggesting that as minor species are identified the cumulative species list will significantly exceed the present species record (Schönberg, 2010). This implies greatly enhanced biodiversity values associated with Ningaloo Marine Park, complementing records attributed to the shallow coral reef environment. The richness of the observed filter feeding communities adds additional weight to the increasing perception of Australia as a global hotspot for Porifera biodiversity (Schönberg, 2010).

Sponges are a very important component of benthic ecosystems but poorly understood. As sessile organisms, sponges are particularly susceptible to damage by bottom trawling, and their destruction, along with other sessile benthos, may be the major effect of demersal trawls. Sponges occur in many different forms and in all oceans from the intertidal zone to the deep sea, and >15 000 species of living sponges exist (Hooper and Van Soest 2002 in Dixon, Sorokin and Currie, 2014). Sponge species can be distinguished from each other only by their spicule morphology, skeletal layout, and cell type (Boury-Esnault & Rutzler 1997 in Dixon, Sorokin and Currie, 2014). This makes species identification when they are caught in trawl nets, very difficult. Sponges have important and often under-appreciated functions in the marine environment (Bell 2008 in Dixon, Sorokin and Currie, 2014). These functions include: • Substrate stabilisation and consolidation. • Coupling between the benthic and pelagic areas (e.g. carbon, silicon and nitrogen cycling). • Habitat formation, i.e. food and shelter for other organisms, and importantly, habitat for the juveniles and adults of some commercial species (Auster et al. 1996). Support for diverse faunal assemblages that are important prey for some organism

The immense filtering properties of sponges can also potentially provide natural bioremediation of microorganism concentrations in the water caused by aquaculture and pollution (Gifford et al. 2007 in Dixon, Sorokin and Currie, 2014). Sponges filter organic matter and bacteria from the water column and are also host to microorganisms including cyanobacteria, bacteria and zooxanthellae from which they obtain nutrients. As they are sessile filter feeders they also flourish in areas of high current, although large upright sponges that cannot withstand strong currents are found in calmer deeper waters. Sponges are attached to firm substrates, or weld shell fragments into their base in soft sediments, or have anchoring spicules. They can also bore into calcareous material and are acknowledged as significant contributors to bio-erosion and calcium recycling (Hooper 2005 in Dixon, Sorokin and Currie, 2014).

Filter communities, including sponges, were found around Bundegi Reef and it appears that there may be a very small overlap with the trawling area R1, an important area for prawn catches, especially western king prawn. Figure 26 shows the distribution of filter feeding

32 DoF 2014c, op. cit. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 92

communities in the northern part of the Exmouth Gulf (a) (Schönberg, 2010) and the distribution of the western king prawn catch in 2011 (b) (Kangas et al, 2014).

Figure 26. The distribution of recently found filter b feeding communities in the northern part of Exmouth Gulf (a) (Schönberg, 2010) and western king prawn catches in 2011 (b) (Kangas et al., 2014)

Exmouth sponge fauna is poorly known but data from Kangas (2007) biodiversity survey shows 59 species belonging to 22 families. Out of the 59 sponge species found, 13 were identified to species. However there is no information about the relative abundance of each species (Kangas et al., 2007).

Exmouth Gulf outside of the Ningaloo Conservation Zone

The western shore is comprised of dune-backed beaches and sandy, shallow subtidal regions with a few rocky outcrops. In contrast, extensive muddy salt flats, up to 10 km wide, border the southern and eastern shores of the Gulf (McCook, Klumpp and McKinnon, 2005).The shallows, particularly in the southern region, have very little vegetation, and some areas are completely bare and consist only of sand and gravel (Morrioson et al., 2003). The intertidal mudflats are lined with dense mangrove stands, mainly Avicennia and Rhizophora spp., which make up one of the largest mangals in WA (Johnstone, 1990, Wilson, 1994, in Morrison et al., 2003). The mangrove stands are the most extensive along the eastern shores of the Gulf (Johnstone, 1990, in Morrison et al., 2003).

In the shallow waters of the Gulf fronting the mangroves, extensive seagrass beds provide feeding habitats for turtles and dugongs33. All of the seagrass species found in the Gulf are of a tropical distribution and are found in very low abundances, rarely exceeding 5 – 10 % cover. Small amounts of algae (e.g. Caulerpa, Halimeda, Udotea and Penicillus spp.) have

33 Wilson, 1994, op.cit. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 93

been found mixed with these seagrass beds, and large quantities of filamentous turfs, ephemeral epiphytes and perennial macrophytes, such as Sargassum spp., are also frequently found attached to or tangled with the seagrasses. In some places, particularly the central eastern coast, the cover and biomass of these algae exceed that of the seagrasses. On the west coast, seagrasses are more patchily distributed and do not occur below eight metres, although brown algae, e.g. Sargassum spp., are present down to 10 m (McCook et al., 1995). The low abundance of seagrass within the Gulf has been attributed to the lack of suitable substrate, with observed substrate consisting of either hard or mobile coarse sediments (McCook et al., 1995). Despite the low seagrass abundance, Exmouth Gulf is a highly productive ecosystem, with macroalgae, phytoplankton and salt-flat cyanobacteria the main primary producers (McCook et al., 1995).

Extensive vegetated (ephemeral seagrasses, sponges and macroalgae) shallow banks, extending predominantly south of Hope Point on the eastern coast of the Gulf, can be found generally 0.5 – 1.5 m below mean sea level and support the majority of marine fauna in the area (Straits Salt, Pty Ltd., 2006). These banks are a key component for the life cycle of prawns, and trawling is prohibited in the southern and eastern areas of the Gulf to protect this important nursery area (Kangas et al., 2014).

The warm waters of the Leeuwin Current affect the offshore waters of Exmouth Gulf, particularly during strong winter flows. This warm current maintains elevated water temperatures, depressed levels of dissolved nutrients and particle concentrations, and inhibits the growth of macroalgae (Hatcher, 1991). Consequently fisheries production relies on nutrient sources from benthic habitats in near-shore waters, rather than from oceanic ecosystems (Lenanton et al.1991).

The majority of the flora and fauna in the Gulf are tropical, but some subtropical and temperate species are also present (Hutchins, 1994). Limited information is available on the extent and type of soft sediment that covers a large part of the central seabed in Exmouth Gulf or its associated fauna. Apache Energy (1998) report that soft sediment regions above 20 m depth outside commercial trawl areas have extensive invertebrate communities, of which the most abundant are echinoderms including sand dollars, Diadema urchins, heart urchins and crinoids, plus some areas have abundant solitary corals (Apache Northwest Pty Ltd., 1998).

Habitat Mapping

Habitat data for the North West Shelf region from North West Cape to Port Hedland, including Exmouth Gulf has been integrated to produce maps and descriptions of key ecosystems in the region as part of the North West Shelf Joint Environmental Management Study (Lyne et al., 2006). Habitat maps were derived mainly from already existing information, but survey fieldwork was also undertaken where needed to fill critical gaps in spatial coverage (Lyne et al., 2006).

Biogeomorphic units were developed for the coastal region between North West Cape and the De Grey River. Three levels of differentiation were derived for the study region based on analyses of the existing information for the coastal geomorphology of the region (Lyne et al.,, 2006).

• Level 3A covers broad regional suites of geomorphic units, which were derived from the expert interview and delphic analysis processes; MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 94

• Level 3B covers geomorphic sub units, of which nine distinct types were identified. These units occur systematically across the mapped region;

• Level 3C units comprise the elemental structure of the Level 3B units. They occur across the landscape from landward to seaward in the variety of parent units (Level 1 – Provinces and Level 2 – Bioms) (Lyne et al., 2006).

Level 3A units and level 3B and 3C units of Exmouth Gulf are presented in Table 17 and Table 18 respectively and are illustrated in Figure 27 and Figure 28.

Table 17. Level 3A biogeomorphological units identified by Lyne et al. (2006) within Exmouth Gulf

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 95

Figure 27. Level 3A biogeomorphological units identified by Lyne et al., 2006. Table 18. Level 3B and 3C biogeomorphological units, identified by Lyne et al. (2006) within Exmouth Gulf

Geographic Unit Description Beach – Dune Sandy beaches or dune shorelines above the mean water level (does not differentiate sandy substrate in the marine environment) Sand flats – tidal Landward extent of tidal zone inundated only at high tide or during flats elevated tidal events such as cyclones Mud and tidal flats Tidally inundated; intertidal zone Mangroves Occurrence of mangroves or mangals. Mangroves recognised as unique subset of the mud and tidal flats Embayment – Shallow water enclosed by an embayment that is not exposed at low subtidal zone tide Tidal channel Tidal drainage channel/s that incise tidal flats and may extend inland (subtidal) to form tidal creeks through coastal tidal or mud flats Nearshore waters Undifferentiated shallow nearshore and coastal waters which are not (< 5 m) tidally exposed Nearshore Reef Areas identified as reef, adjacent (connected either directly or adjacent to mudflats) to the mainland coastline or islands Offshore waters Offshore waters between 5 and 10 m depth; includes water (5 – 10 m) surrounded by deeper water (> 10 m) Offshore waters Offshore waters between 10 and 20 m depth (10 – 20 m) Shallow island Shallow, intertidal waters adjacent to islands. Less than 5 m depth. fringe Offshore waters Shallow water in areas deeper than 5 m which are less than 5 m < 5 m (island, deep; may represent shoals or reefs on navigation charts and are not shoal) surrounding or adjacent to islands

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 96

Figure 28. Level 3B and 3C biogeomorphological units identified by Lyne et al., 2006.

Additional information was obtained on marine habitats in some areas, which allowed for the extension of the hierarchical classification to Level 4 (primary biotopes or habitats) (Lyne et al., 2006). This information was compiled from existing habitat mapping and inferred where data did not exist (Lyne et al., 2006) (Figure 29).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 97

Figure 29. Primary biotopes of Exmouth Gulf region (Source: Lyne et al. 2006)

Considering this habitat mapping and the map of EGPMF, most of the trawling activity occurs in the Central Unit of Exmouth Gulf (3A) which corresponds with offshore waters 5- 10 metres and offshore waters 10-20 metres (3B) and, most of the trawled area has a sandy bottom. For a comparison, a map of the fishery’s boundaries is provided below in Figure 30.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 98

Figure 30. Main fishery boundaries and management areas of the EGPMF (Kangas and Morrison, 2006)

While the mapping of benthic habitats is very important and gives a baseline for future monitoring and management, research suggest that benthic habitats are very dynamic and continuously change under natural conditions and anthropogenic pressure. Thus continuous monitoring is important to evaluate the changes in the structure of benthic macrophyte and invertebrate habitats, which indicate the quality of coastal water (Vahtmäe et al., 2012). A large-scale analysis of the spatial patterns of coastal marine habitats makes it possible to adequately estimate the status of valuable coastal marine habitats, provide better evidence for environmental changes, and describe the processes behind the changes. Knowing the spatial distribution of benthic habitats is important from the coastal management point of view (Vahtmäe et al., 2012), Ongoing monitoring of benthic habitats is missing in Exmouth Gulf.

Trawling Effects on Benthic Communities

The effects of trawling on benthic community are well documented. Bottom trawling has widespread impacts on benthic communities and habitats. While the direct impacts of trawl disturbances on benthic communities have been extensively studied, the consequences from long-term disturbances are less well understood (Hinz, Prieto and Kaiser, 2009). It is known that mobile fishing gear alters the physical structure of benthic habitats (Auster et al., 1996). Complexity is reduced by direct removal of biogenic (sponges, hydroids, bryozoans, amphipod tubes, shell aggregates) and sedimentary structures (sand waves, depressions) (Kangas et al., 2007). As a result, biodiversity of the fauna decreases, but also the abundance of opportunistic species increases (Engel and Kvitek, 1998).

For Exmouth Gulf, baseline data of faunal abundance and composition in areas that are both currently open to trawling and adjacent areas closed to trawling is available from an FRDC- funded study conducted in 2004 (Kangas et al., 2007). This information was collected as part

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 99

of a project to develop biodiversity and habitat monitoring systems for key trawl fisheries in WA. The study found a highly diverse fish and invertebrate community of bycatch species with 301 species of fish and 362 species of invertebrates. 10-20 species of fish represent almost 90% of the fish catch while 10-15 species of invertebrates represent 90% of invertebrate catch with prawns and crabs being the most dominant (Kangas et al., 2007).

There was no significant seasonal decline for fish species abundance (Figure 31, left panel) within the Gulf, although there was a seasonal decline in fish species richness (Figure 32, left panel). All other biodiversity measures were similar throughout the year. For invertebrate species, there was a significant seasonal decline in abundance between the start, middle and end of the 2004 season for both trawled and untrawled (Figure 32, right panel) (Kangas et al., 2007).

Figure 31. Seasonal abundance in trawled and untrawled sites in Exmouth Gulf (Kangas and Morrison, 2006)

Figure 32. Seasonal species richness in trawled and untrawled sites in Exmouth Gulf (Kangas and Morrison, 2006)

No significant differences were found for pooled data between trawled and untrawled sites in Exmouth Gulf and Onslow Area 1 with respect to fish and invertebrate abundance, species richness, evenness or diversity. Some spatial differences were seen, although in Exmouth Gulf there was low correlation between faunal assemblages and depth, temperature and salinity, most likely due to the stable environmental regime throughout the Gulf (Kangas et al. 2007).

Depletion experiments were also conducted in Shark Bay where a similar prawn trawl fishery occurs. Results indicated that demersal prawn trawling has variable impacts on species on trawl grounds and that these impacts can differ for a single species between different time periods. For a few fish species, it was obvious that movement into the experimental area occurred during the experiment with significant increases in abundance over consecutive

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 100

days, instead of an expected decline. For several invertebrate species their abundance also increased, possibly due to the trawl disturbance making them more catchable (Kangas et al., 2007).

The results indicated that some fish and invertebrate species were relatively vulnerable to trawl gear. These had depletion rates of greater than 50% over the four nights of the experiments and included seven fish species and sponges. Of the highly ‘catchable’ species, the majority occurred in both trawled and untrawled areas with only three species in less than 70% of sites sampled in Shark Bay. The least common were sponges that were found in 50% of sites overall and these could not all be identified to species. There was, however, no significant difference between the abundance of ‘sponges’ between trawled and untrawled areas. Therefore although some localised depletion may occur in areas of intensive fishing, other areas with no or very little trawling also have these species. Movement and potential for recruitment from unaffected sites would be likely to re-populate depleted areas (Kangas et al., 2007).

As the awareness of the conservational value of the sponges in World Heritage Area was raised (Schönberg, 2010), and sponges’ vulnerability to trawling is evident, management measures are necessary to minimise the impact.

Depletion experiments undertaken in Shark Bay during 2003-2004 biodiversity survey showed spong vulnerability to trawling. In February 2003 no sponges were sampled in the experimental area, however in June 2003, nine sponges were sampled on the first night of the experiment, these sponges tended to be mound-like and would have been easily caught by prawn trawl nets. On the second night, five sponges were sampled, with two on the third night and none on the fourth night (Kangas et al., 2007). It appears that sponges with this kind of morphology were caught by trawl nets and are quite vulnerable. It may be that other more flexible, or low profile sponge species were less impacted by trawling but this cannot be verified from Kangas’ experiment as no video footage was attempted during the experiment (Kangas et al., 2007). Sainsbury et al. (1992) used a video camera to assess the impact on sponges by a fish trawl on the North West (NW) Shelf of Australia. Because many sponges passed under the net, the fate of those sponges is usually unknown. However, where the fate of the impact was known, only 10% of sponges remained attached, the remaining 90% were detached from the seabed. Other research (Moran and Stephenson, 2000), in the NW Shelf and found that fish trawl removed approximately 15.5% of the macrobenthos on a single pass. The majority of the macrobenthos were sponges (Moran, pers. comm., in Kangas et al., 2007).

Otter trawl systems, similar to those used in the EGPMF, have been demonstrated to have a lower impact relative to other forms of dredging and trawling (Collie et al., 2000). The trawl gear is also configured in a manner that largely precludes the capture of invertebrate species living on or in the substrate. The ground chain attached to the net is designed to skim over the sand instead of digging into the seafloor, and immobile and slow-moving benthic organisms are able to avoid capture through a gap (~ 150 mm) between the ground chain and footrope. Some large immobile organisms, i.e. sponges, may be flicked up into the water column by the ground chain and subsequently captured in the net; however, the grids in place have been shown to reduce the capture of sponges in the nets by 95 % (Kangas and Thomson, 2004) but this does not necessarily reduces the impact (sponges may still disloged).

Some sponges are adapted to fragmentation, with the pieces subsequently growing into numerous individuals, resulting in a clumping phenomenon that can occur naturally after MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 101

storms (Battershill & Bergquist 1990). It is probable that damage from trawling may have a similar effect, resulting in aggregations of sponge species (Dixon et al., 2014). Asexual multiplication through fragmentation of erect branching sponges is also an important dissemination strategy for certain species (Wulff, 1991). These finding suggest that the impact of trawling is different for different species, with some species negatively affected and others possibly benefitting.

Nevertheless, if interactions are evident, there is some evidence that some sponges, substrate detachment mean mortality. Halichondria panacea is unlikely to survive when detached and displaced unless the location is very sheltered from disturbing conditions such as wave action (http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesbenchmarks.php?speciesID=3438). Wulff (2008) found that for some sponges survival is 30% for loose fragments during the year after detachment in their habitat. These suggest that a habitat strategy should include monitoring of any interaction with sponge gardens and if so, research into the impact of trawling on newly found sponge gardens in Exmouth Gulf. The current strategy focuses on monitoring footprint, as opposed to specific impact on fauna, and as such can only be assessed in the context of maintaining footprint, but not its impact on benthic habitats, which might include some intearctions with sponge beds.

It is also noted that some areas of high biodiversity such as marginal reefs and sponge gardens can be found within trawlable areas but these may not be permanent structures given the high natural environmental disturbance regime (e.g., storm surges, tides, flooding and cyclones). However, experiments in the NPF have indicated that sessile or slow-moving taxa recover from the effects of intensive trawling within 6-12 months; this suggests that the benthic habitats recover in a similar timeframe (Haywood, 2010).

Risk Assessments

Impact on benthic habitats was one of the issues identified for Exmouth Gulf Fishery in the preliminary ERA workshop with external stakeholders (Kangas et al., 2007). The internal ERA from 2002 and the revision from 2008 concluded that the EGPMF is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure or function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Approximately 30 % of Exmouth Gulf is trawled annually by the EGPMF (Table 19), with 21.7 % (247.1 nm2) of the Gulf trawled in 2013. There is a large permanent spatial closure in the southern and eastern areas of the Gulf covering a designated prawn nursery area. This nursery area covers 344 nm2, approximately 28 % of the Gulf (Morrison et al. 2003).

Table 19. Annual area (nm2) and per cent of permitted trawl area and whole fishery area trawled by the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery for 2006 – 2013.

Year nm2 Percent of Permitted Percent of Whole Fishery Trawl Area 2006 354 43.8 31.1 2007 307.3 38.1 27 2008 368.8 45.7 32.4 2009 311.3 38.6 27.3 2010 340.3 42.1 29.9 2011 334.8 41.5 29.4 2012 172.7 33.9 24 2013 247.1 30.6 21.7

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 102

Benthic habitats in the trawl grounds are predominantly mud and sand bottom, which are naturally dynamic as a result of environmental influences (Kangas et al., 2007). Sediment samples from Exmouth Gulf taken for the biodiversity survey in 2004 (Kangas et al., 2007) suggest, according to Wentworth grain size classification (Figure 33), that most trawling activity occurs on sandy bottoms with coarse sand. At a visual inspection of the particle size charts in Kangas et al., only 5 sites (1, 16, 22, 9, 18) had a higher proportion of fine particles and these are mostly outside of the trawling grounds or are lightly trawled (Figure 34) (Kangas et al., 2007). If the samples are representative for the whole trawling area, EGPMF’s fishing activity occurs on coarse sand and recent research (Queirós, et al. (2006), Van Denderen et al. (2014), shows that trawling impact on benthic communities from coarse sands is likely to be minimal.

Figure 33. Wentworth Grain Classification (accessed at http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/charts/wentworth-1922-grain- size.html)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 103

Figure 34. Sampling sites in Exmouth Gulf and Onslow Area 1 used by Kangas et al. (2007)

ERA 2008 Results (reproduced from DoF, 2009)

Impact to mud/sand habitat (C2 L2 Low - no change to risk rating)

After review, the assessed risk is to remain 'low' largely due to the fact that the functional trawl area is small compared to the whole area of Exmouth Gulf. In addition, in recent years there has been a further reduction of fishing effort and the size of trawl grounds.

Impact to coral/sponge habitat (C1 L5 Low - no change to risk rating)

After review, the assessed risk is to remain 'low' largely due to no expansion of trawled areas and the intent is to excise identified sensitive areas (that are not trawled currently) from the fishery. While Ningaloo Reef is the largest continuous reef in WA it does not extend into the trawl grounds of the Fishery; however, there are small hard coral outcrops surrounding islands in the northeast region of the Fishery. Current estimates of the quantity of soft coral and sponge habitat within Exmouth Gulf suggest that there are only relatively small amounts

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 104

in the trawlable areas. However, for this fishery it is not evident that trawling occurs or has extended into these small amounts of sensitive areas.

Current: Current estimates of the area trawled indicate no expansion of trawled area within the permitted trawl area. The area trawled has remained between 20-40% of the permitted area between 2002 and 2007.

Trawling is only allowed within restricted areas to provide protection for sensitive prawn nursery areas, which coincidentally also affords protection to other habitats including coral and sponge habitats. Vessels have a VMS operating throughout the season that logs the position of vessels to ensure that trawling does not occur outside permitted areas.

Future: Fishing effort and distribution will be monitored to ensure that no more expansion to the trawl area occurs. Prior to the next review, it is also intended for the Department's Research Division to identify sensitive ground in the Fishery and implement further closures to protect these areas from trawling where possible.

Actions if Performance Limit is exceeded: If it is determined from future surveys that more of the coral and sponge habitat is contained within the legislated trawlable area, the trawl boundaries may be revised.

Accordingly the impact on coral and sponge habitat has been retained as 'low' risk

Impact to the macro-algal and seagrass habitats (CO L5 Negligible - no change to risk rating)

After review, the assessed risk is to remain 'negligible' because the macro-algal and seagrass habitats in Exmouth Gulf are largely protected as a result of permanently closed areas.

Outcome: Considering the results of Kangas et al. (2007), biodiversity studies and Lyne et al. (2006) habitat mapping, together with the ERA 2008 and new research findings (Queirós, et al. (2006), Van Denderen et al. (2014), it is likely to not reduce habitat structure or function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. There is still a high amount of uncertainty because no recent data about the status of the benthic communities in Exmouth Gulf is yet available. This is especially important for the fact that new sponge gardens where found at the north-western corner of the Gulf, in the World Heritage Area. 4.4.4.2: Habitat management (P 2.4.2) There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the EGPMF on benthic habitats. This strategy utilises a number of measures in place under the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Management Plan 1989 and operational activities (as per the EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019). Some of these measures relate to protection of nursery grounds, which arguably provide the same benefits to macro algal beds and coral habitats (Figure 17) and others are specifically related to reducing habitat impact through gear controls. Gear controls in place to restrict fishing effort include a maximum headrope capacity, which was set in the EGPMF Management Plan at 395.02 metres (216 fathoms). This headrope allocation was originally used in the twin-rig trawl configuration, with a maximum size equal to two 13.72 metre (7.5 fathoms) nets; however, only 292.6 metres (160 fathoms) was utilised in 2012 – 2014. Gear controls in place that are linked to habitat and benthic communities’ protection include:

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 105

 a maximum ground chain link diameter (10 mm) to address the impact the chain has on benthic habitat and non-target species,  a maximum otter board height to restrict the vertical net opening and facilitate escapement of non-target species over the top of the net,  a maximum board length to address shoe contact with the benthic habitat and non- target species,  the use of a Texas drop chain arrangement to promote passage of unwanted flora and fauna underneath the net. The EGPMF uses a number of measures to reduce physical impacts of the trawl gear. Otter trawl systems, similar to those used in the EGPMF, have been demonstrated to have the least impact of all forms of trawling (Collie et al. 2000). The trawl gear is also configured in a manner that largely precludes the capture of invertebrate species living on or in the substrate. The ground chain attached to the net is designed to skim over the sand instead of digging into the seafloor, and immobile and slow-moving benthic organisms are able to avoid capture through a gap (~ 150 mm) between the ground chain and footrope. Some large immobile organisms, i.e. sponges, may be flicked up into the water column by the ground chain and subsequently captured in the net; however, the grids in place have been shown to reduce the capture of sponges in the nets by 95 % (Kangas & Thomson 2004). Grids became compulsory in the Exmouth fishery as early as 2002/2003. Secondary bycatch reduction devices were then trialled in 2004, with full implementation in 2006. More recent testing, and subsequent implementation, has also included the evolution of trawled doors. Multi foil boards are now used which are half the length and depth of the standard otterboard traditionally used (1 metre compared to 2.4 metres) (Wakeford, pers com, November, 2014). This has reduced the ploughing footprint to less than half the original level and whilst the main advantage is that it avoids debris, it has also reduced residual impacts in more sensitive areas. With the decline in fishing effort from 23 vessels in 1981 to 6 vessels in 2012, and the deployment of these vessels to between 21% and 40% of the Exmouth-managed region, residual habitat impacts from trawls contacting the seabed are expected to be further minimized. Fishing effort and distribution is monitored to ensure that no more than 40 % of the total available mud / sand habitats are trawled each year. If a larger area is trawled, then legal trawl boundaries will be amended to regulate for 60 % of mud / sand refuge area. Fishing distribution within the Gulf has continually met this requirement, with only 28 % of the Gulf trawled in 2013 (Kangas et al., 2014) in response to further spatial closures. To ensure compliance with the specified closures fishing activities (location and intensity) are monitored by the Department via a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), with all licenced fishing boats operating in the EGPMF required to install an operational Automatic Location Communicator (clause 16A of the Management Plan) (Kangas et al., 2014).

MSC defines a partial strategy as a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically. As noted above, some measures have been introduced specifically to deal with the benthic component. A strategy represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 106

modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. The monitoring system in place, combined with some specific design components aimed at mitigating the risk to benthic habitats, and supported by a risk assessment, suggests that a habitat strategy is in place.

4.4.4.3: Habitat Information (P 2.4.3) The spatial extent and intensity of fishing activities throughout the fishery are monitored by the Department using VMS and daily logbooks. This information allows managers to monitor fishing activities in relation to sensitive habitats and track changes in fishing location and intensity over time, and this information may be able to indicate if there is any increase in risk to habitat. A project to increase habitat monitoring in Exmouth Gulf has recently been submitted to the FRDC for funding consideration. If granted, the outcomes of the project will include the development of a comprehensive GIS environment, with all available historical habitat and environmental data for Exmouth Gulf and Shark Bay ecosystems, and the development of new habitat maps for these regions34. This expected output will form part of the condition. Kangas et al. (2007) biodiversity study results and Lyne et al. (2006) habitat mapping offer baseline information for future monitoring and management. However, research findings suggest that benthic habitats are very dynamic and continuously change under natural conditions and anthropogenic pressure. Thus continued monitoring is important to evaluate the changes in the structure of benthic macrophyte and invertebrate habitats which indicate the quality of coastal waters (Vahtmäe et al., 2012). EGPMF failed in this aspect and, while measures are in place to minimize the effects of trawling on habitats, there is an important amount of uncertainty about the direct and indirect long-term effects. Sediment samples from Exmouth Gulf taken in 2004 suggest that most of trawling activity takes place over coarser sands. Recent research results from a study done over six years in the North Sea (Queirós, et al. (2006), Van Denderen et al. (2014), found no effect of trawling activity on abundance and species richness on coarse sands, while the communities of fine sediments were affected. Commercial catch and bycatch information for the EGPMF is available from both grid and square mesh trials conducted between 2001 and 2003 (Kangas & Thomson 2004). Departmental observers were used to record commercial catch and bycatch for most trawl shots conducted , with a ‘shot’ defined as the trawl of four nets with two ‘control nets’ on one side of the vessel and two ‘BRD nets’ on the other side of the vessel, with shots lasting between 30 minutes and three hours. Interactions with sponges and rocks were significantly reduced. A linear regression comparing grid side catch to control side catch indicated a 95% reduction in the catch of sponges on the nets with grids compared to control nets.

4.4.5: Ecosystem (P2.5) In addition to the potential impacts to species and habitats described in the preceding sections, trawl fisheries pose the risk of altering the benthic or demersal communities, or changing prey availability through discards, such that food web dynamics shift. The ecosystem impacts of trawling are well-studied in Australia, including numerous studies in tropical and sub-tropical environments, in particular in Australia’s Northern Prawn Fishery

34 Kangas et al. 2014, op. cit. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 107

(NPF), where research has found no evidence that the fishery affects this ecosystem in a significant way. NPF studies have suggested that the effects of trawling at the current scale of the fishery do not affect overall biodiversity and cannot be distinguished from other sources of variation in community structure (NPF MSC PCR 2012). The main ecosystem impacts from fishing activities in the EGPMF are likely to be due to the removal of the target species, brown tiger and western king prawns, as these species make up the majority of the catch. The fishing mortality rate of prawns in Exmouth Gulf is relatively low compared to the natural seasonal variability of prawn populations as a consequence of environmental conditions, such as water temperature, currents and natural events, e.g. cyclones (Kangas et al. 2006). Retained non-target (‘byproduct’) species are taken in relatively small quantities and generally have large distribution ranges (Kangas et al. 2007). Similar to the target prawn species, the fishing mortality rate for retained non-target species in Exmouth Gulf is relatively low compared to the natural seasonal variability of populations as a consequence of environmental conditions. There is a strategy in place associated with input controls of number of days trawled and area of operation along with technical measures to limit the impacts of the trawl gear on the ecosystem. The onboard handling of bycatch and target species allows for efficient return of non-retained species to the water. There are no known obligate predators that are likely to be directly impacted by the removal of adult size prawns or any of the retained non-target s pecies. Most carnivorous predators in Exmouth Gulf are opportunistic and / or scavengers and are not considered dependent on any one species (Kangas et al. 2007). A variety of other small crustacean, invertebrate and fish species live in the Gulf; thus, it is not likely that the commercial take of prawns or other species at current levels will significantly impact on the trophic system within the Gulf. Bycatch discards result in fish and invertebrates being made available to other organisms that would not normally have access to such a food source. This has the potential to affect the feeding behaviour of some species, particularly predators, and alter the distribution of other species through the water column and at the surface. Given the seasonal duration of the fishery (7 – 8 months), the amount of discards is very minor in terms of the overall productivity of Exmouth Gulf. Also, a considerable proportion of the bycatch is crustaceans and elasmobranchs, which have a high survival rate and do not contribute to provisioning (Kangas et al. 2006). In Exmouth Gulf, there is neither direct scientific evidence nor anecdotal suggestion of changes to the food web from removal of particular species / groups or from food being cycled from the bottom of the sea floor to the surface. The ecosystem impacts of the EGPMF have been assessed by Kangas et al. (2007). Results from this project indicated that the current level of trawling activities in Exmouth Gulf does not affect overall biodiversity and cannot be distinguished from other sources of variations in community structure (Kangas et al. 2007)

The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014-2019 (DoF 2014a) includes performance indicators, reference levels and control rules that have been developed for the Exmouth Gulf ecosystem(s). There are ecosystem performance indicators related to risk assessment outcomes for each ecosystem component and the ecosystem as a whole, the extent of the area trawled in Exmouth Gulf and the annual catch of all retained species.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 108

4.4.5.1: Outcome status (P 2.5.1) Ecosystem Risk Assessment Outcomes

Component - Removal of all retained and non-retained species

2008 Risk Rating: Impact on trophic structure: Low

Exmouth Gulf is a highly productive system, and the impact on the environment by removing the sum of all retained and discarded species is considered to be unlikely to even cause a moderate change to the ecosystem due to (Kangas et al., 2014):  The high natural mortality rate of prawns, such that a large percentage of the yearly recruits would already be removed from the system by the end of the season regardless of fishing activities. As a result, the natural variation of prawns is very high, and the effect of removing prawns through fishing would be masked.  Additionally, there are no known obligate predators of prawns or other retained species that are likely to be directly impacted upon by the removal of these species. A variety of other small crustacean, invertebrate and fish species live within Exmouth Gulf and would be able to fulfil the roles of the removed species.  Management arrangements ensure that an adequate spawning stock of all prawn species survive to reproduce recruits for the subsequent season through the use of closed areas and seasons.  Research in this (i.e. Kangas et al. 2007) and similar fisheries that has indicated similar species diversity and abundance in both trawled and untrawled areas (Kangas et al. 2006). Discarding Bycatch

Component – Discarding bycatch

2008 Risk Rating: Impact on environment: Low

Bycatch results in fish and, to a lesser extent, crustaceans being made available to other organisms that would normally not have access to such a food source. This has the potential to affect the feeding behaviour of some species, particularly predators, and alter the distribution of other species throughout the water column and at the surface. For example, dead fish that sink to the seafloor become available to benthic scavengers, such as crabs. These fish would normally be only available, in that level of abundance, to pelagic predators (Kangas et al. 2006).

Studies on the fate of discards through trophic structure have been examined in other similar fisheries but not in the EGPMF specifically. A number of studies have shown that various trophic groups feed on bycatch:  In the Great Barrier Reef Trawl Fishery, a study showed that the majority of discards were fish and about 40 % of the fish floated on return to the water. Most of these fish were taken by birds, dolphins and sharks. The discards that sank were considered to be dispersed over the seabed, without causing a measurable impact (Poiner et al. 1999).  In Moreton Bay, Queensland, Wassenberg & Hill (1987) found that crabs were a dominant scavenger of bycatch from the local prawn trawl fishery, with 30 % of their MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 109

diet coming from this source. A further study in Moreton Bay also found that trawl discards became the principle food source for three species of seabirds (Wassenberg & Hill 1990).

Based on results from the observer program during BRD trials, the ratio of discards to retained species in the EGPMF is about 2 - 5:1. Of this, about 50 % of the fish are dead and sink, therefore becoming available to bottom feeders (Kangas & Thomson 2004). Most of the crustaceans sink but have a relatively high survival rate. The impact of provisioning as a result of discarding bycatch in the EGPMF was considered be a ‘moderate’ risk as a result of the following factors:  Although many studies have shown that various trophic groups prey upon bycatch species, few studies have found direct conclusive evidence of a resultant change in trophic structure (see above).  In Exmouth Gulf, there is neither direct scientific evidence nor any anecdotal suggestion of changes to the food web from the removal of particular groups or species, or from food being cycled from the bottom of the sea floor to the surface.  The area over which organisms are discarded is large, and therefore any impacts would be diffused. Additionally, a considerable proportion of the bycatch is crustaceans and elasmobranchs, which have a high survival rate and therefore do not contribute to the provisioning. Furthermore, the discards from this fishery are seasonal, as the fishery only operates for eight months of the year.  While dolphins have been known to follow the prawn vessels for discards, the amount of discards that result from this fishery is not high following the introduction of BRDs. Due to the seasonality of the fishery (and closures over the full moon), dolphins are still reliant on their normal feeding habits to sustain them throughout the year.

Component - Creation of Turbidity 2008 Risk Rating: Impact on environment: Negligible The interaction between trawl gear and the sea bottom has the potential to raise sediments into the water column, resulting in increased turbidity. If turbidity resulting from trawling activities was above the natural turbidity range (in terms of either intensity or duration) then there could be implications for the local communities through reduction of light availability for seagrass productivity and / or smothering of benthic organisms, such as corals and sponges (Kangas et al. 2006). The prawn trawling activities undertaken in Exmouth Gulf are considered ‘negligible’ in terms of creating a more turbid environment that has the potential to increase the nutrient loading of the ecosystem and cause habitat siltation (Kangas et al. 2006). This conclusion is made on the basis that the trawl gear design is such that it is not in direct and consistent contact with the substrate and therefore does not disturb the substrate to any significant degree and that the ground trawled in Exmouth Gulf is typically comprised of coarse sediments that do not readily ‘silt’. Furthermore, it should be noted that Exmouth Gulf is a cyclone hotspot and is influenced on a regular basis by either direct cyclonic hits or indirectly through swell and wind emanating from other cyclone centres. Consequently, while prawn trawling is not thought to contribute significantly to the level of turbidity in Exmouth Gulf, the Gulf itself is regularly clouded as a result of acute environmental events. The

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 110

recovery time of Exmouth Gulf following such a cyclonic event is generally dependent on the intensity, duration and rainfall associated with that event (Kangas et al. 2006).

4.4.5.2: Ecosystem management (P 2.5.2)

The management strategy focuses on minimising impacts on ecosystem through maintaining significant biomass levels of prawns and other retained species in order to minimise the potential for trophic perturbations. Other arrangements, such as gear restrictions, spatial and seasonal closures, a limited number of vessels and continuing monitoring and research also further minimise the potential for ecosystem impacts through reducing potential impacts on the ecosystem components (i.e. retained non-target species, bycatch, ETP species and habitats).

Within Exmouth Gulf, there is also direct information from Kangas et al. (2007) that the fish and invertebrate species on trawl grounds have not been significantly affected compared to the non-trawl grounds. DoF conclude that this is clear evidence that the ecosystem has not been affected to any measurable degree, with the closed areas providing protection to those species more vulnerable to trawling (Kangas et al. 2014). Furthermore, the continuity of the fishery over the past 50 + years is also considered to be evidence that the strategy works, is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective.

Compliance with the management arrangements is monitored by the Department using at-sea and aerial patrols to ensure closed seasons, closed areas and operational rules are being adhered to.

Further evidence that this strategy is being implemented successfully is available in the form of species and VMS monitoring data, as well as changes to monitoring procedures as necessary based on annual performance evaluations (Kangas et al., 2014).

4.4.5.3: Information (P 2.5.3)

Information continues to be collected on the impacts of the fishery on each of the key ecosystem components at a sufficient level to detect any increased risk (Kangas et al. 2014). Fishers are required to report all retained species catches, effort, any ETP species interactions and fishing location in daily logbooks. Fishing activities (location and intensity) are also monitored by the Department via VMS. The long time series of data available for the fishery, along with biodiversity research (i.e. Kangas et al. 2007) in Exmouth Gulf, supports the conclusion that the ecosystem has not been unacceptably impacted by the fishery during the 50 + years of its operation. Further monitoring activities are provided in the EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 - 2019 (DoF 2014b).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 111

4.5 Principle Three: Management 4.5.1 Legal and customary framework (P 3.1.1)

As a matter of Australian domestic law, the Offshore Constitutional Settlement provides for the Australian states and the Northern Territory to manage fisheries out to 3 nautical miles from the coast, and for the Australian Government to manage fisheries from three to 200 nautical miles. The settlement is not set out in one single document but is found in the legislation that implements it, including WA fisheries legislation. However, these default arrangements are frequently varied through instruments known as offshore constitutional settlement arrangements. Australia is a signatory to a number of international agreements and conventions (which it applied within its EEZ), such as:  United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (regulation of ocean space);  Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 21 (sustainable development and ecosystem based fisheries management);  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; protection of threatened, endangered and protected species);  Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (standards of behaviour for responsible practices regarding sustainable development);  United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement; and  State Member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (marine protected areas). The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 199935 is the Australian Government’s (hereafter referred to as the ‘Commonwealth Government’) central piece of environmental legislation. The EPBC Act is administered by the Commonwealth DoE and provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places — defined in the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance. The DoE is responsible for acting on international obligations on a national level, by enacting policy and / or legislation to implement strategies to address those obligations. The Commonwealth DoE, through the Commonwealth Minister, has a legislative responsibility to ensure that all managed fisheries undergo strategic environmental impact assessment before new management arrangements are brought into effect; and all fisheries in Australia from which product is exported undergo assessment to determine the extent to which management arrangements will ensure the fishery is managed in an ecologically sustainable way in the long term. WA fisheries legislation and policy conforms to overarching Commonwealth Government fisheries and environmental law, including the EPBC Act. WA’s commercial export fisheries have been assessed using the Australian National ESD Framework for Fisheries36, in particular, the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (the Guidelines; CoA 2007).

35 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/ 36 http://www.fisheries-esd.com MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 112

There are formalised cooperative arrangements for developing and implementing national policies and strategies in State jurisdictions. The Council of Australian Governments’37 (COAG) Standing Councils are established to achieve COAG’s strategic themes by pursuing and monitoring priority issues of national significance which require sustained, collaborative effort and address key areas of shared Commonwealth, State and Territory responsibility and funding. COAG’s Standing Council on Primary Industries1938 representation includes State, Territory and Commonwealth Ministers whose primary roles is to develop and implement policies and strategies for achieving agreed national approaches to biosecurity, productivity and sustainability of primary industries (including fisheries and forestry industries) and food security. It aims to encourage greater collaboration and promote continuous improvement in the investment of research and development of resources nationally. There are three different statutory entities responsible for the control and management of fisheries off the coast of WA:

 the WA State Government;

 the WA Fisheries Joint Authority; and

 the Commonwealth Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA).

The WA State Government and Fisheries Joint Authority-managed fish resources that fall under the jurisdiction of the FRMA are described in a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and State Governments known as the Offshore Constitutional Settlement 1995 (Brayford & Lyon 1995; OCS 1995). Commonwealth fisheries are managed by AFMA under the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act 1991. The OCS 1995 sets out that the State will manage all trawling on the landward side of the 200 m isobath in WA, and the Commonwealth will manage all deep-water trawling. The EGPMF is managed by the State of WA pursuant to the OCS 1995, as its western boundary is the 200 m isobath. There are no migratory or straddling stock management requirements associated with this fishery. The Government of WA operates under the Westminster system, and an important tenant of this system is that the responsible Minister makes executive decisions. Insofar as the administration of fisheries in WA is concerned, the relevant executive decision maker is the Minister for Fisheries. The Department of Fisheries WA (the Department) is established and governed under the State Public Sector Management Act 199439 (PSM Act) which is administered by the Western Australian Public Sector Commission40 under the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Departmental staff must act in accordance with the PSM Act and any allegations of official corruption by Departmental staff are handled by the WA Corruption and Crime Commission41. The Department is required to report on its performance annually via its Annual Report to State Parliament (Annual Report)42.

37 https://www.coag.gov.au/ 38 http://www.mincos.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx 39 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_771_homepage.html. 40 http://www.publicsector.wa.gov.au/ 41 http://www.ccc.wa.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx 42 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/annual_reports/annual_report_2012-13.pdf MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 113

The Department is principally responsible for assisting the Minister for Fisheries in administering the following Acts and Regulations43 that apply to the aquatic resources (excluding pearling) located in WA:

 Fisheries Resources Management Act (FRMA), 199444;

 Fish Resources Management Regulations (FRMR) 1995,;

 Fisheries Adjustment Schemes Act 198745; and

 Fishing and Related Industries Compensation (Marine Reserves) Act 199746.

The FRMA adheres to arrangements established under relevant Australian laws with reference to international agreements as set out in sections 3 and 4A —

Section 3 of the FRMA:

“The objects of this Act are (a) to develop and manage fisheries and aquaculture in a sustainable way; and (b) to share and conserve the State’s fish and other aquatic resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations.”

Section 4A of the FRMA precautionary principle, effect of, states —

“In the performance or exercise of a function or power under this Act, lack of full scientific certainty must not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks or the aquatic environment.”

The FRMA deals with broad principles, the provision of head powers and high-level overarching matters; the FRMR and other subsidiary legislation, such as commercial fishery management plans, deal with the details needed to put these matters into practice.

In many cases, the FRMA will specifically require some matters to be dealt with by subsidiary legislation. Subsidiary legislation cannot be inconsistent with the provisions of the FRMA, under which it was made, and must be permitted to be made by a head of power in the empowering Act. In 2010, the (then) Minister for Fisheries directed the Department to investigate and scope the requirements for a new Western Australian Act of Parliament to ensure the sustainable development and conservation of the State’s aquatic biological resources into the future. This review recognised the need for the establishment of a clear statutory basis for commercial and recreational fishing access rights as a component in improving the overall robustness of sustainable fisheries management and improving security of resource access for all fisheries sectors.

43 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/subsiduary.nsf/fishlegis?OpenPage 44 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_3205_homepage.html 45 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_342_homepage.html 46 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_343_homepage.html MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 114

A new Aquatic Resources Management Act (ARMA)47. has been drafted to replace the FRMA but not as yet implemented. This aims to ensure the ecologically sustainable development (ESD) of Western Australia’s living aquatic biological resources and ecosystems and to preserve the status quo for marine reserves planning and management of marine mammal, reptile and bird populations under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, and the CALM Act 1984. Importantly the ARMA’s proposed framework includes provision for a rights-based management approach for all fishing sectors in the context of aquatic resource management strategies and sectoral harvest strategy plans. An overview of the proposed new ARMA and the objectives of sustainable fisheries and aquatic management policy and how they relate to national and international fisheries law and policy are presented in Kangas et al. (2014). The guiding principles for the proposed ARMA are that it:

 Provides an integrated aquatic resource management framework which incorporates ESD and biodiversity conservation goals;

 Incorporates the precautionary principle more explicitly;

 Broadens the base of the Act to include aquatic ecosystem issues in the management prescriptions;

 Provides a basis for simplifying subsidiary legislation where possible;

 Provides for greater devolution of decision making and delegation where suitable;

 Provides flexibility for more cost-effective management based on more explicit risk assessment;

 Provides explicit head powers to achieve biological and allocation outcomes across all harvest sectors as required; and

 Provides improved security of access for all resource users.

Importantly, the proposed ARMA includes objectives to: “(a) ensure the ecological sustainability of the State’s aquatic resources and aquatic ecosystems for the benefit of present and future generations; and (b) to ensure that the State’s aquatic resources are managed, developed and used having regard to the economic, social and other benefits that the aquatic resources may provide”. There are well established mechanisms for administrative and legal appeals of decisions taken in respect of fisheries, which are prescribed in Part 14 of the FRMA. Most decisions made by the Chief Executive Officer48 of the Department and disputes regarding the

47 Government of Western Australia, Department of Fisheries, The Aquatic Resources Management Bill, June 2014, ARMBoverbiewJune14.PPT

48 Note that when exercising his powers pursuant to the FRMA, the Director General of the Department of Fisheries is referred to as the ‘Chief Executive Officer’. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 115

implementation and administration of fisheries legislation can be taken to the Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal (SAT)49 for review or the WA (and Commonwealth) Court System50.

These mechanisms have been used and tested across several fisheries. The decisions of the SAT and the Courts are binding on the Department (for details of decisions see http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf). All SAT decisions must be carried out by the Department (section 29(5) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 200451).

Criminal offences against the FRMA are dealt with by the Magistrates Courts and a commercial operator or recreational fisher is either found guilty or not guilty.

All changes to, or new, fisheries legislation, including subsidiary legislation such as management plans and orders, are potentially subject to review through the disallowance process of State Parliament.

All subsidiary legislation is also reviewed by the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation who may seek further advice on the reasons for the legislation, and potentially, move to disallow. In this way, there is Parliamentary and public scrutiny of fisheries legislation. Fisheries legislation is “passed and enacted” when it is gazetted.

This framework applies to the EGPMF. It should be noted that the consultative, educative and partnership approach to management, which is inclusive of all stakeholders, provides informal but effective mechanisms to minimise opportunities for disputes.

Statutory aboriginal native title rights are managed under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 (NTA)52. A registered native title claim is an application where a decision about native title is yet to be made. A determination of native title is a decision that native title does or does not exist in a particular area of land and / or waters (the determination area). The National Native Title Tribunal53 facilitates the negotiation of indigenous land use agreements following a claim or determination and is required to keep registers of approved native title determination and native title claims. A key aspect of the legislation is that proposed developments or activities (including fisheries where a registered claim or determination extends into State waters) that may affect native title are classed as ‘future acts’54. This requirement has been in place since 1993. In 1999, the Department obtained a ‘Report for Fisheries Western Australia’ in respect of the interaction between fisheries / pearling legislation and the NTA. That Report advised that:

1. The very wide scope of what can be done under a management plan means that they do have the potential to affect native title. As a result, a new management plan would be considered a ‘future act’ for the purpose of the NTA.

49 http://www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au 50 http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/C/courts_history.aspx 51 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_918_homepage.html 52 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A04665 53 http://www.nntt.gov.au/au/Pages/default.aspx 54 http://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/lantu/FutureActs/Pages/Default.aspx MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 116

2. Because a new management plan would be covered by Native Title Act s24HA, it can be validly made without the need for any specific native title notification or comment procedure.

3. While specific notification is not required, it would, however, be prudent for comment to be sought from any native title parties likely to be affected by the new management plan under the provisions of the FRMA section 64(2).

4. The granting of licences and permits under management plans will not be future acts in their own right, and they can therefore be granted without the need for any native title procedure or notification requirement.

In accordance with point 3 above, the Department provides any native title party, or parties, with an opportunity to comment on the development of a proposed fishery. There are relatively large Aboriginal communities within the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion, and fishing is a popular activity. People of Aboriginal descent do not need a recreational fishing licence if fishing using traditional methods. There is a registered Native title claim that includes the waters of Exmouth Gulf (WAD161/98) by the Gnulli people, who are represented by the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation. There is no indigenous land use agreement in place at this time. While the management plan for the EGPMF was established before 1993, the native title claimants are recognised as stakeholders. A recent Australian High Court decision related to the application of State fisheries law to native title holders fishing for abalone in their local area in South Australia55. The decision concluded that the State fisheries legislation did not extinguish native title rights to fish and that the defence under section 211 of the NTA was applicable. It is therefore unlikely that fisheries legislation in WA has the effect of extinguishing native title rights to fish and that the defence provided by section 211 of the NTA will apply to most cases where the right being exercised is for a traditional, non-commercial purpose and where the person is in fact, an Aboriginal person. At this stage Native Title rights do not confer exclusivity in relation to any Australian waters and there is no impact to existing commercial fishing licences as a result. However, the WA Government and DoF are committed to working with the customary fishing sector to recognising customary rights. Section 6 of the FRMA acknowledges the rights of Aboriginal persons fishing for a customary fishing purpose —

“Aboriginal persons, application of Act to An Aboriginal person is not required to hold a recreational fishing licence to the extent that the person takes fish from any waters in accordance with continuing Aboriginal tradition if the fish are taken for the purposes of the person or his or her family and not for a commercial purpose.”

The FRMA defines customary fishing as:

“fishing by an Aboriginal person that —

55 http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca47-2013-11-06.pdf MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 117

(a) is in accordance with the Aboriginal customary law and tradition of the area being fished; and (b) is for the purpose of satisfying personal, domestic, ceremonial, educational or non- commercial communal needs.”

The FRMA also provides the power to make regulations to manage customary fishing. As standard practise department of Fisheries consults with relevant Native Title representative bodies regarding new legislation including in the development of new Management Plans, however, there is no legislative requirement to do so. DoF released a policy position statement in 2009 relating to customary fishing in WA (DoF 2009), which states that customary fishing applies, within a sustainable fisheries management framework, to persons of Aboriginal descent who are fishing in accordance with the traditional law and custom of the area being fished and fishing for the purpose of satisfying personal, domestic, ceremonial, educational or non‐commercial communal needs. Further details regarding social aspects of customary fishing in WA can be found in Franklyn QC (2003). To date, the only survey designed to document the Indigenous catch was the National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey carried out in 2000/01 (Henry and Lyle 2003). While this survey did not present data separately for regional WA, what is clear from this report is that the vast majority of the Indigenous catch is from inland and coastal waterways. Under the proposed ARMA56, a quantity of a specified aquatic resource will be reserved for conservation and reproductive purposes, then setting a sustainable allowable harvest level for use by the fishing sectors. The quantity “reserved” also includes an allowance for Customary fishing and public benefit purposes, such as scientific research. This means that a specific share does not have to be allocated to the Customary sector, as that share is set aside prior to setting an allowable harvest level for the resource, and Customary fishing can continue in accordance with existing Customary fishing arrangements. Integrated Fisheries Management (IFM) is a Government initiative adopted in 2004 aimed at making sure that WA’s fish resources continue to be managed in a sustainable way in the future. IFM recognises the rights of customary fishers of Aboriginal descent who are fishing for cultural needs. Given there is no evidence of Indigenous (or recreational) fishing for prawns in Exmouth Gulf, there is no requirement to implement IFM to manage the catch share of prawns between sectors in Exmouth Gulf; however, the customary fishing framework still applies.

4.5.2 Consultation, Roles and Responsibilities (P 3.1.2)

The role and responsibilities of the State of WA in fisheries management is explicitly outlined in the Western Australian Government Fisheries Policy Statement March 2012 (DoF 2012a) and in the OCS 1995 arrangements, particularly in relation to the management of trawl fisheries. The members of the Department’s Corporate Executive and an organisational chart are published in the Department’s Annual Report. With respect to the EGPMF, key personnel to

56 In this context “aquatic biological resource” may refer to a single species of fish, or a number of species or species groups. The resource may also be defined by area. Several “fisheries” and sectors may operate on a resource. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 118

whom the responsibility of ensuring management, research and compliance outcomes, including proper prioritization of Departmental funding, include:  Gascoyne / Northern Bioregion Program Manager (Aquatic Management Division);  Gascoyne / Northern Bioregion Principal Management Officers (Aquatic Management Division);  Supervising Scientist – Invertebrates (Research Division);  Senior Scientist – Invertebrates (Research Division);  Gascoyne Bioregion Compliance Manager (Regional Services); and  Gascoyne Bioregion Regional Manager (Regional Services). Planning and prioritisation is done in conjunction with the Chief Executive Officers of the peak sector bodies for the commercial and recreational sectors (where relevant) in WA:  the Chief Executive Officer of the Western Australia Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC57); and  the Chief Executive Officer of Recfishwest58. The Department or Minister is responsible for advising licensees and WAFIC of Ministerial / Department decisions which are the subject of a consultation process. Responsibilities of the Department in formal consultation arrangements with WAFIC include that it  Provides annual funding to WAFIC equivalent to 0.5 % of WA commercial fishing gross value of product (based on a three year average), plus a pro-rata amount equivalent to 10 % of water access fees paid by aquaculture and pearling operators. Payments to WAFIC are made by six monthly instalments each year.  Works with WAFIC in a manner consistent with WAFIC’s role as the peak body representing commercial fishing interests in WA; and  Engages with WAFIC, sector bodies and commercial fishing interests according to WAFIC Operational Principles contained in Table 20. .

Table 20. WAFIC's Commercial Fisheries Consultation Operational Principles

Principle Responsible Body Example

On generic policy issues which WAFIC Bioregional marine planning; safety, could affect, as a whole, the education and training; research and commercial fishing, aquaculture, development policy and biosecurity and pearling industries

On policy issues which currently WAFIC will nominate the WAFIC would represent industry on primarily affect one sector but relevant sector body and marina and port access issues which may which could have implications for WAFIC and that body will primarily initially impact on the fishing the broader industry jointly represent industry. industry in regard to certain locations but have precedents for the rest of the industry for other locations; and on animal welfare.

57 http://www.wafic.org.au/ 58 http://www.recfishwest.org.au/ MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 119

Principle Responsible Body Example

On issues which affect only one The relevant sector Regulation of gear design or compliance specific industry group. association would represent (WAFIC and specific industry itself but WAFIC would be associations). kept informed and may have a statutory consultation role.

The Department or Minister is also responsible for ensuring that the recreational fishing sector, through Recfishwest, is formally consulted on proposed changes to recreational fisheries management and is advised of Ministerial / Department decisions which are the subject of a consultation process. The Minister is responsible for providing Recfishwest with a proportion of the income generated from annual recreational fishing licence fees to undertake its role as the peak body representing recreational fishing interests in WA. The Department or Minister may seek and provide advice directly through peak bodies (WAFIC and Recfishwest) and / or sector associations. For example, WAFIC and Recfishwest, have direct input into the annual planning and priority setting process used to determine management, compliance, research and other priorities. The WA Government formally recognises WAFIC and Recfishwest as the key sources of coordinated industry advice for the commercial and recreational sectors, respectively (DoF 2012a). WAFIC is an incorporated association and is the peak industry body representing professional fishing, pearling and aquaculture enterprises, as well as processors and exporters in WA. It was created by the industry more than forty years ago to work in partnership with Government to set the directions for the management of commercial fisheries in WA.

WAFIC aims to secure a sustainable industry that is confident:

 of resource sustainability and security of access to a fair share of the resource;  of cost-effective fisheries management;  that its businesses can be operated in a safe, environmentally responsible and profitable way; and  that investment in industry research and development is valued and promoted. WAFIC provides a monthly newsletter59 to subscribers and publishes annual reports and financial information60. WAFIC’s responsibilities include coordinating Government funding for industry representation and taking on a leadership role for matters which involve or impact on or across a number of fisheries, or are of an industry-wide or generic nature. WAFIC also represents those commercial fishing sectors that do not have capability of self- representation.

59 http://www.wafic.org.au/images/stories/WAFIC_Mar_2014_Newsletter.pdf 60 http://www.wafic.org.au/about-wafic/publications/annual-reports MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 120

WAFIC’s responsibilities can be summarised as:  Providing effective professional representation of commercial fishing interests and the commercial fishing sector to Government, industry, other relevant organisations and the community;  Providing professional advice to the Government and industry members on issues affecting commercial fishing;  Engaging, facilitating and consulting as necessary in order to deliver the above;  Providing representation of commercial fishing interests on fisheries management and Ministerial committees, as required;  Documenting priority issues for commercial fishing interests by 30 March each year to the Department;  Providing feedback to the Department on proposed deliverables and budget priorities for expenditure of the Fisheries Research and Development Account;  Engaging with Recfishwest and other appropriate parties with a view to identifying joint priorities and solutions to issues of shared concern;  Engaging in promotion, education and awareness of key sustainability messages consistent with best practice fisheries management and objects of the FRMA; and  Conducting agreed activities that are consistent with the FRMA as it relates to the provision of assistance to, or promotion of, the fishing industry61. In carrying out the consultation functions on matters referred to it by the Minister or Department, WAFIC must:

 Distribute proposed changes to management arrangements including the Minister’s / Department’s reasoning for the proposal(s) and the information on which the proposal(s) is based to all licence holders in the relevant fishery;

 Describe the method by which licence holders may put their views;

 Ensure that licence holders have a reasonable period in which to consider their position and respond; and

 Ensure that the decision maker is fully aware of the views being put forward, so the decision maker gives proper and genuine consideration to the views being put forward. Government’s commitment to consultation with stakeholders is set out in the Western Australian Government’s Fisheries Policy Statement of 2012 (pg. 10 of DoF 2012a). The broad consultation framework was developed following the outcome of a 2009 review (Paust et al. 2009) of consultation arrangements between the fishing sector and Government that incorporated the following objectives:

1. Enhanced efficiency, cost effectiveness and flexibility; 2. Clarification with respect to

61 Consistent with s. 238 (5) (l) of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 121

a. fishing sector representation; b. expertise based advice to the Department; and c. the Department of Fisheries as the primary source of management advice to the Minister for Fisheries; and 3. Enhancement of the Department’s engagement with industry, stakeholders and the public. The review process resulted in:  The replacement of Management Advisory Committees (MACs) with two key sources of advice: the Department as the key source of Government advice on fisheries management and WAFIC and Recfishwest as the key sources of coordinated industry advice for the commercial and recreational sectors, respectively.

 Recognition of WAFIC as the peak body representing the commercial fishing sector (including pearling and aquaculture), with funding provided by Government to support WAFIC in this role.

 Recognition of Recfishwest as the peak body representing the recreational fishing sector, with funding provided by Government to support Recfishwest in this role.

 Establishment of an Aquatic Advisory Committee (AAC) to provide independent advice to the Minister or the Department on high-level strategic matters.

 The establishment by the Minister (or Department) of tasked working groups to provide advice on specific fisheries or operational matters. Tasked working groups differ to MACs in that they are expertise based and operate on the basis of a written referral on a specific matter. Tasked working groups have been established in the past to provide advice on matters such as water access (lease) fees, strengthening of access rights in the fisheries legislation, development of a Government fisheries policy statement, and determining catch shares among sectors.

 Capacity for peak bodies to perform consultation functions on behalf of the Minister. In this regard, the Department has entered into a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with WAFIC for the provision of specified consultation services with the commercial sector (Paust et al. 2009).

Figure 35 provides a diagrammatical representation of the broad consultation framework for fisheries management in WA that resulted from the review.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 122

Figure 35. Department of Fisheries WA Consultation Framework

An Aquatic Advisory Committees consists of members who have strong backgrounds in governance and policy (not necessarily fisheries) and provides independent advice to the Minister or the Department on high-level strategic matters. Tasked working groups and panels can be established by the Director General or the Minister for Fisheries to provide independent, expert advice relating to a range fisheries management matters. They are highly flexible and are usually provided with a specified task, such as addressing resource access (e.g. closures and compensation) and allocation (e.g. IFM) or reviewing research, management or Government policy. The working groups work to a specific terms of reference within a particular timeframe. Fishery Annual Management Meetings The Department has a general practice of holding regular (often annual) ‘management meetings’ with fishery licensees to discuss fishery research, management, compliance and specific issues affecting the fishery (e.g. marine park planning). These management meetings underpin the decision-making process at a fishery-specific level.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 123

WAFIC coordinates the commercial fishery annual management meetings under the SLA. The location and timing (including priority) of the annual management meetings are determined by the WAFIC Industry Consultation Unit (ICU) in liaison with relevant Department managers. These meetings are attended by Department officers, WAFIC and licence holders and can occur at any time during the year, but are usually held either before the start of a licensing year or at the end of a fishing season, in accordance with the schedule as agreed by WAFIC and the Department. The annual management meetings can also be open to other stakeholder groups (e.g. Recfishwest, processors, universities, other government departments, the conservation sector and the general public) following consultation with industry. The annual management meetings are widely-recognised by the commercial licence holders as a mechanism for receiving the most up-to-date scientific advice on the status of the fishery, facilitating information exchange and for discussing new and ongoing management issues. The invaluable local information licensees provide to the Department at these forums is considered when making research, management and compliance decisions, such as amendments to Management Plans, if changes are being considered for the next season (noting that such amendments are subject to statutory consultation under the FRMA). Because there is only one company operating in the EGPMF, formal management meetings are held on an “as needs” basis (but are generally held annually). The Department may also hold meetings, workshops or consult in writing with the operator in the EGPMF and other identified stakeholders on an “as needs” basis on a range of fisheries management matters including:

 Updates on the implementation of the ARMA;  Ministerial decisions regarding the EGPMF or wider commercial fisheries’ policy and management;  Risk assessment workshops;  ESD accreditation, including conditions and reassessments;  Intra and inter-sectoral access, allocation and conflict issues;  Impacts of other State Department policies (e.g. marine park planning or mining activities);  Implementation of new initiatives (e.g. MSC accreditation, new mobile applications);  Expert review workshops;  FRDC project steering committee representation;  Published research results;  Release of discussion papers that seek stakeholder input; and  The implementation of IFM (where relevant). Stakeholders in the EGPMF include  the MFL holder;  The Representative organisation for that stakeholder, in this case MG Kalis, but nominated through WAFIC;

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 124

 Management, Compliance and Research staff of the Department of Fisheries;

 Department of Parks and Wildlife62;  Environmental NGO sector representatives (notably. Conservation Council of WA63 and WWF). The prawn resources targeted by EGPMF are not taken in any major numbers by recreational or customary fishers. Other interested stakeholders are recognised on the basis that the EGPMF:

 has the potential to impact on ecosystem components, including ETP species and habitat;  targets a species susceptible to changes in environmental conditions;  currently has a Native Title claim within its boundaries;  has the potential to interact with other marine users in Exmouth Gulf;  may be impacted upon by mining activities; and  provides an iconic seafood product to retailers and consumers both locally and overseas. Based on these aspects of the fishery, other interested stakeholders relevant to the EGPMF include:  Organisations / institutions undertaking research relevant to Exmouth Gulf and environmental factors (e.g. The Western Australian Marine Science Institution (WAMSI64), universities and The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO65));  Local Government and State Government agencies (e.g. Department of Parks and Wildlife66);  Native Title claimant and their representatives (Gnulli people, represented by the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation);  Local government (Shire of Exmouth);  Investors, banking representatives, boat brokers, etc.;  Retailers and consumers; and  The wider community. Before making a decision around aquatic resource policy, the Minister for Fisheries must demonstrate that they have asked for, and taken into account, interested and affected parties’ submissions on policy proposals. Evidence that the management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used is available from various letters

62 http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/ 63 http://ccwa.org.au/ 64 http://www.wamsi.org.au/ 65 http://www.csiro.au/ 66 http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/ MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 125

written to WAFIC and others67. However, it appears that the consultation process is heavily focussed on the licensee, the representative fisher association and WAFIC. The release of Fisheries Management Papers (discussion papers) for public comment are the most common way the Department undertakes wider consultation and invites stakeholder engagement on fisheries management proposals. Importantly, published Fisheries Management Papers detail the recommended management approach arising out of an expert review process and seek public comment on those recommendations, which must be taken into account before a decision is made in respect to future management. The Department provides the facility for stakeholder comment in regard to any proposed management recommendations and publicises the release of Fisheries Management Papers. To do this, the Department uses a variety of processes including:  Direct consultation in writing;  Press releases;  Newspaper, radio and television interviews;  Information posted on the Department’s website information;  Inviting stakeholders to sit on tasked working groups, scientific reviews / workshops, risk assessments and management reviews. The peak sector bodies are also responsible for seeking advice from their sector during consultation periods and providing consolidated advice to the Department. These processes ensure that stakeholders and the community more generally have an increased awareness and access to relevant information. Making information available and providing for a discussion and exchange of ideas encourages input from stakeholders and the community in the management process. However, the process, or specifically some of the actions taken, does not appear to provide the opportunity for non-fisher stakeholders to participate or engage in relevant meetings. Whilst there may be a clear and transparent process where stakeholders can submit comments ahead of fisheries policy decision making processes in the regular course of managing the fishery, evidence suggests that important stakeholders have been marginalized from the important decision making areas such as risk assessment, formulation of the harvest strategy and development of the Bycatch Action Plan. In this respect, such organisations were not invited to key meetings, and from these meetings then offered the opportunity to submit written comments. DPaW and ENGOs would appear to have been excluded from Tasked working groups and panels. It is therefore not always clear to what extent consultations are 'open to all, or how DoF facilitates active engagement', for example through more widely advertised public consultations beyond the immediate key stakeholders in the fisheries. WWF has raised a concern at the public comment stage of the Western Rock Lobster Recertification (Trott, WWF, 2011)68 process that they remained concerned about the lack of representation of stakeholders concerned with ecosystem impacts. The new consultative framework has a considerable focus on the commercial industry and does not provide equitable access to decision-making and consultation arrangement across commercial, recreational and conservation interests. The commercial fishing sectors is given two access routes to influence decision making – through the ‘fishing sector representative

67 DoF letter to STBOA of 15 August, 2014; DoF letter of WAFIC of 15 August 2014 68 Letter from Peter Trott, WWF to Sabine Daume, SCS, May 2011 MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 126

bodies’ and through the ‘stakeholder input’ routes. It is particularly worrying that the new framework provides responsibility for consultation on generic policy issues (e.g. bioregional planning, research and development) to WAFIC. This new consultative strategy is not consistent with the priorities of the current and proposed new legislation which makes the issue of ecological sustainability a priority.

It is noted that there is the ability to establish, at any point, a tasked working group including independent advisory groups and expert groups. It is useful to have this power for specific issues. However without the addition of a standing group of independent experts, this approach will only lead to advice of a sporadic nature, relevant only to the narrow field of investigation that is the terms of that particular group. It will not provide the necessary directional advice and strategic guidance needed from environmental experts or the ability for the conservation sector to input at a strategy level.

DPaW (Stanley, pers com, 2014)69 states:

In Exmouth (Ningaloo), Parks and Wildlife staff have contacted DoF with general queries but have not made specific submissions regarding the fishery’s management….The Parks and Wildlife Marine Park Coordinator used to receive notifications of committee meetings, such as prawn trawl and scallop, but this seems to have ceased some years ago. There is no record of Parks and Wildlife staff attending (or being invited to attend) these committees in the Exmouth area (but this may partly be due to staff turnover).

It is therefore not always clear to what extent consultations are 'open to all, or facilitates effective engagement', for example through more widely advertised public consultations beyond the immediate key stakeholders in the fisheries. In terms of effective engagement, the loss of the Management Advisory Committee appears to have been a retrograde step such that not all the key bodies are in a collective forum at the same time. This suggests that the engagement process is not effective. Statutory Consultation Most management changes and seasonal fishing arrangements in the EGPMF are facilitated through amendments to the Management Plan and by notices determined by the Director General70; however, other arrangements can be implemented via section 43 orders, MFL conditions and section 7 exemptions, as required. In the case of amendments to the EGPMF Management Plan, these cannot be undertaken without addressing statutory consultation requirements pursuant to clause 20A of the Management Plan, which explicitly identifies those key stakeholders that the Minister must consult with prior to making an amendment. It should be noted that, since there is no longer a Joint Trawl Management Advisory Committee as a result of the consultation review, the key stakeholder in the EGPMF defaults to the licence holder or its representative organisation. The Minister for Fisheries is the final decision maker in determining or amending legislation including the Management Plan, and the Department has a series of formal decision-making delegations for licensing decisions and exemptions from legislation. Ministerial decisions are

69 Email from Fran Stanley, to Richard Banks, 7 December,2014 70 Note that the Director General is the equivalent office to the ‘Executive Director’ as referred to in the EGPMF Management Plan. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 127

not reviewable by the State Administrative Tribunal, but most Departmental decisions are subject to review. Section 65 of the FRMA sets out the legislative consultation requirements the Minister must adhere to when amending an existing management plan. Section 65 has ‘natural justice’ origins, in that a person whose rights may be about to be affected should have an opportunity to be heard before any adverse action / impact is given effect. Given the commercial aspects of fishing access rights and the potential for amendments to management arrangements to adversely affect these interests, it is fundamental that the holders of these interests:  are consulted;  have the opportunity to respond to any proposed amendments by the Minister/Department; and  have these responses genuinely considered by the decision maker prior to the final decision.71 These principles lead to the requirement for the Minister to consult before determining or amending a Management Plan. The Minister has the Department undertake the work of consultation on his behalf. The statutory consultation function is presently conducted by WAFIC on behalf of the Department under the SLA. The EGPMF is opened annually pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan. The Department consults with the licensee prior to providing advice to the Chief Executive Officer, who must provide notice of his decision to the licensee in writing. For the implementation of other statutory fishing management tools, such as section 43 orders or section 7 exemptions, statutory provisions are silent as to procedural consultation requirements; nevertheless, the decision-maker must have regard for common law principles to afford natural justice to the licence holder. However, these 2 peak consultation bodies do not provide a consultation conduit to other Government bodies, the wider public, the NGO sector, local government or customary groups. It is therefore not always clear to what extent consultations are 'open to all or facilitate active engagement', for example through more widely advertised public consultations beyond the immediate key stakeholders in the fisheries. It is noteworthy that on the re-certification of the Western Rock Lobster fishery, WWF raised a concern at the public comment stage that they remained concerned about the lack of representation of stakeholders concerned with ecosystem impacts. 4.5.3 Long-term Objectives (P 3.1.3)

The WA Government has set a long-term overarching objective that is underpinned by the principle of social and environmental responsibility to ensure that economic activity associated with aquatic resources is managed in a socially and environmentally responsible manner for the long-term benefit of the State. This objective is explicit in both fisheries legislation and management policy, as described below.

71 Note that section 65(4) of the FRMA provides for the Minister to amend a management plan without consultation if, in the Minister’s opinion, the amendment is required urgently or is of a minor nature (but must provide advice following the amendment of the plan. This might include the need for amendments for emergency sustainability reasons. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 128

Overarching long-term objectives for managing aquatic resources are set out in WA fisheries legislation. Sections 3 and 4 of the FRMA72 set out the overarching long-term sustainability strategy, including a precautionary approach, for fisheries and the aquatic environment in WA. The broad scope of the legislation ensures that it:  Manages all factors associated with fishing (ESD and ecosystem-based fisheries management);  Provides a clear basis for management of a whole biological resource (as opposed to just one sector);

Gives effect to IFM by:  Creating head powers that can establish management strategies with clear biological outcomes for all sectors as required;  Establishing formal harvest allocations where these have been made; or  Describes the basis of informal allocations where these operate; and  Clearly distinguishes between managed aquatic resources and fisheries with biological targets and socially-regulated fisheries. Section 3(2)(e) of the FRMA states that one of the objectives is to achieve the optimum economic, social and other benefits from the use of fish resources.  Performance against social and economic objectives is measured regularly. Commercial fisheries’ gross value of production and rates of employment are reported annually in the Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of WA: the State of the Fisheries (e.g. Fletcher & Santoro 2013). Other indicators of acceptable performance for social and economic objectives include maximising the opportunity for commercial fisheries to operate viably within a sustainable framework, high levels of licensee satisfaction, low levels of inter-sectoral conflict, appropriate areas put aside for aquatic conservation and appreciation, stakeholder satisfaction surveys, initiatives to benefit recreational ffishers and the availability of fresh, locally sourced fish to the retail sector and community.

Government’s desired outcome for the Department of Fisheries is the conservation and sustainable development of the State’s fish resources. The Department has developed effectiveness and efficiency indicators to show the extent to which the Department achieved its goal of conserving and sustainably developing the State’s aquatic resources. Performance against these indicators is reported annually in the Department’s Annual Report.

The Internal Audit Committee maintains and manages the Department’s internal audit function on behalf of the Director General. The committee assists the Director General to identify and quantify risks that have the potential to impede the Department in achieving its goals and guide the development and implementation of risk-mitigation strategies.

The Department’s Strategic Plan 2009 - 2018 (Phase 3 2013 – 2015)73 sets out clear and explicit long-term biological, ecological, social and economic objectives. These include:

72 The proposed new ARMA more explicitly incorporate broader ESD and biodiversity conservation goals. 73 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/corporate_publications/strategic_plan_2009-2018_phase3.pdf MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 129

 Sustainability — to ensure WA’s fisheries and aquatic resources are sustainable and to provide services based on risk to ensure fish for the future and support the maintenance of healthy aquatic ecosystems;  Community Outcomes — to achieve an optimum balance between economic development and social amenity in accordance with a framework to achieve sustainability;  Partnerships — to promote effective strategic alliances and community stewardship; and  Agency Management — deliver services on behalf of Government in accordance with the Department’s statutory requirements to achieve effective and efficient use of resources to support the delivery of our strategy. The Strategic Plan 2009 - 2018 also sets out the strategies and key deliverables and Divisions of the Department that are responsible for delivery. The plan is reviewed on a regular basis. The Research Division of the Department has established a Research Strategic Plan that is focused on achieving research outcomes against the objectives listed above.

The Government’s fisheries and aquatic resource policy is set out in broad terms in Western Australian Government Fisheries Policy Statement March 2012 (DoF 2012a). The Policy Statement focuses on the Government’s approach to sustainable resource management, fisheries and aquaculture development and growth, and appropriate structures and processes to ensure good governance is achieved in:  aquatic resource management;  aquatic resource access and allocation;  aquatic environmental management  marine planning;  development and growth; and  structures and processes (e.g. administration).

In June 2010, the (then) Minister for Fisheries announced that he would be establishing a working group to provide him with advice on elements of policy that related to the improvement of commercial fishing access rights. The Access Rights Working Group’s report to the Minister is published in Fisheries Occasional Publication 102 (Access Rights Working Group 2011). The Access Rights Working Group proposed that the ARMA should be structured around the concept of rights‐based fisheries management and make specific provision for establishing and managing these rights in a robust and integrated manner. It also recommended that a new system for the creation, trading and administration of fishing access rights (fishery shares) discrete from fishing activity (fishing permits) should be created.

The FRMA was amended in 2011 to incorporate some short-term changes to existing legislation and administrative practice, which provided some immediate improvements to the trading aspects of fishing rights created under Part 6 (Management Plans) of the FRMA. Specifically, the amendments improved the transferability, security and duration characteristics of fishing access rights created under FRMA within the existing rights management approach.

The costs of managing the aquatic resources, including conducting research, are met from a variety of sources. In particular, significant contributions can come from:

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 130

 Commercial fishing licence fees;  State Government Consolidated Revenue;  the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation;  the Recreational Fishing Account (from recreational fishing licence fees);  the National Heritage Trust;  the Western Australian Marine Science Institution;  Australian Research Council linkage grants;  the Natural Resource Management Rangelands Catchment Coordinating Group;  the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; and  Commonwealth World Heritage Funding.

There is a commitment from the Department to meet the cost of development and implementation of management outcomes and ensuring adequate compliance by fishers with new and existing management initiatives. Government consolidated revenue provided $ 48.4 million of the Department’s income in 2012/13 (Annual Report). From 1 July 2010, all managed commercial fisheries were subject to a new funding model, which replaced a cost-recovery system. The new funding model aimed at improving flexibility for resourcing priority management needs, equity in how much licensees pay in access fees and greater certainty of funding and access rights. This involves all managed commercial fisheries in WA paying an access fee equivalent to 5.75 % of the gross value of production (GVP) of the respective fishery. Commercial fishery access fees contributed $ 16.2 million to the Department’s income in 2012/13. As part of these arrangements, Government also agreed to contribute the equivalent of 0.5 % of managed commercial fishery GVP to WAFIC, to support its role as the peak body, and the equivalent of 0.25 % of GVP to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC). Key Resource Management Policies for Meeting Long-Term Objectives include:

1. Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) 2. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management 12.3.3.2 3. Harvest Strategy Policy 4. Aquatic Biodiversity Policy

The Western Australian Government is committed to the concept of ESD, which seeks to integrate short- and long-term economic, social and environmental effects in to all decision- making. The key principles of ESD are implicitly contained in the objectives of the FRMA, and the Department’s ESD Policy (Fletcher, 2002). The Department was one of the first fisheries agencies in the world to articulate how to demonstrate, in a practical manner, whether ESD requirements were being achieved. Each of WA’s main commercial fisheries has now been assessed using the Australian National ESD Framework for Fisheries, as developed by the FRDC ESD Subprogram, and it is now an integral part of the stock sustainability assessment process for all fisheries in WA. For the purposes of the wildlife trade provisions of Part 13A of the EPBC Act (i.e. to be exempt from export controls for native species harvested in a fishery), management agencies must demonstrate that fisheries management regimes comply with the objectives of ESD. The DoE has prepared publicly-available guidelines (CoA 2007), on which management agencies

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 131

are required to base their submissions for export approval. The submissions are released for public comment, which ensures rigorous and transparent assessments are conducted with input from Commonwealth and State fisheries agencies, the fishing industry and the wider community. All documents pertaining to the submissions and assessments, including the Commonwealth Minister’s decisions and any conditions that are set on the fishery, are publicly available on the Commonwealth DoE’s website. WA fisheries assessments are conducted against the Commonwealth Guidelines which outline specific principles and objectives designed to ensure a strategic and transparent way of evaluating the ecological sustainability of fishery management arrangements. Adequate performance of fishing in relation to the Commonwealth Guidelines will see that the management arrangements demonstrate a precautionary approach, particularly in the absence of information. A precautionary approach is used in all stages of fishery management, from planning through to assessment, enforcement and then re-evaluation. A precautionary approach requires managers to utilise the best scientific evidence available when designing a management regime. It also requires that a minimum level of information be available before a fishery is established. Thus, information collection and ongoing research is of significant importance and may be inversely proportional to the level of precaution that is taken in setting management measures for a fishery. Sources of uncertainty within the data should be identified and where possible, quantified. Until research on the specific stock provides information, a precautionary approach should set conservative limits to account for the unknown level of uncertainty. Evidence of the application of the precautionary approach to fisheries management decisions is provided in various letters to stakeholders (DoF to SBPTOA, 2014). To satisfy the Commonwealth Government requirements for a demonstrably ecologically sustainable fishery, the fishery (or fisheries if a species is caught in more than one fishery), must operate under a management regime that meets Principles 1 and 2 of the Commonwealth Guidelines. The management regime must take into account arrangements in other jurisdictions, and adhere to arrangements established under Australian laws and international agreements. Under the Commonwealth Guidelines, the management regime does not have to be a formal statutory fishery management plan as such, and may include non-statutory management arrangements or management policies and programs. The management regime should:  be documented, publicly available and transparent;

 be developed through a consultative process providing opportunity to all interested and affected parties, including the general public;

 ensure that a range of expertise and community interests are involved in individual fishery management committees and during the stock assessment process;

 be strategic, containing objectives and performance criteria by which the effectiveness of the management arrangements are measured;

 be capable of controlling the level of harvest in the fishery using input and/or output controls;

 contain the means of enforcing critical aspects of the management arrangements;

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 132

 provide for the periodic review of the performance of the fishery management arrangements and the management strategies, objectives and criteria;

 be capable of assessing, monitoring and avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse impacts on the wider marine ecosystem in which the target species lives and the fishery operates; and

 require compliance with relevant threat abatement plans, recovery plans, the National Policy on Fisheries Bycatch, and bycatch action strategies developed under that policy.

The steps to apply this ‘ecosystem type of approach’ to individual fisheries are based on the adoption of international standards for risk management (Australian Standards/New Zealand Standards 4360 2009)74, reflecting that fisheries management is a specific form of risk management. These steps have also now been routinely applied elsewhere in Australia and internationally. The Australian National ESD Framework for Fisheries includes an ESD reporting framework for fisheries outlined within a series of reports, making the completion of ESD reports as efficient and effective as possible. There are four main processes needed to complete an ESD report: identifying issues; determining the importance of each of these issues using risk assessment; completing suitably detailed reports; and compiling sufficient background material to put these reports into context. Following the success of the ESD framework for individual fisheries, a practical, risk-based framework for use with regional-level management of marine resources was developed by the Department to enable cross / multiple fishery management at the bioregional level to fully implement Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM). This was designed to replace the previous, disjointed fishery-level, planning systems, with a single, coordinated risk-based system to generate efficiencies for the use of Departmental (government) resources. The simple set of steps developed has enabled adoption of a fully regional, ‘ecosystem-based’ approach in WA without material increases in funding. The Department has met ‘best practice’ international sustainability benchmarks by being one of the first fisheries agencies in the world to introduce EBFM across all aquatic resources. EBFM recognises that ecosystems work at a regional level and fits better with the global shift towards holistic, regional-based, natural resource management. EBFM takes into account the impacts of all aquatic resource use on species targeted by fishing, as well as non-target species and the environment — all of which are regarded as ecological assets — and the social and economic impacts of the resource use. It recognises that while fishing activity affects ecosystems, providing the impacts are risk-assessed and managed, fishing can also create social and economic benefits. EBFM is based on using the best global standard for risk assessment and risk management. The levels of risk are used as a key input to the Department’s Risk Register which, combined with the assessment of the economic and social values and risks associated with these assets, is an integral component of the annual planning cycle for assigning activity priorities (e.g. management, research, compliance, education, etc.) across each Bioregion. A summary of the Department’s risk-based planning annual cycle that is delivering EBFM in the long-term is provided in Figure 36 below.

74 http://www.standards.org.au/Pages/default.aspx MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 133

Figure 36. An outline of the risk based planning cycle used for determining Departmental priorities and activities.

The Risk Register informs Fish Plan (current version 2011/12 – 2015/16), which sets out baseline management activities over a five year period. The extent to which the Department is effective in achieving its Agency Level Outcome is measured by the Department’s Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s), which are published in the Department’s Annual Report to Parliament. Fish Plan assists the Department in achieving its desired Agency Level Outcome by providing a planned and structured approach to management of capture fishery resources (assets), including review of management arrangements for fish stocks, assessment and monitoring of fish stocks and compliance planning. This process provides the Department with a basis or framework for allocating resources to individual capture fishery assets and to provide greater certainty to peak bodies and industry participants on the timelines for management reviews, etc. Fish Plan in turn informs the Research, Monitoring, Assessment and Development Plan 2011/12 – 2015/16 (RMAD Plan; DoF 2012b), which sets out the associated research projects over a five year period. The research projects and activities address ongoing monitoring requirements, as well as generating assessments and advice, which then drive reporting and management activities. EBFM has been applied to the ecological assets recognised in each of the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA v4.0; CoA 2006) regions within each bioregion in WA. Those ecological assets include:

 Ecosystem structure and biodiversity (on a meso-scale basis);

 Captured fish species;

 Protected species (direct impact – capture or interaction);

 Benthic habitats; and

 External impacts. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 134

The EGPMF has been assessed pursuant to the EBFM framework, and strategies, partial strategies and measures have been implemented in the EGPMF based on the risk assessment outcomes. It is important to note that the levels of knowledge needed for each of the issues only need to be appropriate to the risk and the level of precaution adopted by management. Implementing EBFM does not, therefore, automatically generate the need to collect more ecological, social or economic data or require the development of complex ‘ecosystem’ models. It only requires the consideration of each of these elements to determine which (if any) required direct management to achieve acceptable performance. Further detailed information on the EBFM policy can be found in Metcalf et al. (2009) and Fletcher et al. (2010). As part of ensuring that it was implementing EBFM effectively, the Department undertook a study to: 1. Test the robustness of statistical procedures to identify impacts of multi-sector fishing on community composition using existing fishery data; 2. Assess the level of change in community composition in each bioregion of WA during the previous 30 years; 3. Identify key data to which ecosystem structure and management strategies are most sensitive and which should be collected in the future; 4. Identify critical changes in exploitation and/or environment that would impact marine ecosystems markedly; and 5. Identify areas where more detailed research and / or monitoring are needed. The results from the study are published in Hall and Wise (2011) and have influenced the monitoring and reporting of the management of the EGPMF against the principles of EBFM. A description of how the general legislation integrates with the fisheries policy framework to achieve the long-term sustainability objectives of EBFM is published in DoF (2010)75. A broad, high level Harvest Strategy Policy is currently under development. The policy articulates all performance levels and the management actions designed to achieve agreed objectives. These objectives articulate what is to be achieved, and why, both for the resource and the relevant fisheries. This policy is aimed at ensuring target species’ sustainability in the long term. Where a harvest strategy is required, the core elements are: 1. Articulation, at an operational level, of what is to be achieved, and why, both for the resource and the relevant fisheries (operational objectives); 2. Determination of performance indicators to be used to measure performance against operational objectives; 3. Based on achieving acceptable risk levels, establishment of appropriate reference points/levels for each performance indicator; 4. The selection of: a. the most appropriate Harvesting Approach (e.g. constant harvest/exploitation, constant escapement/stock size, constant catch);

75 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop079.pd MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 135

b. the associated Harvest Control Rules which articulate pre-defined, specific management actions based on current status designed to maintain target levels and avoid breaching thresholds or limits; and c. the Acceptable Catch/Effort Tolerance which is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the management actions in delivering the specific catch/effort as determined by the Harvest Control Rules and IFM allocation decisions;

5. Monitoring and assessment procedures for the collection and analysis of all the data needed to underpin the harvest strategy and determine stock status and fishery performance against operational objectives; and 6. The timetable and frequency for review of the harvest strategy elements.

The EGPMF is subject to an industry-agreed and published harvest strategy (DoF 2014a) under this framework. The Department is currently drafting an overarching Aquatic Biodiversity Policy that describes the Department’s role, responsibilities and jurisdiction in the management of the State’s aquatic biodiversity assets, and the key principles applicable in this management area. By focusing on five key asset areas (retained fish species, non-retained fish species, ETP species, fish habitats and ecosystem processes) and seven key threats imposed upon these asset areas (habitat loss, invasive pests, unsustainable harvest, external drivers, lack of information, governance and cumulative impacts), a practical framework for the management of aquatic biodiversity will be described. 4.5.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing (P 3.1.4) The management system actively and explicitly considers and reviews management policy and procedures to ensure they are not contributing to unsustainable fishing practices. The Department has implemented a flexible management framework for the EGPMF that is not overly regulated and provides the ability for the fishery to achieve optimum economic efficiency. Fishery catch is kept consistent with the catch-based target reference level (DoF, Harvest Strategy, 2014a), recognizing that below normal fishing effort results in catches below the target range, and the management systems in place ensure that effort does not increase and that impact on the ecosystem (DoF, BAP, 2014b).

The co-operative management framework for the EGPMF allows the Department and the licensee to collaborate the timing and extent of in-season openings and closing of areas (other than those implemented for sustainability purposes) to optimise catch rates, as well as prawn size and condition. The licensee and skippers continue to work with the Department under this co-operative management framework, and there are no indications that the licensee is dissatisfied with the current arrangements. While not directly used as a measure of performance against the economic management objective, there are ways that the economic efficiency of the fishery can measured. This includes the evaluation of:  commercial catch rates;  target prawn price per kg;  gross annual returns; and  employment levels.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 136

This information is reported annually in Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: the state of the fisheries. The long-term trend from these data indicates that the management framework is providing the fishery with the opportunity to operate efficiently and viably within a sustainable fishery framework. There is a commitment from the Department to meet the cost of development and implementation of management outcomes and to ensure adequate compliance by fishers with new and existing management initiatives. Government consolidated revenue provided $ 48.4 million of the Department’s income in 2012/13 (Annual Report76). The management system is based on a cost recovery model. From 1 July 2010, all managed commercial fisheries were subject to a new funding model77. This involves all managed commercial fisheries in WA paying an access fee equivalent to 5.75 % of the gross value of production (GVP) of the respective fishery. As part of these arrangements, Government also agreed to contribute the equivalent of 0.5 % of managed commercial fishery GVP to WAFIC, to support its role as the peak body, and the equivalent of 0.25 % of GVP to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) (Kangas et al, 2014).78 As part of the Department’s Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management framework, the Department monitors the environmental system (ecosystems and aquatic resources) of the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion, including Exmouth Gulf. Management actions are funded from the spending of the 5 % GVP commercial fisheries access fee and by accessing funds from FRDC and other outside funding sources. No negative subsidies which would contribute to unsustainable fishing practices have been identified. There is a reduced rate of tax on fuel but evidence suggests that, whilst an operating subsidy, this does not lead to an increase in effort. Most specifically, in addition to the harvest strategy, there are a range of tools in place to limit effort: These include:

 A restrictive entry licensing system, with set vessel capacity limits.

All fisheries are currently “fully allocated” (Dept. of Fisheries pers comms.) and almost all fisheries have seen licence numbers (and vessel numbers) reduce in recent years. None of the prawn fisheries assessed appear to have particular problems of overcapacity or latent effort and the limited entry licencing (15 licences in respect to EG), coupled with overall headrope limits and a gear efficiency reduction of 8%, incentivizes those within the fishery to safeguard the resource. In the case of the Exmouth Gulf fishery, the headrope limit system, provided the incentive for the company to use quad gear removing vessels to increase efficiency (15 to 9 to 6), but with “unused” headrope,  Government funded and industry voluntary ‘buy out’ of a fishing licence and / or permanent removal of effort under the Fisheries Adjustment Schemes Act 1987 (FAS Act)79;

The basis for these is covered under the Government supported voluntary ‘buy out’ of

76 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About-Us/Publications/Pages/Annual-Report.aspx 77 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/sec/com/lic/index.php?0205. 78 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/sec/com/lic/index.php?0205 79 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument:21409P/$FILE/Fish eriesAdjstmtSchemesAct1987_03-00-00.pdf?OpenElement MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 137

a fishing licence and / or permanent removal of effort under the Fisheries Adjustment Schemes Act 1987 (FAS Act), which in 2011, included provision for lending monies to the industry to buy out fishing vessels. Over the period 1986 to mid-1996, the FAS Act withdrew a total of 187 inshore fishing authorisations, resulting in an overall reduction of about 10 % of the commercial fishing fleet. Between 1984 and 1990, a VFAS reduced the number of licenses in the EGPMF to from 23 to 16. In 2010, a third VFAS was approved, removing one more licence from the fishery. It is important to note that in such cases where compensation has been paid, the corresponding commercial fishing effort is permanently removed to guard against changes in behaviour that may result in unsustainable shifts in fishing effort. The mechanisms described above are generally applied in cases where there is a loss of access that would likely result in a financial impact on commercial fishers due to competing priorities or conflicts between resource users (commercial, recreational, conservation or customary). They are not used to address sustainability concerns, which are dealt with via powers under the FRMA.  ‘Ex gratia’ (Act of Grace) payments to compensate for permanent closures within the waters of a fishery; and  Compensation awarded under the Fishing and Related Industries Compensation (Marine Reserves) Act 1997 for loss of access (and commensurate loss of entitlement) to marine parks. Furthermore, both EG and SB prawn trawl fisheries benefit from being geographically restricted with a limited number of owners, which in the case of Exmouth is just one. This local nature of the fishery also contributes to the stewardship of the resource and provides a disincentive for an individual to act unsustainably.

4.5.5 Fisheries Specific Objectives (P 3.2.1) Long and short-term specific objectives are documented in the EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014a) and EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (BAP; DoF 2014b). These are supported by defined performance indicators, management reference levels and control rules.

The EGPMF has a long-term management objective, which is demonstrably consistent with achieving outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 1, to maintain spawning stock biomass of each target species at a level where the main factor affecting recruitment is the environment.

The annual (short term) performance of the fishery is measured by undertaking a post-season evaluation of each performance indicator against the reference levels set out in the harvest strategy. Along with the long-term management objectives for the principal target species (tiger prawns and king prawns), there is a short-term operational objective to maintain annual performance above the threshold reference level (and as close to the target reference level as possible) for each component of the fishery.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 138

As part of the EGPMF harvest strategy, a review of management arrangements is triggered if the annual performance measure (spawning stock index) is below the target level. This ensures that potential issues are recognised and addressed prior to the following fishing season and that the long-term management objective relevant to MSC Principle 1 continues to be met.

The performance of the EGPMF against the brown tiger and western king prawn spawning stock mean catch rate reference level is evaluated at the end of the fishing season. If the threshold level is breached, a review of the season arrangements and monitoring system is triggered which ensures that potential issues are recognised and addressed prior to the following fishing season to ensure the long term management objective relevant to MSC Principle 1 continues to be met.

For endeavour, banana and coral prawn species, the threshold reference level is to ensure that the annual catch of any species is above the acceptable catch range for two consecutive years, with specified targets for each species. The long-term management objectives for the EGPMF, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 2, are:  To maintain spawning stock biomass of each retained species at a level where the main factor affecting recruitment is the environment;  To ensure fishery impacts do not result in serious or irreversible harm to bycatch species populations;  To ensure fishery impacts do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ETP species populations;  To ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function; and  To ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem processes. There is good evidence to suggest that each of the long-term management objectives listed above are being met. The performance of the Fishery against the management objective for (non-ETP) bycatch species populations is measured (since 2002) against the annual area trawled and the compliance with BRD requirements. Good information exists for both retained species showing the general downward trend in the catches of non-prawn retained non-target species since the introduction of BRDs in the Fishery in 2002/03, and the catches recorded in 2013 were the lowest since 2002. However, a principal weakness is the lack of regular information on fishery bycatch (teleost and invertebrate species). Most specifically more accurate information would be preferable in order to measure the outcomes of the actions implemented. Accurate bycatch data has not been available since the 2002-2003 survey, and similar mapping information showing the change in benthic foot print is not available. No explicit targets/limits have been set for bycatch. The current EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (BAP; DoF 2014b) for the fishery does however aim to improve the monitoring of bycatch levels to more regularly assess bycatch composition: ‘to collect bycatch (non-retained) species composition data every three years and to investigate crew-member observer program (CMOP) as an ongoing data collection system’. This action has not yet been implemented. The Performance Indicators in the EGPMF Harvest Strategy do not include provision for information. This may be because

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 139

the impact of the Fishery on bycatch species’ breeding populations has been consistently ranked as low (2001 ESD risk assessment), even prior to the implementation of BRDs in 2002/2003, and then again by an internal review of the 2001 risk assessment in 2008. However, it is the assessors’ view, that for the actions to be defined and measurable, there would need to be a regular commitment to data monitoring. This is consistent with the scoring of PI 2.2d which requires Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species. That said, the fishery has been consistently maintained at the target reference levels – 100% BRD application, Fishery impacts expected to generate an acceptable risk level (i.e. moderate risk or lower), and low trawl footprint. The performance of the Fishery against the management objective for ETP species populations is measured against the annual area trawled and the compliance with BRD requirements. The fishery has been consistently maintained at the target reference level for both indicators since mandatory BRD implementation in 2002. The impact of the Fishery on ETP species populations was ranked as low (2001 ESD risk assessment), even prior to the implementation of BRDs in 2002/03. An internal review of the 2001 risk assessment in 2008 did not highlight a need to amend the low risk level. Notwithstanding this, the current BAP for the Fishery aims to improve the consistency and validation of ETP interaction reporting, further crew education on ETP species identification and develop a better understanding of ETP population sizes and distribution in Exmouth Gulf, which will be used to update the 2001 risk assessment. Measures to reduce further injury and incidental mortality of ETP species captured by the Fishery will also be investigated.

The performance of the Fishery against the management objective for maintaining habitat structure and function is measured against the annual area trawled. The fishery has been consistently maintained at the target reference level since 2002.

The performance of the Fishery against the management objective for ecosystem processes is measured against the reference levels for all ecosystem components (target species, retained non-target species, bycatch, ETP species and habitat structure and function). The risk to ecosystem processes from the removal of species and discarding bycatch by the fishery was ranked as low (2001 ESD risk assessment), as the amount of discards that result from the fishery is not considered significant. 4.5.6 Decision making processes (P 3.2.2) There are established decision-making processes in the EGPMF management system that are fully understood by all stakeholders and underpinned by explicit and transparent consultation. The fishery specific decision-making processes for the EGPMF consist of three components: 1. Annual and in-season consultation and decision-making that may result in measures to meet short-term (operational) objectives (driven by the control rules contained in the current Harvest Strategy); 2. In-season consultation and decision-making that is designed to meet the economic objective to provide the fishery with the opportunity to optimise economic returns (cooperative framework); and 3. Longer-term consultation and decision-making that results in new measures and strategies to achieve the long term fishery-specific management objectives (i.e. changes to the management framework).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 140

The Harvest Strategy control rules guide the management response in the event that the operational objective (i.e. to maintain the performance indicator above the threshold reference level) is not met. In these cases, the decision-making processes may result in measures to achieve fishery-specific objectives in response to research, monitoring evaluation and consultation.

An overview of the annual and in-season consultation and decision-making processes to achieve short-term operational objectives under the current management framework are described below.

The annual decision making processes include:

 Post-season Report / Pre-season Briefing to the Licensee.

The Department’s research staff undertake a post-season evaluation of the fishing season outcomes and develop a written report for the licensee80. This report, together with a summary presentation, is provided to the licensee each year in February / March. Discussions might include preliminary investigation of reasons why target reference levels were not met (if this was the case). If sustainability is considered to be at risk, changes to fishing arrangements are discussed with the licensee and are implemented for the following fishing season (e.g. a delay to the commencement of fishing to reduce effort). Consultation between the Department and the licensee also occurs at this stage to decide on the statutory season opening date (usually after the full moon in April) and closing date, the in-season survey schedule and the extent of moon closures.  Annual Advice to Management and the Director General regarding the Opening / Closing of the Fishing Season

Following consultation with the licensee, a written briefing is provided to the Director General recommending the statutory opening and closing dates for the coming fishing season. The Director General (as the Chief Executive Officer81) determines the opening and closing dates for the fishery by signing a notice pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan, a copy of which is provided to the licensee in writing. The notice is then made publically available on the State Law Publisher’s website82. This notice statutorily caps the overall fishing effort (fishing days) for the season at an acceptable level (i.e. no more than 200 fishing days). Clause 10 of the Management Plan provides the power for the Director General to statutorily set the annual fishing season without the need for an amendment to the Management Plan. The Director General also approves the boundaries of the management areas in the notice.

80 DoF, Exmouth Prawn Managed Fishery Season Report, 2013 (March 2014) 81 Note that annual notices made pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan are signed by the Director General as ‘Chief Executive Officer’ transitioned from the ‘Executive Director’ pursuant to section 242 of the Machinery of Government (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2006 82http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/subsiduary.nsf/0/D36C2D29CE34209248257CF30025401B/$file/10.06.14. +egp+notice+no+2+2014.pdf MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 141

 Pre-season Skippers Briefing

The Department’s research staff develop an information package83 and provide a briefing to the fleet skippers for the coming season. Skippers are also provided with a presentation of the outcomes of the previous fishing season. The skippers’ briefing provides a feedback loop to the Department on the proposed seasonal arrangements for the coming season.

In-Season decision-making processes operates as follows:

 The key in-season decision-making process is undertaken pursuant to the control rules designed to achieve the in-season operational objectives in the Harvest Strategy (i.e. to achieve above the threshold reference levels). Consultation is undertaken by the Department’s Research staff directly with the licensee around the timing and extent of fishing in the management areas throughout the season. This decision-making processes is informed by a combination of the recruitment and spawning stock survey regime (catch rates and prawn size composition), knowledge of prawn biology (spawning and movement patterns of brown tiger and western king prawns) and daily monitoring of commercial catch rates. The resulting decisions are communicated to skippers, as well as to the Department’s management and compliance (including VMS) staff. The annual in-season fishing arrangements designed to achieve the in- season operational objectives in the Harvest Strategy are implemented on a non- statutory basis. If it is identified that an area of the fishery may need to be closed statutorily, this can be achieved quickly (within 24 hours) via a notice pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan.

Cooperative management processes include the following:

 Once requirements have been addressed in line with the Harvest Strategy, an in- season cooperative consultation and decision-making process is used to provide the licensee with the opportunity to optimise economic returns from the target prawn species within the sustainable fishing framework. Decisions around optimising economic returns are informed by prawn size composition information arising from both Department and industry surveys and real-time monitoring of daily commercial catch data. The consultation and decision-making process is undertaken in person between the Department’s Research staff and the licensee and is communicated to fleet skippers, compliance and VMS staff (Kangas et al. (2008)). The fishing arrangements (i.e. timing and extent of fishing) resulting from the cooperative framework are non-statutory because they are not in place for stock sustainability reasons; however, they are monitored by VMS staff.

There is an established fishery-specific management system decision-making process in place that results in measures and strategies to ensure the management objectives continue to be met in the longer term.

This decision-making process is triggered primarily as a result of analysing longer-term patterns or trends in the annual monitoring of the success of the existing management regime.

83 DoF, Skippers Briefing Package, 2-14 Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery: Guide to Management Areas, All positions relating to GDA 94 MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 142

Variations in the operating environment caused by other factors (e.g. environmental conditions, market conditions, fishing behaviour, conflicts with other marine users, determination of native title, marine planning, etc.) can also trigger investigation and discussion that may lead to a change to the management system. Changes to the management system as a result of implementing new measures and strategies tend to be more permanent (i.e. lasting for more than one season) and are often implemented in legislation. Depending on the issue and stakeholders affected, consultation can occur through the following mechanisms:  directly in writing;  at licensee meetings and skipper’s briefings;  establishment of a tasked working group;  external / expert workshops (e.g. ecological risk assessments); and / or  internal workshops (e.g. harvest strategy development, ecological and compliance risk assessments). These forums are used to work through options for addressing emerging issues, consider both key and other interested stakeholder advice and take into account the broader implications of those options. Following the consultation process, any new proposed management measures and strategies that require changes to legislation or publication must be provided to the statutory decision maker (usually the Director General or the Minister for Fisheries). The Department must set out evidence of consultation and the results of the decision-making process during this process (Kangas et al., 2014). Recent examples of the fishery-specific management system decision-making process that resulted in new strategies include the development of the current Harvest Strategy and BAP for the EGPMF, both of which were developed following multiple internal workshops and face-to-face consultation with the licensee. Figure 37 shows the consultation and decision-making process as it relates to the EGPMF management system.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 143

Minister for Fisheries Management meeting with licence holders organised by the Department Director General (Chief Executive Officer) Department of Fisheries

Compliance Research Management

Specific Fishery Issues Independent Expert Advisory Groups  Fishery specific compliance  Risk Assessment Workshops  In-house – the Department  Scientific Review Workshops risk assessments  Tasked Working Groups

Stakeholder Participation (dependent on issue) *WAFIC * Licensee *Individuals *Indigenous Groups *Conservation groups

Figure 37. Fishery-specific consultation and decision-making framework for the EGPMF management system The decision-making processes described above allows for a response process in instances where management changes need to be applied to alleviate unacceptable risks to stocks. The timing of provision of scientific advice on the status of prawn stocks is immediate given the real-time monitoring regime. The annual and in-season control rules contained in the current Harvest Strategy are applied consistently and are informed by both real-time monitoring of fishery-independent and fishery-dependent catch rates (for decisions implemented in-season) and annual evaluation (for decisions implemented in the following fishing season). For example, fishing did not commence in the Eastern Area in 2013 based on the catch rate of brown tiger prawns from the 2013 recruitment surveys, and the central TPSA did not re-open later in the season following the results of the 2013 brown tiger prawn spawning stock surveys. In addition, once the mean catch rate of brown tiger prawns fell below the threshold of 20 kg/hr to 17.3 kg/hr in 2012, management measures were reviewed in consultation with the licensee, and both temporal and spatial fishing effort on brown tiger prawns was managed more conservatively for the 2013 (and 2014) fishing season. The urgency of consultation and decision-making processes relevant to more permanent changes to the management system is based on risk. This can be a quick and streamlined process, given there is only one licensee in the EGPMF. Once approved, such management actions tend to be implemented by way of changes to legislative instruments. For example, actions to close areas of the fishery (or the entire fishery), reduce fishing days / hours (temporal effort management) or change management area boundaries (spatial effort management) can be implemented almost immediately by the Director General pursuant to clause 10 of the Management Plan.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 144

Changes to other existing arrangements (such as headrope limits and gear specifications) can also be applied very quickly (within days or weeks), depending on urgency. Once a decision is made, the approval and implementation of such changes is undertaken by amendment to the relevant legislative instrument in a transparent and accountable way and in line with statutory requirements where necessary. For example, the Minister for Fisheries must consult with the licensee before approving an amendment to the Management Plan (section 65 of the FRMA). While the Director General can impose, delete or vary a MFL condition, his decision is subject to a formal appeals process (section 147 of the FRMA). There are no statutory provisions as to the consultation requirements relating to section 7 instruments of exemption or section 43 orders (noting that section 43 orders can be disallowed in State Parliament); however, in the absence of any statute specifying consultative procedures, the Department has regard for common law principles to afford natural justice to the licensee. As such, the Department will formally consult with the licensee when making changes to management arrangements via an instrument of exemption or an order. The outcomes of the decision-making process and implementation of statutory arrangements is always formally communicated to the licensee in writing and available publically on the State Law Publishers website. Examples of the responsiveness of the decision-making process to implement longer-term management changes include:  In line with the original ESD WTO certification in March 2003, the Department and the licensee worked to monitor ETP interactions and comparing faunal assemblages in trawled and untrawled areas within the fishery (2004);  The issue of the low abundance of brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf in 2012 and 2013 triggered a review to investigate the reasons for the variation, which has led to the Department to seek funds from the FRDC to undertake research in 2015;  The Department, in consultation with the licensee, has also worked rapidly to develop and implement the EGPMF Harvest Strategy and EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan following MSC pre-assessment in 2013 and prior to undergoing MSC full assessment in 2014. The decision-making process also allows for the consideration of the wider implications of decisions, particularly where proposed longer-term management actions may result in adverse unintended consequences to other management components. It is important to note that all ecological objectives must be met prior to considering responses to achieve economic objectives. For example, the move to a quad-rigged net configuration by 2007 improved fishing efficiency for commercial purposes; however, a maximum headrope length for the fishery was imposed for sustainability purposes. Similarly, the removal of the 375 boat unit rule was also aimed at maximising economic efficiency and flexibility; however, an overall limit on boat length was also imposed. The EGPMF is managed based on a constant escapement harvesting approach. The management activities related to this approach have been developed over time based on a comprehensive understanding of the biology of brown tiger and western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf, together with a long-term annual and in-season monitoring and assessment regime. Based on this information, the decision-making processes have led to the implementation of a sustainable management framework over time. Furthermore, the

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 145

reference levels are considered appropriate, as they are demonstrably achieving the fishery- specific management objectives. The control rules incorporate a precautionary approach to the decision-making process by requiring a review when the target reference level is not met. This ensures that any warning signs are recognised and investigated / addressed in their early stages. The frequency of evaluation (both annually and in-season) and review means that management action to investigate and, where required, alleviate adverse impacts on stocks is always taken before the performance indicators reach the limit reference level. For example, recent decisions regarding the extent of fishing in 2013 and 2014 took into account the best available information and set the level of fishing more conservatively based on the previous seasons’ outcomes. The commercial catch rates of brown tiger and western king prawns for the 2014 fishing season are being closely monitored and the annual catch against the catch prediction arising from the recruitment surveys will be compared immediately following the close of the season. The brown tiger prawn spawning stock surveys undertaken in August, September and October 2014 and assessment of commercial catch rates of western king prawns will provide the most up to date information as to the current status of both stocks. Sources of uncertainty within the data and data gaps have been identified, particularly where they relate to obtaining a more quantified and up-to-date assessment of the risk posed by the fishery to bycatch and ETP species’ populations. The application of the EBFM provides a good tool to assess the relative risks to bycatch, ETP species and habitats, which if required, will identify precautionary actions to deal with at risk species and assemblages. An example on where the precautionary approach was applied to the P2 component in this fishery includes the introduction of the BRDs, where even though the original risk assessment conducted in 2001 ranked the impact from the fishery on ETP species populations as low, mandatory BRDs were implemented in 2002. This is considered sufficiently precautionary at a population level (Patrick Cavalli, pers. Com. November, 2014). The current BAP may result in management actions, should the existing management system prove to be posing an unacceptable risk. Formal and regular reporting to key stakeholders relating to information on fishery performance and management actions, and how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity, is primarily provided at the annual meeting between the Department and the licensee. This reporting consists of presentations and the provision of the annual season report for the fishery. Key stakeholders are also formally briefed on the outcomes of research prior to publication. Such meetings and briefings are also used as a forum to discuss relevant recommendations and proposed management actions. Recommendations and final decisions that result in new measures or strategies are often published by the Department as fisheries management papers, research reports or in State of the Fisheries. For example, the current Harvest Strategy and Bycatch Action Plan for the EGPMF were developed directly in consultation with the licensee. These strategies are published and available on the Department’s website. Formal / direct reporting to other interested stakeholders to provide information on the performance and management of the EGPMF, how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity is undertaken on a case-by-case basis. For example, formal / direct reporting is provided to other interested stakeholders that are involved in consultation and decision-

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 146

making processes, such as tasked working groups, external risk assessments or external reviews of the EGPMF management system. Notwithstanding this, comprehensive information on fishery performance and management actions, and how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity, is compiled on a regular basis and is publically available in documents published on the Department’s website including:  The Annual Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: the State of the Fisheries (e.g. Fletcher & Santoro 2013);

 The EGPMF Management Plan84 (available on the State Law Publisher’s website via a link from the Department’s website);

 CEO notices regarding opening and closing the fishery85;

 The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014a);

 The Research, Monitoring, Assessment and Development Plan 2011 – 1286, which provides information on all completed and proposed research relating to the EGPMF and the associated ecosystem;

 The EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014b); and

 Outcomes of management decisions, research and studies (e.g. Fisheries Management Papers, Fisheries Research Reports and Occasional Papers). Other mediums for communication with other interested stakeholders can include media releases87; the MG Kailis website88 also provides information targeted at consumers. The EGPMF consultation and decision-making processes proactively avoid legal disputes through the inclusion of stakeholders during consultation on key management matters. This allows for all impacts of proposed management actions to be considered, conflicts to be addressed and negotiation and compromise to be reached. In addition, the close collaboration and regular communication between the Department, the licensee and skippers has resulted in a mutual and in-depth understanding of industry operations and the fishery management system. Given this, there have been no actual legal disputes or requirement to implement judicial decisions in the EGPMF. However, there are well-established mechanisms for administrative and legal appeals of decisions, which are prescribed in Part 14 of the FRMA. Should they arise, disputes regarding statutory validity are dealt with by the Courts. These decisions are publically available. Examples of these cases include:  Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd vs Minister for Fisheries (2002) at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/judgment.xsp?documentId=89 CBEA251EC082BB48256B5A000C1635&action=openDocument.

84 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/subsiduary.nsf/FisheriesT?openpage 85 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/subsiduary.nsf/Fisheriesexec?openpage 86 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop106.pdf 87 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About-Us/Media-releases/Pages/Prawn-fisheries-seek-sustainability- certification.aspx 88 http://www.mgkailisseafood.com.au/ExmouthFishingOperations.aspx MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 147

This judgement has been put into effect in practice, by allowing the nominated operator of a vessel to be changed.  Edgemere Pty Ltd vs Minister for Fisheries & Anor (1997) at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/judgment.xsp?documentId=E2 B71DECD36F4C1B48256497004CD3F9&action=openDocument.

The decisions of the State Administration Tribunal (SAT) and the Courts are binding on the Department (for details of decisions see http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf). All SAT decisions must be carried out by the Department (section 29(5), page 20 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 200489). 4.5.7 Compliance and enforcement PI (P 3.2.3) In order to optimally utilise compliance resources, enforcement effort is designed to maximise the potential for fishers to voluntarily comply with fishery rules, while at the same time provide a reasonable threat of detection, successful prosecution and significant penalties for those who do not comply. This is achieved through a range of strategies, including effective monitoring and surveillance, appropriately trained staff, suitable deterrents in the forms of fines and administrative penalties and targeted educative campaigns. The Department’s Regional Services Division (RSD) delivers the Department’s compliance and educational services, with the support of the Communications and Education Branch, and the RSD also provides licensing facilities at the regional offices, as well as online renewal and payment. There are approximately 170 RSD staff across the State, spread throughout regional and district offices. Regional operational areas are supported by the Regional Services Branch’s Perth-based Central Support Services and Strategic Policy sections. Key compliance programs in place throughout the State include:  Recreational fishing;  Commercial fishing;  Biosecurity;  Pearling and Aquaculture;  Marine parks (State and Commonwealth);  Fish Habitat Protection Areas (FHPAs);  Marine Safety; and  Organised, unlicensed fisheries crime. Compliance and community education services in the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion (GCB), which includes Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf, are delivered by Fisheries and Marine Officers (FMOs), Community Education Officers and associated management and administrative support staff based at the District Offices in Denham, Carnarvon and Exmouth. During 2012/13, the three district offices supported a total of ten FMO positions allocated to deliver services to several client groups including commercial and recreational fisheries, marine parks, pearling and aquaculture operations and FHPAs. Most Fisheries Officers are permanently located in the main population centres with access to appropriate platforms to allow them to undertake patrols up and down the entire WA coastline. A small number of

89 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_918_homepage.html

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 148

Officers are also specifically employed to undertake mobile patrols to conduct ‘surprise’ inspections, an activity that is particularly important in smaller towns where fishers can quite easily learn the movement patterns of local Officers (Green and McKinley 2009). A significant aspect of the region’s compliance work is the provision of compliance services to the State’s Marine Parks. The GCB has two of WA’s most iconic and significant Marine Parks, Ningaloo Marine Park (and the associated Commonwealth Ningaloo Marine Park) and the Shark Bay Marine Park and associated World Heritage Area. These two Marine Parks occupy just over 70 % of the GCB. In partnership with the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW), FMOs monitor and deliver compliance and education programs covering some 30 Sanctuary Zones, Marine Managed Areas and other protected areas. FMOs undertake regular land, air and sea patrols using a compliance delivery model supported by a risk assessment process and associated operational planning framework. Throughout the bioregion, they employ specially equipped four-wheel-drive vehicles, quad bikes and small towable vessels. They also make use of sophisticated surveillance, mapping and GPS equipment to assist in evidence gathering. This includes high-powered telescopes and photographic mapping technology. A high-visibility Recreational Fishing Mobile Patrol has been added to the Gascoyne pool of resources. This dedicated education and enforcement unit patrols the coast from Onslow through to Kalbarri. FMOs at Exmouth make extensive use of the 13-metre Patrol Vessel (PV) the PV Edwards to conduct compliance activities throughout the GCB, while FMOs in Carnarvon and Denham use an 8-metre rigid inflatable boat and a 7.3-metre rigid inflatable boat, respectively. Both vessels are used to conduct at-sea inspections in Shark Bay and within the southern aspects of the Ningaloo Marine Park and Commonwealth Ningaloo Marine Park. In all three Districts, FMOs spend approximately 90 days a year at sea on patrol duties. Historically, large patrol vessels (greater than 20 m in length) have assisted FMOs at various times of the year for offshore patrols. FMOs conduct patrols the length of the GCB and target offenders in all of the recreational and commercial fisheries based on intelligence gathered, as well as conduct aerial surveillance, at-sea and on-land licence, gear and marine safety inspections and attend community events and school education programs. Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Systems Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) mechanisms ensure a fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with. There is a comprehensive MCS system implemented in the EGPMF that has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and / or rules. The MCS system is administered by the Department’s RSD through a fishery-specific Operational Compliance Plan (OCP). A fishery’s OCP provides clear and unambiguous direction and guidance to FMOs for the yearly delivery of compliance-related activities in the fishery. The development of fishery- specific OCPs and compliance strategies continues to provide the most effective and efficient method for a planned and measureable approach to compliance delivery. Compliance Risk Assessments and Operational Compliance Plan Fishers and other stakeholder groups may be directly involved in setting compliance priorities through compliance risk assessments. The Department conducts compliance risk assessments every 1 – 2 years in major fisheries (including the EGPMF) or those perceived to be at high risk and every 3 – 5 years in minor fisheries. The risk assessment process can also be

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 149

triggered by the introduction of new supporting legislation90 in a fishery / resource or the identification of any new major issues that would require RSD managers to assess their compliance program including (but not limited to):  A sectoral complaint;  Ministerial or Parliamentary enquiry;  Management framework issues;  Public complaint or sustained media interest;  Intelligence; or an  Upward trend in non-compliance. The risk assessment process involves the participation of managers, field-based FMOs, researchers, commercial and recreational fishers, fish processors and representatives from other interested stakeholder groups, where relevant. There are two tiers in the risk assessment process — the first tier is the formal transparent process involving industry and other stakeholders, and the second tier is internal, utilising researchers, fishery managers and compliance personnel. The second process feeds into the fishery’s OCP91, which provides the formal framework for the delivery of specific compliance services that remove or mitigate the identified risks. The compliance risk assessment process identifies modes of offending, compliance countermeasures and risks and relies on a weight-of-evidence approach, considering information available from specialist units, trends and issues identified by local staff and Departmental priorities set by the Aquatic Management Division through Fish Plan. An OCP provides a formal and transparent process for staff to carry out defined compliance activities in order to monitor, inspect and regulate the compliance risks to each specific high- risk activity in a fishery, and in turn confirm they are at an acceptable and manageable level. This is supported by measurable reporting methods defined under the OCP to demonstrate compliance activities being undertaken are having a direct and significant impact on reducing identified risks. The development of an OCP consists of identifying and applying tailored compliance strategies for each identified risk. In the case of EGPMF, this includes strategies that may deal with higher identified risks related to seasonal considerations, spatial considerations, environmental considerations and identified persons or groups of interest. OCPs have been operating for several years now in the EGPMF and other major commercial fisheries in the GCB and for the management of the Ningaloo Marine Park, Shark Bay Marine Park and Commonwealth Ningaloo Marine Park. Each OCP is reviewed following a compliance risk assessment. Additionally, by regularly reviewing the OCPs for all fisheries in a particular location, rational and accountable decisions can be made about deploying compliance resources and ensuring that resources are available to mitigate risks to an acceptable level.

90 ‘Supporting legislation’ refers to any legislation that would allow non-compliance with the management framework to be detected and prosecuted with a reasonable chance of securing a conviction. 91 By their nature, OCPs contain sensitive information and are only made available to authorised compliance personnel. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 150

Following a formal review of a fishery’s OCP and associated compliance strategies, compliance activities are prioritized in accordance with risk, budget and resourcing considerations. All existing OCPs were reviewed and updated during the 2012/13 year using this model. Annual planning meetings are held for OCPs, with regular specific planning of day-to-day targeted and non-targeted patrols linked to the OCP based on resources and competing priorities. Compliance Operations Gascoyne regional staff co-ordinate the allocation and prioritisation of existing resources across all programs in the region based on the risk assessments and related OCPs. Compliance planning meetings are held regularly to ensure staffing requirements are adequate for scheduled compliance activities. Available compliance resources are allocated based on the risk assessment outcomes and the contacts and compliance statistics which are captured, reported on and reviewed at the end of each year. The allocated resources and compliance strategies (i.e. monitoring, surveillance and education activities) are outlined in the OCP, which specifies planned hours and staff allocated to key compliance tasks and duties. This planning and delivery process allows for more-targeted, effective and relevant compliance service in terms of both cost and activities. There is also flexibility within the region to allocate additional resources to respond to changes, such as the need for a planned tactical operation in response to fresh intelligence. This may be achieved by redirecting existing resources or seeking additional resources from other areas or units. Similarly, changing priorities and resourcing on a local level can involve reducing planned delivery of compliance services to ensure resources are directed to where they are most needed. The Regional Office of the Department relevant to the EGPMF is located Carnarvon and supported by district offices located at Exmouth, Carnarvon and Denham. Staff located at these offices provide on-ground compliance and educative delivery for these fisheries. Key compliance and enforcement personnel located in the region and their responsibilities include: 1. Compliance Managers  Overall responsibility for OCPs and compliance strategies, including their development, review and ensuring outcomes are delivered;  Responsible for providing sufficient and appropriate resources to achieve compliance outcomes;  Ensuring FMO safety is considered at all times and the Region’s occupational health and safety requirements are met;  Monitoring the progress of the OCPs and strategies during their execution;  Consulting with all key stakeholders when reviewing the OCPs and strategies; and  Reporting outcomes. 2. Supervising Fisheries and Marine Officers  Field responsibility for OCPs and strategies, including reporting any deficiencies and reporting the outcomes as they are delivered or achieved; MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 151

 Supervision of staff performance;  Ensuring officer safety is considered at all times and the district’s occupational health and safety requirements are met;  Provide briefings and de-briefings as required;  Ensuring all equipment required to execute the OCPs and strategies is serviced, operational and available; and  Liaising with staff from other agencies operating in a joint servicing arrangement. 3. Fisheries and Marine Officers (FMOs):  Day-to-day responsibility for the execution of the OCPs and strategies in their interaction with users of the Fishery;  Ensuring FMO safety is considered at all times and individual occupational health and safety requirements are met;  Reporting any deficiencies and outcomes in a timely and accurate manner; and  Complying with the Standard Operating Procedures, Prosecution Guidelines92, the Department’s Code of Conduct and promoting the vision and mission statement of the Department and its joint-servicing partners. FMOs are formally appointed pursuant to the FRMA, which clearly sets out their powers to enforce fisheries legislation, enter and search premises, obtain information and inspect catches. FMOs are highly trained; they must have a thorough knowledge of the legislation they are responsible for enforcing and follow a strict protocol for undertaking their duties in accordance with FRMA and in recording information relating to the number and type of contacts, offences detected and sanctions applied. In addition to regional compliance staff there are a number of units within the Department that support the delivery of compliance outcomes, including: 1. Patrol Boat Business Unit  Provides large oceangoing patrol vessels for Statewide offshore compliance operations and education activities. 2. Vessel Monitoring System Unit  Operates the Department’s vessel monitoring system (VMS) to help manage the State’s commercial fisheries. 3. Serious Offences Unit  Undertakes covert operations and deals with connections to organised crime;  Conducts major investigations and initiates proactive intelligence-driven operations;  Targets any serious and organised criminal activity within the fishing sector;  Provides specialist investigative training; and

92 The Prosecution Guidelines is a confidential guide used by FMOs that provide a tiered framework for dealing with fishery offences, thus it is not a publically-available document. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 152

 Provides technical assistance in relation to covert surveillance. 4. Fisheries Intelligence Unit  Responsible for providing intelligence reports to support strategic, operational and tactical needs of compliance programs; and  Collects and analyses compliance data. 5. Compliance Statistics Unit  Develop monitoring and sampling programmes to support compliance delivery;  Collects and analyses compliance data to identify trends; and  Provides compliance statistics to help target enforcement activities. 6. Prosecutions Unit  Manage the electronic system used to issue infringement notices or commence prosecution processes when offences are detected; and  Custodians of information relating to detected offences which can be used for official reporting purposes. 7. Strategic Policy Section of the Regional Services Branch  Develops and implements strategic compliance policy and standards;  Provides compliance risk assessments for fisheries;  Provides review and implementation of fisheries management and compliance legislation;  Oversees collection and analysis of compliance data;  Oversees compliance research projects;  Develops occupational health and safety standards for FMOs; and  Provides recruitment and training of new and existing FMOs. MCS Systems Compliance staff utilise a number of formal monitoring and surveillance activities and control mechanisms in the EGPMF. VMS is a mandatory requirement for real-time monitoring to ensure fishers are operating within the legislated permitted fishing areas. All vessels operating in the EGPMF have installed an Automatic Location Communicator93 (ALC) pursuant to the fishery’s Management Plan. The ALC tracks the location of the boat and transmits information such as the geographical position, course and speed of the boat via a satellite link to a VMS database at the Department’s Marine Operations Centre in Fremantle, with authorised Departmental officers able to access VMS data in real-time. This monitoring reduces incentives to break the law due to a high level of certainty that an offence would be detected.

93 Statutory approved directions are gazetted and readily-available to regulate the installation, use, servicing and testing of approved ALCs. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 153

The licensee and / or the master of every licenced fishing boat is required (under regulation 64 of the FRMR) to submit accurate and complete catch and effort returns on forms approved by the Department. Daily94 Trawl Logbook Sheets (see Appendices in the associated MSC Assessment Document) have been completed by all skippers in the fisheries since 1962/63 and have been compulsory since 2008. On each logbook sheet, fishers are required to report the starting position (longitude and latitude), start time, duration, mean depth and catches of each retained species for each trawl shot, as well as daily records of all ETP species interactions and environmental data (i.e. water temperature and moon phase). These fisheries operate using a constant escapement approach, with catch and effort monitored by the research branch and used to inform in-season control rules related to the rolling opening/closure of management areas throughout the Fishery. As part of the control rules, once the catch rates in an area fall below the limit reference levels, the area is closed to fishing activity (for a specified period of time or for the remainder of the season depending on the area). Thus, there is an incentive for fishers not to under-report catches, as this will generate a lower catch rate and thus, the potential closure of an area to fishing activity. Control Mechanisms Fisheries legislation forms the main component of the control system for commercial fisheries in WA, along with conditions applied on an MFL. The EGPMF is subject to controls under:  The EPBC Act (export exemptions);  The FRMA;  The FRMR;  The EGPMF Management Plan; and  MFL conditions; A description of the control measures in place are provided in Table 21.

94 Shot-by-shot information provided since 1998 MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 154

Table 21. Description of the control measures and instruments of implementation in the EGPMF

Measure Description Instrument

Limited Entry A limited number of Managed Fishery Licenses (15) EGPMF Management Plan are permitted to operate in the EGPMF.

Effort The fishery currently operates under a maximum EGPMF Management Plan Restrictions headrope capacity restriction of 395.02 metres FRMA (Section 7 exemptions) (216 fathoms).

Gear Controls Include controls on mesh size (≤ 60 mm) of nets, boat EGPMF Management Plan length, size of the ground chain (≤ 10 mm diameter) FRMA (Section 7 exemptions) and the dimensions of the otter boards, including metal shoes.

Bycatch The fleet is required to have BRDs in the forms of MFL Condition Reduction grids and fish exclusion devices (FEDs), such as Devices (BRDs) square mesh panels, in all standard nets.

Annual Closed The fishery is closed to fishing between November EGPMF Management Plan Season & Cap on and April each year, with the aim of a maximum of (clause 10 annual notice) Fishing Days 200 total fishing days each year.

Spatial Closures The south-eastern area of Exmouth Gulf is EGPMF Management Plan permanently closed to trawling activities to preserve

seagrass and other sensitive habitats that are essential nursery areas for prawns and other species. There is a Port Area Closure in place within three nautical miles of Exmouth.

There are permanent trawling closures in place as FRMA (Section 43 orders) part of the Ningaloo Marine Park and Muiron Islands

Marine Management Area.

Non-statutory rolling spatial closures in the Co-operative arrangement management areas are used throughout the season to (non-statutory) contain and direct overall fleet effort, control effort on brown tiger prawns, and provide industry the opportunity to maximise economic returns.

Temporal Fishing is only permitted between 1800 and 0800 EGPMF Management Plan Closures hours the following day, as prawns are nocturnal. In (clause 10 annual notice) some years approval has been granted to fish later than 0800.

Fishing closures also occur for a minimum of four Co-operative arrangement days around each full moon. (non-statutory)

Reporting Fishers are required to report all retained (target and FRMR (regulation 64) non-target) species catches, effort, ETP species interactions and fishing location in statutory daily logbooks.

Fishing activities are also monitored via the satellite EGPMF Management Plan VMS and the master must submit a nomination of

intention to enter the fishery via VMS.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 155

Surveillance Activities FMOs deliver compliance activities directed at commercial fisheries through pre-season briefings with the masters of the licenced fishing boats and pre-season inspections, as well as at-sea inspections and investigations resulting from suspected breaches detected via the VMS and intelligence-led operations. FMO’s follow a variety of established Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) when undertaking patrol and inspection work. This procedure ensures that inspections are carried out safely, efficiently, correctly and with due regard to relevant policies. SOPs also ensure consistency in the delivery of compliance services and the ability to quickly familiarise new staff to the specifics of important compliance elements in a fishery. The majority of surveillance activities in the EGPMF are undertaken by FMOs during field- based patrols. Compliance activities undertaken during patrols are recorded and reported by FMOs using a daily patrol contact (DPC) form. The purpose of these forms is to record and classify contacts and time spent in the field for each FMO. These forms provide managers with information about:  The number of field contacts made, which provides a context for the number of offences detected. This includes random contacts and offences from random inspections;  The number of targeted95 contacts made, which provides information on the effectiveness of the intelligence gathering capacity at identifying ‘targets’;  The number of face-to-face contacts outside of a compliance context (referred to as ‘A/L/E’ contacts) made, which provides information on the educative effort of FMOs in a fishery; and  Other routine information that can be used to help managers report on where and on which fisheries FMOs have undertaken patrols. This information is also used in patrol planning and risk assessments and ensures accountability of the compliance program. A ‘contact’ occurs when an FMO has a chance of detecting illegal activity being undertaken by a fisher and includes personal contact (face-to-face), covert activities (e.g. deliberate, intensive surveillance), unattended gear checks (e.g. checking BRDs on a trawl net) and A/L/E contacts. VMS vessel days are also considered commercial compliance contacts. VMS vessel days are a proxy for fleet size and compliance coverage, representing each day that a vessel has an ALC operational (whether fishing or not) and therefore, a day that FMOs can assess whether it is complying with statutory spatial closures. In addition, VMS allows for a more targeted and cost effective on-ground compliance delivery. The DPC form also includes a section to record details of individual commercial vessel inspections / checks. These inspections may involve:  Inspection of all nets, BRD’s, otter boards, VMS and other gear;  Inspection of all authorizations; and  Inspection of freezers and fish on board the boat.

95 A targeted contact is one that is initiated because available information indicates that an offence may have been committed or may be more likely to have been committed. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 156

Compliance field activity undertaken by FMOs operating from large (> 20 m) patrol vessels are reported and captured in the patrol vessel database (PVDB), which is available for use by compliance managers and other patrol vessels as needed. The Department has also implemented an initiative called Fishwatch96, whereby the community can report instances of suspected illegal fishing. The Fishwatch phone line provides a confidential quick and easy way to report any suspicious activity to Departmental compliance staff. Informal MCS Systems There are a number of other informal factors that deter illegal activity including self- monitoring by the Company and skippers in the fishery, the homogeneity of the fishery in the EGPMF (all licences owned by one company) and market factors related to the demand / preference for different size prawns. In order to assess compliance with voluntary area closures in place throughout the fishing season, vessel movements are monitored onshore by the licence holder (MG Kailis Pty Ltd) using the Automatic Identification System97. Additional to the licence holder, skippers are able to monitor plotting lines on-board their boat and generally self-report any accidental incursions into closed areas. Additionally, as all skippers can see the activities of other boats, all skippers know when another vessel crosses a boundary and may also notify the skipper in question and / or Kailis when a boundary is breached. Although compliance with the rolling opening / closing of various areas throughout the fishery is voluntary, the Department’s VMS compliance team also monitor and report on VMS incursions annually. Information from these reports is used to assess general compliance levels in the fishery and inform the OCP and associated compliance activities for the following seasons. Sanctions There is an explicit and statutory sanction framework that is applied should a person contravene legislation relevant to the EGPMF. Sanctions applicable to the FRMA or FRMR are generally specific to each section or regulation. For example, section 74 of the FMRA sets out the sanctions applied when a clause of the EGPMF Management Plan is contravened98, while section 77 sets out the sanctions applied should a condition of the MFL (e.g. the requirement to install prescribed bycatch reduction devices) be contravened. Breaches in fishery rules may occur for a variety of reasons, and FMOs undertake every opportunity to provide education, awareness and advice to fishers; however, all offences detected in the fishery are considered to be of significant concern and are addressed by FMOs via the prosecution process outlined in the Department’s Prosecution Guidelines and rules set out in the FRMA and FRMR. When an FMO detects a breach of the FRMA, the officer determines if the matter is prosecutable (according to the Department’s Prosecution Guidelines) and where it is, a prosecution brief is prepared by the FMO and submitted to their supervisor. Based on the Prosecution Guidelines, there are four tiers of enforcement measures applied by FMOs when an offence is detected in the fishery including:

96 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About-Us/Contact-Us/Pages/Fish-watch.aspx 97 The Automatic Identification System (AIS) is an automatic tracking system used on ships and by vessel traffic services (VTS) for identifying and locating vessels by electronically exchanging data with other nearby ships, 98 Note that clause 19A of the Management Plan (offences and major provisions) is redundant as section 75 of the FRMA was revoked and replaced with section 74, which applies across all Fishery Management Plans MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 157

 Infringement warnings: These are written warnings issued for minor fisher offences. They do not incur a fine, but are a written record of a minor offence that may be referred to by Fishery Officers in the future. A certain number of infringement warnings for similar offences in a designated period may result in an infringement notice;  Infringement notices: These are written notifications to pay a monetary penalty for an observed offence. Fishers issued infringement notices may choose to defend the matter in court; however, most fishers simply choose to pay the fine. The Department may initiate a prosecution brief for those fishers who appear to be habitual offenders;  Letters of warning: A letter of warning (LOW) is an available sanction that achieves a formal record of a commercial offence where a prosecution may be unduly harsh under the circumstances. A LOW may be issued where an offence may have been committed but detected outside of the 45-day period where an infringement can be issued. There may not be a public interest in prosecution, but this still formally records the detected offence. A LOW formally advises the offender of their actions and seeks future ‘voluntary’ compliance.; and  Prosecutions: These are offences of serious nature (prescribed in the FRMA) that immediately proceed to formal, legal prosecution. Such matters often incur hefty fines or can even result in incarceration, and matters brought before the court are often vigorously defended (especially by commercial fishers). FMOs have the autonomy to issue an infringement warning after detecting some ‘minor’ offences that have resulted from a lack of understanding of the rules or an error of judgment, while infringement notices are used to apply a modified penalty and are usually used in cases where the offence does not warrant prosecution action that is likely to end up in court. Modified penalties are prescribed in Schedule 12 of the FRMR and can only be applied to particular sections of the FRMA (including contravening a provision of a Management Plan) and the FRMR99. A copy of the infringement notice is provided in Schedule 14 of the FRMR. If there is a dispute over an infringement notice, the offender can request the matter be heard in court. More serious offences against the legislation will require the Department to seek to prosecute. The Department’s Prosecution Advisory Panel (PAP) reviews recommendations made by the RSD in respect to alleged offending against the FRMA (or Pearling Act) and considers whether such decisions are in the ‘public interest’. This process ensures fairness, consistency and equity in the prosecution decision-making process. The PAP consists of three panel members (representing legal and executive services and the compliance and aquatic management branches) who meet on a monthly basis or as necessary. The PAP operates on a majority basis, with the prosecution process continuing where the majority of the PAP agrees with the recommendation to prosecute. If the majority of the PAP disagrees with the recommendation to prosecute, the matter is referred to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Department, who will then make a determination on the matter. Should prosecution action be undertaken, the outcomes are generally released to the public via media releases and recorded on the Department’s website100. Penalties for illegal activity in WA fisheries are commensurate with the value of the illegal fish involved and the type of illegal activity. This can sometimes result in large monetary penalties for certain types of activities, with large

99 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1458_homepage.html 100 Example of media release: http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About-Us/Media-releases/Pages/Court- fines-hit-hard-for-out-of-season-lobster-fishing.aspx MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 158

penalties considered necessary in order to create a deterrent effect for high-value species, such as western rock lobster or abalone. Additional penalty provisions that apply should there be a prosecution are provided in the FRMA under sections 222 (mandatory additional penalties based on value of fish), 223 (court ordered cancellations or suspensions of authorisations), 225 (prohibition on offender activities) and 218 (forfeiture of catch, gear, etc.). A successful prosecution for a serious offence in a commercial fishery may result in a ‘black mark’ against the fisher or the commercial licence (as per section 224 of the FRMA). If an authorisation holder or a person action on behalf of the holder accumulates three black marks within a 10-year period, the authorisation is suspended for one year. Additionally, under section 143, the CEO has the administrative power to cancel, suspend or not renew an authorisation in certain circumstances, which can be used even if cancellations through the court are unsuccessful. These powers have been regularly used to deal with serious offending in other fisheries. All fisheries offences in WA are recorded in a dedicated Departmental offences system, which also manages the workflow associated with infringements and prosecutions. In order to link this information with patrol data, FMOs include information about the fishery, DPC area, type of patrol and whether the offence resulted from a targeted inspection in all offence paperwork. Despite a continuing level of MCS in accordance with the OCP, there have been few offences in the last ten years (Table 22. ). Note the data provided here indicate offences that resulted in an outcome in-line with the enforcement measures described above. For example, in 2007/08 for EGPMF there was a prosecution brief developed which resulted in a letter of warning. Table 22. Summary of offences in the EGPMF from 2004/05 – 2013/14

Infringement Infringement Letters of Year Prosecution Warnings Notices Warning

2004/05 0 0 0 1

2005/06 0 0 0 0

2006/07 0 0 0 0

2007/08 0 1 1 0

2008/09 0 0 0 0

2009/10 0 0 0 0

2010/11 0 0 0 0

2011/12 0 0 0 0

2012/13 0 0 0 0

2013/14 0 0 0 0

Although there are no industry-implemented sanctions in place, at the end of each fishing year in the EGPMF, skippers are eligible for a ‘bonus’ payment (from their employer), which is calculated based on the percentage of the total catch they landed during the season and

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 159

their voluntary compliance101 with industry closures during the season. Thus, skippers have a financial incentive to comply with voluntary closures in order to receive a higher bonus at the end of the season. The company (Stephen Hood, pers. Com., November 2014) also stated that systematic non-compliance behaviour would result in dismissal. In recent years, FMO effort has been directed at building stronger relationships with industry through higher levels of contact both at sea and in port. For the 2013/14 financial year, the number of suspected breaches of closed waters detected through the VMS and other monitoring methods in the GCB has increased due to a more focused intelligence base of compliance; however, compliance in the GCB overall is assessed as being at an acceptable level across all the fisheries (Fletcher and Santoro 2014). Additionally, compliance staff assess that the commercial fishing industry in this area continues to demonstrate a positive approach to complying with regulations and playing their part to ensure the sustainability of their fisheries. In evaluating compliance in a specific fishery, the Department uses a weight-of-evidence approach, which considers:  Ongoing evidence of a sustainable fishery, i.e. whether ecological objectives continue to be met;  Assessment of the risk posed by the fishery to target species and ecosystem components under the current management regime;  Annual outputs arising from formal MCS systems —  Adequacy of commercial compliance coverage (patrol hours) including VMS;  Number of offences and successful prosecutions (dependent on whether compliance is undertaken in a random or targeted manner); and  Average non-targeted compliance rate;  Number of reports of illegal activity logged by Fishwatch and from intelligence gathered by FMOs;  General level of industry support / buy-in around fishing rules; and  Level of compliance education and communications during key stakeholder engagement (at least annually). Using this weight-of-evidence approach, there is a high degree of confidence that fishers in the EGPMF comply with the management system in place, including providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery based on the following:  There is ongoing evidence that the fishery is operating sustainably, as the performance indicators for each component (i.e. target species, retained non-target species, bycatch, ETP species, habitat and ecosystem processes) of the fishery has been maintained above threshold reference levels (see “Fishery-Specific Objectives [P 3.2.1]” in associated MSC Assessment document).  In the most recent ecological risk assessment (2008) for the EGPMF, the highest risk indicated to any component was ‘moderate’ (i.e. the maximum acceptable level of impact). Where this was the case (i.e. brown tiger prawns), appropriate management actions have been implemented to mitigate this risk. The Status Report of the

101 While not formally reported, voluntary compliance statistics and sanctions applied by the licence holders can be made available for assessment purposes if required. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 160

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia report on the evaluation of performance of the fishery annually.  There have been no offences recorded (based on formal compliance systems) in the EGPMF within the last five years;  There are 46 intelligence reports for the EGPMF on the Department’s intelligence management system, “Seastar”, over the last five years (Table 23). Table 23. Summary of intelligence reports relating to the EGPMF

Year ALL VMS reports Other reports

2009/10 11 11 0

2010/11 9 8 1

2011/12 20 20 0

2012/13 2 2 0

2013/14 4 4 0

 Additionally, apart from statutory requirements around submitting catch returns, the licensees actively participate in providing extra information for the effective management of the fishery, particularly through the provision of industry boats for Department surveys and the collection of additional data via industry surveys, which are delivered under a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the Department. The Department also measures compliance outcomes by estimating compliance and non- compliance rates. These terms refer to the proportion of fishers in a defined group (i.e. the EGPMF) that, on the basis of random inspections, were found observing fishing rules or not, respectively. Thus, the estimated average annual compliance rate is obtained by comparing the number of non-targeted contacts with fishers in the EGPMF against the number of detected offences. The average compliance rate for the EGPMF between 2007/08 and 2012/13 is estimated at 99.99 %. Based on the weight-of-evidence approach detailed above and the long-term compliance rate, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance by the licensees and skippers in the EGPMF, nor is there evidence that the existing (negligible) level of non-compliance in the past five years is a risk to target prawn stocks or ecosystem components.

4.5.8 Research Plan (P 3.2.4) The EGPMF research plan was developed in three parts by scientists, managers and stakeholders who are involved across stock status (MSC Principle 1); ecology (MSC Principle 2); and governance, policy, compliance (MSC Principle 3). There are four main ways that issues that require the development of further monitoring and research projects are identified:  Existing monitoring that identifies issues that arise in the fishery (e.g. not achieving operational objectives; these can also be issues identified by stakeholders or researchers);  Results of other research, management or compliance projects or investigations;

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 161

 Expert workshops (including risk assessments) and peer reviews of aspects of research and management; and  Industry liaison. Once an issue or risk has been identified, an expert group, workshop or review can be established to review the available information and make recommendations regarding what research should be undertaken, and in many instances, help develop an appropriate research framework. The management actions in Fish Plan and the Research Strategic Plan inform the fishery- specific research plan to ensure that there is a coherent and strategic approach to research. The current research plan for the EGPMF is primarily detailed in two documents: 1. the RMAD Plan (pp 76 – 81 of DoF 2012b); and 2. the EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014b). The Departments’ Research, Monitoring, Assessment and Development Plan (RMAD) forms part of the planning cycle for determining research, monitoring and assessment needs for the EGPMF and specifically outlines the historical, current and proposed activities that will support the collection and analysis of data to assist the Department to meet the objectives of the FRMA over a five year period (currently 2011/12 to 2015/16). The RMAD Plan contains a matrix that sets out the research activities associated with the following components of the EGPMF: 1. Target prawn species; 2. Habitat and ecosystem; 3. Ecosystem/environment; 4. Management analysis; and 5. Industry development. The focus of current monitoring and research as set out in the RMAD Plan includes:  Assessment of brown tiger and western king prawn stocks;  Monitoring catch of non-target retained species against acceptable levels;  Monitoring area of the fishery that is trawled;  Monitoring ETP species interactions;  Economic analysis; and  Assessing biodiversity of trawled and untrawled areas. The outcomes of monitoring and research undertaken in accordance with the RMAD Plan are reported in the annual Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: the State of the Fisheries (e.g. Fletcher & Santoro 2013). Past research that has been undertaken for the EGPMF includes:  Target species biology (1970s – 1990s);  Assessment of brown tiger prawn abundance in nursery areas of Exmouth Gulf (1998);

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 162

 Impact of cyclones and macrophytes on the recruitment and landings of brown tiger prawns, Penaeus esculentus, in Exmouth Gulf (1999 – 2006; Loneragan et al. 2013);  Implementation and assessment of bycatch reduction devices in the Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf trawl fisheries (2002; Kangas & Thomson 2004);  Studying catch / effort relationships and efficiencies;  Comparing faunal assemblages in trawled and untrawled areas within the Exmouth Gulf prawn fishery (2004; Kangas et al. 2007); and  Understanding factors relevant to the implementation of formal co-management (2008 and 2009; Kangas et al. 2008; Rogers 2009).

The EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014b) details a programme of proposed additional activities to be undertaken over 2014 – 2019 to address bycatch issues in accordance with the EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014a). The focus of the BAP is on developing management responses to ecological risks associated with the fishery and developing appropriate management measures to minimise fishery interactions with species listed under the EPBC Act (i.e. ETP species). The actions contained in the BAP are considered appropriate to meet ecological management objectives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 2 as they relate to non-target retained species, bycatch, ETP species and ecosystem processes. The BAP aims to:  Develop and implement cost-effective strategies to pursue continual improvement in reducing bycatch;  Review relative changes in bycatch due to bycatch mitigation and extend information on best practice to industry;  Develop measures to further reduce interactions with, or impacts on, ETP species;  Respond to adverse impact on Exmouth Gulf ecology from prawn fishing activity; and  Fully utilise target species of commercial size. The BAP includes actions to monitor and manage impacts on high risk bycatch / ETP species, particularly sawfish and sea snakes, as limited information currently exists on the impact of the fishery on sea snake and sawfish populations in Exmouth Gulf. The BAP addresses the need for species-level identification and quantitative estimates of mortality through a bycatch monitoring program, as well as obtaining available information on local population abundances to provide assessments of the sustainability of bycatch and research on mitigation measures for these species. Following the marine heatwave in the summer of 2010/11, the first of two workshops was undertaken in May 2011. The first workshop focused on the oceanographic conditions associated with the event, as well as the short-term effects such as fish kill and southerly range extension of a number of tropical fish species. The second workshop was held on 11 March 2013, about two years after the original event (Caputi et al. 2014). About 80 scientists and stakeholders attended, and 16 presentations were made at the workshop. The second workshop concentrated on the oceanographic conditions since the first workshop and the longer-term (2 years) effect on fisheries and the marine environment.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 163

As part of this process, the Department is currently finalising a report for FRDC Project No. 2010/535 Management implications of climate change effect on fisheries in Western Australia: Part 1. As part of this study, prawn species in WA were examined for climate change effects, and brown tiger prawns were assessed as being at high risk to impacts resulting from climate change. It is recognized that there is a need to ensure the harvesting approach for the EGPMF is sufficiently robust to be able to take into account long-term changes in abundance and distribution of prawn stocks that may be due to (particularly extreme) climate change effects. The Department (in conjunction with the University of Western Australia) is currently in the process of applying for funding from the FRDC (currently at the second Expression of Interest [EOI] stage) for a high-priority project Examining the relationship between fishery recruitment, essential benthic habitats and environmental drivers in Exmouth Gulf and Shark Bay. Should the funding application be successful, the project is expected to start in mid- 2015. The results arising from projects outlined in the EGPMF research plan are made publicly available in a timely manner on the Department’s website102 in the form of Fisheries Management Papers, Fisheries Research Reports and Fisheries Occasional Publications. For example, the research results relating to the FRDC 2000/189 (Kangas & Thomson 2004) were published in 2004, following the completion of the project in 2003. The results of some research projects are also published in international journals. 4.5.9 Performance Review (P 3.2.5) The EGPMF has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. Should any data arising from regular monitoring and evaluation indicate that the EGPMF is having an unacceptable impact, review processes are triggered and decision-making processes are implemented.  General management As part of the Department’s risk-based planning cycle, the current risk assessment for the EGPMF management system will be reviewed in 2016/17 and the Risk Register updated. The new risk assessment will inform a major review of the management system, including Fish Plan, the EGPMF research plan and compliance requirements. The review will also take into account the level of resourcing across the management, research and compliance for the EGPMF, which will be modified if a change to the level of risk has altered the level of management, compliance, monitoring or assessment required in the future. The risk assessment and management review involve extensive consultation with the key stakeholders. A public sector performance report103 is required annual by legislation in the form of the Department’s Annual Report which includes key performance indicators (KPIs) around the management and sustainability of the State’s fish resources (Administration/Management) and the State of the Fisheries (Research, Compliance and Management) report to Parliament. Our performance against KPIs is reviewed annually by independent Office of the Auditor General.  Fisheries specific management and harvest strategy evaluation The statutory management framework is reviewed when there is evidence to support statutory changes to the longer-term management measures or to implement new longer-term

102 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About-Us/Publications/Pages/default.aspx 103 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/annual_reports/annual_report_2013-14.pdf MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 164

measures. There is no need to regularly amend the Management Plan; thus, the EGPMF Management Plan was last amended in 2004 to update fishery boundary and areas, implement payment of access fees by instalment and to define the Exmouth Gulf Port Area. Annual evaluation of the performance of the fishery against the reference levels contained in the harvest strategy is the main mechanism used to evaluate the fishery-specific management system. An internal review of one or more parts of the management system is triggered if annual (or in-season) performance evaluation against the operational (short-term) objectives indicates the potential need for a management response (i.e. when below the target level). Thus, a precautionary approach is taken, and potential issues are recognised and addressed in a timely manner prior to the following fishing season or during the current season, to meet both operational and long-term management objectives. As an example, Table 24 and Table 25 below provide a snapshot annual evaluation of the performance of the EGPMF against its operational objectives (i.e. target reference levels) for the 2013 fishing season. The economic target reference level was met in 2013, indicating that the EGPMF was provided with the opportunity to optimise the economic returns under the current management framework. The licensee and skippers continue to work with the Department under the cooperative management framework, and there are no signs that the licensee is dissatisfied with the current arrangements. The outcomes of annual monitoring and evaluation are reported annually in the Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: the State of the Fisheries. The EGPMF harvest strategy was recently subject to extensive internal review, followed by review process in consultation with the licensee, which resulted in the current harvest strategy (2014 – 2019; DoF 2014a). While the next review of the harvest strategy will occur in 2019, the appropriateness of the current performance indicators, reference levels and control rules will be further refined and updated during this time in consultation with the licensee as further relevant information becomes available (e.g. new research, risk assessments and expert advice). Table 24. Performance against the target prawn species’ annual operational objectives for the EGPMF in 2013 (MSC Principle 1)

Annual Operational Operational P1 Performance Objective (Target Objective Met in Management Response Component in 2013 Reference Level) 2013 Brown tiger Mean catch rate from fishery 22.6 kg/hr No, it is just Apply precautionary in-season prawns independent spawning stock below the target fishing regime (management of surveys is ≥ 25 kg/hr fishing effort) implemented in 2013 for 2014.

Western king Commercial catch rate in Yes, well Yes Examine the relationship between prawns fishing grounds R1 and S2 within the fishery recruitment, essential during July and August is limits benthic habitats and ≥ 25 kg/hr environmental drivers in Exmouth Gulf

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 165

Table 25. Performance against the retained non-target species, bycatch, ETP species, habitat structure and function and ecosystem processes annual operational objectives for the EGPMF in 2013 (MSC Principle 2)

Annual Operational Operational P2 Component Objective (Target Performance in 2013 Objective Management Response Reference Level) Met in 2013 Retained non- The annual catch of 85 t No (as a None (not above target target species – endeavour prawns is 120 – result of catch range) minor prawns 300 t market factors) The annual catch of coral 2.4 t No (as a None required (not above prawns is 20 – 100 t result of target catch range) market factors) The annual catch of banana 74 t No (above None prawns is 0 – 60 t (rainfall target catch dependent species) range) Retained non- The annual catch of blue 7.4 t Yes None target species – swimmer crabs is no more other than 40 t The annual catch of squid is 2.9 t Yes None no more than 80 t The annual catch of slipper 1.0 t Yes None lobster (‘bugs’) is no more than 15 t The annual catch of 2.7 t Yes None cuttlefish is no more than 25 t The annual catch of 0.4 t Yes None octopus is no more than 5 t Bycatch species The total area trawled is 31 % trawled in 2013; Yes Update existing Bycatch populations < 50 % of the permitted 100 % use of BRDs; Action Plan; trawl area; All species assessed as Update risk assessment 100 % use of BRDs; low / negligible risk with external stakeholders Risk at an acceptable level (2008) ETP species The total area trawled is 31 % trawled in 2013; Yes Update existing Bycatch populations < 50 % of the permitted 100 % use of BRDs; Action Plan; trawl area; All species assessed as Update risk assessment 100 % use of BRDs; low / negligible risk with external stakeholders Risk at an acceptable level (2008)

Habitat structure The total area trawled is 31 % trawled in 2013; Yes None and function < 50 % of the permitted Habitat impacts trawl area; assessed as Risk at an acceptable level low / negligible risk (2008) Ecosystem Fishery impacts on Ecosystem impacts Yes Update existing Bycatch processes ecosystem components are assessed as Action Plan; all maintained at acceptable low / negligible risk Update risk assessment levels (2008) with external stakeholders

 Research and Research Plan The status and progress of activities required under the EGPMF research plan are closely monitored by Research staff to ensure that actions are being undertaken within the designated

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 166

timeframes. Any issues around milestones, monitoring, reporting, resourcing, etc., relevant to the EGPMF research plan are discussed with Management staff as they arise. In addition, the Research Division’s Supervising Scientists group has fortnightly meetings to raise any issues, which could include risks around the timing of delivery of research programmes / information. This group develops actions to address slippages, and any significant issues can be included as standing items. The regular monitoring framework applied to the EGPMF research plan may identify a need to undertake interim external or internal review of the research plan outside of the normal five year review cycle. Any results arising from the research plan are generally externally peer reviewed, and always internally peer reviewed prior to publishing. The Supervising Scientists group manages the peer review process of all fisheries, including with external reviewers. Regular reviews of Fish Plan and the higher level Research Strategic Plan (last reviewed in April 2012) may trigger an immediate review of the EGPMF research plan at any time. The five-year cycle review and risk assessment may also trigger a review of the research plan. The RMAD Plan will be reviewed in consultation with external stakeholders in 2016/17. The stock assessment and research framework for the EGPMF was externally reviewed by Malcolm Haddon (Marine Research Laboratory Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania) during a two day workshop undertaken in November 2012. As a result of the workshop, the annual survey methodology for the EGPMF was reviewed and amended in 2013. The EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan was recently subject to extensive internal review, followed by consultation with the licensee, which resulted in the current EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014b). An internal review of the external 2001 ESD risk assessment for the EGPMF was completed in 2008. As a number of key changes had taken place in the fishery since 2001, the aims of the internal risk assessment workshop were to revisit the risk ratings identified in 2001 and determine whether they were still relevant or whether they required amendment. In addition, any possible new risks were identified. A draft report of the outcomes was sent to stakeholders in 2009, with a copy of the final document made publically available. Monitoring and evaluation against ESD performance measures is undertaken annually and reported in Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: The State of the Fisheries. In 2012 and 2013, all three performance measures relevant to the EGPMF were met (2012 outcomes provided in Fletcher & Santoro 2013). The 2013 evaluation will be provided in the next edition (2013/14) of Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: the State of the Fisheries. The EGPMF’s export accreditation (and therefore its entire fishery specific management system) is externally reviewed (re-assessed) every five years by the Commonwealth DoE104. The EGPMF fishery-specific management system was most recently reviewed by the DoE in 2013 and succeeded in achieving export accreditation the fishery for a period of five years. The EGPMF will undergo another external review when it is re-assessed in 2018.

104 Australian Government, D0SEWPF, Assessment of the Western Australian Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery, http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/13d9bdfb-3996-49be-9666-426767d4386f/files/eg- assessment-2013.pdf

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 167

 MCS System Ongoing annual monitoring of compliance service delivery is undertaken at a Regional and local office level and relies on a weight-of-evidence approach considering information available from specialist units, trends and issues identified by local staff and Departmental priorities set by the Aquatic Management Division. Offence types, numbers and sanctions relevant to the EGPMF are monitored on an annual basis by the Compliance Statistics Unit and, together with annual VMS days, patrol hours and contacts, are reported annually on a bioregional basis in Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: The State of the Fisheries. Based on this, data used to annually evaluate compliance effectiveness in the EGPMF include:  level of fishing effort  VMS vessel days  patrol hours  targeted and non-targeted contacts  detected offences (type and number) The estimated annual non-targeted compliance rate is obtained by comparing the number of non-targeted contacts with the EGPMF against the number of detected offences. In 2013, the estimated non-targeted compliance rate in the EGPMF was 100 %. Should the evaluation of the annual non-targeted compliance rate identify a decrease in the level of compliance in the EGPMF, a review is triggered to investigate the reasons, which may result in an immediate review of the MCS System. Regular internal review of the EGPMF’s MCS system is undertaken every 12 – 18 months by means of a compliance risk assessment. The EGPMF OCP is reviewed following the compliance risk assessment. Gascoyne regional compliance staff and the VMS section primarily contribute to the compliance risk assessment process; however, management and research staff can attend and are given an opportunity to provide advice. Should the level of risk to compliance increase, further advice / resourcing can be sought from other areas of compliance (e.g. Special Operations Unit). Following the compliance risk assessment review, the operational compliance plan is updated as required. An external Auditor General’s Public Sector Performance Report (pp 16-27) 105 on compliance in WA’s commercial and recreational fisheries, including those of the West and South Coast Bioregions, was submitted to Parliament in June 2009. Following the Auditor General’s Report, in November 2009, the Department’s compliance program was evaluated with the aim of recommending optimisation in commercial and recreational fisheries in WA, the results of which were published in Green and McKinlay (2009). As a result of these reviews, the Department has greatly improved its compliance program by:  Developing regional and state-wide compliance risk assessments as a basis for its compliance program;  Determining the level of compliance activity that is required to achieve effective compliance outcomes for individual fisheries; and

105 https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/report2009_07.pdf MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 168

 Identifying and collecting the key information required for compliance reporting and management purposes. The Department has recently applied for funding from the FRDC for a project entitled Measurement of Fisheries Compliance Outcomes: A Preliminary National Study, which began on 1 July 2014. Co-investigators include expert staff from AFMA, South Australian Fisheries and Victorian Fisheries. The project was requested by the National Fisheries Compliance Committee who has recognised that Fisheries Compliance groups face serious challenges demonstrating acceptable compliance outcomes as a result of their activities and the need for outcome indicators. The proposal is also strongly supported by the Australian Fisheries Management Forum. Appropriate outcome indicators will measure whether compliance outcomes are being achieved in the long term. This will help to validate the effectiveness of the existing weight of evidence approach of combining compliance risks assessments and compliance outputs with sectoral involvement and research advice. The measurement of compliance outcomes is different from fisheries compliance outputs. Output measures are relatively easy to determine (e.g. number of people fined), but fisheries compliance outcomes are not (i.e. a change in the skills, attitude, behaviour and circumstances of the target group or community in general). The project seeks to outline current best practice for compliance outcome measures, assess their strengths and weaknesses and where possible set a direction for the adoption of a national framework based on best practice. This is expected to result in a credible, reviewable framework for measuring fisheries compliance outcomes that can readily demonstrate value for money and an assessment of quality.  US TED Accreditation Review In 2005, the EGPMF successfully gained certification from the United States Department of State for its BRD-compliancy106 and the use of turtle exclusion devices (TEDs), allowing licensees to export prawns to the U.S. market. In order to meet this requirement, the fishery was required to demonstrate that local legislation requiring fishers to use standard TEDs, that meet US standards, is in force and that the WA Government effectively monitors compliance and enforces penalties for violations.

This certification was reassessed most recently in 2014, which resulted in provisional certification dependent upon meeting required specification for US export approval by April 2015. The requirements will be met prior to the start of the 2015 season.

5. Evaluation Procedure

5.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment

The targeted stocks have not been the subject of another MSC assessment. The P1 and P2 outcomes of the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl assessment are therefore not harmonised with any other fishery. The fishery shares a management system with the Western Australia Western Rock Lobster fishery, which requires harmonization with the Governance and Policy (P3.1) of the management system (Appendix 3). The fishery also shares a management

106 http://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/fish/bycatch/turtles/index.htm MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 169

system with the Shark Bay fishery, which is under assessment by the same team as the Exmouth prawn fishery. The team will assure harmonization for P3.1.

5.2 Previous assessments

There is no previous MSC assessment for the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery.

5.3 Assessment Methodologies

This fishery was assessed using MSC Certification Requirements version 1.3, and the report has correspondingly been produced using version 1.3 of the MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template. The default assessment tree was used without adjustments.

5.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques Site Visits The announcement for the site visit was posted onto the MSC website on 11th September, 2014. The site visit commenced on 27th October, 2014 in Perth, and was completed on 4th November in Exmouth. Meetings took place from 27th October-31 October at Hilary’s Marine Laboratories, as well as other specific meetings held at Department of Fisheries, Perth; WAFIC, Perth; DPAW, Perth and the offices of MGK, Exmouth. One member of the assessment team also re-visited Hilary’s Marine Laborotories on 8th and 9th of December to seek further clarification on Exmouth stock status and retained species status. Consultations Telephone consultations were held with WWF, Australia on 28th October, 2014 and the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee on 6 January, 2015. Email exchanges also took place with NCWHAC, DPAW and The University of Biological Sciences, Flinders University in order to clarify a number of P2 issues.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 170

Table 26 Participants at meetings during the field inspections. Name Affiliation Issues Location 1. Day 1: MSC site visit inception meeting, 27 October, 2014 P1, P2 Stephen Hood MGK (The client) Perth and P3 Phil Bruce SBPTOA Nor West Seafoods, Brett Hogan SBPTOA Ricciardi Seafoods, Ian Ricciardi SBPTOA Guy Leyland WAFIC Lynda Bellchambers DoF Patrick Cavalli DoF Fiona Crowe DoF Emily Fisher DoF Dan Gaughan DoF Alastair Harry DoF Alex Hesp DoF Lyndsey Joll DoF Mervi Kangas DoF Shane O’Donoghue DoF Errol Sporer DoF Kendra Travaille DoF Kim Walshe DoF Fiona Webster DoF Brent Wise DoF Anna Zoranich DoF Assessors Richard Banks MRAG Americas Patrick Coutin MRAG Americas Kevin McLoughlin MRAG Americas Observers Adrian Gutteridge MSC Matt Watson MSC 2.1 Stephen Hood MGK (The client) P1 Perth Ricciardi Seafoods, Ian Ricciardi SBPTOA Emily Fisher DoF Dan Gaughan DoF Alastair Harry DoF Alex Hesp DoF Mervi Kangas DoF Errol Sporer DoF Fiona Webster DoF Patrick Cavalli DoF Anna Zoranich DoF Brent Wise DoF Assessor Kevin McLoughlin MRAG Americas Observer Adrian Gutteridge MSC 2.2 P2 Breakout session Nor West Seafoods, Brett Hogan P2 Perth SBPTOA Ricciardi Seafoods, Ian Ricciardi SBPTOA Guy Leyland WAFIC MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 171

Name Affiliation Issues Location Lynda Bellchambers DoF Rick Fletcher DoF Emily Fisher DoF Dan Gaughan DoF Alastair Harry DoF Alex Hesp DoF Lyndsey Joll DoF Errol Sporer DoF Kendra Travaille DoF Fiona Webster DoF Brent Wise DoF Assessor Patrick Coutin MRAG Americas 2.3 P3 Breakout session Guy Leyland WAFIC P3 Perth Patrick Cavalli DoF Lyndsey Joll DoF Shane O’Donoghue DoF Kim Walshe DoF Anna Zoranich DoF Assessor Richard Banks MRAG Americas Adrian Gutteridge MSC 3. Day 2: SICA and PSA workshop, 28 October Clayton Nelson MGK Perth Phil Bruce SBPTOA Nor West Seafoods, Brett Hogan SBPTOA Lynda Bellchambers DoF Patrick Cavalli DoF Emily Fisher DoF Rick Fletcher DoF Dan Gaughan DoF Alastair Harry DoF Alex Hesp DoF Mervi Kangas DoF Errol Sporer DoF Kendar Travaille DoF Brent Wise DoF Assessors Richard Banks MRAG Americas Patrick Coutin MRAG Americas Kevin McLoughlin MRAG Americas Observer Adrian Gutteridge MSC 4. WWF consultation by telephone, 28 October, 2014 P1, P2 Peter Trott WWF Telephone interview P3.2 5. Day 3: DPaW Consultation, 29 October, 2014 Peter Barnes DPaW Perth Dave Holley DPaW Kelly Waples DPaW Bob Prince DPaW Fran Stanley DPaW Guy Leyland WAFIC Patrick Cavalli DoF Mervi Kangas DoF MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 172

Name Affiliation Issues Location Assessors Richard Banks MRAG Americas Patrick Coutin MRAG Americas Kevin McLoughlin MRAG Americas Observers Adrian Gutteridge MSC Matt Watson 5. DoF, Compliance, 29 October, 2014 Graeme Meinema DoF P3.2.3 Perth Nigel Schofield DoF Kim Walshe DoF Assessor Richard Banks MRAG Americas 6. Far West Scalops, Freemantle, 29 October, 2014 Hamish Ch’ng Far West Scallops P2.1 Fremantle Simon Ch’ng Far West Scallops Assessors Richard Banks MRAG Americas Patrick Coutin MRAG Americas Kevin McLoughlin MRAG Americas 7. Day 4: Initial review of findings meeting, 30 October, 2014 P1, P2 Stephen Hood MGK (The client) Perth and P3 Clayton Nelson MGK Phil Bruce SBPTOA Daniel Correia SBTOA Nor West Seafoods, Brett Hogan SBPTOA Ricciardi Seafoods, Ian Ricciardi SBPTOA Guy Leyland WAFIC Lynda Bellchambers DoF Patrick Cavalli DoF Emily Fisher DoF Dan Gaughan DoF Alastair Harry DoF Alex Hesp DoF Mervi Kangas DoF Shane O’Donoghue DoF Errol Sporer DoF Kendar Travaille DoF Kim Walshe DoF Anna Zoranich DoF Assessors Richard Banks MRAG Americas Patrick Coutin MRAG Americas Kevin McLoughlin MRAG Americas Observers Adrian Gutteridge MSC 8. Day 5: DoF consultation re blue swimmer crab, 31,October Patrick Coutin MRAG Americas Dan Gaughan DoF Arani Chandrapavan DoF Errol Sporer DoF Assessors Patrick Coutin MRAG Americas

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 173

Name Affiliation Issues Location Kevin McLoughlin MRAG Americas Day 6: Travel to Carnarvon and review of fishing vessels and aerial tour of Shark Bay, 1 November, 2014 Day 7: Document review 9. Day 8: Carnarvon Site visit, 3 November P 2 / Brett Hogan, Focus Fisheries CoC Keal Brown NW Seafoods James Clement Focus Fisheries Phil Bruce SBPTOA Net technologist, NW Clint Coombs Seafoods Garry McMahon Skipper Simon Radcliff Skipper Assessor Richard Banks 10. Gascoyne Development Commission The Gascoyne Stephen Webster Development Commission P3 (GDC) 11. Day 9: Exmouth, MGK, Site visit, 4 November P 2 / Stephen Hood MGK, Projects Manager CoC Stephen Schilling Operations manager John Wakeford Gear technologist Tony Tomlinson Net maker/former skipper

12. December 8, Additional consultation, WA Marine Laboratories Mervi Kangas DoF Errol Sporer DoF Nick Caputi DoF Arani Chandrapavan DoF Patrick Cavalli DoF Assessor Kevin McLoughlin MRAG Americas

13. December 9, Additional consultation, WA Marine Laboratories Mervi Kangas DoF Errol Sporer DoF Jim Penn Fisheries consultant Alex Hesp DoF George Kailis MGK Stephen Hood MGK Clayton Nelson MGK Assessor Kevin McLoughlin MRAG Americas 14. January 6, Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee Simon Woodley Chairman, NCWHAC P2/P3 School of Biological Tim Hunt Studies, Flinders P2 University

Public announcements were made via direct mailings to an extensive list of potential stakeholders and the MSC website. Additionally, announcement of full assessment and the site visits with invitations for stakeholder participation were made via the MRAG Americas website and the WA department of fisheries Fish Enews bullitan. These media were chosen

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 174

as they were thought to be the best means of reaching out the widest group of parties potentially interested in this assessment. All stakeholders expressing an interest in involvement have been notified and involved in relevant stages of the assessment process. The assessment team acquired a working knowledge of the management operation via meetings with clients, managers and other relevant entities on site in Exmouth Gulf and at head offices in Freemantle. In addition, all relevant published and grey literature was reviewed by the team. A DoF PSA was used to assess PI 2.1.1 (retained species), and as such, an expert-based stakeholder consultation was undertaken to review the DoF PSA outcomes to confirm and arrive at risk scores for each scoring element within this PI. Scoring was done iteritavely with assessment team members primarily responsible for each principle first suggesting the correct scores for their respective areas, followed by two-way or group discussion via email and skype to arrive at a consensus decision on the score for each PI. The final recommendation was reached using the MSC’s scoring spreadsheet which averages PI scores into a score for each component within a Principle, following which the component scores are averaged to arrive at a Principle-level score for each Principle. All Principle level scores met or exceeded the 80 benchmark required for certification.

Table 27 Principle 1 and 2 species and habitats that were assessed

Component Scoring elements Main/not Data-deficient or main not P 1 Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) Not data deficient P 1 Western king prawn (P. latisulcatus) Not data deficient P 2 Retained Blue endeavour prawn (Metapenaeus Main Not data deficient endeavouri) P 2 Retained Banana prawn (P. merguiensis) Main Not data deficient P 2 Retained Coral prawn (several species) Not main Not data deficient P 2 Retained Bugs (Thenus australiensis) Not main Not data deficient P 2 Retained Blue swimmer crabs (Portunus armatus) Not main Not data deficient P 2 Retained Cephalopods (several species) Not main Not data deficient P 2 Retained Goatfish, Asymmetrical Upeneus asymmetricus) Not main Data deficient P 2 Bycatch Scorpionfish, Spot Fin Waspfish/Bullrout Not main Data deficient (Paracentropogon vespa) P 2 Bycatch Flathead, Rusty (Inegocia japonica) Not main Data deficient P 2 Bycatch Stinkfish, Gross's (Callionymus grossi) Not main Data deficient P 2 Bycatch Ponyfish, Zig-Zag (Leiognathus moretonensis) Not main Data deficient P 2 Bycatch Javelinfish, Blotched Pomadasys maculatus Not main Data deficient P 2 Bycatch Not main Data deficient Leatherjacket, Hair-finned Paramonacanthus choirocephalus P 2 Bycatch Swimmer crab (Portunus tenuipes) Not main Data deficient P 2 Bycatch Swimmer crab (P. rubromarginatus) Not main Data deficient P 2 ETP Marine turtles P 2 ETP Sea snakes P 2 ETP Sawfish P 2 ETP Sea horse P 2 Habitats Mud/sand Main Not data deficient P 2 Habitats Sponge/coral Main Not data deficient P 2 Main Not data deficient Ecosytems Inshore subtropical

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 175

6 Traceability

6.1 Eligibility Date

The target eligibility date for product from the fishery to bear the MSC label is 1 April 2015. This is the start of the tiger prawn season and less than six months before the release of the PCDR.

6.2 Traceability within the Fishery

Fishing does not occur beyond the EGPMF fishing area. VMS records assure that the vessels do not fish out of area. Catch information are recorded on logbooks after each haul, and submitted on landing to the Department. This data is also cross-checked from factory receiving records. The information available specifically contains reference to species caught (estimated catch (kg), round weight, time and date of haul, and location). As there are five prawn species caught, the product is graded into species, size, whole raw or cooked and packed and boxed separately, then frozen at sea in ready-for-distribution packs containing catch date, vessel name, prawn species, pack style, net weight and on-sold to the MG Kailis Trading Division who determine market destination. Product is generally frozen in boxes of 3, 5 and 10 kg cartons. Of the prawn species, these are graded and boxed by species, and have distinctive characteristics (colour and shape). Of the non-prawn retained species, none have characteristics that could be confused with certified products: bugs, squid and blue swimming crabs and only crustacean species are retained, and all have distinct characteristics for identification. As only certified product (the three species of prawns) is handled on board and no realistic opportunity for non-certified product to mix with the certified product, the risk to traceability is low onboard the fishing vessels. Therefore, the fishing vessels do not require CoC. All coldstores are Commonwealth Department of Agriculture approved export facilities and the prawn travels under export chain of custody with transfer certificates. There is only one owner of the fishing vessels and the Company retains ownership of product past the initial landings and delivery to Registered Third Party cold storage facilities. Product moves off the fishing vessels through direct landings at two Australian ports Exmouth and occasionally Fremantle, by the individual fishing vessels. No ownership change occurs during direct landings, the boxes of frozen product are sealed and no transformation of product occurs. MG Kailis then delivers product in a number of ways:  Product from fishing vessels is delivered by truck from Exmouth to cold storage facilities in Perth on pallets containing product from individual vessels. On arrival this may be re palletized by size grade. The product is then shipped by truck to other cold storage facilities in Australia or for consigned Export. MGK retain ownership of the product throughout this process. The risk of a compromised CoC is low for cold storage facilities. The boxes of frozen product are sealed, no transformation of product occurs and the cold storage facilities maintain detailed records of product received from each fishing vessel and have a physical record of product consigned through Transfer Certificates. Therefore, cold storage facilities would not require

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 176

CoC. Receivers of the products are primarily wholesalers, food service providers and a number of retailers, and in the case of exports, trading houses in Japan. Change of ownership occurs upon sale to these customers. All customers must have CoC to use the MSC logo.  MGK also sell portions of the catch directly through its own retail outlets in Perth, and Exmouth, and mobile units servicing the mining towns. No change in ownership changes up to the point of sale.  Some product, which is labeled as ‘soft and broken’ is sent to Vietnam for peeling, and returned to MGK once transformed. The factory also receives and processes other prawns consigned by MG Kailis (Soft-and-broken prawns) from Shark Bay and Spencer Gulf. The product is packed according to fishery origin into 1 kg packs which are branded as MG Kailis product (product of Australia, processed in Vietnam). The product is never actually “sold” to the factory, just contract processed, and always remains MGK product. Chain of Custody (CoC) will begin at the point of first sale or shipment and therefore this, or any other custom processor, shall obtain MSC CoC certification prior to handling these products as certified.

Chain of custody for Exmouth would begin at the first point of shipment or sale. From the time that the product leaves the vessel until at least the first point of shipment or sale, the product is handled on a box in-box out basis. More frequently, CoC would begin when product arrives at facilities (e.g., cold storage or plants) used by the first purchasers of the product. This first point of sale may occur within Australia, but may also occur in foreign countries to which to product is exported. All MGK prawn trawlers fishing from Exmouth in the EGPMF, off Australia’s west coast will be eligible to be covered by the MSC fisheries certificate. Under these requirements, no risk accrues from other fishers participating in the certification. Points of landing The extent of the fishery certification is to the point of landing of fish at ports where recording, verification and sampling of landings takes place. The ports of landing are restricted to Exmouth and Fremantle. Cold storage facilities only exist in Perth, although product may be transshipped from this cold storage facility to other cold storage facilities in other cities. The Perth cold store is the “primary receiver” of all of the EGMPF product.

Eligibility to enter chains of custody The scope of this certification ends at the first point of sale or shipment from MG Kailis as discussed above. Product may then enter further chains of custody.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 177

7 Evaluation Results

7.1 Principle Level Scores

The table below shall be completed documenting the Principle level scores for each of the three MSC Principles. Scores shall be reported to the nearest one decimal place. (Reference: CR 27.10.4)

Table 7.1: Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species Brown tiger prawn 80.6 Western king prawns 80.6 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 84.3 Principle 3 – Management System 95.9

7.2 Summary of Scores

Brown tiger prawns

Prin- Wt Component Wt PI Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight Contribution to ciple (L1) (L2) No. (L3) in Score Principle Score Either Or Either Or One 1Outcome 0.5 1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 0.25 0.333 0.1667 80 20.00 13.33 1.1.2 Reference points 0.5 0.25 0.333 0.1667 75 18.75 12.50 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 0.333 0.1667 0.00 Management 0.5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 0.125 95 11.88 11.88 1.2. Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 0.125 80 10.00 10.00 1.2. Information & monitoring 0.25 0.125 80 10.00 10.00 1.2. Assessment of stock status 0.25 0.125 80 10.00 10.00 Two 1Retained 0.2 2.1. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 6.00 species 2.1. Management 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 6.00 2.1. Information 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 5.33 Bycatch 0.2 2.2. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 5.33 species 2.2. Management 0.333 0.0667 100 6.67 6.67 2.2. Information 0.333 0.0667 75 5.00 5.00 ETP species 0.2 2.3. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 75 5.00 5.00 2.3. Management 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 5.33 2.3. Information 0.333 0.0667 65 4.33 4.33 Habitats 0.2 2.4. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 100 6.67 6.67 2.4. Management 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 5.33 2.4. Information 0.333 0.0667 75 5.00 5.00 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 100 6.67 6.67 2.5. Management 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 6.00 2.5. Information 0.333 0.0667 85 5.67 5.67 Three 1 Governance 0.5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0.25 0.125 75 9.38 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 Fishery specific 0.5 3.2. Fishery specific objectives 0.2 0.1 90 9.00 management 3.2. Decision making processes 0.2 0.1 100 10.00 system 3.2. Compliance & enforcement 0.2 0.1 100 10.00 3.2.4 Research plan 0.2 0.1 100 10.00 3.2.5 Management performance 0.2 0.1 100 10.00

Overall weighted Principle-level scores Either Or Principle 1 - Target species Stock rebuilding PI not scored 80.6 Stock rebuilding PI scored 67.7 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 84.3 Principle 3 - Management 95.9 86.9

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 178

Western king prawns

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 179

7.3 Summary of Conditions

Table 7.3: Summary of Conditions Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/N/A) Demonstrate that target reference points are 1.1.2 1 consistent with BMSY or a surrogate. (brown tiger NA prawn) Demonstrate that target reference points are 1.1.2 2 consistent with BMSY or a surrogate. (western king NA prawn) Provide sufficient data to detect any increase in 3 2.2.3 NA risk to main bycatch species Demonstrate that direct effects are highly 4 unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP 2.3.1 NA species, with emphasis on sea snakes and sawfish Provide sufficient information to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species.

5 2.3.3 NA Provide relevant information sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, especially sea snakes and sawfish Provide sufficient data to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and provide reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and 6 2.4.3 NA location of use of the fishing gear

Collect sufficient data to detect any increase in risk to habitat Demonstrate that the consultation process 7 provides opportunity for all interested and 3.1.2 NA affected parties to be involved

7.4 Recommendations

There are four recommendations:

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 180

1.1.1: Develop reference points that are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. These should be consistent with the reference points developed for brown tiger and western king prawns.

1.2.3: Demonstrate that sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy.

Recommendation 3: An explicit reference to habitats in the BAP and a closer evaluation of the likely encounterability with sponges and the impact of trawl gear on these fauna.

Recommendation 4: Strengthening commitment to continuous data collection should be specified as a Bycatch specific objective within the BAP.

7.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement (REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the Assessment Team about whether or not the fishery should be certified. (Reference: CR 27.16)

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

2. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.

7.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment

Following the pre-assessment, the Department of Fisheries, working with the fisher stakeholders, developed both the Harvest Strategy (DoF, 2014a) and the Bycatch Action Plan (2014b).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 181

References

General References Baldwin, J.D., Bass, A.L., Bowen, B.W. & Clark W.H. Jr. (1998). Molecular phylogeny and biogeography of the marine shrimp Penaeus. Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution 10: 399- 407. Broadhurst, M., Kangas, M., Damiano, C., Bickford, S., & Kennelly, S. (2002). Using composite square-mesh panels and Nordmore-grid to reduce bycatch in the Shark Bay prawn trawl fishery, Western Australia. Fisheries Research, 58, 349-365. Caputi, N., Fletcher, W.J., Pearce, A. & Chubb, C.F. (1996). Effect of the Leeuwin Current on the recruitment and invertebrates along the Western Australian coast. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 147-55. Commonwealth of Australia, 1975, Available at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A00234 Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 1999. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/ Commonwealth of Australia (CoA). (2007). Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. 18 pp. Accessed 12 March 2013 from: http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/publications/pubs/guidelines.pdf Courtney, A.J. & Dredge, M.C.L. (1988). Female reproductive biology and spawning periodicity of two species of king prawns, Penaeus longistylus Kubo and Penaeus latisulcatus Kishinoye, from Queensland’s east coast fishery. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39: 729-741. Courtney, A.J., Masel, J.M. & Die, D.J. 1995. Temporal and spatial patterns in recruitment of three penaeid prawns in Moreton Bay. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 41: 377-292. Crocos, P.J. (1987). Reproductive dynamics of brown tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus and comparison with P. semisulcatus in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 91-102. Crocos, P.J. & Kerr J.D. (1986). Factors affecting induction of maturation and spawning of the brown tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus under laboratory conditions. Aquaculture 58: 203- 214. Dall, W. (1981). Osmoregulatory ability and juvenile habitat preference in some penaeid prawns. Journal of Experimental Biology and Ecology 54: 55-64. Dall, W., Hill, B.J, Rothlisberg, P.C. & Staples, D.J. (1990). Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 27. Academic Press Ltd., London. Department of Agriculture. (2013). Disease strategy: White spot disease (Version 2.0). In: Australian Aquatic Veterinary Emergency Plan (AQUAVETPLAN), Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Canberra, Australia. DoF. Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Management Plan 1989 (EGPMF Management Plan) DoF. (2009). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Limited Entry Fishery Notice 1989

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 182

DoF. (2009). Prawn aquaculture in Western Australia: final ESD risk assessment report for prawn aquaculture. Fisheries Management Paper No. 230. Department of Fisheries, WA, 119 pp. DoF. (2014a). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Harvest Strategy 2014 - 2019. Department of Fisheries, WA. DoF. (2014b). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Bycatch Action Plan 2014 - 2019. Department of Fisheries, WA. Department of Parks and Wildlife, The Management Plan for the Ningaloo Marine Park and Muiron Islands Marine Management Area 2005 – 2015.Available at http://ningaloo- atlas.org.au/sites/default/files/Ningaloo%20Marine%20Park%20(State%20Waters)%20Mana gement%20plan%202005-2015.pdf Dixon, C.D., Hooper, G.E. & Roberts, S.D. (2010). Spencer Gulf prawn Penaeus (Melicertus) latisulcatus fishery 2008/09. SARDI Research Report Series 511. SARDI, South Australia, 122 pp. Flegel, T.W. (2007). The right to refuse revision in the genus Penaeus. Aquaculture 264: 2-8. Fletcher, W.J. (2002). Policy for the Implementation of Ecologically Sustainable Development for Fisheries and Aquaculture within Western Australia. Fisheries Management Paper No. 157; Department of Fisheries, WA, 71 pp. Fletcher, W.J. & Santoro, K. (2013). Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2012/13: the state of the fisheries. Department of Fisheries, WA. Fletcher, W.J. & Santoro, K. (2014). Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2013/14: the state of the fisheries. Department of Fisheries, WA. Fletcher, W., Chesson, J., Sainsbury, K., Fisher, M., Hundloe, T. & Whitworth, B. (2002). Reporting on Ecologically Sustainable Development: A “how to guide” for fisheries in Australia. Canberra, Australia. 120 pp. Garcia, S.M. (1985). Reproduction, stock assessment model and population parameters in exploited penaeid shrimp populations. In: P.C. Rothlisberg, B.J. Hill, and D.J. Staples (eds.), Second Australian National Prawn Seminar (Kooralbyn, Queensland, October 1984), pp. 139-158, Cleveland, Australia. Garcia, S.M. & Le Reste, L. (1981). Life cycles, dynamics, exploitation and management of coastal penaeid shrimp stocks. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 203. FAO, Rome, 215 pp. Government of Western Australia, Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. Available at http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_193_homepage.html Government of Western Australia, Fisheries Adjustment Schemes Act, 1987. Available at http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_342_homepage.html Government of Western Australia, Fisheries Resources Management Act, 1994. Available at http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_3205_homepage.html Government of Western Australia, Fish Resources Management Regulations, 1995. Available at http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1458_homepage.html Government of Western Australia, Prohibition on Commercial Fishing (Ningaloo Marine Park) Order 2005, http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/subsiduary.nsf/0/31960F00407C98994825709600016C0F/ $file/5.04a.pdf

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 183

Government of Western Australia, Prohibition on Commercial Fishing (Muiron Islands Marine Management Area) Order, 2008. Available at http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/subsiduary.nsf/0/C9592325DEBEE505C825752F0027AB 15/$file/4.39.pdf Grey, D.L, Dall, W. & Baker, A. (1983). A guide to Australian penaeid prawns. Department of Primary Production, Northern Territory. Hall, N.G. & Watson, R.A. (2000). A spatial representation of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) fishery in Shark Bay, Western Australia. In: D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith and J.D. Koehn (eds.), Fish Movement and Migration, pp. 212-230. Australian Society for Fish Biology, Albury, Australia. Harris, D. (2000). Aspects of the biology of the brown tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus (Haswell) in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. Honours thesis. Murdoch University, WA, 130 pp. Haywood, M.D.E., Vance, D.J. & Loneragan, N.R. (1995). Seagrass and algal beds as nursery habitats for tiger prawns (Penaeus semisulcatus and P. esculentus) in a tropical Australian estuary. Marine Biology 122: 213-223. Haywood M, Hill B, Donovan A, Rochester W, Ellis N, Welna A, Gordon S, Cheers S, Forcey K, Mcleod I, Moeseneder C, Smith G, Manson F, Wassenberg T, Thomas S, Kuhnert P, Laslett G, Burridge C and Thomas S. 2005. Quantifying the effects of trawling on seabed fauna in the Northern Prawn Fishery. Final Report on FRDC Project 2002/102. CSIRO, Cleveland. 462 pp Hobday, A.J, Poloczanska, E.S. & Matear, J. (2008). Implications for Climate Change for Australian Fisheries and Aquaculture, a primary Assessment. Department of Climate Change, Canberra, Australia. Jackson, C.J. & Burford, M.A. (2003). The effects of temperature and salinity on growth and survival of larval shrimp Penaeus semisulcatus (Decapoda: Penaeoidea). Journal of Crustacean Biology 23(4): 819-826. Jones, J.B. (2003). Determination of the disease status of Western Australian commercial prawn stocks. Report to the FRDC on Project No. 98/212. Department of Fisheries, WA, 98 pp. Jones, B. & Crockford, M. (2009). Survey of wild prawn in Western Australia for presence of exotic viruses. Report to the Department of Fisheries, WA, on DBIF PROJECT: 2009. Kailola, P.J., Williams, M.J., Stewart, P.C., Reichelt, R.E., McNee, A. & Grieve, C. (1993). Australian Fisheries Resources. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, and the FRDC, Canberra, Australia. Kangas, M. (1999). Postlarval and juvenile western king prawns Penaeus latisulcatus Kishinouye studies in Gulf St Vincent, South Australia with reference to the commercial fishery. PhD thesis. University of Adelaide, South Australia. Kangas, M. & Jackson, B. (1997). Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery. South Australian Fisheries Assessment Series 99/05. SARDI, South Australia. Kangas, M. & Jackson, B. (1998). Sampling juvenile Penaeus latisulcatus Kishinouye with a water-jet net compared with a beam-trawl: spatial and temporal variation and nursery area in Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 49: 517-523.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 184

Kangas, M. & Thomson, A. (2004). Implementation and assessment of bycatch reduction devices in the Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf trawl fisheries. Final Report to the FRDC on Project No. 2000/189. Department of Fisheries, WA, 70 pp. Kangas, M., McCrea, J., Fletcher, W., Sporer, E. & Weir, V. (2006). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery. ESD Report No. 1. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 128 pp. Kangas, M.I., Morrison, S., Unsworth, P., Lai, E., Wright, I. & Thomson, A. (2007). Development of biodiversity and habitat monitoring systems for key trawl fisheries in Western Australia. Final report to the FRDC on Project No. 2002/038. Fisheries Research Report No. 160. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 334 pp. Kangas, M., Sporer, E., O’Donoghue, S. & Hood, S. (2008). Co-management in the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery with comparison to the Shark Bay Prawn Fishery. In: Townsend, R., Shotton, R. & Uchida, H. (eds.), Case studies in fisheries self-governance. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504, pp. 231-244. Kangas, M., Sporer, E., Hesp. A., Travaille, K., Fisher, E., Harry, A., Moore, N., Cavalli, P., O’Donoghue, S., Bellchambers, L., Gaughan, D. (2014). MSC Assessment Document for the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery. Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) & Western king prawn (Penaeus latisulcatus). Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, September 2014. Kenyon, R.A., Loneragan, N.R. & Hughes, J.M. (1995). Habitat type and light affect sheltering behaviour of juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus Haswell) and success rates of their fish predators. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 192: 87-105. Kenyon, R.A., Loneragan, N.R., Hughes, J.M. & Staples, D.J. (1997). Habitat type influences on the microhabitat preferences of juvenile brown tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus). Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 45: 393-403. Kenyon, R., Haywood, M., Loneragan, N., Manson, F. & Toscas, P. (2003). Benthic habitats in Exmouth Gulf. In: Loneragan, N.R., Kenyon, R.A., Crocos, P.J., et al. (eds.), Developing techniques for enhancing prawn fisheries, with a focus on brown tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus) in Exmouth Gulf. Final Report to the FRDC on Project No. 1999/222. CSIRO, Cleveland, pp. 163-198. King, M.G. (1977). The biology of the western king prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus Kishinouye) and aspects of the fishery in South Australia. MSc Thesis. University of Adelaide, South Australia. Lavery, S. & Keenan, C. (1995). Genetic analyses of crustacean stock structure and stock size. Queensland Department of Primary Industries Conference and Workshop Series. Lavery, S., Chan, T.Y., Tam, Y.K., & Chu, K.H. (2004). Phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history of the shrimp genus Penaeus s.l. derived from mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution 31: 39-49. Lenanton, R.C., Joll, L.M., Penn, J.W. & Jones, K. (1991). The influence of the Leeuwin Current on coastal fisheries in Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 74: 101-114. Lenanton, R.C, Caputi, N., M. Kangas, M. and Craine, M. (2009). The ongoing influence of the Leeuwin Current on economically important fish and invertebrates off temperate Western Australia – has it changed? Journal of Royal Society of Western Australia 92: 111-127.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 185

Liu, H. & Loneragan, N.R. (1997). Size and time of day affect the response of postlarvae and early juvenile grooved tiger prawns Penaeus semisulcatus De Haan (Decapoda: Penaeidae) to natural and artificial seagrass in the laboratory. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 211: 263-277. Loneragan, N.R, Kenyon, R.A. Staples, D.J, Poiner, I.R. & Conacher, C.A. (1998). The influence of seagrass type on the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175-195. Loneragan, N.R., Crocos, P.J., Barnard, R.M., McCulloch, R.R., Penn, J.W., Ward, R.D. & Rothlisberg, P.C. (2004). An approach to evaluating the potential for stock enhancement of brown tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus Haswell) in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. In: K.M. Leber, S. Kitada, H.L. Blankenship & T. Svasand (eds.), Stock Enhancement and Sea Ranching, 2nd Edition, pp. 444-464. Blackwell Science Ltd./Fishing News Books, Oxford. Loneragan, N.R., Kangas, M., Haywood, M.D.E., Kenyon, R.A., Caputi, N. and Sporer, E. (2013). Impact of cyclones and aquatic macrophytes on recruitment and landings of tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 127: 46-58. Meany, T.F. (1979). Limited entry in the Western Australian rock lobster and prawn fisheries: an economic evaluation. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36: 789-798. Montgomery, S.S. (1981). Tagging studies on juvenile eastern king prawns reveal record migration. Australian Fisheries 40(9): 13-14. Morrison, S., Unsworth, P. & Kangas, M. (2003). A review of the biodiversity of Western Australian soft-bottom habitats in Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf and the impact of demersal trawl fisheries on benthic communities in Australia. In: Kangas, M.I., Morrison, S., Unsworth, P., Lai, E., Wright, I., Thomson, A. (eds.), Development of biodiversity and habitat monitoring systems for key trawl fisheries in Western Australia. Final report to FRDC on Project No. 2002/038. Fisheries Research Report No. 160, pp. 297-333. Department of Fisheries, WA. Mulley, J.C. & Latter B.D.H. (1981). Geographic differentiation of tropical Australian prawn populations. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 32: 897-906. NSW Department of Industry and Investment. (2010). Biology and life cycles of prawns. Primefact 268. O’Brien, C.J. (1994). The effects of temperature and salinity on growth and survival of juvenile brown tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus (Haswell). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 183: 133 –145. Ocean Watch Australia (2004). Hoppers in Australian Trawl Fisheries – A handbook for fishers. Ocean Watch Australia Ltd, Pyrmont, NSW. Available at http://data.daff.gov.au/brs/fishbycatch/pdfs/wb1954.pdf Owens, L. & Glazebrook, J.S. (1985). The biology of bopyrid isopods parasitic on commercial penaeid prawns in northern Australia. In: P.C. Rothlisberg, B.J. Hill, and D.J. Staples (eds.), Second Australian National Prawn Seminar (Kooralbyn, Queensland, October 1984), pp. 105-113, Cleveland, Australia.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 186

Pearce, A.F., Lenanton, R.C., Jackson, G., Moore, J., Feng, M. & Gaughan, D. (2011). The “marine heat wave” off Western Australia during the summer of 2010/11. Fisheries Research Report No. 222. Department of Fisheries, WA, 40 pp. Penn, J.W. (1975). Tagging experiments with the western king prawn Penaeus latisulcatus, Kishinouye. I. Survival, growth and reproduction of tagged prawns. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 26: 197-211. Penn J.W. (1976). Tagging experiments with the western king prawn Penaeus latisulcatus, Kishinouye. II. Estimation of population parameters. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 27: 239-250. Penn, J.W. (1980). Spawning and fecundity of the western king prawn, Penaeus latisulcatus, Kishinouye, in Western Australian waters. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 31: 21-35. Penn, J.W. (1988). Spawning stock-recruitment relationships and management of the penaeid prawn fishery in Shark Bay, Western Australia. PhD Thesis. Murdoch University, WA, 239 pp. Penn, J.W. & Caputi, N. (1986). Spawning stock-recruitment relationships and environmental influences on the brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) fishery in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 37: 491-505. Penn, J.W. & Hall, N.G. (1974). Morphometric data relating to the western king prawn, Penaeus latisulcatus (Kishinouye 1900) and the brown tiger prawn, Penaeus esculentus (Haswell 1879) from Shark Bay, Western Australia. Fisheries Research Bulletin No. 15. Department of Fisheries and Fauna, WA. Penn, J.W. & Stalker, R.W. (1979). The Shark Bay prawn fishery (1970-1976). Report No. 38. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, WA, 38 pp. Penn, J.W., Caputi, N. & Hall, N.G. (1995). Spawner-recruit relationships for the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) stocks in Western Australia. ICES Marine Science Symposia (Actes du symposium) 199: 320-333. Penn, J.W., Watson, R.A., Caputi, N. & Hall, N. (1997). Protecting vulnerable stocks in multi-species fisheries. In: Proceedings of 2nd World Fisheries Congress (Brisbane, Australia, Aug 1996), Developing and sustaining world fisheries resources: the state of science and management, pp. 122-129. Pérez Farfante, I. & Kensley, B. (1997). Penaeoid and Sergestoid shrimps and prawns of the world. Key and diagnoses for the families and genera. Mémoirs du Muséum nationale d'Histoire naturelle, Paris 175: 1-233. Raven J., Caldeira K., Elderfield H., Hoegh-Guldberg O., Liss P., Riebesell U., Shepherd J., Turley C. & Watson A. (2005). Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Royal Society Special Report, London. Richardson, B.J. (1982). The geographical distribution of electrophoretically detected protein variation in Australian commercial fisheries. III Western king prawn (Penaeus latisulcatus Kishinouye). Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33: 933-937. Rodgers, G.G., Roberst, S.D., Dixon, C.D. (2013). The effects of temperature on larval size in the western king prawn, Penaeus (Melicertus) latisulcatus Kishinouye, from Spencer Gulf, South Australia: implications for fishery management. Marine and Freshwater Research 64(10): 976-985.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 187

Sang, H.M. & Fotedar, R. (2004). Growth, survival, haemolymph osmolality and organosmosmatic indices of the western king prawn (Penaeus latisulcatus Kishinouye, 1896) reared at different salinities. Aquaculture 234: 601-614. Shokita, S. (1984). Larval development of Penaeus (Melicertus) latisulcatus Kishinouye (Decapoda, Natantia, Penaeidae) reared in the laboratory. Galaxea 3: 37-55. Somers, I. & Wang, Y-G. (1997). A simulation model for evaluating seasonal closures in Australia’s multispecies Northern Prawn Fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 114-130. Sporer, E., Kangas, M. & Brown, S. (2013). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Status Report. In: Fletcher, W.J. & Santoro, K. (eds.), Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2012/13: the state of the fisheries, pp. 132-138. Department of Fisheries, WA. Sporer, E., Kangas, M. & Brown, S. (2014). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Status Report. In: Fletcher, W.J. & Santoro, K. (eds.), Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2013/14: the state of the fisheries. Department of Fisheries, WA. Stirling, D. (1998). The improvement of prawn trawling performance through analysis of otter board design and operation. Master’s thesis. Curtin University of Technology. Tanner, J.E. & Deakin, S. (2001). Active habitat selection for sand by juvenile western king prawns, Melicertus latisulcatus (Kishinouye). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 261(3): 199-209. Walker, R.H. (1975). Australian prawn fisheries. In: P.C. Young (ed.), First Australian National Prawn Seminar, Maroochydore, Queensland, November 1973, pp. 284-304. Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra. Wallner, B. (1985). An assessment of the South Australian West Coast western king prawn (Penaeus latisulcatus) fishery. Department of Fisheries, South Australia, 79 pp. Wang, Y-G. & Die, D. (1996). Stock-recruitment relationships for the tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95. Ward, R.D., Ovenden, J.R., Meadows, J.R.S., Grewe, P.M. & Lehnert, S.A. (2006). Population genetic structure of the brown tiger prawn, Penaeus esculentus, in tropical northern Australia. Marine Biology 148: 599-607. White, T.F.C. (1975). Population dynamics of the tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus in the Exmouth Gulf prawn fishery, and implications for the management of the fishery. PhD thesis. University of Western Australia, WA. Xiao, Y. & McShane, P. (2000). Use of age-and time-dependent seasonal growth models in analysis of tag/recapture data on the western king prawn Penaeus latisulcatus in the Gulf St. Vincent, Australia. Fisheries Research 49(1): 85-92.

1.1 Principle 1 References DoF. (2014c). Stock status of western king prawn (Penaeus latisulcatus) stocks in Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery 2014. Department of Fisheries, WA, December 2014. Fletcher, W.J. & Santoro, K. (2013). Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2012/13: the state of the fisheries. Department of Fisheries, WA.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 188

Flood, M, Stobutzki, I, Andrews, J, Begg, G, Fletcher, W, Gardner, C, Kemp, J, Moore, A, O'Brien, A, Quinn, R, Roach, J, Rowling, K, Sainsbury, K, Saunders, T, Ward, T and Winning, M (eds) 2012, Status of key Australian fish stocks reports 2012, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Flood, M, Stobutzki, I, Andrews, J, Ashby, C, Begg, G, Fletcher, R, Gardner, C, Georgeson, L, Hansen, S, Hartmann, K, Hone, P, Horvat, P, Maloney, L, McDonald, B, Moore, A, Roelofs, A, Sainsbury, K, Saunders, T, Smith, T, Stewardson, C, Stewart, J & Wise, B (eds) 2014, Status of key Australian fish stocks reports 2014, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Kangas, M., McCrea, J., Fletcher, W., Sporer, E. & Weir, V. (2006). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery. ESD Report No. 1. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 128 pp. Kangas, M.I., Morrison, S., Unsworth, P., Lai, E., Wright, I. & Thomson, A. (2007). Development of biodiversity and habitat monitoring systems for key trawl fisheries in Western Australia. Final report to the FRDC on Project No. 2002/038. Fisheries Research Report No. 160. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 334 pp. Kenyon, R., Haywood, M., Loneragan, N., Manson, F. & Toscas, P. (2003). Benthic habitats in Exmouth Gulf. In: Loneragan, N.R., Kenyon, R.A., Crocos, P.J., et al. (eds.), Developing techniques for enhancing prawn fisheries, with a focus on brown tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus) in Exmouth Gulf. Final Report to the FRDC on Project No. 1999/222. CSIRO, Cleveland, pp. 163-198. Loneragan, N.R., Kangas, M., Haywood, M.D.E., Kenyon, R.A., Caputi, N. and Sporer, E. (2013). Impact of cyclones and aquatic macrophytes on recruitment and landings of tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 127: 46-58. Moriarty, D.J.W. and Barclay, M.C., 1981. Carbon and nitrogen content of food and the assimilation efficiencies of penaeid prawns in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., 32: 245–251. MSC (2013). Guidance to the MSC Certification Requirements. Version 1.3. 14 January 2013. 254 pp. Penn, J.W. & Caputi, N. (1985). Spawning stock-recruitment relationships for the tiger prawn, Penaeus esculentus, fishery in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia, and their implications for management. In: Rothlisberg, P.C., Hill, B.J., Staples, D.J. (eds.), Second Australian National Prawn Seminar NPS2, pp. 165-173. Cleveland, Queensland. Penn, J.W. & Caputi, N. (1986). Spawning stock-recruitment relationships and environmental influences on the brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) fishery in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 37: 491-505.

1.2 Principle 2 References Apache Northwest Pty Ltd. (1998). Chelonia-1 and -2 exporation wells, boundary of Ningaloo Marine Park, North West Shelf. Report and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2012). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012, Shark-plan 2. Accessed online at

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 189

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/environment/sharks/sharkp lan2-final/sharkplan2-action.pdf

Auster, P.J., Maltesta, R.J., Langton, R.W., Watling, L., Valentine, P.C., Donaldson, C.L., Langton, E.W., Shepard, A.N and Babb I.G. (1996). The impacts of mobile fishing gear on seafloor habitats in the Gulf of Maine (Northwest Atlantic): implications for conservation of fish populations. Review of Fisheries Sciences 4: 185–202.

Barwick, M. (2011). Northern Prawn Fishery Data Summary 2010. NPF Industry Pty Ltd, Australia. 58 p. Bisong, S. (2000). The WTO Panel decision on the US shrimp embargo: Another ruling against US enforcement of species protection in trade. Natural Resources Journal. 40:699- 726 Broadhurst, M., Kangas, M., Damiano, C., Bickford, S., & Kennelly, S. (2002). Using composite square-mesh panels and Nordmore-grid to reduce bycatch in the Shark Bay prawn trawl fishery, Western Australia. Fisheries Research, 58, 349-365. Brewer D, Rawlinson N, Eayrs S and Burridge C. 1998. An assessment of bycatch reduction devices in a tropical Australian prawn trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 36: 195-215. Brewer DT, Heales DS, Milton C, Dell Q, Fry G, Venables B and Jones P. 2006. The impact of turtle excluder devices and bycatch reduction devices on diverse tropical marine communities in Australia’s northern prawn trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 81: 176-188. Brewer DT, Grifiths S, Heales DS, Zhou S, Tonks M, Dell Q, Taylor BT, Miller M, Kuhnert P, Keys S, Whitelaw W, Burke A and Raudzens E. 2007. Design, trial and implementation of an integrated long-term bycatch monitoring program road tested in the Northern Prawn Fishery. Final Report FRDC Project 2002/035. CSIRO Cleveland. http://frdc.com.au/research/Documents/Final_reports/2002-035-DLD.PDF Bunting, J. (2002). Draft Bycatch Action Plan for the Shark Bay Prawn Managed Fishery. Perth: Department of Fisheries WA; FMP No. 147. Burke, A., Barwick, M., Jarrett, A., (2012) Northern Prawn Fishery Bycatch Reduction Device Assessment. NPF Inudtry Pty. Cavanagh R. D. (ed)., P. M. Kyne(ed)., S. L. Fowler (ed)., J. A. Musick (ed)., and M. B. Bennett (ed). 2003. The conservation status of Australian Chondrichthyans: Report of the IUCN shark species list Group Australia and Oceania regional red list workshop. The University of Queensland, School of Biological Sciences, Brisbane, Australia. 170 pp. Cogger, H.G. (2000). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia - 6th edition. Sydney, NSW; Reed New Holland.

Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Kaiser, J.J. and Poiner, I.R. (2000). A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology 69: 785–798. Courtney, AJ, Schemel, BL, Wallace, R, Campbell, MJ, Mayer, DG, M & Young, B 2010, Reducing the impact of Queensland’s trawl fisheries on protected sea snakes, final report, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation project 2005/053, Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Brisbane, http://frdc.com.au/research/final-reports/Pages/2005-053-DLD.aspx

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 190

Department of the Environment (2003). Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia. Accessed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/6d26f4aa-751e- 4b72-9ab0-984a1d6e0fea/files/marine-turtles.pdf Department of the Environment (2005). Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan, 2005-2010. Accessed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/r- typus/pubs/rhincodon-typus.pdf Department of the Environment (2005). Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005- 2010. Accessed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/32f6b764-2af1- 4251-b79d-c8bf67d8303a/files/m-novaeangliae.pdf Department of the Environment (2005). Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 2005- 2010 Accessed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/196d34d7-4cc8- 4bb7-95b6-020c22318132/files/balaenoptera-sp.pdf Department of the Environment (DoE) (2013). Assessment of the Western Australian Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery. Commonwealth of Australia Department of the Environment. (2014). Pristis clavata in Species Profile and Threats Database. Retrieved on June 18, 2014 from http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Dixon, C., Sorokin, S. and Currie, D. (2014) The deeper benthic communities of Spencer Gulf and the impacts of trawling. Natural History of Spencer Gulf – Part 3 DoF. (2002). State of the Fisheries Report 2000/01. Perth, WA. DoF. (2009). Prawn aquaculture in Western Australia: final ESD risk assessment report for prawn aquaculture. Fisheries Management Paper No. 230. Department of Fisheries, WA, 119 pp DoF. (2011). Fisheries Fact Sheet: Sawfish. Perth, WA. 4 pp. DoF. (2014a). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Harvest Strategy 2014 - 2019. Department of Fisheries, WA. DoF. (2014b). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Bycatch Action Plan 2014 - 2019. Department of Fisheries, WA. Engel, J. and Kvitek, R. (1998). Effects of Otter Trawling on a Benthic Community in Monterey bay National Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology 12: 1204-1214.

Evans, R. and Molony, B. W. 2010. Ranked Risk Assessment for Bycatch in Multiple Fisheries: a Bioregional Risk Assessment Method. Fisheries Research Report No. 212. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 88 pp.

Foster, S.J. and Vincent, A.C.J. (2004). Life history and ecology of seahorses: implications for conservation and management. Journal of Fish Biology 65: 1-61. Fry, G.C., A. Milton & T.J. Wassenberg (2001). The reproductive biology and diet of sea snake bycatch of prawn trawling in northern Australia: characteristics important for assessing the impacts on populations. Pacific Conservation Biology. 7:55-73. Gales, N. J., McCauley, R. D., Lanyon, J. M. & Holley, D. K. (2004). Change in abundance of dugongs in Shark Bay, Ningaloo and Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia: evidence for large scale migration. Wildlife Research, 31, 283-290.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 191

Giles, J., Pillans, R., Miller, M., & Salini, J. (2006). Sawfish Catch Data in Northern Australia: a desktop study. CSIRO report for FRDC 2002/064. Grey, D. L, Dall, W. and Baker, A. (1983). A Guide to Australian Penaeid Prawns. The Department of Primary Production of the Northern Territory, NT. Griffiths, S.P., Brewer, D.T., Heales, D.S., Milton, D.A. and Stobutzki, I.C. 2006. Validating ecological risk assessments for fisheries: assessing the impacts of turtle excluder devices on elasmobranch bycatch populations in an Australian trawl fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 57: 395-401. Griffiths, S., Kenyon, R., Bulman, C., Dowdney, J., Williams, A., Sporic, M., et al. (2007). Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing: Report for the Northern Prawn Fishery. Canberra: Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Guinea, M.L. (2007). Survey March 16 - April 2 2007: Sea snakes of Ashmore Reef, Hibernia Reef and Cartier Island with comments on Scott Reef. Final Report to the Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Darwin: Charles Darwin University.

Harris, D. (2000). Aspects of the biology of the brown tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus (Haswell) in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. Murdoch University. Hatcher, B. (1991). Coral reefs in the Leeuwin Current- an ecological perspective. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 74, 115-127. Haywood M, Hill B, Donovan A, Rochester W, Ellis N, Welna A, Gordon S, Cheers S, Forcey K, Mcleod I, Moeseneder C, Smith G, Manson F, Wassenberg T, Thomas S, Kuhnert P, Laslett G, Burridge C and Thomas S. 2005. Quantifying the effects of trawling on seabed fauna in the Northern Prawn Fishery. Final Report on FRDC Project 2002/102. CSIRO, Cleveland. 462 pp

Heales, D., Gregor, R., Wakefore, J., Wang, Y.-G., Yarrow, J., Milton, D.A. (2008). Tropical prawn trawl bycatch of fish and sea snakes reduced by yarrow fisheye bycatch reduction device. Fisheries Research 89: 76–83. Heatwole, H. (1999). Sea Snakes. In: Australian Natural History Series. Sydney, NSW: UNSW Press. Pg 148. Hinz, H., Prieto, V., and Kaiser, M. J. 2009. Trawl disturbance on benthic communities: chronic effects and experimental predictions. Ecological Applications 19:761– 773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/08-0351.1 Hodgson AJ (2007). The distribution, abundance and conservation of dugongs and other marine megafauna in Shark Bay Marine Park, Ningaloo Reef Marine Park and Exmouth Gulf. Unpublished report to WA Department of Environment and Conservation, Denham. 47pp. Hodgson, A. J., Marsh, H., Gales, N., Holley, D., & Lawler, I. (2007). Dugong population trends across two decades in Shark Bay, Ningaloo Reef and Exmouth Gulf. Unpublished report to Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation. Hutchins, J. (1994). A survey of the nearshore reef fish fauna of Western Australia's west and south coasts- the Leeuwin Province. Records of the Western Australian Museum. IUCN. (2012). IUCN Red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. Accessed 31 Oct 2012 from www.iucnredlist.org.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 192

Jenner, C. and Jenner, M.N. (2000). Geographical and temporal movements of humpback whales in Western Australia: A preliminary report and description of a computer assisted matching system. Centre for Whale Research (Western Australia) Inc. Perth, Western Australia. Jennings, S. & Kaiser, M.J. (1998). The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 34: 201–352. Johnstone, R.E. (1990). Mangroves and Mangrove Birds of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum. Supplement No: 32, 120pp. in Kangas, M.I., Morrison, S., Unsworth, P., Lai, E., Wright I. and Thomson A. (2007). Development of biodiversity and habitat monitoring systems for key trawl fisheries in Western Australia. Final FRDC Report 2002/038. Fisheries Research Report No. 160. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 333 p. Kangas, M., McCrea, J., Fletcher, W., Sporer, E. and Weir, V. (2006). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery. ESD Report No. 1. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 128 p. Kangas, M. and Morrison, S. (2006) Biodiversity of bycatch in trawled and untrawled areas in Exmouth GulfExmouth Gulf Scientific Forum27 September 2006. Retrieved from: http://nwra.murdoch.edu.au/Kangas_ExmouthForum2006.pdf Kangas, M.I., Morrison, S., Unsworth, P., Lai, E., Wright I. and Thomson A. (2007). Development of biodiversity and habitat monitoring systems for key trawl fisheries in Western Australia. Final FRDC Report 2002/038. Fisheries Research Report No. 160. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 333 p. Kangas, M. & Thomson, A. (2004). Implementation and assessment of bycatch reduction devices in the Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf trawl fisheries. Final Report to the FRDC on Project No. 2000/189. Department of Fisheries, WA, 70 pp. Kangas, M., Sporer, E., Hesp. A., Travaille, K., Fisher, E., Harry, A., Moore, N., Cavalli, P., O’Donoghue, S., Bellchambers, L., Gaughan, D. (2014). MSC Assessment Document for the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery. Unpublished report to Department of Fisheries, WA. Kaiser, M.J. & Spencer, B.E. (1996). The effects of beam-trawl disturbance on infaunal communities in different habitats. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 348–358. Kuiter, R.H. (2001). Revision of the Australian seahorses of the genus Hippocampus (Syngnathiformes: Syngnathidae) with descriptions of nine new species. Records of the Australian Museum 53: 293-340. Last, P., & Stevens, J. (2009). Sharks and Rays of Australia; second edition. Melbourne: CSIRO. Laurenson, L.J.B., Unsworth, P., Penn, J.W. and Lenanton, R.C.J. (1993). The impact of trawling for saucer scallops and western king prawns on the benthic communities in coastal waters off southwestern Australia. Fisheries Research Report No. 100. Lenanton, R., Joll, L., Penn, J., & Jones, K. (1991). The influence of the Leeuwin Current on coastal fisheris of Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 74, 101-114. Lyne, V., Fuller, M., Last, P., Butler, A., Martin, M., Scott, R. (2006). Ecosystem characterisation of Australia’s North West Shelf. North West Shelf Joint Environmental Management Study, Technical Report No. 12. CSIRO, Western Australia. 73 pp.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 193

Marsh, H., Penrose, H., Eros, C. & Hugues, J. (2002). Dugong Status Report and Actions Plans for Countries and Territories. Kenya: UNEP Early Warning and Assessment Report Series. McAuley R, Lenanton R, Chidlow J, Allison R and Heist E. 2005. Biology and Stock Assessment of the Thickskin (Sandbar) Shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus, in Western Australia and Further Refinement of the Dusky Shark, Carcharhinus obscurus, Stock Assessment. Final Report FRDC project no. 2000/134. McCook, L.J., Klumpp, D.W. and McKinnon, A.D. (1995). Seagrass communities in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia: a preliminary survey. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 78: 81-87. McCosker, J.E. (1975). Feeding behaviour of Indo-Australian Hydrophiidae. In: Dunson, W. A., (Ed.) The Biology of Sea Snakes. Baltimore: University Park Press. Pp. 217-232. Milton, D.A. (2001). Assessing the susceptibility to fishing of populations of rare trawl bycatch: sea snakes caught by Australia’s northern prawn fishery. Biological Conservation 101: 281–290. Milton D, Zhou S, Fry G and Dell Q. 2008. Risk Assessment and mitigation for sea snakes caught in the Northern Prawn Fishery FRDC Project 2005/051. CSIRO Cleveland Qld http://frdc.com.au/research/Documents/Final_reports/2005-051-DLD.PDF Milton, D.A., Fry, G.C. and Dell, Q. (2009). Reducing impacts of trawling on protected sea snakes: by-catch reduction devices improve escapement and survival. Marine and Freshwater Research 60: 824–832. Morgan, D., Whitty, J., & Phillips, N. (2010). Endangered Sawfishes and River Sharks of Western Australia. Perth: Woodside Energy Ltd; CFFR Murdoch University. Morrison, S., Unsworth, P. and Kangas, M. (2003). A review of the biodiversity of Western Australian soft-bottom habitats in Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf and the impact of demersal trawl fisheries on benthic communities in Australia. In: Kangas, M.I., Morrison, S., Unsworth, P., Lai, E., Wright, I., Thomson, A. (Eds.) Development of biodiversity and habitat monitoring systems for key trawl fisheries in Western Australia. Final report to FRDC on Project No. 2002/038. Fisheries Research Report No. 160; Department of Fisheries, WA. pp. 297-333. MRAG Americas. 2012. Public Certification report for the Northern Prawn Fishery. St. Petersburg FL. USA http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/pacific/australia_northern_prawn/assessment-downloads- folder/MRAG_NPF_MSC_Final_Report.pdf MSC (2013). Guidance to the MSC Certification Requirements. Version 1.3. 14 January 2013. 254 pp. National Heritage Trust. (2005). Protected Marine Species Identification Guide. Canberra: Department of Environment and Heritage. NPF MSC PCR (2012). Marine Stewardship Certification, Public Certification Report for Australian Northern Prawn Fishery, Public Certification Report, MRAG Americas, November 2012. Olsen, S. (1999). Recent developents in shirmp sorting trawls. Bergen, Norway: Institute of Fishery Technology Research.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 194

Patterson, H.M. & Tudman, M.J. 2009. Chondrichthyan guide for fisheries managers: A practical guide to mitigating chondrichthyan bycatch. Bureau of Rural Sciences and Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. Penn, J.W. and Caputi, N. (1986). Stock recruitment relationships for the tiger prawn, Penaeus esculentus, fishery in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia, and their implications for management. In: Rothlisberg, P.C., Hill, B.J. and Staples, D.J. (Eds.) Second Australian Prawn Seminar. Cleveland, Australia. pp. 165-173. Phillips N.M, Chaplin JA, Morgan DL, Peverell SC and Thorburn DC. 2008. Genetic diversity and population structure of the Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis microdon) in Australian Waters. Whitty JM, NM Phillips, DL Morgan, JA Chaplin, DC Thorburn and SC Peverell, (eds). Habitat associations of Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis microdon) and Northern River Sharks (Glyphis sp. C): including genetic analysis of P. microdon across northern Australia. Centre for Fish & Fisheries Research (Murdoch University) Report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australian Government. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/freshwater-sawfish-northern-river- shark.pdf Poiner, I., Glaister, R., Pitcher, R., Burridge, C., Wassenberg, T., Gribble, N., Hill, B., Blaber, S., Milton, D., Brewer, D. and Ellis, N. (1999). Environmental effects of prawn trawling the far northern section of the Great Barrier Reef marine Park: 1991–1996. Final report to Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and FRDC. CSIRO Brisbane. Preen, A.R., Marsh, H., Lawler, I.H., Prince, R.I.T., Shepherd, R. (1997). Distribution and abundance of dugongs, turtles, dolphins and other megafauna in Shark Bay, Ningaloo Reef and Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. Wildlife Research 24:185-208. Queirós, A. M., Hiddink, J. G., Kaiser, M. J., & Hinz, H. (2006). Effects of chronic bottom trawling disturbance on benthic biomass, production and size spectra in different habitats. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 335(1), 91-103. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2006.03.001 Robins, J., & McGilvray, J. (1999). The AusTED II, an improved trawl efficiency device 2. Commercial performance. Fisheries Research, 40, 29-41. Robins, C.M., A.M. Goodspeed, I. Poiner & B.D. Harch (2002). Monitoring the catch of turtles in the Northern Prawn Fishery. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry: Canberra. Sainsbury, K.J., Campbell, R.A. & Whitelaw, A.W. (1992) Effects of trawling on the marine habitat on the North West shelf of Australia and implications for sustainable fisheries management. In ‘Sustainable Fisheries through Sustaining Fish Habitat’. (Ed. D.A. Hancock). pp 137–145. Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop. (Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra). Scales, H. (2010). Advances in the ecology, biogeography and conservation of seahorses (genus Hippocampus). Progress in Physical Geography 34: 443. Schönberg, L. C. H. (2010). The sponge gardens of Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. The Open Marine Biology Journal, 4(1), 3-11. doi:10.2174/1874450801004010003 Shokri, M.R., Gladstone, W. and Jelbart, J. (2009). The effectiveness of seahorses and pipefish (Pisces: Syngnathidae) as a flagship group to evaluate the conservation value of estuarine seagrass beds. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19(5): 588–595.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 195

Sporer, E.; Kangas, M.; Brown, S.; Pickles, L. (2012) Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Status Report. In: Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2011/12: the state of the fisheries. Department of Fisheries WA. Sporer, E., Kangas, M., Brown, S. (2013). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Status Report. In: Fletcher, W.J. & Santoro, K. (Eds.) Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2012/13: the state of the fisheries. Department of Fisheries, WA. Pp. 132-138. Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA). (1998). 1998 National Policy on Fisheries Bycatch. Stevens JD, Pillans RD and Salini J. 2005. Conservation Assessment of Glyphis sp. A (Speartooth Shark), Glyphis sp. C (Northern River Shark), Pristis microdon (Freshwater Sawfish) and Pristis zijsron (Green Sawfish) Hobart, Tasmania: CSIRO Marine Research. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/assessment-glyphis.pdf Stevens JD, McAuley RB, Simpfendorfer CA and Pillans RD. 2008. Spatial distribution and habitat utilisation of sawfish (Pristis spp) in relation to fishing in northern Australia. A report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. CSIRO and Western Australia Department of Fisheries. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/sawfish-report.pdf Storr, G.M., Smith, L.A. and Johnstone, R.E. (2002). Snakes of Western Australia. Western Australian Museum, Perth. P. 309. Straits Salt Pty Ltd. (2006). Yannarie Solar: a Straits Initiative. Environmental Review and Management Programme. Volume 1. West Perth, Western Australia. Svane, I. (2005) Occurrence of dolphins and seabirds and their consumption of by-catch during prawn trawling in Spencer Gulf, South Australia. Fisheries Research 76: 317–327. Thorburn DC, Morgan DL, Rowland AJ and Gill HS. 2007. Freshwater sawfish Pristis microdon Latham, 1794 (Chondrichthyes: Pristidae) in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Zootaxa. 1471:27-41 Van Dolah, R.F., Wendt, P.H. and Levisen, M.V. (1991). A study of the effects of shrimp trawling on benthic communities in two South Carolina sounds. Fisheries Research 5: 39–54. Vahtmäe, E., Kutser, T., Kotta, J., Pärnoja, M., Möller, T., & Lennuk, L. (2012). Mapping Baltic Sea shallow water environments with airborne remote sensing. Oceanology, 52(6), 803-809. doi:10.1134/S0001437012060148 Veron, J.E.N. and Marsh, L.M. (1988). Hermatypic Corals of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 29. 136 pp. Vincent, A.C.J. (1996). The international trade in seahorses. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge. Wakeford, J. (2006). ‘Flow field studies in and around TEDs and BRDs: potential to improve BRD performance’, in S Eayrs, D Brewer & N Rawlinson (eds), Options to improve bycatch reduction in tropical prawn trawl fisheries. CD-ROM, FRDC Project No. 2006/308 Wakeford, J (2014). Prawn trawl bycatch reduction, MGK trawl gear research & development, MG Kailis.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 196

Wassenberg, T.J. and Hill, B.J. (1987). Feeding by the sand crab Portunus pelagicus on material discarded by prawn trawlers in Moreton Bay, Australia. Marine Biology, 95: 387– 393. Wassenberg, T.J., & Hill, B.J. (1990). Partitioning of material discarded from prawn trawlers in Morton Bay. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41: 27–36. Wassenberg, T.J., Salini, J.P., Heatwole, H. and Kerr, J.D. (1994). Incidental capture of sea snakes (Hydrophiidae) by Prawn trawlers in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45: 429-43. Wassenberg TJ, Milton DA and Burridge C.Y. 2001. Survival rates of sea snakes in the bycatch of trawlers targeting tiger and endeavour prawns on the northern Australian continental shelf. Marine and Freshwater Research 51: 155-164.

Watson, J., & Taylor, C. (1996). Technical specifications and minimum requirements for the extended funnel, expanded mesh and fishery BRDs. Pascagoula: NOAA, MS Lab. White, T. (1975). Population dynamics of the tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus Haswell 1879, (Crustacea: Penaeidae) in the Exmouth Gulf prawn fishery and implications for the management of the fishery. Perth: PhD Thesis; University of Western Australia. Wilson, B.R. (1994). Report of the marine parks and reserves selection working group. Department of Conservation and Land Management. June 1994. Wilson, B.R. and Allen, G.R. (1987). Major components and distribution of marine fauna. In: Dyne, G.R. and Walton, D.E. (Eds.) Fauna of Australia. Volume 1A. General articles. Canberra: Australia Govt. Publishing Service. pp. 43-68. Zhou, S., and Griffiths, S.P.. (2007). Estimating abundance from detection-nondetection data for randomly distributed or aggregated elusive populations. Ecography.30, 537-549.

1.3 Principle 3 References Access Rights Working Group. (2011). Improving Commercial Fishing Access Rights in Western Australia. Access Rights Working Group Report to the Hon Norman Moore, MLC Minister for Fisheries. Fisheries Occasional Publication No 102, Department of Fisheries WA. 57 pp. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop102.pdf Brayford, H.G.; Lyon, G.E. (1995) Offshore Constitutional Settlement 1995; Fisheries Management Paper No. 77. Department of Fisheries WA. 51 pp. Available at http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp077.pdf. Caputi, N.; Jackson, G.; Pearce, A. (2014). The marine heat wave off Western Australia during the summer of 2010/11: two years on. Fisheries Research Report No. 250, Department of Fisheries WA. 40 pp. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/research_reports/frr250.pdf Commonwealth of Australia, Native Title Act 1993. Available at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A04665 Commonwealth of Australia (CoA). (2006). A Guide to the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia Version 4.0. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, Australia. 16 pp. http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/guide-integrated- marine-and-coastal-regionalisation-australia-version-40-june-2006-imcra

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 197

Department of the Environment. (2007). Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. 18 pp. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/publications/pubs/guidelines.pdf Department of Fisheries (DoF). (2009) Strategic Plan 2009 - 2018 (Phase 3 2013 – 2015). Available at http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/corporate_publications/strategic_plan_2009- 2018_phase3.pdf DoF. (2009). Customary Fishing Policy: Policy Statements. Department of Fisheries, WA. Available at: http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/customary_fishing/customary_fishing_policy.pdf. DoF. (2010). A Sea Change for Aquatic Sustainability – Framework for a New Act of Parliament to replace the Fish Resources Management Act 1994. Fisheries Occasional Publication No. 79, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 32 pp. Available at http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop079.pdf DoF. (2012a). Western Australian Government Fisheries Policy Statement March 2012; Department of Fisheries WA, 12 pp. Available at http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/corporate_publications/wa_govt_fisheries_policy_stat ement.pdf DoF. (2012b). Research, Monitoring, Assessment and Development Plan 2011 – 2012. Fisheries Occasional Publication No. 106, Department of Fisheries, WA. 156 pp. Available at http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop106.pdf DoF (2012c) Exmouth Gulf and Shark Bay Prawn Research Review Workshop, 2012, DoF, Annual Report 2013/2014. Available at http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About- Us/Publications/Pages/Annual-Report.aspx DoF. (2014a). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Harvest Strategy 2014 - 2019. Department of Fisheries, WA. DoF. (2014b). Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Bycatch Action Plan 2014 - 2019. Department of Fisheries, WA. DoF, Fish Plan, 2011-2018 (Updated as of July 2014) DoF (2014d), Operational Compliance Plan, Gascoyn Bio Reqion, Exmouth Gulf, 2014, Regional Services Branch, Depertment of Fisheries DoF, (2014e) Risk Assessment (Internal document). Fletcher, W.J. (2002). Policy for the Implementation of Ecologically Sustainable Development for Fisheries and Aquaculture within Western Australia. Fisheries Management Paper No. 157; Department of Fisheries, WA, 71 pp. Fletcher, W.J. & Santoro, K. (2013). Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2012/13: the state of the fisheries. Department of Fisheries, WA. Fletcher, W.J., Shaw, J., Metcalf, S.J. and Gaughan, D.J. (2010). An Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management framework: the efficient, regional-level planning tool for management agencies. Marine Policy 34: 1226-1238. Franklin QC, Hon E.M. (2003). Aboriginal Fishing Strategy - Recognising the Past, Fishing for the Future. Fisheries Management Paper 168, Department of Fisheries WA. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp168.pdf

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 198

Government of Western Australia, Public Sector Management Act 1994. Available at http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_771_homepage.html. Green, T.J. and McKinlay, J.P. (2009). Compliance program evaluation and optimisation in commercial and recreational Western Australian fisheries. Final FRDC Report – Project No. 2001/069; Fisheries Research Report No. 195, Department of Fisheries WA. 128 pp. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/research_reports/frr195.pdf Hall, N.G.; Wise, B.S. (2011). Development of an ecosystem approach to the monitoring and management of Western Australian fisheries. Fisheries Research Report No. 215, Department of Fisheries WA. 116 pp. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/research_reports/frr215.pdf Henry, G.W. and Lyle, J.M. (2003) The national recreational and Indigenous fishing survey. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 190 pp. http://daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/23501/final_recsurvey_report.pdf Kangas, M.I., Morrison, S., Unsworth, P., Lai, E., Wright, I. & Thomson, A. (2007). Development of biodiversity and habitat monitoring systems for key trawl fisheries in Western Australia. Final report to the FRDC on Project No. 2002/038. Fisheries Research Report No. 160. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 334 pp. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/research_reports/frr160.pdf Kangas, M; Sporer, E.; O’Donoghue, S.; Hood, S. (2008) Co-management in the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery with comparison to the Shark Bay Prawn Fishery. In: R. Townsend and T. Shotton (eds.), Case Studies in Fisheries Self-Governance. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504. Pp. 231 – 244. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1497e/a1497e00.htm Kangas, M. & Thomson, A. (2004). Implementation and assessment of bycatch reduction devices in the Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf trawl fisheries. Final Report to the FRDC on Project No. 2000/189. Department of Fisheries, WA, 70 pp. http://frdc.com.au/research/Documents/Final_reports/2000-189-DLD.pdf Loneragan, N.R., Kangas, M., Haywood, M.D.E., Kenyon, R.A., Caputi, N. and Sporer, E. (2013). Impact of cyclones and aquatic macrophytes on recruitment and landings of tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 127: 46-58. Metcalf, S.J.; Gaughan, D.J.; Shaw, J. (2009) Conceptual models for Ecosystem Based Fisheries Managemetn (EBFM) in Western Australia. Fisheries Research Report No. 194, Department of Fisheries WA. 42 pp. Available at http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/research_reports/frr194.pdf MSC (2013). Guidance to the MSC Certification Requirements. Version 1.3. 14 January 2013. 254 pp. Paust, G.; Cronin, A.; Leyland, G.; Short, G.; Bathgate, D.; Prokop, F.; Fraser, B. (2009). Report of the Consultation Working Group. Fisheries Occasional Paper No. 73, Department of Fisheries WA. 9 pp. Available at http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop073.pdf Rogers, P.P. (2009) Co-management strategies for WA State Managed Fisheries using the Exmouth Gulf Prawn (Trawl) Fishery as a case study. Report to the FRDC on Project No. 2008/059, Murdoch University, Perth. 126 pp. Available at http://frdc.com.au/research/Documents/Final_reports/2008-059-DLD.pdf Stanley, F (2014) Email to Richard Banks, 7 December,2014

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 199

Travaille, K, Schofield, N Green, T and Brand-Gardner, S (2014) Compliance Programmes, DoF, October, 2014

Trott, P, (2011) Comment on the 2nd Reassessment of the Western Australia Rock Lobster Fishery, WWF, Letter to Sabine Daume, SCS

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 200

Appendices

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has PI 1.1.1 a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of certainty epost is above the point where stock is above the point that the stock is above the point recruitment would be where recruitment would where recruitment would be impaired. be impaired. impaired. Met? Y Y N Justif The available assessment for the fishery does not provide direct measures of the stock icatio biomass. In the absence of this information, proxy indicators are used to assess stock n status. These indicators are based on catch rate information on recruitment and spawning stock from fishery‐independent surveys, as well as knowledge of the resilience of the stock based on historical information. The history of the fishery provides evidence of recovery of the brown tiger prawn stock from low levels. There was a stock collapse in the early 1980s associated with overfishing, and in 2000 associated with cyclone impacts on nursery habitats (Kangas et al. 2014). This has been important in determining stock levels at which recruitment may be impaired and underlies the limit reference point. Stock status is based on a weight of evidence from an extensive survey and monitoring program for the fishery. Indices of spawning and recruitment are derived from fishery‐independent surveys. Flood et al. (2014) assess the stock as sustainable. Levels of the spawning stock index between the target (10 kg/hr) and target (25 kg/hr) have generated acceptable levels of recruitment the following year over more than 20 years. The mean recruitment index fell to lower than typical levels in 2012 and 2013 (21.5 kg/hr and 32.9 kg/hr, respectively) but remained above the limit level (10 kg/hr) and recovered to 42.0 kg/hr in 2014. The spawning stock and recruitment indices have been maintained above the limit reference levels since the 1980s. The long running maintenance of the stock well above the limit provides evidence that the stock is highly likely above the point where recruitment would be impaired, thereby meeting the SG 60 and SG 80 requirements. However, the spawning stock and recruitment abundances of brown tiger prawns do not have probabilistic estimates. The lack of confidence intervals for abundance estimates and the below average recruitment in 2012 and 2013 leads to uncertainty which prevents SG 100 being met. B Guid The stock is at or There is a high degree of certainty epost fluctuating around its that the stock has been fluctuating target reference point. around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years. Met? Y N

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 201

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has PI 1.1.1 a low probability of recruitment overfishing Justif The brown tiger prawn spawning stock has been above the target reference level for most icatio of the last 10 years. It dropped to below the target in 2012 and 2013, but recovered to be n slightly above the target level in 2014 (Figure 9). Similarly, the recruitment index has been above target levels for the majority of the last 10 years (Figure 10). Following very high recruitment levels in 2011 (82 kg/hr) the index fell below the target in 2012 and 2013 leading to a delay in the commencement of fishing in those years until subsequent sampling showed catch rates above the target level. In 2014, despite the mean recruitment index being just above the target, the opening of the season was again delayed (to prevent early fishing on western king prawns). The long running maintenance of the stock around the target reference points since the 1990s provides evidence that the stock is fluctuating around the targets, thereby meeting the SG 60 and SG 80. Given the lack of confidence intervals for abundance estimates and the below target abundance in 2012 and 2013, there is not a high degree of certainty. References DoF 2014a; Kangas et al., 2014; Flood et al. 2012; Flood et al. 2014 Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status Type of reference Value of reference relative to reference point point point Target Spawning stock index; 25 kg/hr 2014: mean spawning stock reference Recruitment index. 40 kg/hr survey catch rate 27.7 kg/hr point 2014: mean recruitment survey catch rate 42 kg/hr Limit Spawning stock index; 10 kg/hr 2014: mean spawning stock reference Recruitment index. 10 kg/hr survey catch rate 27.7 kg/hr point 2014: mean recruitment survey catch rate 42 kg/hr OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 202

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Generic limit and target Reference points are epost reference points are appropriate for the stock based on justifiable and and can be estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. Met? Y Y Justif A complex suite of annual and in‐season references points, used for managing the EGPMF, icatio is defined in the harvest strategy for the fishery (Dof 2014a; Appendix 3.2). The reference n points are predominantly based on a combination of fishery‐independent and fishery‐ dependent catch rates which can be measured directly. Some additional reference points (e.g. comparison of catch rates with threshold levels) also exist and trigger openings/closures of different areas in the fishery throughout the season. The direct, empirically‐based reference points used for brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf are suited to their biology, life history, habitats and inherent population variability, meeting SG 60 and SG 80 requirements of being appropriate for the stock and able to be estimated. B Guid The limit reference point The limit reference point is set epost is set above the level at above the level at which there is which there is an an appreciable risk of impairing appreciable risk of reproductive capacity following impairing reproductive consideration of precautionary capacity. issues. Met? Y Not scored Justif The catch rate‐based performance measures and reference points for this fishery have icatio been developed over the past 40 years, based on historical data and a detailed knowledge n of the biology of the target species (Kangas et al. 2014). The limit catch rate level of 10 kg/hr for brown tiger prawns applies to both the recruitment index (below which fishing for this species does not commence) and the spawning stock index. The limit reference point is based on the stock‐recruitment relationship developed in the 1980s (Penn and Caputi, 1986). There is empirical evidence that values of the spawning stock index between the target (25 kg/hr) and the limit have generated acceptable recruitment levels of this species the following year (Figure 12). The strategy of the recruitment and spawning stock index limits combined with in‐season monitoring is appropriate to avoiding appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity, meeting SG 80 requirements. C Guid The target reference The target reference point is such epost point is such that the that the stock is maintained at a stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some level consistent with BMSY measure or surrogate with similar or some measure or intent or outcome, or a higher surrogate with similar level, and takes into account intent or outcome. relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. Met? N Not scored

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 203

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Justif There is an extensive set of reference points based on fishery‐dependent and fishery‐ icatio independent data used to monitor the stock and fishery and to judge annual performance. n In‐season monitoring of catch rates is used determine (based on defined control rules) when to open and close certain areas of the fishery, to provide protection to spawning stocks, prevent growth overfishing and help facilitate optimal economic harvesting of the stock by industry. The brown tiger prawn recruitment index has moved above and below the target level over the last 20 years. High recruitment in 2011 was followed by a decline to below the target in 2012 and 2013 but improved to around the target in 2014 (Figure 10). The spawning stock index has also been above and below the target over this period (Figure 9). The short life span and substantial influence of the environment on stock abundance makes estimation of BMSY impractical. There is no estimation of BMSY in the assessment process. The spawning stock target catch rate of 25 kg/hr for brown tiger prawns is well above the point of inflection in the Stock‐Recruitment relationship (Figure 12), lending support to it being an appropriate level. The combination of the target reference points for spawning stock and recruitment, in conjunction with the in‐season monitoring and adherence to closing the fishery when the information indicates this is warranted, work together to maintain the productivity of the stock in a way that is intended to provide outcomes consistent with BMSY. There has been some level of analysis to account for changes in the efficiency of fishing effort over time, for example changes from twin‐gear nets to quad‐gear nets. There is also comparison of commercial catch rate estimates near the time of the spawning closure for brown tiger prawn with those from fishery‐ independent spawning stock surveys undertaken between August and October to monitor consistency. Sampling for the fishery‐independent surveys is carried out using commercial fishing boats, with the intention to use the same boat(s) throughout the year (Kangas et al. 2014). Onboard research staff ensure that the survey program is conducted in the same way each year. The timing of surveys and sites sampled is based on knowledge of biology and movement patterns, historical fishing patterns and information from early research surveys of target species. A single vessel has been involved in approximately 90% of the surveys (pers. comm. Errol Sporer, DoF, 20 May 2015). The impact of changes in gear such as change to the use of quad gear has been analysed and is accounted for in the assessment. However, the lack of information on the uncertainty in the survey estimates and the need to present confidence intervals on estimates has been identified as a shortcoming in the assessment approach, making it difficult to determine that the harvest strategy does actually maintain the stock at a level consistent with BMSY. For this reason, SG 80 requirements are not met. D Guid For key low trophic level epost stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Met? Not relevant Justif Tiger prawns are not a key low trophic level species in the MSC context. icatio n References DoF 2014; Kangas et al., 2014; Penn and Caputi 1986 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER 1 Demonstrate that target reference points are consistent with BMSY or a surrogate.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 204

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock PI 1.1.3 rebuilding within a specified timeframe Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, epost depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to be strategies, which have a rebuilding stocks continuously and reasonable expectation there is strong evidence that of success, are in place. rebuilding will be complete within the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justif The tiger prawn stock is not depleted hence this performance indicator does not apply. icatio n B Guid A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable epost is specified for the specified for the depleted rebuilding timeframe is specified depleted stock that is stock that is the shorter which does not exceed one the shorter of 30 years of 20 years or 2 times its generation time for the depleted or 3 times its generation generation time. For stock. time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less than 5 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 timeframe is up to 5 years. years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justif icatio n C Guid Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that epost determine whether the they are rebuilding rebuilding strategies are stocks, or it is highly likely effective in rebuilding based on simulation the stock within a modelling or previous specified timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justif icatio n References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 205

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is responsive epost expected to achieve responsive to the state of to the state of the stock and is stock management the stock and the designed to achieve stock objectives reflected in elements of the harvest management objectives reflected the target and limit strategy work together in the target and limit reference reference points. towards achieving points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Met? Y Y Y Justif The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014–2019 (DoF 2014a) provides details of the current icatio harvest strategy for brown tiger and western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf. The n management activities encompassed by this strategy have been developed over time based on a comprehensive understanding of the biology of brown tiger and western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf, with the annual cycle of operation depending on the strength and timing of prawn recruitment. The harvest strategy involves regular monitoring of the stock through fishery‐independent spawning stock and recruitment surveys, as well as extensive monitoring of the fishery with fishery‐dependent data collection. Opening and closing dates are based on the survey information and directly responsive to abundance information. Low recruitment in 2012 and 2013 led to delayed opening of the fishery. Subsequently there has been a recovery of recruitment, indicating that the strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and designed to achieve management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points, meeting the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels. B Guid The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the harvest epost likely to work based on not have been fully strategy has been fully evaluated prior experience or tested but evidence and evidence exists to show that it plausible argument. exists that it is achieving is achieving its objectives including its objectives. being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justif The strategy is subject to intensive monitoring (with active feedback) and all evidence icatio suggests it has been effective at maintaining the stock at target levels. SG 60 and SG 80 n levels are met (80). However, it has not been fully evaluated (e.g., using MSE) thus SG 100 is not met. C Guid Monitoring is in place epost that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justif Research and monitoring of the EGPMF has been conducted since the beginning of the icatio fisheries in the early 1960s. There is extensive monitoring to support the harvest strategy, n including fishery‐independent surveys, collection of catch and effort data using daily logbooks, and processor unload information, as well as other monitoring. The SG 60 level is

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 206

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place met. D Guid The harvest strategy is periodically epost reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justif There has been ongoing review of the elements of the EGPMF harvest strategy though the icatio current strategy (2014‐2019) is the first formal strategy adopted. Over time, there have n been amendments in management in response to various factors. Changes have included changes in fishing gear and adjustments of areas open to fishing. The performance measures and control rules were externally reviewed by Malcolm Haddon (Marine Research Laboratory Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania) during a two day workshop undertaken in November 2012. The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014–2019 (DoF 2014a) indicates the strategy will be fully reviewed at the end of the current five‐year period. There is also the potential to make amendments as appropriate during the life of the current strategy. The SG 100 level is met. E Guid It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of certainty epost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking that shark finning is not taking place. place. place. Met? NA NA NA Justif Not applicable as the target species are not sharks. icatio n References DoF 2014a; Kangas et al., 2014; DoF 2014b; DoF 2010; DoE 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 207

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in PI 1.2.2 place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Generally understood Well defined harvest epost harvest rules are in place control rules are in place that are consistent with that are consistent with the harvest strategy and the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the ensure that the exploitation rate as limit exploitation rate is reference points are reduced as limit approached. reference points are approached. Met? Y Y Justif There are control rules to determine the season start date for the fishery based on fishery‐ icatio independent survey information. There are additional control rules based on commercial n catch rate and fishery‐independent information to open and close areas when catch rates fall within defined levels. The use of empirical information is appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery. The control rules are well‐defined in the harvest strategy and are designed to limit exploitation of tiger prawns to avoid breaching limit reference points (see Table 1 of the EGPMF harvest strategy, DoF 2014a), meeting SG 60 and SG 80 levels. B Guid The selection of the The design of the harvest control epost harvest control rules rules takes into account a wide takes into account the range of uncertainties. main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justif Uncertainty in the performance measures is reduced by employing, where possible, data icatio from ongoing fishery‐independent spawning stock and recruitment surveys using n standardized sampling methods. The use of an extensive set of indicators and reference points to guide actions guards against the effects of uncertainties in information. These surveys have provided robust estimates of recruitment and spawning for brown tiger prawns. In‐season monitoring and decision‐making on opening and closing spatial areas based on maintaining breeding stocks of brown tiger prawns also assist in accounting for uncertainty. The SG 80 level is met. Although some uncertainties are taken into account in the harvest strategy design there are important elements where this is not adequately address, in particular, examination of the catch per unit of effort data. The SG 100 level is not met. C Guid There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the epost that tools used to indicates that the tools in tools in use are effective in implement harvest use are appropriate and achieving the exploitation levels control rules are effective in achieving the required under the harvest control appropriate and exploitation levels rules. effective in controlling required under the exploitation. harvest control rules. Met? Y Y N Justif The tools and specified actions used in the EGPMF have been developed over a number of icatio years. The brown tiger prawn control rules have maintained catch rates near or above the n target level of 25 kg/hr being achieved since 2000, except in 2012. It is thought that environmental conditions unrelated to fishing brought about a lack of seagrass coverage in MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 208

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in PI 1.2.2 place key brown tiger prawn nursery habitats in 2011/12. The control rules have been effective in reducing exploitation when survey information has indicated it appropriate. Overall, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the harvest control rules are appropriate and effective, meeting the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. However, the recent lower levels of spawning stock and recruitment suggest additional evidence is needed to meet the SG 100 level. References DoF 2014a; Kangas et al., 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 209

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of epost information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is available composition and other fishery removals and other to support the harvest data is available to information such as strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N Justif Research and monitoring has been undertaken since the start of the fishery. There is icatio extensive information on fleet composition and fishing activities. Commercial catch and n effort statistics are collected using daily logbooks and are validated by processor unloads and VMS data. Fishers record the start position, start time, duration and mean depth of each trawl, as well as the catches of each retained species in each trawl, interactions with any endangered, threatened and protected species and environmental data (water temperature and moon phase). Fishery‐independent surveys have been undertaken since the 1980s to determine recruitment and spawning stock levels. A number of research projects have gathered biological information over the past two decades and the distribution of seagrass and important inshore structured habitats have been investigated. Data on environmental variables (e.g. rainfall, temperature, cyclonic events) have been shown to be important drivers of prawn recruitment and are collected annually. There is extensive information for the fishery, sufficient to support the harvest strategy and meeting SG 60 and SG 80 requirements. However, as indicated elsewhere in the report, there are shortcomings in the analysis of catch rate data for the fishery, which precludes the fishery from meeting SG 100. B Guid Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the epost fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored monitored and at least regularly monitored at a with high frequency and a high one indicator is available level of accuracy and degree of certainty, and there is a and monitored with coverage consistent with good understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, uncertainties in the information support the harvest and one or more [data] and the robustness of control rule. indicators are available assessment and management to and monitored with this uncertainty. sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Met? Y Y N Justif Fishery removals, including location, total catches and size categories, are recorded in daily icatio logbooks. Verification suggests the data are collected with a good level of coverage and a n high degree of accuracy. Recruitment and spawning stock are regularly monitored through fishery‐independent surveys, providing data consistent with the control rules of the harvest strategy, meeting the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. However, additional analysis of uncertainty in survey catch rates and additional consideration of standardization of fishing effort is warranted to meet the SG 100 level. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 210

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy C Guid There is good information epost on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justif Small quantities of brown tiger prawns are landed by the Onslow Prawn Managed Fishery icatio (OPMF), which operates in the coastal waters north of Exmouth Gulf. Catches are taken n mostly from the coastline adjacent to the EGPMF boundary. All fishers in the OPMF are required to complete and submit daily logbooks, with the same processes of error checking and validation of data undertaken as for the EGPMF. Due to oil and gas exploration activities undertaken in the waters off Onslow restricting fishing activities, there has been very low fishing effort since 2010 which has resulted in only minor catches (< 1 t in 2013).

There is no recreational or traditional fishery for brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf, or in the waters off Onslow. Thus all removals of brown tiger prawns are those reported by commercial fishers in the EGPMF and the OPMF. Overall, the information is sufficient to meet the SG 80 level. References DoF 2014a; Kangas et al., 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 211

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid The assessment is The assessment is appropriate for epost appropriate for the stock the stock and for the harvest and for the harvest control rule and takes into control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. Met? Y N Justif The direct, empirically‐based stock assessment methodology that has been adopted for icatio brown tiger prawns in Exmouth Gulf is reflective of their biology, life history, habitats and n inherent population variability. Although uncertainty in the assessment should be further explored, the assessment approach is appropriate for the harvest control rules and provides information at an appropriate timescale to enable rapid, real‐time management responses within each season to protect the breeding stock and meets the SG 80 level. There has been some level of analysis to account for changes in the efficiency of commercial fishing effort over time, as well as the adoption of approaches in the fishery‐ independent surveys to allow comparison of estimated catch rates over time. However, the fishery does not meet the SG 100 because further analysis of the catch rate data used in the assessment and presentation of confidence interval information for reference point indices is required. B Guid The assessment epost estimates stock status relative to reference points. Met? Y Justif The assessment process involves fishery‐independent spawning stock and recruitment icatio surveys in conjunction with spawning stock catch rates from the commercial fishery, n directly estimating stock status indices relative to defined reference points and meets the SG 60 level. C Guid The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into account epost identifies major sources uncertainty into account. uncertainty and is evaluating stock of uncertainty. status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N Justif The harvest strategy uses information on the target stock drawn directly from data icatio collected from the fishery without any inferential or estimation steps. The use of an n extensive set of indicators and reference points to guide actions guards against the effects of uncertainties in information. In‐season monitoring and decision‐making on opening and closing spatial areas based on maintaining breeding stocks of brown tiger prawns also assist in accounting for uncertainty. The SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met. However, uncertainty is not evaluated in a probabilistic way and SG 100 is not met. D Guid The assessment has been tested epost and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 212

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status rigorously explored. Met? N Justif The assessment approach has been robust in sustaining the stocks over a long period; icatio however, there has not been rigorous exploration of alternative approaches. The SG 100 n level is not met. E Guid The assessment of stock The assessment has been epost status is subject to peer internally and externally peer review. reviewed. Met? Y N Justif Public reporting of stock status is provided in annual “State of the Fisheries” reports. The icatio “assessment” (i.e. the collation and reporting of all data) is subject to internal review n within DoF. There has been publication of some research related to the fishery in peer‐ reviewed journals and a level of external review through workshops held by DoF (e.g. a two day workshop undertaken in November 2012 with Malcolm Haddon, Marine Research Laboratory Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania). This suggests the SG 80 level is met. However, the level of comprehensive external peer review required of SG 100 is not met. References Fletcher & Santoro 2013; DoF 2014a; Kangas et al., 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 213

Western King Prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus)

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has PI 1.1.1 a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of certainty epost is above the point where stock is above the point that the stock is above the point recruitment would be where recruitment would where recruitment would be impaired. be impaired. impaired. Met? Y Y N Justif The available assessment for the fishery does not provide direct measures of the stock icatio biomass. In the absence of this information, proxy indicators are used to assess stock n status. These indicators are based on recruitment catch rate information from fishery‐ independent surveys and spawning stock catch rates from fishery‐dependent surveys. Stock status is based on a weight of evidence from the extensive survey and monitoring program for the fishery in conjunction with an understanding of the biology and ecology of the species. Unlike brown tiger prawn, no stock recruitment relationship has been established for western king prawn. The spawning stock catch rates (Figure 14) have exceeded the limit reference point every year since the late 1990s. Recruitment catch rates (Figure 15) have been above limits since 2003; 95% confidence intervals of recruitment are at or above the limit for all years but one. In 2014, the western king prawn recruitment index (i.e. mean catch rate from the April fishery‐independent recruitment survey in key western king prawn recruitment areas) of 23.0 kg/hr was between the target (30 kg/hr) and limit (15 kg/hr) (Kangas et al. 2014). This level of recruitment of western king prawns was the lowest recorded since the recruitment surveys for this species commenced in 2002. As a result of the low recruitment index in 2014, fishing on western king prawn grounds was delayed until mid‐July (with additional surveys undertaken in May and June), thus reducing overall effort on this species. Although fishery independent spawning stock surveys have not previously been undertaken specifically for western king prawns, the mean commercial (fishery‐ dependent) catch rate of western king prawns in fishing grounds R2 and S1 during August and September is considered to represent an appropriate index of spawning stock abundance for this species because the catch rates are derived from key western king prawn fishing grounds during the spring spawning period for this species at a time when the fleet is focusing fishing effort on western king prawns (Kangas et al. 2014). The fishery‐ dependent spawning stock index for western king prawns has fluctuated around and above the target level since 1998 but has not fallen below the limit. The preliminary commercial catch rate for August/ September 2014 (primarily in the R1 and S2 grounds) was 30.5 kg/hr, above the target level and well above the limit reference level. In addition, in November 2014, the night after all fishing ceased in the EGPMF for the year, a fishery independent survey of four sites was undertaken in the key grounds for the western king prawns. The mean catch rate of western king prawns for these sites was 22.5 kg/hr, well above the limit reference level (DoF 2014c). By November, western king prawn abundances have normally been reduced to uneconomic levels by fishing between August and October. This suggests the spawning stock in 2014 was well above the limit during the key spring spawning period (August to October) (DoF 2014c). There is uncertainty in the adopted catch rate indices which is dealt with under PI 1.1.2. Nevertheless, the long running maintenance of the stock well above the adopted limit provides evidence that the stock is highly likely above the point where recruitment would be impaired. DoF 2014c points to the relatively low catchability of western king prawns

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 214

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has PI 1.1.1 a low probability of recruitment overfishing due to their burrowing behaviour. In addition, the species is widely dispersed and has significant unfishable (economically) populations (DoF 2014c). A PSA analysis has been undertaken for western king prawn and assessed the species as low risk (PSA tables generated as part of this risk assessment process are provided in Appendix 3.1); overall scores for western king prawn were as follows: productivity 1.14; susceptibility 2.33; overall PSA score is 2.59 which translates to a score of 81.6 for MSC PI 1.1.1). The empirical evidence from the spawning stock and recruitment indices, supported by the biological evidence and the PSA, provide sufficient evidence that SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met. The lowest recruitment index on record in 2014, although above the limit, increases uncertainty for the future, as a further drop in the index could put the value below the limit, thereby not allowing a conclusion of high degree of certainty required for SG 100. B Guid The stock is at or There is a high degree of certainty epost fluctuating around its that the stock has been fluctuating target reference point. around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years. Met? Y N Justif Target reference points exist for western king prawn based on fishery‐dependent spawning icatio stock indices and fishery‐independent recruitment survey indices. In addition, for this n species, the fishing does not commence prior to >50% of prawns being larger than 21/30 grade (prawns per pound or 454 grams) category. The size‐based target for the western king prawn is economically driven and represents the optimum market size for this species, which has been gradually increased over the past two decades to meet market demands and achieve optimum prices. The fishery‐dependent index of the western king prawn spawning stock (i.e. mean commercial catch rate in R1 and S2 fishing grounds during August and September) has been above the target reference level in most years but has dropped below it in some years, most recently in 2011. The preliminary commercial catch rate for August/ September 2014 (primarily in the R1 and S2 grounds) was 30.5 kg/hr, above the target level and well above the limit reference level. In November 2014, the night after all fishing ceased in the EGPMF for the year, a survey of four sites was undertaken in the key grounds for the western king prawns. The mean catch rate of western king prawns for these sites was 22.5 kg/hr, well above the limit reference level. The recruitment index has been at or above target levels for all years until 2014. In 2014, the recruitment index (i.e. mean catch rate from the April fishery‐independent recruitment survey in key western king prawn recruitment areas) of 23.0 kg/hr was between the target (30 kg/hr) and limit (15 kg/hr). Although it remained above the limit, it is the lowest level of the recruitment index recorded since the recruitment surveys for this species commenced in 2002. The long running maintenance of the stock at or above the target provides evidence that the stock has fluctuated around the target in recent years, thereby meeting the SG 80. The lower 95% confidence interval of recruitment abundance extends to or near the limit reference point in several years, such that the abundance does not have a high degree of certainty of fluctuating around the target. References DoF 2014a; DoF 2014c; Kangas et al., 2014 ; Flood et al. 2014; PSA analysis at Appendix 3.1 Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status Type of reference Value of reference relative to reference point point point

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 215

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has PI 1.1.1 a low probability of recruitment overfishing Target Spawning stock index; 25 kg/hr 2014: mean spawning stock catch reference Recruitment index. 30 kg/hr and 50% larger rate 30.5 kg/hr (preliminary) point than 21/30 grade 2014: mean recruitment survey catch rate 23 kg/hr Limit Spawning stock index; 15 kg/hr 2014: mean spawning stock catch reference Recruitment index. 15 kg/hr rate 30.5 kg/hr (preliminary) point 2014: mean recruitment survey catch rate 23 kg/hr OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 216

Western King Prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Generic limit and target Reference points are epost reference points are appropriate for the stock based on justifiable and and can be estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. Met? Y Y Justif A complex suite of annual and in‐season references points, used for managing the EGPMF, icatio is defined in the harvest strategy for the fishery (Dof 2014a; Appendix 3.2). The reference n points are predominantly based on a combination of recruitment and size‐based fishery‐ independent information as well as in‐season spawning stock commercial catch rates. Commercial catch rates are compared with threshold levels as the basis for triggering openings/closures of different areas in the fishery throughout the season, largely to avoid growth overfishing and improve economic returns. There are concerns over the uncertainty in the catch rate information used in the indices. These are discussed further at PI 1.1.2c, below. Nevertheless, the direct, empirically‐based reference points used for western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf are suited to their biology, life history, habitats and inherent population variability, meeting SG 60 and SG 80 requirements of being appropriate for the stock and able to be estimated. B Guid The limit reference point The limit reference point is set epost is set above the level at above the level at which there is which there is an an appreciable risk of impairing appreciable risk of reproductive capacity following impairing reproductive consideration of precautionary capacity. issues. Met? Y Not scored Justif There is a limit catch rate level of 15 kg/hr for western king prawns that applies to the icatio recruitment index. If the catch rate from the April fishery‐independent survey is at or n below this limit then no fishing occurs on the key area for this species in the Northern Area of the fishing grounds (unless additional surveys indicate catch rates have improved). In contrast to brown tiger prawns, there is no evidence in the history of the fishery to indicate that western king prawns have been overfished (Kangas et al. 2014). The limit of 15 kg/hr is at the lower end of recruitment index values observed over the last 12 years ( Figure 16), over which time there has been no evidence of recruitment overfishing (Kangas et al. 2014). A limit reference catch rate of 15 kg/hr is also in place for the spawning stock, monitored via fishery‐dependent information. The observed index for western king prawn has fluctuated around the target level since 1998 (Kangas et al. 2014) and has not breached the limit in any year. The spawning stock catch rates are derived from key western king prawn fishing grounds during the spring spawning period, at a time when the brown tiger prawn grounds are closed and effort is focused on king prawns, hence are considered to be reflective of abundance at this time. There is sufficient information in the historical trends in the recruitment and spawning indices, supported by the knowledge of the biology of the species, to meet SG80 requirements that there is not an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. C Guid The target reference The target reference point is such MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 217

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock epost point is such that the that the stock is maintained at a stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some level consistent with BMSY measure or surrogate with similar or some measure or intent or outcome, or a higher surrogate with similar level, and takes into account intent or outcome. relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. Met? N Not scored Justif The target recruitment level for western king prawn is a mean catch rate of 30 kg/hr icatio combined with 50% of the surveyed prawns being larger than 21/30 grade. The catch rate n has been at or above the target level in all years since 2003, except for 2014 which had the lowest level over that period at 23 kg/hr (Figure 15). Mean commercial catch rates have dropped below the target level of 25 kg/hr in some years but have mainly been above the target (Figure 14). Also, the fishery for western king prawns is closed if, towards the end of the spring spawning season, small individuals (smaller than 21/30 grade) increase in abundance (i.e. contribute ~50% of the catch or more). The reference point to cease fishing was derived using biological information and industry input so as not to heavily fish these autumn spawned small size prawns and allow them to grow to a larger size for the commencement of the fishery in the following season. The short life span and substantial influence of the environment on stock abundance makes estimation of BMSY impractical. There is no estimation of BMSY in the assessment process. The combination of the target reference points for spawning stock and recruitment, in conjunction with the in‐season monitoring and adherence to closing the fishery when the information indicates this is warranted, work together to maintain the productivity of the stock in a way that is intended to provide outcomes consistent with BMSY. There has been some level of analysis to account for changes in the efficiency of fishing effort over time, for example changes from twin‐gear nets to quad‐gear nets. There is also comparison of commercial catch rate estimates near the time of the spawning closure for brown tiger prawn with those from fishery‐independent spawning stock surveys undertaken between August and October to monitor consistency. Sampling for the fishery‐independent surveys is carried out using commercial fishing boats, with the intention to use the same boat(s) throughout the year (Kangas et al. 2014). A single vessel has been involved in approximately 90% of the surveys (pers. comm. Errol Sporer, DoF, 20 May 2015). The timing of surveys and sites sampled is based on knowledge of biology and movement patterns, historical fishing patterns and information from early research surveys of target species. Onboard research staff ensure that the survey program is conducted in the same way each year. However, further analysis of the uncertainty in catch rate information is required. Confidence intervals are given for the western king prawn recruitment index, however, the lack of information on the uncertainty in the fishery‐dependent spawning stock index has been identified as a shortcoming in the assessment approach, making it difficult to determine that the harvest strategy does actually maintain the stock at a level consistent with BMSY. For this reason, SG 80 requirements are not met.

D Guid For key low trophic level epost stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Met? Not relevant Justif Western king prawns are not a key low trophic level species in the MSC context.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 218

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock icatio n References DoF 2014a; Kangas et al., 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER 2 Demonstrate that target reference points are consistent with BMSY or a surrogate.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 219

Western King Prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock PI 1.1.3 rebuilding within a specified timeframe Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, epost depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to be strategies, which have a rebuilding stocks continuously and reasonable expectation there is strong evidence that of success, are in place. rebuilding will be complete within the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justif The western king prawn stock is not depleted hence this performance indicator does not icatio apply. n B Guid A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable epost is specified for the specified for the depleted rebuilding timeframe is specified depleted stock that is stock that is the shorter which does not exceed one the shorter of 30 years of 20 years or 2 times its generation time for the depleted or 3 times its generation generation time. For stock. time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less than 5 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 timeframe is up to 5 years. years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justif icatio n C Guid Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that epost determine whether the they are rebuilding rebuilding strategies are stocks, or it is highly likely effective in rebuilding based on simulation the stock within a modelling or previous specified timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justif icatio n References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 220

Western King Prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is responsive epost expected to achieve responsive to the state of to the state of the stock and is stock management the stock and the designed to achieve stock objectives reflected in elements of the harvest management objectives reflected the target and limit strategy work together in the target and limit reference reference points. towards achieving points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Met? Y Y Y Justif The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014–2019 (DoF 2014a) provides details of the current icatio harvest strategy for brown tiger and western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf. The n management activities encompassed by this strategy have been developed over time based on a comprehensive understanding of the biology of these prawn species in Exmouth Gulf, with the annual cycle of operation depending on the strength and timing of prawn recruitment. The harvest strategy involves regular monitoring of the stock through fishery‐independent spawning stock and recruitment surveys, as well as extensive monitoring of the fishery with fishery‐dependent data collection. Opening and closing dates are based on the survey information and directly responsive to abundance information. The strategy has been shown to be responsive to the state of the stock and designed to achieve management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points, meeting the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels. B Guid The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the harvest epost likely to work based on not have been fully strategy has been fully evaluated prior experience or tested but evidence and evidence exists to show that it plausible argument. exists that it is achieving is achieving its objectives including its objectives. being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justif The strategy is subject to intensive monitoring (with active feedback) and all evidence icatio suggests it has been effective at maintaining the stock at target levels. SG60 and SG80 n levels are met. However, it has not been fully evaluated (e.g., using MSE) thus SG100 is not met. C Guid Monitoring is in place epost that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justif Research and monitoring of the EGPMF has been conducted since the beginning of the icatio fisheries in the early 1960s. There is extensive monitoring to support the harvest strategy, n including fishery‐independent surveys, collection of catch and effort data using daily logbooks, and processor unload information, as well as other monitoring. The SG 60 level is met. D Guid The harvest strategy is periodically MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 221

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place epost reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justif There has been ongoing review of the elements of the EGPMF harvest strategy, though the icatio current strategy (2014‐2019) is the first formal strategy adopted. Over time, there have n been amendments in management in response to various factors. Changes have included changes in fishing gear and adjustments of areas open to fishing. The performance measures and control rules were externally reviewed by Malcolm Haddon (Marine Research Laboratory Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania) during a two day workshop undertaken in November 2012. The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014–2019 (DoF 2014a) indicates the strategy will be fully reviewed at the end of the current five year period. There is also the potential to make amendments as appropriate during the life of the current strategy. The SG 100 level is met. E Guid It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of certainty epost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking that shark finning is not taking place. place. place. Met? NA NA NA Justif Not applicable as the target species are not sharks. icatio n References DoF 2014a; Kangas et al., 2014; DoF 2014b, DoF 2010; DoE 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 222

Western King Prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in PI 1.2.2 place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Generally understood Well defined harvest epost harvest rules are in place control rules are in place that are consistent with that are consistent with the harvest strategy and the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the ensure that the exploitation rate as limit exploitation rate is reference points are reduced as limit approached. reference points are approached. Met? Y Y Justif There are control rules to determine the season start date for the fishery based on fishery‐ icatio independent survey information. There are additional control rules based on commercial n catch rate information to close areas when catch rates fall below defined levels. The control rules are well‐defined in the harvest strategy and are designed to limit exploitation of western king prawns to avoid breaching limit reference points (see Table 1 of the EGPMF harvest strategy, DoF 2014a), meeting SG 60 and SG 80 levels. B Guid The selection of the The design of the harvest control epost harvest control rules rules takes into account a wide takes into account the range of uncertainties. main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justif Uncertainty in the performance measures is reduced by employing, where possible, data icatio from ongoing fishery‐independent recruitment surveys using standardized sampling n methods. The use of an extensive set of indicators and reference points to guide actions guards against the effects of uncertainties in information. These surveys have provided robust estimates of recruitment for western king prawns. In‐season monitoring and decision‐making on opening and closing spatial areas based on maintaining breeding stocks of western king prawns also assist in accounting for uncertainty. The SG 80 level is met. Although some uncertainties are taken into account in the harvest strategy design there are important elements where this is not adequately address, in particular, examination of the catch per unit of effort data. The SG 100 level is not met. C Guid There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the epost that tools used to indicates that the tools in tools in use are effective in implement harvest use are appropriate and achieving the exploitation levels control rules are effective in achieving the required under the harvest control appropriate and exploitation levels rules. effective in controlling required under the exploitation. harvest control rules. Met? Y Y N Justif The tools and specified actions used in the EGPMF have been developed over a number of icatio years. Since 2000, the western king prawn control rules have led to the objective of n maintaining catch rates near or above the target level of 25 kg/hr being achieved in the commercial fishery in all years. The control rules have been effective in reducing exploitation when survey information has indicated it appropriate. Reduced abundance of MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 223

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in PI 1.2.2 place western king prawns in recent years (landings in Exmouth Gulf in 2011 and 2012 were the lowest since the early 1970s at 97 t and 157 t, respectively), has led to management action to provide increased protection to the species in Exmouth Gulf, including substantially‐ delayed season opening dates. This reduces the length of the fishing season and enables increased time for growth and spawning of this species prior to opening of the fishery. In 2013, western king prawn catches were at 331 t. The preliminary catch estimate for 2014 is 165 t. Overall, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the harvest control rules are appropriate and effective, meeting the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. However the recent lower levels of recruitment suggest additional evidence is needed to meet the SG 100 level. References DoF 2014a; Kangas et al., 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 224

Western King Prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3

B Guid Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the epost fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored monitored and at least regularly monitored at a with high frequency and a high one indicator is available level of accuracy and degree of certainty, and there is a and monitored with coverage consistent with good understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, uncertainties in the information support the harvest and one or more [data] and the robustness of control rule. indicators are available assessment and management to and monitored with this uncertainty. sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Met? Y Y N Justif Fishery removals, including location, total catches and size categories, are recorded in daily icatio logbooks. Verification suggests the data are collected with a good level of coverage and a n high degree of accuracy. Recruitment is regularly monitored through fishery‐independent surveys, providing data consistent with the control rules of the harvest strategy. Spawning stock is measured via fishery‐dependent surveys. Additional analysis of uncertainty in survey catch rates and additional consideration of standardization of fishing effort is MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 225

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy warranted and SG 100 is not met. There should also be consideration of expansion of fishery‐independent surveys to the western king prawn stock. However, the level of monitoring meets the SG 80 level. C Guid There is good information epost on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justif Small quantities of western king prawns are landed by the Onslow Prawn Managed Fishery icatio (OPMF), which operates in the coastal waters north of Exmouth Gulf. Catches are taken n mostly from the coastline adjacent to the EGPMF boundary. All fishers in the OPMF are required to complete and submit daily logbooks, with the same processes of error checking and validation of data undertaken as for the EGPMF. Due to oil and gas exploration activities undertaken in the waters off Onslow restricting fishing activities, there has been very low fishing effort since 2010 which has resulted in only minor catches (< 1 t in 2013).

There is no recreational or traditional fishery for western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf, or in the waters off Onslow. Thus all removals of western king prawns are those reported by commercial fishers in the EGPMF and the OPMF. Overall, the information is sufficient to meet the SG 80 level. References DoF 2014a; Kangas et al., 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 226

Western King Prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus) Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid The assessment is The assessment is appropriate for epost appropriate for the stock the stock and for the harvest and for the harvest control rule and takes into control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. Met? Y N Justif The direct, empirically‐based stock assessment methodology that has been adopted for icatio western king prawns in Exmouth Gulf is reflective of their biology, life history, habitats and n inherent population variability. Although uncertainty in the assessment should be further explored, the assessment approach is appropriate for the harvest control rules and provides information at an appropriate timescale to enable rapid, real‐time management responses within each season to protect the breeding stock and meets the SG80 level. There has been some level of analysis to account for changes in the efficiency of commercial fishing effort over time, as well as the adoption of approaches in the fishery‐ independent surveys to allow comparison of estimated catch rates over time. However, the fishery does not meet the SG 100 because further analysis of the catch rate data used in the assessment and presentation of confidence interval information for reference point indices is required. B Guid The assessment epost estimates stock status relative to reference points. Met? Y Justif The assessment process involves spawning stock and recruitment surveys, directly icatio estimating stock status indices relative to defined reference points and meets the SG 60 n level. C Guid The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into account epost identifies major sources uncertainty into account. uncertainty and is evaluating stock of uncertainty. status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N Justif The harvest strategy uses information on the target stock drawn directly from data icatio collected from the fishery without any inferential or estimation steps. The use of an n extensive set of indicators and reference points to guide actions guards against the effects of uncertainties in information. In‐season monitoring and decision‐making on opening and closing spatial areas based on maintaining breeding stocks of brown tiger prawns also assists in accounting for uncertainty, The SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met, however, uncertainty is not evaluated in a probabilistic way and SG 100 is not met. D Guid The assessment has been tested epost and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 227

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? N Justif The assessment approach has been robust in sustaining the stocks over a long period, icatio however there has not been rigorous exploration of alternative approaches. The SG 100 n level is not met. E Guid The assessment of stock The assessment has been epost status is subject to peer internally and externally peer review. reviewed. Met? Y N Justif Public reporting of stock status is provided in annual “State of the Fisheries” reports. The icatio “assessment” (i.e. the collation and reporting of all data) is subject to internal review n within DoF. There has been publication of some research related to the fishery in peer‐ reviewed journals and a level of external review through workshops held by DoF (e.g. a two day workshop undertaken in November 2012 with Malcolm Haddon, Marine Research Laboratory Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania). This suggests the SG 80 level is met. However, the level of comprehensive external peer review required of SG 100 is not met. References Fletcher & Santoro 2013; DoF 2014a; Kangas et al., 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 228

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm PI 2.1.1 to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Main retained species Main retained species are There is a high degree of certainty epost are likely to be within highly likely to be within that retained species are within biologically based limits biologically based limits biologically based limits and (if not, go to scoring (if not, go to scoring issue fluctuating around their target issue c below). c below). reference points. Met? Y Y N Justif Catches of species other than brown tiger and western king are dominated by blue icatio endeavour prawns (Table 7). Catches of blue endeavour prawns have averaged n approximately 18% of the total catch over the last 10 years. Catches of banana prawns have exceeded 5% of the total retained catch in 2012 and 2013, and occasionally in previous years (Table 4). They are considered here as main retained species as a precautionary measure. Target catch ranges for retained species have been established for retained species, based on historical catches in the period 1989‐1998, considered to represent a period of stable fishing patterns, management and environmental conditions (DoF 2014a). DoF ran a Productivity Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) workshop in September, 2014 to assess vulnerability of retained (as well as bycatch and ETP species). These outputs were then discussed in the stakeholder workshop held on Tuesday 28 October, 2014. Blue endeavour prawns There is no formal assessment for this species and the focus of assessment of the fishery has been on brown tiger prawn and western king prawn. Blue endeavour prawns are typically smaller than brown tiger and western king prawns, hence are less vulnerable to the fishing gear. A significant portion of the blue endeavour prawn breeding biomass is protected by the brown tiger prawn spawning closures (Flood et al. 2014). Additional protection is afforded to blue endeavour prawns by their distribution for much of the year in permanently closed inshore nursery areas. The introduction and extension of moon closures in the fishery has also increased protection of this species, which is known to have higher catchability during full moon periods (Kangas et al. 2006). As part of the fishery‐ independent recruitment surveys of brown tiger and western king prawns (at standardised sites on separate key fishing grounds for the two species), researchers also record the abundance of endeavour prawns on these grounds providing a potential annual recruitment abundance index for this species. There has been no declining trend in the fishery independent survey catch rates over the periods sampled on either of these fishing grounds (Flood et al. 2014). Reference points for blue endeavour prawns have not been developed to the same extent as for the target species, brown tiger prawns and western king prawns. The reference points are catch‐based, developed from a period of relative catch and effort stability. The upper catch reference point is designed to provide a warning that triggers a review to determine if catch is a likely risk to the stock. The measures in place to manage brown tiger prawns (and to a lesser extent, western king prawns), as well as the protection afforded by the distribution of much of the stock in closed nursery areas, reduce the extent of fishing on blue endeavour prawns. Fishing effort in recent years has been considerably below that of the 1989‐1998 reference period. Overall, the management measures in place for brown tiger prawn and western king prawns, the protection afforded to the blue endeavour stock by its inshore distribution and MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 229

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm PI 2.1.1 to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species brown tiger prawn closures, the lower vulnerability of blue endeavour prawn to the fishing gear, and the lack of a trend in the available catch rate information suggest that it is highly likely that the stock is within biologically‐based limits. Further support to this position is given by the PSA with scores for blue endeavour prawn as follows: productivity 1.14; susceptibility 2.33; overall PSA score is 2.59, which would translate to a score of 81.6 for MSC PI 1.1.1 (Appendix 3.1). On this basis, SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met. However, further development of available information on the species is required to provide the certainty required at SG 100. There are deficiencies in the current catch‐based reference points for blue endeavour prawn. Banana prawns Catches of banana prawns are highly variable and relate to the amount of rainfall in the region, with consecutive high rainfall years providing the optimal conditions for banana prawn recruitment. Banana prawns are only targeted in those years when abundance is higher and aggregations are evident, and the higher banana prawn landings in 2012 (34 t) and 2013 (74 t) correspond to the relatively higher rainfall experienced by the region over the summer months in these years. Daylight bans on trawling also reduce the potential effort on banana prawns, which tend to aggregate during daylight (Kangas et al. 2006). The target annual catch range for banana prawns is 0‐60 t. This was exceeded in 2014 (74 t). Under current arrangements, DoF consider that the fishery has only a remote likelihood of having an impact on the banana prawn stock (Kangas et al. 2014). The 2008 ESD risk rating for impact on breeding stocks was Negligible. The 2014 PSA score is 2.59, implying low risk and corresponding to an MSC score of 81.6. The limited targeting of banana prawns and the scale and intensity of the fishery provide evidence that this species is within biologically‐based limits. The SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met. However, there is not a sufficiently robust assessment to provide the high degree of certainty required to meet SG 100. Other species (not main) Other retained species (coral prawns, bugs, blue swimmer crabs, squid, cuttlefish and octopus) also have catch‐based target levels identified in the harvest strategy. The low amounts of finfish taken are generally not retained. Annual catches have continued to be within the specified ranges. The harvest strategy requires a review be triggered if the catch of any of the retained species exceeds the target level by 25% for three consecutive years. All of these retained species were assessed as having a low risk in the PSA with score corresponding to MSC scores of from 81.6 to 85.6. Non‐main species achieve a default score of 80, but there is not a sufficiently robust assessment to provide the high degree of certainty required to meet SG 100 for these species.

B Guid Target reference points are epost defined for retained species. Met? Y Justif The EGPMF harvest strategy (DoF 2014a) defines catch‐based reference points for retained icatio species. There is a target level of 120‐300 t annual catch for endeavour prawns based on n historical catches for the period 1989 to 1998. The reference level of 0‐60 t for banana prawns is set sufficiently high to allow for harvest during the occasional high production (high rainfall) years. A review is triggered if catches fall outside the defined catch ranges. Ctach‐based reference points are also in place for other retained species. C Guid If main retained species If main retained species epost are outside the limits are outside the limits there are measures in there is a partial strategy

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 230

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm PI 2.1.1 to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species place that are expected of demonstrably effective to ensure that the management measures fishery does not hinder in place such that the recovery and rebuilding fishery does not hinder of the depleted species. recovery and rebuilding. Met? NA NA Justif Available information does not indicate that retained species are outside limits. icatio n D Guid If the status is poorly epost known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. Met? Y Justif The status of retained species is poorly known, however there are semi‐quantitative icatio assessments available in the form of the PSA analysis, indicating a low risk to all species. n The scale and intensity of the fishery, the requirement for TEDs and BRDs, closed areas, and closed seasons directly and indirectly provide protection for retained species, meeting SG 60. DoF 2014a, Kangas et al., 2006; Kangas et al., 2014 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 Recommendations 1 & 2 – Develop robust stock indicators for retained species.

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is PI 2.1.2 designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for epost place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing retained species. are expected to maintain is expected to maintain the main retained the main retained species species at levels which at levels which are highly are highly likely to be likely to be within within biologically based biologically based limits, limits, or to ensure the or to ensure the fishery fishery does not hinder does not hinder their

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 231

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is PI 2.1.2 designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species their recovery and recovery and rebuilding. rebuilding. Met? Y Y N Justif The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014–2019 includes the long‐term management objective of icatio maintaining spawning stock biomass of each retained non‐target species at a level where n the main factor affecting recruitment is the environment. Performance indicators, reference levels and control rules have been developed for all retained species in the EGPMF (DoF 2014a). These measures constitute a partial strategy, but not a full strategy, in place that is expected to maintain retained species within biological limits. SG 60 and SG 80 performance levels are met. B Guid The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence epost considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g., general work, based on some fishery and/or species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Y Y N Justif Impacts on retained species are managed through a number of measures under the icatio Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Management Plan 1989 and operational activities n (as per the EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014–2019) including: limited entry; gear controls; seasonal closures; spatial closures; temporal closures; and reporting. These management measures reduce the impact of the fishery on retained non‐target species stocks by limiting the annual amount of fishing activity via seasonal, temporal and spatial closures. For example, permanent nursery closures protect non‐target prawn stocks in addition to the targeted brown tiger and western king prawns. Daylight bans on trawling also reduce the potential effort on banana prawns, which tend to aggregate during daylight hours (Kangas et al. 2006). There is an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy is working based on the present management plan, which minimises the impacts on bycatch and by‐product species by gear control, permanent closed areas and the promotion and the development of environmentally friendly practices. Testing is not evident. SG 60 and SG 80 performance levels are met. C Guid There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the epost that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully. Met? Y Y Justif The management strategy includes acceptable catch levels for all main retained non‐target icatio species based on historical catches. There are additional measures in place to reduce the n impact of the fishery on blue swimmer crab populations, including a voluntary minimum commercial size (137 mm spine to spine), which is larger than the legal minimum size (127 mm spine to spine), and a prohibition on the retention of egg bearing females. As well as a well‐structured logbook program, at‐sea and aerial patrols are conducted by the Department to monitor compliance with regulations. If monitoring indicates a need to reduce trawl impacts on byproduct species in Exmouth Gulf, this may be achieved through extending the use of current management tools, such as spatial and temporal closures, targeted harvesting strategies to optimise expenditure of effort, a reduction in overall fishing effort and the use of mechanical or other devices, such as BRDs and hoppers / MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 232

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is PI 2.1.2 designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species handling techniques. DoF has shown a high level of responsiveness to elements of the harvest strategy such as closing the fishery when the control rules dictate. There is a high level of consultation with the single licensee for the fishery, including regular information updates and discussions on research (including annual stock assessment and predicted catches), management and compliance arrangements for current and future seasons and issues that arise during the fishing season. There is a regular formal meeting (often annual) and ad hoc meetings during the season with the licensee and WAFIC representatives (Kangas et al. 2014). The measures in place provide clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, meeting SG 80 and SG 100 requirements. D Guid There is some evidence that the epost strategy is achieving its overall objective. Met? Y Justif DoF indicate that the strategy is achieving its objectives on the basis that (i) the catch icatio histories of the main retained non‐target species have been stable and (ii) an experimental n survey‐based study that found no difference in the abundance, species richness, evenness or diversity of fish and invertebrates (including each of the main retained species) between trawled and untrawled areas in Exmouth Gulf (Kangas et al. 2007). This provides some objective evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objectives, meeting SG 100.

E Guid It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of certainty epost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking that shark finning is not taking place. place. place. Met? NA NA NA Justif Retention of shark has been prohibited since 2006 and the fishery uses BRDs, grids and icatio FEDs, which increase the likelihood of sharks escaping. Therefore sharks are not a retained n species. There is a long history of research into the fishery, a well‐supported logbook program with verification through monitoring of unload data. The assessors have not seen any information which suggests that shark finning is taking place in the fishery and because of the shark finning prohibition, sorting grids, and monitoring of unloads, conclude that it is highly likely that it is not taking place.

References DoF 2014a, DoF 2014b; Kangas et al., 2014; Kangas et al. 2006; Kangas et al. 2007; DoF 2010; DoE 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 233

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is PI 2.1.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable epost is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main retained information are available catch of all retained species and species taken by the on the amount of main the consequences for the status of fishery. retained species taken by affected populations. the fishery. Met? Y Y N Justif Catches of all retained non‐target species have been reported by fishers to the icatio Department in daily logbooks since the fishery began in 1963. These logbooks became n compulsory in the fishery in 2008 and include information on all retained species, effort, ETP species interactions and fishing location (detailed shot‐by‐shot longitude and latitude). Data used to support the PSA is from trawl survey data collected in 2004. These baseline datasets provide quantifiable, accurate and verifiable information to support the ecological risk assessment process. The quantitative information available is sufficient to meet SG 60 and SG 80 performance levels. There is no ongoing fishery observer program which would provide the up‐to‐date verifiable information required for the SG 100 level. B Guid Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to epost to qualitatively assess to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome outcome status with status with respect to status with a high degree of respect to biologically biologically based limits. certainty. based limits. Met? Y Y N Justif A reduced level of retention of non‐target catch has been supported by a bycatch icatio reduction strategy which has been implemented from as early as 1978 and includes a n range of measures including a reduction in fishing effort, spatial and temporal closures, and BRDs. Seasonal and/or spatial closures and limits to total area trawled have been implemented effectively since 1984. The number of fishing vessels active in the region has been reduced from 18 to 6. Ongoing monitoring and experimentation of exclusion grids, escape panels including square mesh can be demonstrated to have reduced bycatch (Kangas et al. 2014). Catch information is available for all retained non‐target species and has been reported by fishers to the Department in daily logbooks since the fishery began in 1963. Given the harvest strategy in place for the fishery and the low level of retained species, the outcome for retained species with respect to biologically based limits is supported through ESD analysis and PSA which have been undertaken. The PSA demonstrates that the effects of prawn fishing have low risk for retained species. The harvest strategy requires a review of available information if acceptable catch ranges are breached, with the possibility of changes to management arrangements if the review indicates this need. Overall, SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met. The catch‐based target reference points for the majority of the retained species are not derived from a robust assessment which precludes meeting SG 100. C Guid Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to epost to support measures to to support a partial support a strategy to manage manage main retained strategy to manage main retained species, and evaluate species. retained species. with a high degree of certainty

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 234

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is PI 2.1.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N Justif Information available is sufficient to support the ESD analysis and PSA which have been icatio undertaken. There is substantial information on blue endeavour prawns from research n programs and ongoing surveys. Banana prawn catches typically fall less than the guideline harvest level; occasional spikes in catch are associated with good environmental conditions. The regular monitoring of this and other retained species provides adequate information to support their management. Although there are some limitations on the ability to assess whether the strategy is achieving its objective, precluding a high degree of certainty, the information is adequate and does allow support that the strategy is achieving its objective. Therefore, the conclusion is that SG 60 and SG 80 scores have been attained. D Guid Sufficient data continue Monitoring of retained species is epost to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to any increase in risk level assess ongoing mortalities to all (e.g. due to changes in retained species. the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) Met? Y N Justif Catches of all retained non‐target species have been reported by fishers to the icatio Department in daily logbooks since the fishery began in 1963. These logbooks became n compulsory in the fishery in 2008 and include information on all retained species, effort, ETP species interactions and fishing location (detailed shot‐by‐shot longitude and latitude). The logbooks are checked by the Department’s research staff on a monthly basis and any possibly erroneous entries or gaps are checked directly with skippers or the fishing company. The information provided in logbooks is also verified by unload data, which have been provided to the Department on a monthly basis since the fishery began. Additional information on retained species is provided by fishery‐independent recruitment surveys. There is an ongoing commitment to the ESD program adopted by DoF, with the updating of the risk analysis that this program provides. The data available is sufficient to monitor changes in risk levels and meets the SG 80 level. There is not sufficient evidence to indicate that ongoing mortalities of all retained species can be assessed and SG 100 is not met. References Kangas et al., 2014; Kangas et al. 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 235

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm PI 2.2.1 to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of certainty epost likely to be within highly likely to be within that bycatch species are within biologically based limits biologically based limits biologically based limits. (if not, go to scoring (if not, go to scoring issue issue b below). b below). Met? Y Y N Justif DoF ran a Productivity Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) workshop in September, 2014 to assess icatio vulnerability of main bycatch (as well as retained and ETP species). These outputs were n then discussed in the stakeholder workshop held on Tuesday 28 October, 2014. No changes were made to bycatch scoring for the EGPMF, with all species assessed as low risk. All elements scored at least 90 (in the range of 91.7 to 97.3). CC2.4.4.5 notes ‘if the team has only considered “main” species in its PSA analysis the final PI score shall be adjusted downwards by the team and shall not be greater than 80 to reflect that only a subset of the total number of species has been evaluated’. While the PSA only addressed main species, the Risk Ranked Assessment for Multiple Fisheries (RRAMF) (Evans & Molony 2010) assessed all species caught in the Gascoyne bio‐ region. In this instance, any low to moderate species caught, most specifically some elasmobranch species Taeniura meyeni (black‐blotched sting‐ray) and Rhyncobatus spp. (white spot shovelnose ray), do not feature in this fishery. Here we have considered the RRAMF as a comprehensive assessment process of all bycatch species, and effectively determining all other bycatch species caught as low risk, but without a PSA equivalent this additional information would only allow a score of 80. . The data used to measure the outcome status is based on bycatch data from 2002‐2003. BRDs were implemented in the fishery in 2005, which preceeded this data collection period. As such the data analysed would less conservative than the catch taken in the fishery at present. That said, there is a need to reassess catch data based on more recent bycatch surveys which are planned. B Guid If main bycatch species If main bycatch species epost are outside biologically are outside biologically based limits there are based limits there is a mitigation measures in partial strategy of place that are expected demonstrably effective to ensure that the mitigation measures in fishery does not hinder place such that the recovery and rebuilding. fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? NA NA Justif icatio n C Guid If the status is poorly epost known there are measures or practices in place that are expected

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 236

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm PI 2.2.1 to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. Met? Y Justif DoF conducted risk‐based methods to determine status. Semi‐quantitative assessments icatio available in the form of the PSA analysis and RRAMF, indicate a low risk to all species. The n scale and intensity of the fishery, the requirement for TEDs and BRDs, closed areas, closed seasons, and in‐water hopper systems directly and indirectly provide protection for bycatch species, meeting SG 60. Kangas et al, 2007 Department of Fisheries, MSC Assessment Document for the Shark Bay Prawn Managed References Fishery, (PSA),October, 2014 MRAG MSC Risk Based Framework Workshop Report, 26 November,2014 Evans & Molony 2010 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 237

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is PI 2.2.2 designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for epost place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing and minimizing bycatch. are expected to maintain is expected to maintain the main bycatch species the main bycatch species at levels which are highly at levels which are highly likely to be within likely to be within biologically based limits, biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justif There is a combination of measures in place that result in a strategy for managing and icatio minimising bycatch. These measures comprise a process of gradual effort reduction in the n fishery, the application of spatial and temporal closures (implemented as from 1978 and amended in 1993) and the application of gear controls and mandatory bycatch reduction devices (grids as from 2002 and Fish Exclusion Devices as of 2005) and in‐water hopper systems. On the basis of expert opinion and best practice examples applied to Australian prawn trawl fisheries, the collective application of these measures has reduced bycatch and demonstrably shows that the bycatch mitigation strategy is working effectively. The risk assessments undertaken regularly also show that bycatch is likely to be within biologically based limits. That said, without the data much of the evidence is qualitative EGPMF. On balance, based on the weight of evidence available, the guideposts for SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. From ongoing monitoring and experimentation of exclusion grids, fish mortality is reported at about 2 ‐ 5:1, but with very significant reductions experienced since the mid‐seventies when it was around 20:1 B Guid The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence epost considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g. general work, based on some fishery and/or species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Y Y Y Justif The bycatch reduction strategy has been implemented from as early as 1978 and includes icatio a range of measures including a reduction in fishing effort, spatial and temporal closures, n and BRDs. Seasonal and/or spatial closures and limits to total area trawled have been implemented effectively since 1984. The number of fishing vessels active in the region has been reduced from 18 to 6. Ongoing monitoring and experimentation of exclusion grids, escape panels including square mesh can be demonstrated to have reduced bycatch (Kangas et al, 2014, Wakeford, 2014), and hopper systems to minimize bottlenecking and return the product to sea more rapidly (Oceanwatch 2004). The application of specific measures, i.e the BRDs were designed to manage impact on the bycatch component specifically. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 238

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is PI 2.2.2 designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations MGK has continually undertaken trials (both in the CSIRO flume tank and in the commercial fishery) to test the effectiveness of grids (Wakeford 2014). The application of grids has successfully reduced bycatches by up to 53.5 %, and the numbers and weights of some finfish species (i.e., leatherjacket, heart‐headed flathead, small‐toothed flounder, trumpeter whiting, goatfish and trumpeter) were reduced substantially (Kangas et al, 2014).

In 2005, representatives from the United States State Department (National Marine Fisheries Service ‐ NMFS) assessed the grid arrangement used in Exmouth Gulf and found it to be compliant with the US TED (grid) regulations in place at the time. Re‐assessment by the NMFS occurred in August 2014 (Wakeford 2014) and a number of concerns were raised and rectifying action is taking place.

Square mesh panel trials were conducted in the fishery in 2008 and 2009. For 18 of the fish species recorded, total numbers caught were reduced by 28 – 47 % (with a 33 % reduction in weight). Fish species with over a 50 % reduction in individual numbers caught using square mesh panels included catfish, monocle bream, javelinfish, threadfin bream, trevally, lethrinids and small sharks (DoF, unpublished data). MGK has now adapted the square mesh panel to prevent a reduction in size and in a central position. The work has been supported using trials in the CSIRO flume tank, Tasmania. In 2015, following testing, the Company, has committed that FEDs will be inserted in the same position (centrally in the top panel at 20 meshes posterior to the leading edge of the codend) and in the same fashion (30 meshes across, 9 meshes deep) according to appropriate Company guidelines. The level of testing applied to this fishery supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. The scoring guidepost meets SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100. C Guid There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the epost that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully. Met? Y Y Justif A number of the measures from the BAP have been put in place to assess the impacts of icatio the fishery bycatch strategy (as has been applied through the Bycatch Reduction Matrix, n and have been implemented through the Bycatch Action Plan. These include: Ongoing monitoring and experimentation of exclusion grids; ongoing monitoring and experimentation of escape panels, including square mesh; ongoing modifications to the hopper systems under trial to minimise bottlenecking of bycatch in the hopper chute and ensure that bycatch is returned to the water quickly and in premium condition; seasonal and/or spatial closures, ongoing monitoring of new bycatch reduction strategies and technology and limits set to total area trawled. The application of management and assessment measures does provide clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. The guide post indicators of SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. D Guid There is some evidence that the epost strategy is achieving its overall objective. Met? Y

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 239

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is PI 2.2.2 designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Justif The bycatch reduction strategy has been implemented from as early as 1978 and includes icatio a range of measures aimed at reducing bycatch interactions. Evidence to meet SG100 n shows a reduction in fishing effort (VFAS, 1987), the effective application of spatial and temporal closures (Kangas et al, 2014), and BRDs (Kangas et al, 2014, BAP 2014b; Wakeford 2014; Oceanwatch 2004), and seasonal and/or spatial closures and limits to total area trawled have been implemented effectively since 1984. Kangas et al. 2014 DoF 2014b, Exmouth Gulf Bycatch Action Plan Wakeford, 2006; Wakeford, 2014 Brewer, 2006 National Marine Fisheries Service, Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/27/2014‐15164/certifications‐pursuant‐ to‐section‐609‐of‐public‐law‐101‐162 References Kangas & Thomson 2004 Broadhurst et al 2002, Brewer et al 2004; Wakeford 2006; Heales et al 2008 Government of Western Australia, Fisheries Adjustment Schemes Act, 1987 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate PI 2.2.3 to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable epost is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main bycatch information are available catch of all bycatch species and species taken by the on the amount of main the consequences for the status of fishery. bycatch species taken by affected populations. the fishery. Met? Y Y Not scored Justif There is no recent estimate of the volume of fish and invertebrates discarded. Data used to icatio support both the PSA and RRAMF is from trawl survey data collected between 2002‐2003, n which precedes the introduction of BRDs. Given the comprehensive baseline datasets established in 2002/2003 which is quantifiable, accurate and verifiable, and the rigorous ecological risk assessment process, this information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status. The data applied is highly likely to show higher levels of bycatch than are actually occuring post implementation of the TEDs and FEDs. The guidepost for SG 60 and SG 80 have been met. B Guid Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 240

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate PI 2.2.3 to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch epost to broadly understand to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome outcome status with status with respect to status with respect to biologically respect to biologically biologically based limits. based limits with a high degree of based limits certainty. Met? Y Y Not scored Justif The PSA and RRAMF demonstrate that the effects of prawn fishing have low risk for icatio bycatch species; this information shows that estimates exist for outcome status with n respect to biologically based limits, thereby meeting the SG 60 and SG 80. The PSA and RRAMF estimates do not meet the quantitative requirement for a high degree of certainty. Catch information was recorded for all bycatch species in 2002/2003. This predated the introduction of a number of bycatch reduction measures. The PSA demonstrates that the effects of prawn fishing have low risk for bycatch species. The harvest strategy requires a review of available information if acceptable catch ranges are breached, with the possibility of changes to management arrangements if the review indicates this need. Overall, SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met. C Guid Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to epost to support measures to to support a partial support a strategy to manage manage bycatch. strategy to manage main retained species, and evaluate bycatch species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Not scored Justif Information available is sufficient to support a viable and effective strategy. It is icatio acknowledged that the information used pre dates the introduction on BRDs, but has been n used to support assessments of risks to bycatch. Without up to date data there are some limitations on the ability to assess whether the strategy is achieving its objective, but the information is adequate and does support that the strategy is achieving its objective. Therefore, the conclusion is that SG 60 and SG 80 scores have been attained. D Guid Sufficient data continue Monitoring of bycatch data is epost to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to any increase in risk to assess ongoing mortalities to all main bycatch species bycatch species. (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the strategy). Met? N Not scored Justif Incompleteness and accuracy of reporting on bycatch in the EGPMF is acknowledged in icatio the Bycatch Reduction Plan Matrix (DoF, 2010). Up until the adoption of the Bycatch n Action Plan, there had been no commitment to continuous data collection. However, good information was also provided for the square mesh trials undertaken in 2008 and 2009 (Kangas et al, 2014). The BAP specifically lays out a commitment to a bycatch monitoring programme through the application of fishery‐independent surveys to collect bycatch (non‐retained) species composition data every three years. As from August 2014 fishery dependent and fishery independent surveys commenced. However, this data has not as yet been analysed and as it is in its early statges, does not represent sufficient data available to detect any increase in risk. More attention needs to be paid to crew member‐ MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 241

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate PI 2.2.3 to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch member observer program (CMOP) as an ongoing data collection system requires investigation. The scoring for this guidepost does not meet SG 80. Kangas & Thomson 2004. Kangas et al. 2007; References Kangas & Morrison 2013. DoF 2014b, Bycatch Action Plan. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION 3: Provide sufficient data to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 242

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Known effects of the The effects of the fishery There is a high degree of certainty epost fishery are likely to be are known and are highly that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national likely to be within limits within limits of national and and international of national and international requirements for requirements for international protection of ETP species. protection of ETP requirements for species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y Not scored Justif The MSC defines Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species as species that are icatio recognised under national ETP legislation (both federal and state) or listed in Appendix n 1 of the CITES International Convention, and which may interact with the fishing gear deployed in the fishery under assessment. With reference to the relevant legislation, a number of species have been identified as ETPs within Exmouth Gulf. These include marine mammals (dugongs, dolphins and whales), marine turtles, sea snakes, elasmobranchs (sawfishes, sharks and rays), syngnathids and solenostomids (seahorses, seadragons, pipehorses and pipefish) and seabirds and migratory shorebirds (Kangas et al., 2006). Only turtles and sea snakes are seen regularly in the trawl catches (DoE, 2013). Other species are largely incidental at low levels. DoF has further evaluated the risks levels using ERA (2008) (DoF, 2008), PSA (2014) (Kangas et al, 2014) and RRAMF (2010) (Evans and Molony, 2010), assessments. The ERA identifies negligible to low levels of risk for whales, turtles, sea snakes and teleosts (syngnathids and solenostomids). The RRAMF is a higher level qualitative assessment which further identifies low levels of risk for cetaceans and dugongs, sea snakes, and seabirds; and medium level risks for elasmobranchs. The PSA identifies medium risks for sea snakes and high risks for sawfish. Both seasnake and sawfish are both considered to have low levels of interaction.

The short‐nosed sea snake (Aipysurus apraefrontalis), which is listed under the EPBC Act as a critically endangered species, has previously been recorded as bycatch in the fishery. This species has been specifically subject to the PSA and listed as low risk. Based on this evidence, known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species,

The fishery has no limits placed on the quantity of ETP species it may impact, but the management system has imposed numerous requirements for protection of these species (see 2.3.2). The DoE considered that fishing operations conducted under the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1989 are managed to minimise their impact on the structure, productivity, function and biological diversity of the ecosystem. The EGPMF was found to comply with the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries The fishery was most recently re‐certified in 2013, with export approval extended to February 2018 (DoE, 2013). Based on this evidence, effects of the fishery are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species, reaching the SG 80 level. But recommendations for improved information on seasnake interactions (see 2.3.3) preclude reaching the SG 100. B Guid Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of epost unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to significant detrimental direct ETP species. ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 243

The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species species. Met? Y N Not scored Justif The Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 includes the long‐ icatio term management objective to ensure fishery impacts do not result in serious or n irreversible harm to endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species populations (DoF 2014a). The annual extent of trawling activities, BRD use and assessed risk is used to evaluate and mitigate the impact of the EGPMF on these species’ populations (Kangas et al, 2014). When captured, ETP species are dealt with in an appropriate fashion, ranging from ensuring turtle are revived first before returning them to the water, to a more rapid return to the water for more sensitive species (Kangas et al, 2014). Most ETPs are assessed as highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts or there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery. However, there is some evidence one protected species of seasnake (Aipysurus apraefrontalis) may be subject to localised depletion. (Milton et al), albeit that it scores as low risk in the PSA. This uncertainty suggests that Aipysurus apraefrontalis is not conclusively highly unlikely to have unacceptable direct impacts from trawling. Sawfish scored as high risk on a PSA, so are not considered as highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. The following species specific conclusions are identified: Sea snakes: The EGPMF is not considered to have a significant detrimental effect on seasnake populations in Exmouth Gulf (Kangas et al. 2006). However, without a trend analysis in sea snakes population in the EGPMF cannot be determined because there are no data on biodiversity and abundance before the trawling started. Also, data on specific sea snake populations at present is incomplete.

A study of seasnake survival following capture in trawlers in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Northern Territory) indicated that greater than 60 % of sea snakes survived capture in trawl nets (Wassenberg et al. 1994), and DoF suggests that it is likely that sea snakes in Exmouth Gulf have a similar level of survival. However other authors contradict this view. Guinea (2007) holds that incidental catch and death in commercial prawn trawling fisheries appears to be the biggest threat to sea snakes in the North‐west Marine Bioregion (Guinea, 2007). High catch rates are exacerbated by the high death rate of snakes caught in trawl nets. Even when retained aboard to recuperate, sea snakes seldom survive (Guinea 2007). A study dedicated to sea snake mortality was completed for the Northern Prawn Fishery in 2008 (Milton et al. 2008) and concluded that trawl mortality was below reference points and no species appear to be at risk based on current levels of fishing effort in the fisher. However, there is evidence that the size structures and catch rates of some species in the Northern Prawn Fishery may have changed in the last few years (Milton et al., 2008). Hence, catch rates of sea snake species that have shown localised declines, overlap with high effort trawl areas and also have a restricted distribution should be regularly monitored (Milton et al., 2008).

Short‐nosed seasnake is not caught in NPF but considering Milton’s et al. (2008) results, it is possible for the short‐nosed seasnake, with restricted distribution range, to have suffered localised declines due to trawling and it is suggested that the species should be monitored.

Whilst there may be an argument to infer that the same results are likely for the EGPMF, without specific knowledge of specific species, it is probably correct to assume that known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species, but not conclusively highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts, albeit noting that the PSA concluded low risk to the short‐nosed seasnake (Aipysurus apraefrontalis). Therefore, sea MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 244

Sawfish: Sawfish have always been considered to be particularly vulnerable to fishing; however, the long history of fishing in the EGPMF, the perceived strength of populations of green sawfish in Australian waters (Stevens et al. 2005) and the containment of freshwater sawfish (Stevens et al 2008) and green sawfish (Peverell 2007) to estuarine and shallow inshore waters, coupled with reported low levels of interactions with sawfish would tend to suggest that populations in Exmouth Gulf are being maintained, and highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. However, it is noted that PSA scores were high risk, and this extent, sawfish scored SG 60 but not SG 80.

Turtles: The current mitigation measures in place in the EGPMF leading to low mortalities of sea turtles result in a highly effective policy and the high likelihood of survival post release, this level of interaction is considered to be a negligible risk to marine turtle populations, particularly as these species have wide distributions both within the Gulf and the greater Gascoyne Coast Bioregion (Kangas et al. 2006, DoF combo). This suggests that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on marine turtles. Therefore, sea turtles meet the requirements of SG 80; but there is not a high degree of confidence to reach the SG 100.

Sharks: Because of the effectiveness of the grids in eliminating shark bycatches, the fishery is highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. It is also noteworthy that there are five shark species that require monitoring under the EPBC Act: grey nurse shark, speartooth shark, northern river shark, great white shark and whale shark. There are no known records of interaction between the EGPMF and the first four species. Therefore, sharks meet the requirements of SG 80; but there is not a high degree of confidence to reach the SG 100.

Syngnathids and solenostomids: The distribution of syngnathids appears to be specific to seagrass and detached algal communities, most of which are located in areas closed to trawling, reducing the likelihood of interaction. Thus, it was considered unlikely that even a negligible level of consequence would result, as trawling occurs over areas unfavourable to these species (Kangas et al., 2006). Based on this evidence, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on syngnathids and solenostomids. Therefore, syngnathids and solenostomids meet the requirements of SG 100.

Dugongs: Based on the spatial separation between trawling and seagrass beds (Kangas, 2006), there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on dugong populations. Therefore, dugongs meet the requirements of SG 100.

Whales and dolphins: Based on whale behaviour which seeks to avoid trawlers and very limited evidence of dolphin entanglement (Kangas, 2007; Tomlinon, pers com, November, 2014), there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on cetaceans (dolphins and whales). Therefore, whales and dolphins meet the requirements of SG 100.

Seabirds: In Exmouth Gulf it is thought that the area where bycatch fish is discarded is extensive and the quantity is not significant enough to have an impact (Morrison, 2003). There were no reported interactions of birds with the EGPMF. There is a high degree of MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 245

The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on seabirds. Therefore, seabirds meet the requirements of SG 100. C Guid Indirect effects have There is a high degree of epost been considered and are confidence that there are no thought to be unlikely to significant detrimental indirect create unacceptable effects of the fishery on ETP impacts. species. Met? Y Not scored Justif Indirect impacts (other than capture) to ETPs have been considered such as the risk of boat icatio strike to turtles and air breathing mammals (Kangas, 2006); and the indirect effect of n discards on dolphins (Svane, 2005). This supports the conclusion that there is high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. Kangas et al.,2006 Kangas et al., 2014 Evans and Molony, 2010 DoE,2013 Kangas, 2007; Tomlinon, pers com, November, 2014 References Wassenberg et al. 1994 Guinea, 2007 Stevens et al 2008 Peverell, 2007 Svane, 2005 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER 4: Demonstrate that direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species, with emphasis on sea snakes and sawfish

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements;  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to PI 2.3.2 ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive strategy epost place that minimise place for managing the in place for managing the fishery’s mortality of ETP species, fishery’s impact on ETP impact on ETP species, including and are expected to be species, including measures to minimise mortality, highly likely to achieve measures to minimise which is designed to achieve national and mortality, which is above national and international

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 246

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements;  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to PI 2.3.2 ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. international designed to be highly requirements for the protection of requirements for the likely to achieve national ETP species. protection of ETP and international species. requirements for the protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justif The EGPMF has formulated and implemented a series of bycatch actions from as early as icatio 1989. These encompassed a number of measures which collectively supported a strategy n to protect target, bycatch and ETP species. The Objectives, activities and monitoring components were laid down in the Bycatch Reduction Matrix, 2010 and then the BAP, 2014‐2019. This strategy, supported by the ERA process encapsulate the EGPMF’s strategy for overall minimisation of bycatch through developing management responses to high ecological risks and measures to avoid fishery interactions with species listed under the EPBC Act. This strategy comprises temporal and spatial closures, monitoring programmes, research projects and bycatch reduction activities such as development and testing of new BRDs.

As none of the ETP species have been found to be at high risk from the fishery, the main management achievements for ETP species have been in the form of bycatch reduction, in particular turtle bycatch has been reduced to an average 11 animals per year (2007‐2013), all of which having been released alive, but with no specific downward trend. TEDs and BRDs would appear to have had mixed success for other organisms: The EGPMF is reported to catch around 12 sawfish annually (2010‐2013) but it is unclear whether catches are due to entanglement before the TED is contacted. These interactions would however appear to be lower than those found in the NPF fishery (MRAG, 2013). Sea snakes research appears to show some reduction in catch due to the FED (the fish eye), but there does not appear to be sufficient information to demonstrate the effectiveness of the fish eye, or to test whether systems may prove to be more effective. The need to further reduce seasnake bycatch may need to be addressed through testing and approval of other devices, e.g. the Popeye Fishbox BRD which is known to reduce catch by up to 87% (Burke, et al. 2012).

Scoring issues SG 60 and SG 80 are met, but not SG 100 as the fishery does not meet the definition of a comprehensive strategy (complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses). B Guid The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based on epost considered likely to basis for confidence that information directly about the work, based on plausible the strategy will work, fishery and/or species involved, argument (e.g., general based on information and a quantitative analysis experience, theory or directly about the fishery supports high confidence that the comparison with similar and/or the species strategy will work. fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y N Justif The strategy has been based on research conducted for this fishery and other fisheries (the icatio Queensland and NPF). Evidence from the NPF (MRAG, 2013) demonstrates that these n strategies have proven to be effective. MG Kailis has undergone specific design and MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 247

Scoring issues SG 60 and SG 80 are met, but not SG 100. Nc Guid There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the epost the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully. Met? Y N Justif There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully given that icatio interactions are monitored (DoF, combo). However, one of the recommendations arising n from the 2013 DoE export certification was that the EGPMF should conduct appropriate ongoing research and/or monitoring to determine whether the actions undertaken in the Bycatch Action Plan Matrix are sufficient to minimise risk to bycatch species in the fishery. For example, based on interaction data from logbooks, it does not appear that turtle, seasnake and sawfish interactions are being continuously reduced under the current management strategy. Therefore it cannot be confirmed that there is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully.

Scoring issues SG 60 and SG 80 are met, but not SG 100. D Guid There is evidence that the strategy epost is achieving its objective. Met? N Justif See 2.3.2 c icatio n DoF, Bycatch Reduction Matrix, 2010 DoF, BAP, 2014‐2019 MRAG, 2013 References Wakeford, 2012/2013 DoE, 2013 Burke et al, 2012 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 248

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including:  Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Information is sufficient Sufficient information is Information is sufficient to epost to qualitatively estimate available to allow fishery quantitatively estimate outcome the fishery related related mortality and the status of ETP species with a high mortality of ETP species. impact of fishing to be degree of certainty. quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Met? Y N Not scored Justif Monitoring programmes, which for ETP species in this sub‐fishery include logbooks (fishery icatio dependent) and a partial scientific observer system through research surveys (fishery n independent). These were strengthened in response to the BAP in Augist 2014, one month before the site visit. The combination of qualitative ecological risk assessment and ongoing logbook‐based fishery monitoring is generally sufficient to determine whether the fishery is a threat to ETP species; to measure trends; and to support the Bycatch and Discarding Work Plan and Ecological Risk Management Strategy. However, it is acknowledged that further information, especially for two species, sea snakes and probably sawfish species, is insufficient to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for some ETP species.

The scoring guideposts for SG 60 is met but not SG 80. B Guid Information is adequate Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable epost to broadly understand to determine whether information is available on the the impact of the fishery the fishery may be a magnitude of all impacts, on ETP species. threat to protection and mortalities and injuries and the recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of species. ETP species. Met? Y N Not scored Justif The combination of qualitative ecological risk assessment and ongoing logbook‐based icatio fishery monitoring is generally adequate to determine whether the fishery is a threat to n ETP species; to measure trends; and to support the Bycatch and BAP and Ecological Risk Management Strategy. However, because no species specific information for seasnake and sawfish species had been extracted over a reasonable time series, only the SG 60 scoring guidepost is met and not SG 80 or SG 100. C Guid Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is adequate to epost to support measures to to measure trends and support a comprehensive strategy manage the impacts on support a full strategy to to manage impacts, minimize ETP species. manage impacts on ETP mortality and injury of ETP species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y Not scored Justif It is considered that information is sufficient to support a comprehensive strategy or to icatio estimate outcome status, but not with a high degree of certainty which would necessarily MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 249

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including:  Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. n require ongoing monitoring data on a species‐specific basis. The current very low levels of observer coverage, which is limited to research surveys, cannot be considered to collect accurate and verifiable species‐specific information for all ETP species. The scoring guideposts are therefore met for SG 60 and SG 80 but not SG 100. Kangas, et al, 2014 References DoF, 2014b OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65 CONDITION NUMBER 5: Provide relevant information support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including:  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and

 Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Provide relevant information sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species.

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to PI 2.4.1 habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly There is evidence that the fishery epost reduce habitat structure unlikely to reduce habitat is highly unlikely to reduce habitat and function to a point structure and function to structure and function to a point where there would be a point where there where there would be serious or serious or irreversible would be serious or irreversible harm. harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justif icatio In EGPMF habitat impacts associated with trawling for prawns are expected to interact n with benthic habitats (DoF 2014a). There is good baseline information on the habitat types and the associated benthic communities from a biodiversity survey (Kangas et al. 2007) and habitat mapping (Lyne et al 2006). Approximately 30 % of Exmouth Gulf is trawled annually by the EGPMF (Table 19), with 21.7 % (247.1 nm2) of the Gulf trawled in 2013. There is a large permanent spatial closure in the southern and eastern areas of the Gulf covering a designated prawn nursery area, but including sensitive macroalgal/seagrass habitat. This nursery area covers 344 nm2, approximately 28 % of the Gulf (Morrison et al. 2003). Temporal and spatial closures are strategically used during the fishing season, permanent closures as well as fishing gear restrictions are used to minimize the impact.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 250

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to PI 2.4.1 habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function ERA assessment of the benthic habitats (DoF, 2009) concluded low risk to mud/sand habitat, where most fishing occurs, low/negligible risk for coral/sponge habitat and negligible to macroalgal/seagrass habitat. Baseline data of faunal abundance and composition in areas that are both currently open to trawling and adjacent areas closed to trawling is available from an FRDC‐funded study conducted in 2004 (Kangas and Morrison 2006), as part of a project to develop biodiversity and habitat monitoring systems for key trawl fisheries in WA. Benthic habitats in the trawl grounds were identified as predominantly mud and sand bottom, which are naturally dynamic as a result of environmental influences (Kangas et al. (2007). Sediment samples from Exmouth Gulf taken for the biodiversity survey in 2004 (Kangas et al. (2007) suggest that most trawling activity occurs on sandy bottoms with coarse sand, thus the impact of the fishery on habitat is likely to be minimal. The ground chain attached to the net is designed to skim over the sand instead of digging into the seafloor, and immobile and slow‐moving benthic organisms are able to avoid capture through a gap (~ 150 mm) between the ground chain and footrope. Some large immobile organisms, i.e. sponges, may be flicked up into the water column by the ground chain and subsequently captured in the net; however, the grids in place have been shown to reduce the capture of sponges in the nets by 95 % (Kangas and Thomson, 2004) but this does not reduce the detachement of the sponges from the substrate.

Some areas of high biodiversity such as marginal reefs and sponge gardens can be found within trawlable areas but these may not be permanent structures given the high natural environmental disturbance regime (e.g., storm surges, tides, flooding and cyclones). Experiments in the NPF have indicated that sessile or slow‐moving taxa recover from the effects of intensive trawling within 6‐12 months; this suggests that the benthic habitats recover in a similar timeframe (Haywood, 2010).

There is strong evidence to suggest that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm even though it is likely that fishing grounds overlap to a small area containing such sponge gardens. The scoring guideposts for 60, 80 and 100 are met.

DoF 2014b Kangas et al. 2007 Lyne et al 2006 References Kangas et al. 2007, op. cit. Kangas and Thomson 2004 Morrison et al. 2003 Haywood, 2010 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 251

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.4.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for epost place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing the impact of the are expected to achieve is expected to achieve fishery on habitat types. the Habitat Outcome 80 the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. level of performance or above. Met? Y Y N

Justif There is a partial strategy in place for managing the impact of the EGPMF on benthic icatio habitats. This partial strategy utilises a number of measures, some that seek to directly n reduce effort and reduce the impact on spawning stock, but others that specifically seek to reduce trawl footprint and the impact on benthic assemblages. The monitoring system in place does not specifically assess the impact the impact on sponge gardens but, combined with some specific design components is aimed at mitigating the risk to benthic habitats. This is also supported by a risk assessment. Objectives and goals that support this are contained in the BAP, 2014, though the reference to habitats in the objective is only implicit: ‘Respond to adverse impact on Exmouth Gulf ecology from prawn trawling activity’. A recommendation is made to add an explicit reference to habitats in the BAP and also to assess the impact of trawling on specific sponge beds, which may interact with trawling grounds.

Habitat impacts are primarily managed through a system of spatial and temporal closures and BRDs. The former adopted by Exmouth to protect nursery grounds and vulnerable habitats. BRDs became compulsory since 2006 and grid specifications are part of a Managed Fishery License. To ensure compliance with the specified closures fishing activities (location and intensity) are monitored by the Department via a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), with all licenced fishing boats operating in the EGPMF required to install an operational Automatic Location Communicator (clause 16A of the Management Plan).

With the decline in fishing effort from 23 vessels in 1981 to 6 vessels in 2009, and the deployment of these vessels to between 21% and 40% of the Exmouth‐managed region, residual habitat impacts from trawls contacting the seabed are expected to be further minimized. Fishing effort and distribution is monitored to ensure that no more than 40 % of the total available mud / sand habitats are trawled each year. If a larger area is trawled, then legal trawl boundaries will be amended to regulate for 60% of mud / sand refuge area. Fishing distribution within the Gulf has continually met this requirement, with only 28% of the Gulf trawled in 2013. To ensure compliance with the specified closures fishing activities (location and intensity) are monitored by the Department via a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), with all licenced fishing boats operating in the EGPMF required to install an operational Automatic Location Communicator (clause 16A of the Management Plan).

The scoring guideposts for 60 and 80 are met but not 100. B Guid The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence epost considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g. general work, based on fishery and/or habitats involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 252

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.4.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types fisheries/habitats). habitats involved. Met? Y Y N Justif Results from various studies indicates that trawling causes only minor and short‐lived icatio impacts to sand / mud habitats, and the restrictions in place within the EGPMF further n limit any trawl impacts, but the impact on sponges is uncertain. The continuity of the fishery over the past 50 + years is also considered to be evidence that the fishery has not had any significant detrimental impacts on habitat structure or function within the Gulf (Kangas et al. 2014).

Grids became compulsory in the Exmouth fishery as early as 2002/2003 but grids only reduce retention of sponges, not capture. Secondary bycatch reduction devices were then trialled in 2004, with full implementation in 2006. More recent testing, and subsequent implementation, has also included the evolution of trawled doors. Multi foil boards are now used which are half the length and depth of the standard otterboard traditionally used. Half the length (1 metre compared to 2.4 metres) (Wakeford, pers com, November, 2014). This has reduced the ploughing footprint to less than half the original level and whilst the main advantage is that it avoids debris, it has also reduced residual impacts in more sensitive areas. With the decline in fishing effort from 23 vessels in 1981 to 6 vessels in 2009, and the deployment of these vessels to between 21% and 40% of the Exmouth‐managed region, residual habitat impacts from trawls contacting the seabed are expected to be further minimized. Fishing effort and distribution is monitored to ensure that no more than 40% of the total available mud / sand habitats are trawled each year. If a larger area is trawled, then legal trawl boundaries will be amended to regulate for 60% of mud / sand refuge area. Fishing distribution within the Gulf has continually met this requirement, with only 28% of the Gulf trawled in 2013107 in response to further spatial closures. To ensure compliance with the specified closures fishing activities (location and intensity) are monitored by the Department via a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), with all licenced fishing boats operating in the EGPMF required to install an operational Automatic Location Communicator (clause 16A of the Management Plan).

The scoring guideposts for 60 and 80 are met but not 100. C Guid There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the epost that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully. Met? Y N Justif Fishing effort and distribution is monitored to ensure that no more than 40 % of the total icatio available mud / sand habitats are trawled each year. If a larger area is trawled, then legal n trawl boundaries will be amended to regulate for 60 % of mud / sand refuge area. Fishing distribution within the Gulf has continually met this requirement, with only 28 % of the Gulf trawled in 2013. To ensure compliance with the specified closures fishing activities (location and intensity) are monitored by the Department via a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), with all licenced fishing boats operating in the EGPMF required to install an operational Automatic Location Communicator (clause 16A of the Management Plan).

The scoring guidepost for 80 is met but not 100. D Guid There is some evidence that the

107 Kangas et al., (2014), op. cit. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 253

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.4.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types epost strategy is achieving its objective. Met? N Justif A habitat protection partial strategy has been implemented from as early as 1978 and icatio includes a range of measures directly (Kangas et al, 2014, BAP 2014b) and indirectly (VFAS, n 1987), aimed at reducing habitat interactions. Evidence, assessed through VMS, shows an overall reduction in fishing effort the effective application temporal closures. Gear trials have also indicated a 95% reduction in sponge retention but not neccesarily capture. The scoring guidepost of 100 is not met because there is only a partial strategy in place. Kangas et al., 2014 References Kangas et al, 2014, BAP 2014b Wakeford, pers. com, 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 Recommendation: An explicit reference to habitats in the BAP An explicit reference to habitats in the BAP and a closer evaluation of the likely encounterability with sponges and the impact of trawl gear on these fauna.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 254

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat PI 2.4.3 types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid There is basic The nature, distribution The distribution of habitat types is epost understanding of the and vulnerability of all known over their range, with types and distribution of main habitat types in the particular attention to the main habitats in the area fishery are known at a occurrence of vulnerable habitat of the fishery. level of detail relevant to types. the scale and intensity of the fishery. Met? Y Y Not scored Justif Kangas et al. (2007) biodiversity study results and Lyne et al. (2006) habitat mapping offer icatio baseline information for future monitoring and management. The spatial extent and n intensity of fishing activities throughout the fishery are monitored by the Department using VMS and daily logbooks. This information allows managers to monitor fishing activities in relation to sensitive habitats and track changes in fishing location and intensity over time, and this information may be able to indicate if there is any increase in risk to habitat. The scoring guideposts for SG 60 and 80 are met, but not scored for 100, because SG 80 for guideposts b and c has not been met. B Guid Information is adequate Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the gear epost to broadly understand available to allow the on the habitat types have been the nature of the main nature of the impacts of quantified fully. impacts of gear use on the fishery on habitat the main habitats, types to be identified and including spatial overlap there is reliable of habitat with fishing information on the gear. spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y Not scored Justif All habitats in the EGPMF fishery have been mapped for the ecological risk assessment. icatio The impacts of the trawl gear’s interaction with these habitat types were evaluated and n none of the habitats were found to be at high risk. Historical research projects have produced a description of the composition and spatial variability of EG habitats. Areas that have been subject to trawling, as well as those that have not have been identified and the time required for the habitat to recover from trawl‐related disturbance is known through literature assessment of similar benthic assemblages in the NPF (Haywood, 2010). However, there is only a limited amount of information on changes to benthic habitats such as the dispersion of sponge beds, though the impact of trawling on these habitats is known to be low, but the physical impacts of the gear on sponges remains unknown. Further research is proposed (Kangas et al., 2014). The scoring guidepost for 60 and SG 80 have been met but 100. C Guid Sufficient data continue Changes in habitat distributions epost to be collected to detect over time are measured. any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 255

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat PI 2.4.3 types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Met? N Not scored Justif The distribution of habitat types including vulnerable habitat types is well known but there icatio has been no commitment to continuous collection of habitat data n There is some data (VMS) mapping the interaction of fishing gear with habitats but there is no ongoing mapping of habitat types.

The physical impacts of the gear on habitat types have been extensively studied through field experiments and simulation but there is no system in place for continuous monitoring of interactions with benthic assemblages. Kangas et al., 2014 References Haywood, 2010 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER 5: Provide sufficient data to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and provide reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

Collect sufficient data to detect any increase in risk to habitat.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 256

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.5.1 key elements of ecosystem structure and function Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly There is evidence that the fishery epost disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the is highly unlikely to disrupt the key underlying ecosystem key elements underlying elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to ecosystem structure and structure and function to a point a point where there function to a point where where there would be a serious or would be a serious or there would be a serious irreversible harm. irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justif The ecosystem impacts of trawling are well‐studied in Australia, including numerous icatio studies in tropical and sub‐tropical environments, in particular in Australia’s Northern n Prawn Fishery (NPF), where research has found no evidence that the fishery affects this ecosystem in a significant way. NPF studies have suggested that the effects of trawling at the current scale of the fishery do not affect overall biodiversity and cannot be distinguished from other sources of variation in community structure (NPF MSC PCR 2012). The main ecosystem impacts from fishing activities in the EGPMF are likely to be due to the removal of the target species, brown tiger and western king prawns, as these species make up the majority of the catch. The fishing mortality rate of prawns in Exmouth Gulf is relatively low compared to the natural seasonal variability of prawn populations as a consequence of environmental conditions, such as water temperature, currents and natural events, e.g., cyclones (Kangas et al. 2006). Retained non‐target (‘byproduct’) species are taken in relatively small quantities and generally have large distribution ranges (Kangas et al. 2007). Similar to the target prawn species, the fishing mortality rate for retained non‐target species in Exmouth Gulf is relatively low compared to the natural seasonal variability of populations as a consequence of environmental conditions. The ESD report for the EGPMF (i.e. Kangas et al. 2006) provides a comprehensive overview of fishery information, a major component of which is the explicit determination of the operational objectives, performance measures and indicators used to assess the performance of the fishery. The risk assessment of environmental components of the ESD analysis found risks to the components examined to be low or negligible. The ecosystem impacts of the EGPMF have been assessed by Kangas et al. (2007). Results from this project indicated that the current level of trawling activities in Exmouth Gulf does not affect overall biodiversity and cannot be distinguished from other sources of variations in community structure (Kangas et al. 2007). This study provides evidence that it is highly unlikely that the fishery has disrupted the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

Scoring issues SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met. Kangas et al., 2014; Kangas et al. 2006, Kangas et al. 2007, References NPF MSC PCR 2012 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 257

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose PI 2.5.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that consists of epost place, if necessary. in place, if necessary. a plan, in place. Met? Y Y N Justif In the EGPMF, there is a partial strategy in place associated with input controls on the icatio number of days trawled and area of operation along with technical measures to limit the n impacts of the trawl gear on the ecosystem. The Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 includes the long‐term management objective to ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ecological processes. Performance indicators, reference levels and control rules have been developed for monitoring the Exmouth Gulf ecosystem(s) (DoF 2014a). The ecosystem performance indicators related to risk assessment outcomes for each ecosystem component and the ecosystem as a whole, the extent of the area trawled in Exmouth Gulf and the annual catch of all retained species. While the arrangements in place cannot be considered a full strategy premised on functional relationships between the fishery and the ecosystem, it clearly represents a partial strategy. The SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met. B Guid The measures take into The partial strategy takes The strategy, which consists of a epost account potential into account available plan, contains measures to impacts of the fishery on information and is address all main impacts of the key elements of the expected to restrain fishery on the ecosystem, and at ecosystem. impacts of the fishery on least some of these measures are the ecosystem so as to in place. The plan and measures achieve the Ecosystem are based on well‐understood Outcome 80 level of functional relationships between performance. the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.

This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justif Several research studies have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of management icatio practices (e.g., BRDs) for bycatch and ETP species groups in particular. The ecosystem n impacts of the EGPMF have been assessed by Kangas et al. (2007), indicating that the current level of trawling activities in Exmouth Gulf does not affect overall biodiversity. Evidence that the partial strategy is likely to work and is being implemented is available in the form of species and VMS monitoring data, which are subject to ongoing scrutiny, as well as updates to the ESD assessment process and changes to monitoring procedures as necessary. The partial strategy takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the SG 60 and SG 80 level of performance. Evidence presented does not show a plan and measures based on well‐ understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 258

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose PI 2.5.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function elements of the ecosystem, thus not reaching SG 100. C Guid The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered epost considered likely to considered likely to work, likely to work based on prior work, based on plausible based on plausible experience, plausible argument or argument (e.g., general argument (e.g., general information directly from the experience, theory or experience, theory or fishery/ecosystems involved. comparison with similar comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Y Y Y Justif The fishery has a long history of detailed research and strong management. The suite of icatio measures in place limit the temporal and spatial extent of fishing in Exmouth Gulf and the n ecosystem impacts of the EGPMF have been assessed by Kangas et al. (2007), indicating that the current level of trawling activities in Exmouth Gulf does not affect overall biodiversity. The history of the fishery and research outcome indicate the measures are likely to work, meeting performance levels SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100. D Guid There is some evidence There is evidence that the epost that the measures measures are being implemented comprising the partial successfully. strategy are being implemented successfully. Met? Y Y Justif There is evidence for effective implementation in the form of lowering of overall bycatch icatio and reduced interaction with some groups of ETP species, supported by extensive n monitoring, including VMS monitoring of temporal and spatial closures. SG 80 and SG 100 performance levels are met. Kangas et al., 2014; Kangas et al. 2007 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 259

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Information is adequate Information is adequate epost to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g., trophic ecosystem. structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity). Met? Y Y Justif Information continues to be collected on the impacts of the fishery on each of the key icatio ecosystem components at a sufficient level to detect any increased risk. Research has n occurred on the key elements of the ecosystem (Kangas et al. 2007). Fishers are required to report all retained species catches, effort, any ETP species interactions and fishing location in daily logbooks. Fishing activities (location and intensity) are also monitored by the Department via VMS. Further monitoring activities are provided in the EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 ‐ 2019 (DoF 2014b). SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met. B Guid Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the epost fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem ecosystem elements can ecosystem elements can elements can be inferred from be inferred from existing be inferred from existing existing information, and have information, and have information and some been investigated in detail. not been investigated in have been investigated in detail. detail. Met? Y Y N Justif Fishers are required to report all retained species catches, effort, any ETP species icatio interactions and fishing location in daily logbooks. Fishing activities (location and intensity) n are also monitored by the Department via VMS. Present information suggests that main ecosystem impacts are known and there is sufficient detail in the research to determine the main impacts of the fishery and some have been investigated in detail, meeting SG 60 and SG 80 requirements (Kangas et al. 2006; Kangas et al. 2007; Kangas et al. 2014). C Guid The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery on epost Components (i.e., target, target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP Bycatch, Retained and species are identified and the ETP species and Habitats) main functions of these in the ecosystem are Components in the ecosystem are known. understood. Met? Y Y Justif The impacts of the fishery on the components of the ecosystem (target, bycatch, retained icatio and ETP species, habitats etc) have been identified and subject to risk assessment through n the WA ESD process. Ecosystem impacts of the EGPMF have also been assessed by Kangas et al. (2007), indicating that the current level of trawling activities in Exmouth Gulf does not affect overall biodiversity. Ongoing monitoring to assess the impacts of the fishery on the components is a core aspect of the management regime. Information is adequate to suggest the components of the ecosystem are understood and the SG 80 and SG 100 performance levels are met.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 260

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem D Guid Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available epost available on the impacts on the impacts of the fishery on of the fishery on these the Components and elements to Components to allow allow the main consequences for some of the main the ecosystem to be inferred. consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y N Justif Data collection for the fishery and research on the components and elements of the icatio ecosystem allow the some of the main consequences to be inferred, meeting SG 80 n requirements. A risk assessment of the components in the ecosystem (target, bycatch, retained and ETP species, habitats etc.) has been conducted through the WA ESD process. Ecosystem impacts of the EGPMF have also been assessed by Kangas et al. (2007), indicating that the current level of trawling activities in Exmouth Gulf does not affect overall biodiversity. E Guid Sufficient data continue Information is sufficient to epost to be collected to detect support the development of any increase in risk level strategies to manage ecosystem (e.g., due to changes in impacts. the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Met? Y N Justif Information continues to be collected on the impacts of the fishery on the key ecosystem icatio components at a sufficient level to detect any increased risk and update the risk n assessment. Fishers are required to report all retained species catches, effort, any ETP species interactions and fishing location in daily logbooks. Fishing activities (location and intensity) are also monitored by the Department via VMS. Further monitoring activities are provided in the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Bycatch Action Plan 2014 ‐ 2019 (DoF 2014b).

References DoF 2014a, DoF 2014b; Kangas et al., 2014; Kangas et al. 2006, Kangas et al. 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 261

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1

A Guid There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national legal epost national legal system national legal system and system and binding procedures and a framework for organised and effective governing cooperation with other cooperation with other cooperation with other parties which delivers parties, where parties, where necessary, management outcomes consistent necessary, to deliver to deliver management with MSC Principles 1 and 2. management outcomes outcomes consistent with consistent with MSC MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2 Met? Y Y Y Justif The National legal system adheres to all the core international agreements and icatio conventions. The Offshore Constitutional Settlement provides for the Australian states and n the Northern Territory to manage fisheries out to 3 nautical miles from the coast. WA fisheries legislation and policy conforms to overarching Commonwealth Government fisheries and environmental law, including the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places — defined in the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance. Fisheries Resources Management Act, 1994 sets out the legal requirements for managing WA fisheries and in consistent with MSC Principles1 and 2. The Director General of the Department of Fisheries (Chief Executive Officer) is appointed under Part 3 of the Public Sector Management Act, 1994 for five years. The executive structure of the Department brings all key aspects of fisheries management, such as research, policy, compliance & enforcement under a single dedicated department umbrella. It is relatively unusual for all fisheries management functions to fall under a single department and for that department to be focused solely on fisheries. Binding procedures are explicit within these acts. The Council of Australian Governments’108 (COAG) Standing Councils are established to achieve COAG’s strategic themes by pursuing and monitoring priority issues of national significance which require sustained, collaborative effort and address key areas of shared Commonwealth, State and Territory responsibility and funding. COAG’s Standing Council on Primary Industries19109 representation includes State, Territory and Commonwealth Ministers whose primary roles are to develop and implement policies and strategies for achieving agreed national approaches to biosecurity, productivity and sustainability of primary industries (including fisheries and forestry industries) and food security. Therefore, the national legal system and governing binding governance cooperation meets SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100.

108 https://www.coag.gov.au/ 109 http://www.mincos.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 262

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance PI 3.1.1 with MSC Principles 1 and 2; and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. B Guid The management system The management system The management system epost incorporates or is incorporates or is subject incorporates or subject by law to a subject by law to a by law to a transparent transparent mechanism for the mechanism for the mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is resolution of legal resolution of legal appropriate to the context of the disputes arising within disputes which is fishery and has been tested and the system. considered to be proven to be effective. effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justif There are well established mechanisms for administrative and legal appeals of decisions icatio taken in respect of fisheries, which are prescribed in Part 14 of the FRMA. Most decisions n made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Department and disputes regarding the implementation and administration of fisheries legislation can be taken to the Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal (SAT)110 for review or the WA (and Commonwealth) Court System111. These mechanisms have been used and tested across several fisheries. The decisions of the State Administration Tribunal (SAT) and the Courts are binding on the Department (for details of decisions see http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf). All SAT decisions must be carried out by the Department (section 29(5) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004112). The consultative, educative and partnership approach to management adopted by DoF, is inclusive of all stakeholders, but usually working with key ‘peak’ consultation bodies (‘WAFIC’ and ‘Recfishwest’), provides informal but effective mechanisms to minimise opportunities for disputes. Therefore, the national legal system provides for a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes and meets SG 60, SG 100 and SG 100. D Guid The management system The management system The management system has a epost has a mechanism to has a mechanism to mechanism to formally commit to generally respect the observe the legal rights the legal rights created explicitly legal rights created created explicitly or or established by custom of explicitly or established established by custom of people dependent on fishing for by custom of people people dependent on food and livelihood in a manner dependent on fishing for fishing for food or consistent with the objectives of food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner MSC Principles 1 and 2. manner consistent with consistent with the the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justif Western Australian inshore coastal fishing requires consideration of the degree to which indigenous aboriginal people are recognised in the management system.

110 http://www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au 111 http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/C/courts_history.aspx 112 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_918_homepage.html MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 263

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 264

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals epost individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process process have been identified. process have been have been identified. Functions, roles and identified. Functions, Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly roles and responsibilities responsibilities are defined and well understood for are generally explicitly defined and all areas of responsibility and understood. well understood for key interaction. areas of responsibility and interaction. Met? Y Y Not Scored Justif There is explicit definition of the role of the Federal (AFMA) and State level of fisheries icatio management. Critically, this includes clearly stating where overall responsibility for n fisheries is divided between state and Commonwealth according to the Offshore Constitutional Settlement. Within DoF WA, there is explicit definition and understanding of the roles of research, enforcement and management policy teams. The executive structure of the department brings all key aspects of fisheries management, such as research, policy, compliance & enforcement under a single dedicated department umbrella. This increases clarification of roles and responsibilities. The roles of other departments such as Department of the Environment are also explicitly defined and it is understood how these relate to each other. The functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction and meet SG 60 and SG 80. SG 100 not scored as the performance indicator did not score 80. B Guid The management system The management system The management system includes epost includes consultation includes consultation consultation processes that processes that obtain processes that regularly regularly seek and accept relevant relevant information seek and accept relevant information, including local from the main affected information, including knowledge. The management parties, including local local knowledge. The system demonstrates knowledge, to inform management system consideration of the information the management demonstrates and explains how it is used or not system. consideration of the used. information obtained. Met? Y Y Not scored Justif Section 65 of the FRMA sets out the legislative consultation requirements the Minister icatio must adhere to when amending an existing management plan. Section 65 has ‘natural n justice’ origins, in that a person whose rights may be about to be affected should have an opportunity to be heard before any adverse action / impact is given effect. The statutory consultation function is presently conducted by WAFIC on behalf of the MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 265

However, the process, (or specifically some of the actions taken), does not appear to provide the opportunity for non‐fisher stakeholders to participate or engage in relevant meetings. Whilst there may be a clear and transparent process where stakeholders can submit comments ahead of fisheries policy decision making processes in the regular course of managing the fishery, evidence suggests that important stakeholders have been marginalized from the important decision making areas such as risk assessment, formulation of the harvest strategy and development of the Bycatch Action Plan. The management plan requires only that license holders be consulted in amending the management plan. Non fisher organisations were not invited to key meetings, and from these meetings then offered the opportunity to submit written comments. DPaW and ENGOs would also appear to have been excluded from Tasked working groups, committees and panels. It is therefore not always clear to what extent consultations are 'open to all, or how DoF facilitates active engagement', for example through more widely advertised public consultations beyond the immediate key stakeholders in the fisheries. WWF has raised a concern at the public comment stage of the Western Rock Lobster Recertification process that they remained concerned about the lack of representation of stakeholders concerned with ecosystem impacts. It is therefore not always clear to what extent consultations are 'open to all, or facilitate effective engagement', for example through more widely advertised public consultations beyond the immediate key stakeholders in the fisheries. In terms of effective engagement, the loss of the Management Advisory Committee appears to have been a retrograde step such that not all the key bodies are in a collective forum at the same time. This suggests that the

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 266

Western Australian Government Fisheries Policy Statement March 2012 (DoF 2012a) OCS 1995 arrangements DoF, Annual Report, http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About‐Us/Publications/Pages/Annual‐ Report.aspx References Western Australian Fishing Industry Council inc, http://www.wafic.org.au/ Recfishwest, http://www.recfishwest.org.au/ DoF, Letters to WAFIC, STBOA of 15 August, 2014 Trott, WWF, Letter to FCI of 25 May, 2011 Stanley, DPaW, email December, 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER 7: The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 267

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Long‐term objectives to Clear long‐term Clear long‐term objectives that epost guide decision‐making, objectives that guide guide decision‐making, consistent consistent with the MSC decision‐making, with MSC Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria consistent with MSC and the precautionary approach, and the precautionary Principles and Criteria are explicit within and required by approach, are implicit and the precautionary management policy. within management approach are explicit policy within management policy. Met? Y Y Y Justif The WA Government has set a long‐term overarching objective that is underpinned by the icatio principle of social and environmental responsibility to ensure that economic activity n associated with aquatic resources is managed in a socially and environmentally responsible manner for the long‐term benefit of the State. This objective is explicit in both fisheries legislation and management policy. The stated objectives of the WA Fisheries Resources Management Act (1994) are to develop and manage fisheries and aquaculture in a sustainable way; and to share and conserve the State’s fish and other aquatic resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations. The Act also incorporates the precautionary approach. Objectives are also explicitly stated in the Department of Fisheries Strategic Plan 2009 – 2018 (Phase 3 2013 ‐‐‐ 2015). These objectives are listed as: Sustainability (to ensure WA’s fisheries and aquatic resources are sustainable and to provide services based on risk to ensure fish for the future and support the maintenance of healthy aquatic ecosystems); Community Outcomes (to achieve an optimum balance between economic development and social amenity in accordance with a framework to achieve sustainability); Partnerships (to promote effective strategic alliances and community stewardship); Agency Management (deliver services on behalf of Government in accordance with the Department’s statutory requirements to achieve effective and efficient use of resources to support the delivery of our strategy). The Western Australian Government is committed to the concept of ESD, which seeks to integrate short‐ and long‐term economic, social and environmental effects in to all decision‐making. The key principles of ESD are implicitly contained in the objectives of the FRMA, and the Department’s ESD Policy (Fletcher 2002). Prescribed and implemented actions by DoF include identifying issues; determining the importance of each of these issues using risk assessment; completing suitably detailed reports; and compiling sufficient background material to put these reports into context.

In addition, the management of the fisheries by the Department of Fisheries (WA) is bound by higher level objectives set out in both national (Commonwealth) and International Legislation, most specifically the precautionary approach and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

Evidence that the formulation and implementation of long term objectives are explicit and required by management policy are exhibited in various performance assessments MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 268

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach including: effectiveness and efficiency indicators to show the extent to which the Department achieved its goal of conserving and sustainably developing the State’s aquatic resources (the Department’s Annual Report.) The Strategic Plan 2009 ‐ 2018 sets out the strategies and key deliverables and Divisions of the Department that are responsible for delivery. Each of WA’s main commercial fisheries has been assessed using the Australian National ESD Framework for Fisheries, and it is now an integral part of the stock sustainability assessment process for all fisheries in WA. For the purposes of the wildlife trade provisions of Part 13A of the EPBC Act (i.e. to be exempt from export controls for native species harvested in a fishery), management agencies must demonstrate that fisheries management regimes comply with the objectives of ESD. Performance against social and economic objectives is measured regularly. Commercial fisheries’ gross value of production and rates of employment are reported annually in the Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of WA: the State of the Fisheries (e.g. Fletcher & Santoro 2013). WA fisheries assessments are conducted against the Commonwealth Guidelines which outline specific principles and objectives designed to ensure a strategic and transparent way of evaluating the ecological sustainability of fishery management arrangements. Management arrangements demonstrate a precautionary approach, particularly in the absence of information. Evidence of the application of the precautionary approach to fisheries management decisions is provided in various letters to stakeholders (DoF to SBPTOA, 2014). A practical, risk‐based framework for use with regional‐level management of marine resources has been developed by the Department to enable cross / multiple fishery management at the bioregional level to fully implement Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) (Fletcher, 2014). The evidence provided demonstrates that there are clear long‐term objectives that guide decision‐making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. Therefore the SG 60, and SG 80 requirements are met. WA Fisheries Resources Management Act (1994) The Department of Fisheries Strategic Plan 2009 – 2018 (Phase 3 2013 ‐‐‐ 2015) Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of WA: the State of the Fisheries (e.g. Fletcher & Santoro 2013) References DoF, Annual report DoF letter to SBPTOA of 15 August, 2015 Fletcher, W.J. (2014), Review and refinement of an existing qualitative risk assessment method for application within an ecosystem‐based management framework, ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu 142 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 269

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4

The management system provides economic and social PI 3.1.4 incentives for sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid The management system The management system The management system provides epost provides for incentives provides for incentives for incentives that are consistent that are consistent with that are consistent with with achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and expressed by MSC expressed by MSC 2, and explicitly considers Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2, and incentives in a regular review of seeks to ensure that management policy or procedures perverse incentives do to ensure they do not contribute not arise. to unsustainable fishing practices. Met? Y Y Y Justif The management system actively and explicitly considers and reviews management policy icatio and procedures to ensure they are not contributing to unsustainable fishing practices. The n Department has implemented a flexible management framework for the EGPMF that is not overly regulated and provides the ability for the fishery to achieve optimum economic efficiency. Fishery catch is kept consistent with the catch‐based target reference level (DoF, Harvest Strategy, 2014a), recognizing that below normal fishing effort results in catches below the target range, and the management systems in place ensure that effort does not increase and that impact on the ecosystem (DoF, BAP, 2014). Not least, this includes built‐in incentives for the fishers themselves to act in a precautionary management manner, by reducing effort in some areas in order to safeguard juveniles and the spawning stock.

All WA fisheries operate on cost recovery basis, with the monies received (5.75 % of the gross value of production (GVP). All monies are directed to management, compliance and research.

The management tools in place have historically reduced effort across the range of WA fisheries, but explicitly within the UoC. Significant numbers of vessels have been progressively withdrawn from the fishery, down from 23 to 6.

With the progression of changes in policy, and as cemented in the harvest strategy and regulatory adjustment measures, it is reasonable to suggest that there is a regular review of management policy or procedures, which explicitly considers incentives. Therefore, the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met. DoF, the EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014a) DoF, The EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (BAP; DoF 2014b). Fish Resources and Management Regulations, 1995 DoF, Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: the state References of the fisheries DoF, Annual Report, Available at http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About‐ Us/Publications/Pages/Annual‐Report.aspx Fisheries Adjustment Schemes Act 1987 (FAS Act), Available at http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument:21409P/$FIL E/FisheriesAdjstmtSchemesAct1987_03‐00‐00.pdf?OpenElement

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 270

The management system provides economic and social PI 3.1.4 incentives for sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 271

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve PI 3.2.1 the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Objectives, which are Short and long‐term Well defined and measurable epost broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long‐term objectives, achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving which are demonstrably expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed consistent with achieving the Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and outcomes expressed by MSC’s implicit within the 2, are explicit within the Principles 1 and 2, are explicit fishery’s management fishery’s management within the fishery’s management system system. system. Met? Y Y Partial Justif Long and short‐term specific objectives are documented in the EGPMF Harvest Strategy icatio 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014a) and EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (BAP; DoF 2014b). n The EGPMF has a long‐term management objective, which is demonstrably consistent with achieving outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 1, to maintain spawning stock biomass of each target species (brown tiger and western king prawns) at a level where the main factor affecting recruitment is the environment. Both the harvest strategy and BAP contain a range of strategies that are monitored to ensure the short term objectives are being met consistently. These are supported by defined and measureable performance indicators, management reference levels and control rules for the target species as well as retained, bycatch and ETP species, habitats and ecosystems.

The long‐term management objectives which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 2, are defined in the Bycatch Action Plan (BAP): To maintain spawning stock biomass of each retained species at a level where the main factor affecting recruitment is the environment; to ensure fishery impacts do not result in serious or irreversible harm to bycatch species populations; to ensure fishery impacts do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ETP species populations; to ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function; and to ensure the effects of fishing do not result in serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem processes. These are supported by defined and measurable performance indicators, management reference levels, control rules and proposed additional activities.

Management outcomes are also provided in the Annual Report (DoF) and reports on recommendations in the Strategic Assessment report to DoE. The plan states that information systems require investigation. Therefore, whilst the objectives are explicit, they do not cover all P2 components, therefore scoring and not reaching the SG100. DoF, Annual report DoF, the EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014a) DoF, The EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (BAP; DoF 2014b). References DSEWPac, Assessment of the Western Australian Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery, February 2013, Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/13d9bdfb‐3996‐49be‐9666‐ 426767d4386f/files/eg‐assessment‐2013.pdf (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 272

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve PI 3.2.1 the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 273

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and PI 3.2.2 strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid There are some decision‐ There are established epost making processes in decision‐making place that result in processes that result in measures and strategies measures and strategies to achieve the fishery‐ to achieve the fishery‐ specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justif There is an established decision making process in place comprising annual and in‐season icatio consultation and decision‐making that may result in measures to meet short‐term n (operational) objectives (driven by the control rules contained in the current Harvest Strategy); In‐season consultation and decision‐making that is designed to meet the economic objective to provide the fishery with the opportunity to optimise economic returns (cooperative framework); and longer‐term consultation and decision‐making that results in new measures and strategies to achieve the long term fishery‐specific management objectives (i.e. changes to the management framework). Therefore, both SG 60 and SG 80 have been met. B Guid Decision‐making Decision‐making Decision‐making processes epost processes respond to processes respond to respond to all issues identified in serious issues identified serious and other relevant research, monitoring, in relevant research, important issues evaluation and consultation, in a monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant transparent, timely and adaptive and consultation, in a research, monitoring, manner and take account of the transparent, timely and evaluation and wider implications of decisions. adaptive manner and consultation, in a take some account of transparent, timely and the wider implications of adaptive manner and decisions. take account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Y Y Y Justif The decision making process for the EGPMF is consistent with those for the broader icatio management system and responds to the defined harvest and bycatch management n strategies, which respond to research, outcome evaluations and monitoring programmes. Specific and relevant issues may be evaluated through a number of mechanisms that take account of the wider implications of decisions, including establishment of a tasked working group; external / expert workshops (e.g. ecological risk assessments); and / or internal workshops (e.g. harvest strategy development, ecological and compliance risk assessments). Therefore, SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. C Guid Decision‐making epost processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 274

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and PI 3.2.2 strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Justif The control rules incorporate a precautionary approach to the decision‐making process by icatio requiring a review when the target reference level is not met. This ensures that any n warning signs are recognised and investigated / addressed in their early stages. The frequency of evaluation (both annually and in‐season) and review means that management action to investigate and, where required, alleviate adverse impacts on stocks is always taken before the performance indicators reach the limit reference level. The application of the EBFM provides a good tool to assess the relative risks to bycatch, ETP species and habitats, initiating when appropriate, actions to deal with at risk species and assemblages. Examples of precautionary actions include the implementation of FEDs, irrespective of the low risks shown to teleost and invertebrate species. Since there is strong evidence of precautionary actions covering both P1 and P2 management issues, the SG of 80 has been met. D Guid Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all interested epost fishery performance and performance and stakeholders provides management action is management action is comprehensive information on generally available on available on request, and fishery performance and request to stakeholders. explanations are management actions and provided for any actions describes how the management or lack of action system responded to findings and associated with findings relevant recommendations and relevant emerging from research, recommendations monitoring, evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y Y Justif DoF provides a comprehensive range of formal reports which confirm fishery performance icatio and how management has responded to findings from recommendations emerging from n research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. These include: The Annual Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: the State of the Fisheries (e.g. Fletcher & Santoro 2013); The EGPMF Management Plan (available on the State Law Publisher’s website via a link from the Department’s website); CEO notices regarding opening and closing the fishery; The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014a), which provides information on all completed and proposed research relating to the EGPMF and the associated ecosystem; The EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014b); and outcomes of management decisions, research and studies (e.g. Fisheries Management Papers, Fisheries Research Reports and Occasional Papers). Therefore, both SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. E Guid Although the The management system The management system or epost management authority or fishery is attempting fishery acts proactively to avoid or fishery may be subject to comply in a timely legal disputes or rapidly to continuing court fashion with judicial implements judicial decisions challenges, it is not decisions arising from any arising from legal challenges. indicating a disrespect or legal challenges. defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 275

CEO notices regarding opening and closing the fishery114;

The EGPMF Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014a);

The Research, Monitoring, Assessment and Development Plan 2011 – 12115, which provides information on all completed and proposed research relating to the EGPMF and the associated ecosystem;

The EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014b) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

113 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/subsiduary.nsf/FisheriesT?openpage 114 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/subsiduary.nsf/Fisheriesexec?openpage 115 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop106.pdf MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 276

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive monitoring, epost surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has control and surveillance system exist, are implemented been implemented in the has been implemented in the in the fishery under fishery under assessment fishery under assessment and has assessment, and there is and has demonstrated an demonstrated a consistent ability a reasonable expectation ability to enforce relevant to enforce relevant management that they are effective. management measures, measures, strategies and/or rules. strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y Justif Relevant management measures include a limited entry licensing system, effort icatio restrictions, gear controls, including bycatch reduction devices, closed seasons and fishing n day caps, spatial and temporal closures and reporting systems. The Department’s Regional Services Division (RSD) delivers the departments compliance services for commercial fisheries. The Monitoring actions are supported by Fisheries and Marine Officers based in Exmouth, mobile patrols to implement surprise inspections as well as regular land, air and sea inspections. All vessels are fitted with Automatic Location Receivers which allows for VMS position tracking. All licensed fishing vessels are required to submit complete catch returns which are cross checked and validated against processing records. The control system is supported by an Operational Compliance Plan and Risk Assessment. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the compliance system incorporates ‘the weight of evidence’ evaluation approach which demonstrates a high degree of effectiveness of the system applied. The compliance system is further supported by an educational programme conducted by RSD, but also in cooperation with the Department of Parks and Wildlife. RSB also operate a Fishwatch system. Self‐monitoring by industry whilst at sea, or through parent company VMS tracking further underlines the comprehensiveness of the enforcement system in place. Regulatory and self regulatory actions, along with comprehensive resourcing of assets demonstrate that an effective compliance system is in place. Therefore, SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. B Guid Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non‐ epost non‐compliance exist non‐compliance exist, are compliance exist, are consistently and there is some consistently applied and applied and demonstrably provide evidence that they are thought to provide effective deterrence. applied. effective deterrence. Met? Y Y Y Justif There is an explicit and statutory sanction system in place, which includes application of a icatio range of enforcement measures commensurate with the offences identified. These include n warnings, prosecutions and cumulative ‘black marks’ leading to licence suspension. There is also a procedure in place for dealing with serious offences using the Department’s Prosecution Advisory Panel to determine whether recommendations are appropriate and within the public interest. The penalties applied are commensurate with the value of the illegal fish caught and the

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 277

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with type of illegal activity identified. The industry itself applies a bonus system to compliant skippers. Evidence suggests that the sanctions to deal with non‐compliance exist, are consistently applied when required and demonstrably provide effective deterrence. Therefore, the guideposts for SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. C Guid Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of epost thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply the management system comply with the with the management system for the fishery under management system under assessment, including, assessment, including, under assessment, providing information of when required, including, when required, importance to the effective providing information of providing information of management of the fishery. importance to the importance to the effective management of effective management of the fishery. the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justif The Department measures compliance outcomes by estimating compliance and non‐ icatio compliance rates. The average compliance rate for the EGPMF between 2007/08 and n 2012/13 was estimated at 99.9% (Travaille et al, 2014), with no offences recorded on the EGPMF in the last 5 years. The industry provides daily catch data to research and compliance, which is supported by data on unloads to processing plants. MG Kailis operates its own disciplinary procedures in the event of any probable non‐compliance actions. There is very strong evidence that fishers systematically comply with the regulatory system and continually provide relevant information. Therefore SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. D Guid There is no evidence of epost systematic non‐ compliance. Met? Y Justif Based on the weight‐of‐evidence approach detailed above and the long‐term compliance icatio rate, there is no evidence of systematic non‐compliance by the licensees and skippers in n the EGPMF, nor is there evidence that the existing (negligible) level of non‐compliance in the past five years is a risk to target prawn stocks or ecosystem components. SG 80 has been met. Travaille, K, Schofield, N Green, T and Brand‐Gardner, S (2014) Compliance Programmes, DoF, October, 2014 References DoF (2014d), Operational Compliance Plan, Gascoyn Bio Reqion, Exmouth Gulf, 2014, Regional Services Branch, Depertment of Fisheries DoF, (2014e) Risk Assessment (Internal document). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 278

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information PI 3.2.4 needs of management Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid Research is undertaken, A research plan provides A comprehensive research plan epost as required, to achieve the management system provides the management system the objectives consistent with a strategic approach with a coherent and strategic with MSC’s Principles 1 to research and reliable approach to research across P1, and 2. and timely information P2 and P3, and reliable and timely sufficient to achieve the information sufficient to achieve objectives consistent the objectives consistent with with MSC’s Principles 1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The RMAD Plan contains a matrix that sets out the research activities associated with the cation following components of the EGPMF: Target prawn species, habitat and ecosystem, ecosystem/environment, management analysis, and industry development. The strategic planning of research is informed by risk. This is further detailed in the department’s ‘Fish Plan’ which sets out the level of routine monitoring and research that will be carried out across all fisheries.

Other research designed to provide reliable and timely information includes the report for FRDC Project No. 2010/535 Management implications of climate change effect on fisheries in Western Australia: Part 1 (Currently in draft).

The comprehensive Research Plan along with reactive research based on need demonstrates that SG 60, SG80 and SG 100 have been met. Evidence shows that the research outputs, once undertaken, are reliable and produced in a timely manner. B Guid Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are epost available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and are timely fashion. widely and publicly available. Met? Y Y Y Justif The outcomes of monitoring and research undertaken in accordance with the RMAD Plan icatio are reported in the annual Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western n Australia: the State of the Fisheries (e.g. Fletcher & Santoro 2013).

The results arising from projects outlined in the EGPMF research plan are made publicly

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 279

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information PI 3.2.4 needs of management available in a timely manner on the Department’s website, http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About‐Us/Publications/Pages/Fisheries‐Research‐Reports.aspx) in the form of Fisheries Management Papers, Fisheries Research Reports and Fisheries Occasional Publications. For example, the research results relating to the FRDC 2000/189 (Kangas & Thomson 2004), were published in 2004, following the completion of the project in 2003. The results of some research projects are also published in international journals.

The guideposts for SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. DoF, RMAD Plan, 2012b, http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop106.pdf DoF, Fish Plan, 2011‐2018 (Updated as of July 2014) Fletcher, W.J. and Santoro, K. (eds). (2013). Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic References Resources of Western Australia 2012/13, Available at http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/sofar/status_reports_of_the_fisheries_2012‐ 13_gascoyne_coast_bioregion.pdf FRDC Project No. 2010/535 Management implications of climate change effect on fisheries in Western Australia: Part 1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 280

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Guid The fishery has in place The fishery has in place The fishery has in place epost mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate all parts some parts of the key parts of the of the management system. management system. management system Met? Y Y Y Justif As part of the Department’s risk‐based planning cycle, the current risk assessment for the icatio EGPMF management system will be reviewed in 2016/17 and the Risk Register updated. n The new risk assessment will inform a major review of the management system, including Fish Plan, the EGPMF research plan and compliance requirements.

The statutory management framework is reviewed when there is evidence to support statutory changes to the longer‐term management measures or to implement new longer‐ term measures.

Regular reviews of Fish Plan and the higher level Research Strategic Plan (last reviewed in April 2012) may trigger an immediate review of the EGPMF research plan at any time. The five‐year cycle review and risk assessment may also trigger a review of the research plan.

The EGPMF Harvest Strategy and Bycatch Action Plan was recently subject to extensive internal review, followed by consultation with the licensee, which resulted in the current EGPMF Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (DoF 2014b).

Annual evaluation of the performance of the fishery against the reference levels contained in the harvest strategy is the main mechanism used to evaluate the fishery‐specific management system. An internal review of one or more parts of the management system is triggered if annual (or in‐season) performance evaluation against the operational (short‐ term) objectives indicates the potential need for a management response (i.e. when below the target level).

Any results arising from the research plan are generally externally peer reviewed, and always internally peer reviewed prior to publishing.

The Supervising Scientists group manages the peer review process of all fisheries, including with external reviewers. An internal review of the external 2001 ESD risk assessment for the EGPMF was completed in 2008.

Monitoring and evaluation against ESD performance measures is undertaken annually and reported in Status Report of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia: the State of the Fisheries.

The evidence suggests that the fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. Therefore the scoring guidance for SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 has been met. B Guid The fishery‐specific The fishery‐specific The fishery‐specific management

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 281

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system epost management system is management system is system is subject to regular subject to occasional subject to regular internal and external review. internal review. internal and occasional external review. Met? Y Y Y Justif The stock assessment and research framework for the EGPMF was externally reviewed by icatio Malcolm Haddon (Marine Research Laboratory Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries n Institute, University of Tasmania) during a two day workshop undertaken in November 2012. As a result of the workshop, the annual survey methodology for the EGPMF was reviewed and amended in 2013.

The EGPMF’s export accreditation (and therefore its entire fishery specific management system) is externally reviewed (re‐assessed) every five years by the Commonwealth DoE.

Compliance systems have been externally reviewed by the Western Australian Auditor General’s, and response actions determined (Green et al, 2009)

The EGPMF’s TED system received approval by the US Department of State in 2005 and was re‐evaluated in 2014.

The comprehensive range of internal and external performance reviews, along with their regularity, demonstrates that SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. Australian Government, D0SEWPF, Assessment of the Western Australian Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery, http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/13d9bdfb‐ 3996‐49be‐9666‐426767d4386f/files/eg‐assessment‐2013.pdf Western Australian Auditor General’s Report, Second Public Sector Performance Report, References Report 7 – June 2009, Available atfile:///C:/Users/richa_000/Documents/Richard/MRAG/WA/Exmouth/Auditor%20Genera l's%20Reviewreport2009_07.pdf Green and McKinlay (2009). US Department of State, Available at http://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/fish/bycatch/turtles/index.htm OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 282

Appendix 1.2: Conditions Conditions There were 2 Conditions set for P1; 1 for Brown tiger prawns and 1 for Western king prawns. There were 4 Conditions set for P2 and 1 for P3. The assessment team concluded provisionally that the fishery should be certified, subject to the seven conditions given below, together with the corresponding milestones and client action plan.

Condition 1 Performance 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Indicator c. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level Brown tiger consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or prawn outcome. Score 75 There has been some consideration of changes in fishing efficiency over time in the development of catch rate indices used in reference points. However there Rationale should be a further analysis of catch rate information to better understand the uncertainty in these indices and their consistency with BMSY or a surrogate. Confidence intervals should be presented for all indices where possible.

Demonstrate that target reference points are consistent with B or a surrogate. Condition MSY

By the first surveillance audit, the fishery client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. By the second surveillance the fishery client must present evidence that the plan Milestones has been implemented. By the third surveillance audit the fishery client must demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied, at which time the fishery will be scored at least SG80. Client action plan See Appendix 2 Consultation on The team has discussed the CAP with the client and DoF and is satisfied that conditions resources have been committed to achieving close out of the condition

Condition 2 Performance 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Indicator c. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level Western king consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or prawn outcome. Score 75 There has been some consideration of changes in fishing efficiency over time in the development of catch rate indices used in reference points However there Rationale should be a further analysis of catch rate information to better understand the uncertainty in these indices and their consistency with BMSY or a surrogate. Confidence intervals should be presented for all indices where possible.

Demonstrate that target reference points are consistent with B or a surrogate. Condition MSY

By the first surveillance audit, the fishery client must present evidence that a Milestones plan is in place to address this condition. By the second surveillance the fishery client must present evidence that the plan

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 283

has been implemented. By the third surveillance audit the fishery client must demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied, at which time the fishery will be scored at least SG80. Client action plan See Appendix 2 Consultation on The team has discussed the CAP with the client and DoF and is satisfied that conditions resources have been committed to achieving close out of the condition

Condition 3 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy Performance to manage bycatch Indicator d. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the strategy). Score 75

Incompleteness and accuracy of reporting on bycatch in the EGPMF is acknowledged in the Bycatch Reduction Plan Matrix (DoF, 2010). Up until the adoption of the Bycatch Action Plan, there had been no commitment to continuous data collection. However, good information was also provided for Rationale the square mesh trials undertaken in 2008 and 2009 (Kangas et al, 2014). The BAP specifically lays out a commitment to a bycatch monitoring programme through the application of fishery-independent surveys to collect bycatch (non- retained) species composition data every three years; and Crew-member observer program (CMOP) as an ongoing data collection system requires investigation. Condition Provide sufficient data to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species

By the first surveillance audit, the fishery client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. Milestones By the second surveillance the fishery client must present evidence that the plan has been implemented. By the third surveillance the fishery client must demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied, at which time the fishery will be scored at least SG80. Client action plan See Appendix 2

Consultation on The team has discussed the CAP with the client and DoF and is satisfied that condition resources have been committed to achieving close out of the condition

Rationale The Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 includes the long-term management objective to ensure fishery impacts do not

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 284

result in serious or irreversible harm to endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species populations (DoF 2014a). The annual extent of trawling activities, BRD use and assessed risk is used to evaluate and mitigate the impact of the EGPMF on these species’ populations (Kangas et al, 2014). When captured, ETP species are dealt with in an appropriate fashion, ranging from ensuring turtle are revived first before returning them to the water, to a more rapid return to the water for more sensitive species (Kangas et al, 2014). Most ETPs are assessed as highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts or is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery. However, there is some evidence one protected species of seasnake (Aipysurus apraefrontalis) may be subject to localised depletion. (Milton et al), albeit that it scores as low risk in the PSA. This uncertainty suggests that Aipysurus apraefrontalis is not conclusively highly unlikely to have unacceptable direct impacts from trawling. Sawfish (sp name) scored as high risk on a PSA, so are not considered as highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.

The following species specific conclusions are identified: Sea snakes: The EGPMF is not considered to a significant detrimental effect on seasnake populations in Exmouth Gulf (Kangas et al. 2006). However, a trend analysis in sea snake population in the EGPMF cannot be determined because there are no data on biodiversity and abundance before the trawling started. Also, data on specific sea snake populations at present is incomplete.

A study dedicated to sea snake mortality was completed for the Northern Prawn Fishery in 2008 (Milton et al. 2008) and concluded that trawl mortality was below reference points and no species appear to be at risk based on current levels of fishing effort in the fisher. However, there is evidence that the size structures and catch rates of some species may have changed in the last few years (Milton et al., 2008). Hence, catch rates of sea snake species that have shown localised declines and also have restricted distribution should be regularly monitored (Milton et al., 2008).

Short-nosed seasnake is not caught in NPF but considering Milton’s et al. (2008) results, it is possible for the short-nosed seasnake, with restricted distribution range, to have suffered localised declines due to trawling and it is suggested that the species should be monitored.

Whilst there may be an argument to infer that the same results are likely for the EGPMF, without specific knowledge of specific species, it is probably correct to assume that known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species, but not conclusively highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts, albeit noting that the PSA concluded low risk to the short-nosed MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 285

seasnake (Aipysurus apraefrontalis). Condition Demonstrate that direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species, with emphasis on sea snakes and sawfish. By the first surveillance audit, the fishery client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. Milestones By the second surveillance the fishery client must present evidence that the plan has been implemented. By the third surveillance the fishery client must demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied, at which time the fishery will be scored at least SG80. Client action plan See Appendix 2

Consultation on The team has discussed the CAP with the client and DoF and is satisfied that condition resources have been committed to achieving close out of the condition

Condition 5 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including:  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; Performance and Indicator  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. a. Sufficient information is available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. b. Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. Score 65

Monitoring programmes, which for ETP species in this sub-fishery include logbooks and a partial scientific observer system through research surveys. The combination of qualitative ecological risk assessment and ongoing logbook- based fishery monitoring is generally sufficient to determine whether the fishery is a threat to ETP species; to measure trends; and to support the Bycatch and Discarding Work Plan and Ecological Risk Management Strategy. However, it is acknowledged that further information, especially for two species, sea snakes Rationale and probably sawfish species (Identified as High Risk in the PSA), is insufficient to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for some ETP species.

The combination of qualitative ecological risk assessment and ongoing logbook- based fishery monitoring is generally adequate to determine whether the fishery is a threat to ETP species; to measure trends; and to support the Bycatch and BAP and Ecological Risk Management Strategy. However, there is no species specific information for seasnake and sawfish species. Provide sufficient information to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Condition Provide relevant information sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, especially sea snakes and sawfish. By the first surveillance audit, the fishery client must present evidence that a Milestones plan is in place to address this condition.

By the second surveillance the fishery client must present evidence that the plan

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 286

has been implemented. By the third surveillance the fishery client must demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied, at which time the fishery will be scored at least SG80. Client action plan See Appendix 2

Consultation on The team has discussed the CAP with the client and DoF and is satisfied that condition resources have been committed to achieving close out of the condition

Condition 6 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types b. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the Performance fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on Indicator the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. c. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures) Score 65

All habitats in the EGPMF fishery have been mapped for the ecological risk assessment. The impacts of the trawl gear’s interaction with these habitat types were evaluated and none of the habitats were found to be at high risk. Historical research projects have produced a description of the composition and spatial variability of EG habitats. Areas that have been subject to trawling, as well as those that have not have been identified and the time required for the habitat to recover from trawl-related disturbance is known through literature assessment of similar benthic assemblages in the NPF (Haywood, 2010). However, there is only a limited amount of information on changes to benthic habitats such as the Rationale dispersion of sponge beds, though the impact of trawling on these habitats is known to be low, largely because they bycatch avoidance. Further research is proposed (Kangas, 2014).

The distribution of habitat types including vulnerable habitat types is well known but there has been no commitment to continuous collection of habitat data. There is some data (VMS) mapping the interaction of fishing gear with habitats but there is no ongoing mapping of habitat types. The physical impacts of the gear on habitat types have been extensively studied through field experiments and simulation but there is no system in place for continuous monitoring of interactions with benthic assemblages. Provide sufficient data to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and provide reliable information on the spatial Condition extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

Collect sufficient data to detect any increase in risk to habitat. By the first surveillance audit, the fishery client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. Milestones By the second surveillance the fishery client must present evidence that the plan has been implemented. By the third surveillance the fishery client must demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied, at which time the fishery will be scored at least SG80.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 287

Client action plan See Appendix 2

Consultation on The team has discussed the CAP with the client and DoF and is satisfied that condition resources have been committed to achieving close out of the condition

Condition 7 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties.

Performance The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are Indicator involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties c. The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved Score 75

The existing system for consultation includes both statutory and non-statutory opportunities for interested stakeholders to be involved in the management system. Opportunities for stakeholder input are provided through calls for submissions on Fisheries Management Papers (e.g. Future Management of the Metropolitan Recreational Roe’s Abalone Fishery), through SLAs with WAFIC and Recfishwest, and through expert reference groups which are open to stakeholders. To ensure coverage and engagement during the consultation period with stakeholders and the wider community, the Department uses a variety of processes including: Management meetings, Direct consultation in writing; Press releases; newspaper, radio and television interviews; information posted on the Department’s website information; inviting stakeholders to sit on tasked working groups, scientific reviews / workshops, risk assessments and management reviews.

However, the process, or specifically some of the actions taken, does not appear to provide the opportunity for non-fisher stakeholders to participate or engage in relevant meetings. Whilst there may be a clear and transparent process where stakeholders can submit comments ahead of fisheries policy decision making Rationale processes in the regular course of managing the fishery, evidence suggests that important stakeholders have been marginalized from the important decision making areas such as risk assessment, formulation of the harvest strategy and development of the Bycatch Action Plan. The management plan requires only that license holders be consulted in amending the management plan. Non fisher organisations were not invited to key meetings, and from these meetings then offered the opportunity to submit written comments. DPaW and ENGOs would also appear to have been excluded from Tasked working groups, committees and panels. It is therefore not always clear to what extent consultations are 'open to all, or how DoF facilitates active engagement', for example through more widely advertised public consultations beyond the immediate key stakeholders in the fisheries. WWF has raised a concern at the public comment stage of the Western Rock Lobster Recertification process that they remained concerned about the lack of representation of stakeholders concerned with ecosystem impacts. It is therefore not always clear to what extent consultations are 'open to all, or facilitates effective engagement', for example through more widely advertised public consultations beyond the immediate key stakeholders in the fisheries. In terms of effective engagement, the loss of the Management Advisory Committee appears to have been a retrograde step such that not all the key bodies are in a collective forum at the MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 288

same time. This suggests that the engagement process is not effective. Condition Demonstrate that the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. By the first surveillance audit, the fishery client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. Milestones By the second surveillance the fishery client must present evidence that the plan has been implemented. By the third surveillance the fishery client must demonstrate that this condition has been satisfied, at which time the fishery will be scored at least SG80. Client action plan See Appendix 2

Consultation on The team has discussed the CAP with the client and DoF and is satisfied that condition resources have been committed to achieving close out of the condition

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 289

Appendix 2: Client Action Plan – Exmouth Gulf

REVISED ACTION PLAN (FOLLOWING PEER REVIEW) EXMOUTH GULF PRAWN CONDITIONS

Summary of Conditions Condition Audit Condition number/PI 1 Demonstrate that target reference points are consistent with BMSY or a surrogate. 1.1.2 (tiger prawn) The Department of Fisheries will investigate this condition as follows and is already working to this plan.

Compare spawning stock and recruitment survey time series of CPUE to ensure that factors impacting catch rates are 1st understood and accounted for.

Audit Complete data extractions for historical surveys and commercial data from respective databases to develop a combined database for analysis. Complete statistical analyses to further test that target reference points are appropriate, including consideration of uncertainty in the data (i.e. provide confidence intervals). 2 Demonstrate that target reference points are consistent with BMSY or a surrogate. 1.1.2

(western king prawn) The Department of Fisheries will investigate two main areas to address this condition as follows and is already working to this plan.

1. Compare spawning stock and recruitment survey time series of CPUE to ensure that factors impacting catch rates are st understood and accounted for. 1

Audit 2. Examine data series for the current survey sites to see if a subset of these could be representative of a king prawn

spawning area. Depending on the success of this exercise, additional or alternative survey sites may be investigated.

Complete data extractions for historical surveys and commercial data from respective databases to develop a combined database for analysis. Complete statistical analyses to further test that target reference points are appropriate, including consideration of uncertainty in the data (i.e. provide confidence intervals). 3 Provide sufficient data to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 290

Condition Audit Condition number/PI 2.2.3 The full assessment draft report has not identified any increased risk to main bycatch species from existing fishing activities, which are well below historical levels of effort. There has been a detailed experimental study of the impacts on biodiversity of trawling in Exmouth Gulf (Kangas et al. 2007). This study found no significant difference between trawled and untrawled sites with respect to fish and invertebrate abundance, species richness, evenness or diversity.

The Department of Fisheries and the Client will upgrade current programs through implementation of an experimental design to collect bycatch data at temporal and spatial scales sufficient to represent the main finfish and invertebrate assemblages identified in the earlier biodiversity study. The aim of the data collection is to ascertain if there has been any change in 1st composition and catch of the main (indicator) species compared to that previously determined in the earlier study. Bycatch

Audit sampling will, at least initially, be conducted by upgrading existing fishery-independent surveys that are carried out every year (and have Departmental staff on board), on 2-3 occasions per year over two years to generate a dataset for comparison against the historical results. This sampling work will be undertaken on commercial (Client) trawl vessels with Departmental staff on board, through an ongoing agreement between the Department and the Client, both of whom are integral part of the action plan. The samples will be processed in Perth, and the quantities of bycatch determined annually with the ongoing full re-assessment of risk status to occur every three years if the risks remain low; if risk increases above low the re-assessment will occur more frequently.

Complete first year of data collection for indicator bycatch species. Complete second year of data collection for indicator bycatch species. Undertake preliminary checks of data to determine if nd they are in fact suitable to address potential changes in risk levels. If data looks to be insufficient then plan to collect another 2 year of data and review the program. The intention would then be to continue this periodic re-assessment of risk to the Audit indicator bycatch species in an ongoing manner (e.g. at three yearly intervals or more regularly if the risk level rises).

Assess catch data for bycatch species against the (i) more intensive, historical biodiversity study and (ii) changes in fleet behaviour over the past ~10 years to determine if risk levels have changed. If there is sufficient uncertainty regarding increased risk, then an ERA will be conducted; this would include consideration of the following.

3rd Complete arrangements to maintain ongoing collection of bycatch data at a level sufficient to detect any increased risk to the /Final main bycatch species. If the fishery-independent surveys (i.e. those with Departmental staff) to collect bycatch (non-retained) Audit species composition data 2-3 times per year is insufficient to maintain an acceptable understanding of risk to the main bycatch species the sample size will need to be increased; this may entail investigation of a crew-member observer program (CMOP) as an ongoing sample collection system. Crew-member training in sample collection will be undertaken during this initial period of re-assessment.

Final

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 291

Condition Audit Condition number/PI Audit Demonstrate that direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species, with emphasis on sea snakes [Note that DoF and the Clients interpreted this Condition as “Demonstrate that direct effects are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species with an emphasis on sea snakes.” Improved species identification and quantification of 4 sea snakes (and sawfish) underpins successful completion of this Condition, combined with accessing appropriate expertise

2.3.1 including via the literature. This condition is connected to successful completion of Condition 6a (Provide sufficient information to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species) and Condition 6b (Provide relevant information sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, especially sea snakes and sawfish). The Department will review current programs to upgrade education for industry (Client) to increase awareness of the importance of sea snake and sawfish protection, to promote sensible handling techniques and improve species identification through training in sea snake identification to the species level. Training will be undertaken to address options for determining the species of snake and sawfish caught and crew safety.

The Department will also improve its ability in species identification utilizing external expertise. This will include identifying (i) the current methods used to deal with sea snakes (and sawfish) and (ii) relevant methods/tools, reference material and availability of expertise. Preliminary work on testing of photography as a tool to assist with species identification has already been implemented as part of the Bycatch Action Plan (DoF, November 2014).

The focus on sea snakes and sawfish is part of a broader commitment by the Department and the Client to develop protocols to improve consistency of reporting for all ETP species interactions in the fishery including: st (a) species-level identification training for skippers / crew; 1 (b) independent monitoring to validate crew reporting (e.g. program using cameras or observers); Audit (c) Engagement with external stakeholders and experts to provide estimates of ETP species' population sizes within Exmouth Gulf; and (d) providing interactions with ETP species to the Department of Parks and Wildlife and the Commonwealth Department of the Environment to assist with evaluation of whether impacts to ETPs species’ populations are unacceptable.

The Client is also committed to further developing and testing the effectiveness of BRDs in reducing ETP interactions in the fishery.

Note that pursuing a crew-member observer program (CMOP) as an ongoing data collection system links to the above (Condition 3), and requires investigation that will occur over the first 2-3 years. As with the bycatch estimation, the Department of Fisheries will provide expertise to help establish an ongoing system of data collection for ETP species interactions. These data will assist in ascertaining whether trawl fishing in the Exmouth Gulf is having a significant impact on sea snake and sawfish populations (Linked to Condition 6).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 292

Condition Audit Condition number/PI Trial options for improved data collection required to underpin assessment of fishing impacts (in conjunction with the fishery 2nd independent surveys (i.e. with Departmental staff)). Document outcomes of the trial and scope methods to implement

Audit ongoing quantification and identification of sea snake and sawfish interactions. Supplement with further fishery-independent data collection as required. Analyse all data and assess against most up to date information available for ETP species of concern, in particular for sea 3rd snakes and sawfish, to determine if the fishery is having a significant impact on ETP species’ populations. The Department

Audit will engage with other relevant agencies and stakeholders to discuss findings, including conducting an ERA (in conjunction with Condition 6) on sea snakes and sawfish. Final

Audit (a) Provide sufficient information to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species.

5 (b) Provide relevant information sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and

2.3.3 recovery of the ETP species, especially sea snakes and sawfish [This Condition overlaps with Condition 5, and shares lack of clarity over how “unacceptable impacts” and “threat” and “recovery” are to be interpreted and or addressed. For example, “recovery” implies that there has been a significant reduction in ETP species abundance. The action plan is focused on generating quantitative information on the impact on ETP species, enabling an assessment whether the fishery is a threat to protection or recovery of ETP species. See year 1 for Condition 5 (e.g. The Department and the Client will review current programs to upgrade education and data collection to improve the quantification of species of snakes and sawfish caught. This will include identifying (i) the current methods used to deal with sea snakes and sawfish and (ii) relevant methods/tools, reference material and expertise. st 1 The intention is to begin this work during existing fishery-independent surveys (which have Departmental staff on board) with Audit the aim to (i) upgrade the collection of data on all ETP species encountered by trawl fishing and (ii) develop techniques that could be used to establish improved on-board data collection by industry (i.e. crew-member observer program (CMOP) and/or video systems). Preliminary use of photographs has shown this method could work for identifying sawfish and sea snakes to the species level. See year 2 for Condition 5. Complete second year of data collection. The Department will document outcomes of the data nd collection from the first year and in consultation with the Client will scope methods to implement ongoing quantification and 2 identification of ETP species interactions. Annual updates on interactions with ETP species will be provided to the Audit Department of Parks and Wildlife, the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and other stakeholders such as the WA Conservation Council and the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee. rd Analyse data and assess against most up to date information available for ETP species of concern, in particular for sea 3 snakes and sawfish, to determine if the fishery is having a significant impact on ETP species’ populations. The Department Audit will engage with other relevant agencies and stakeholders to discuss findings, including conducting an ERA (in conjunction MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 293

Condition Audit Condition number/PI with Condition 5) on sea snakes and sawfish. Final

Audit Provide sufficient data to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and provide 6 reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear

2.4.3 Collect sufficient data to detect any increase in risk to habitat The full assessment draft report has not identified any increased risk to habitat from existing fishing activities, which are well below historical levels of trawl effort. Previous biodiversity studies have shown that there was no significant impact of trawling on the fish and invertebrate communities of Exmouth Gulf, which indicates that there would unlikely to be any long term damage to the benthic habitats on that these communities occupy. DoF will assign appropriate staff to review the issues and develop a plan in consultation with the client. Implementation will get picked up in surveillance.

1st Although management measures are in place to restrict the extent of trawling on benthic habitats, periodic checks on habitat

Audit distribution will contribute to ongoing risk assessments. The Department and Client will develop methods to cost effectively monitor key habitat types in Exmouth Gulf into the future. In addition, existing habitat data for Exmouth Gulf will be sourced so as to redraw maps using a contemporary software platform that permits overlay of the trawl-location data which is collated annually. Analysis of the spatial extent of key habitats and monitoring the extent of trawling will permit an examination of risk levels posed by interaction of fishing gear with benthic habitats. The results of the first year of trial-sampling will be completed by the first audit.

The Department and the Client will utilize the assessment of habitat data to develop cost-effective methods for remote 2nd sampling of habitat throughout Exmouth Gulf to obtain an updated habitat map. If remote sampling methods appear a feasible

Audit option, then sampling could be conducted for ground-truthing; in the first ground-truth sampling year this would aim at wide coverage. Complete the review of second year of ground-truthing with thee provision of more detailed level in specified habitat areas as 3rd identified from analysis of the broader-scale ground-truthing. This will allow completion of a validated benthic habitat map Audit against which to examine the extent of trawling. In turn, this will provide the basis for assessing the risk level for key habitats. Final

Audit 7 Demonstrate that the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved

3.1.2 st The Department and Client will extend stakeholder participation to provide greater opportunities for interested and affected 1 parties to provide input into management arrangements for the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery. The Fishery is likely to Audit be fast tracked under new management arrangements contemplated in the Aquatic Resources Management Bill 2015 (WA)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 294

Condition Audit Condition number/PI introduced into parliament in February 2015. These will provide for a stronger base for consultation.

In the interim, new processes to be developed will be two regular forums with key stakeholders:

1. Invitation to annual briefings and discussion with governing bodies of the State Marine Park and World Heritage areas that neighbour and overlap with the Exmouth Gulf Prawn fishery’s operations, the Department of Parks and Wildlife and the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee. Briefings may include presentations from the Department of Fisheries in relation to research, management and compliance matters, and may also include representations from industry (WAFIC and/or the Client) and will provide opportunity for two way communication and information sharing.

2. Invitation to annual briefings between the Department of Fisheries and the Shire of Exmouth and other community interest groups. Briefings may also include representations from industry (WAFIC and/or the Client) and will provide opportunity for two way communication and information sharing.

Further to this, the Department will seek to broaden stakeholder participation through providing opportunities for comment and feedback on key fisheries policy matters and initiatives. This may include direct consultation with relevant stakeholders and/or notification of public comment opportunities through the Department’s website. 2nd The Department and Client to provide evidence that consultation arrangements have been reviewed and new processes

Audit implemented to broaden stakeholder consultation. 3rd

Audit Final

Audit

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 295

Appendix 3 Report Support Documents

Appendix 3.1: Productivity Sensitivity Analysis (DoF)

Table 1: Productivity and Susceptibility attributes and associated explanations of species/categories included in PSA. Productivity Susceptibility

Species/Group Comments overlap) Selectivity Post-capture mortality Average age at maturity at age maturity Average age max Average Fecundity size max Average Average size at maturity strategy Reproductive spawner - broadcast (BS layer egg - demersal DEL bearer) live - LB level Trophic (Areal Availability overlap) (Vertical Encounterability >10000 ~6 cm ~2.5 ~27 % Western king prawns ~0.5 y 1-2 y BS 3 High High Retained 0 CL cm CL A ~5.5 ~3 cm ~27 % Brown tiger prawns ~0.5 y 1-2 y >96000 BS 3 A High High Retained cm CL CL >10000 ~2.5 ~4 cm ~27 % Banana prawns ~0.5 y 1-2 y BS 3 A High High Retained 0 cm CL CL >20000 ~3 cm ~1 cm ~27 % * Metapenaeopsis spp and Metapenaeus spp. Coral prawns ~0.5 y* 1-2 y* BS 3 High High Retained * CL CL A Based on information for other prawn species 4.7 cm ~2.6 ~27 % Endeavour prawns ~0.5 y 1-2 y 296000 BS 3 A High High Retained CL cm CL 25 cm 9 cm ~27 % Blue swimmer crab 0.5-1 y 3-4 y >68000 BS 3 A High High Retained CL CL 9.5 cm <40 cm ~27 % Bugs 3 y 4-8 y 32230 BS 3 High High Retained *Based on max size being 9.5 cm CL CL CL* A Includes cuttlefish, octopus and squid. As the ~20- Typicall Typicall ~27 % Mediu fecundity of cephalopods can vary widely, it Cephalopods 0.5-1 y < 2 y 100000 y <100 y 15-25 DEL 4 A High Retained m was assigned a precautionary score based on s cm cm ML the lower value of the range. A For all by product species, a precautionary approach has been adopted assuming that the stock of each species in Exmouth Gulf is functionally independent of other stocks. Thus the percentage overlap of the fishery with the stock is calculated as the average percentage of the fishery area trawled over the past five years.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 296

Productivity Susceptibility

Species/Group Comments Average age at maturity at age maturity Average age max Average Fecundity size max Average maturity at size Average strategy Reproductive spawner (BS - broadcast layer egg DEL - demersal LB bearer) - live level Trophic (Areal Availability overlap) (Vertical Encounterability overlap) Selectivity mortality Post-capture

Biology poorly known, biology assumed to be similar Released BS Low High High to blue-swimmer crab. Wide-distribution outside Other portunid crabs alive fishery. Majority Biology poorly known, but assumed to be fast- Asymmetrical goatfish 30 BS 3.5 Low High High released maturing, short-lived and fecund. Maturity inferred to dead be <40cm. Wide distribution outside fishery. Hair-finned Majority Biology poorly known, but assumed to be fast- 11 BS 3.1 Low High High released maturing, short-lived and fecund. Maturity inferred to leatherjacket dead be <40cm. Wide distribution outside fishery. Majority Biology poorly known, but assumed to be fast- Trumpeter 30 DEL 3.5 Low High High released maturing, short-lived and fecund. Maturity inferred to dead be <40cm. Wide distribution outside fishery. Biology poorly known, but assumed to be fast- Majority maturing, short-lived and fecund. Maximum size not 3.2 Low High High released Scorpionfish >100cm, and maturity inferred to be <40cm. Wide dead distribution outside fishery. Majority Biology poorly known, but assumed to be fast- Gross’ stinkfish 20 BS 3.3 Low High High released maturing, short-lived and fecund. Maturity inferred to dead be <40cm. Wide distribution outside fishery. Majority Biology poorly known, but assumed to be fast- Rusty flathead 35 BS 3.7 Low High High released maturing, short-lived and fecund. Maturity inferred to dead be <40cm. Wide distribution outside fishery. Majority Biology poorly known, but assumed to be fast- Zig-zag ponyfish 11.2 BS 3.2 Low High High released maturing, short-lived and fecund. Maturity inferred to dead be <40cm. Wide distribution outside fishery. Majority Biology poorly known, but assumed to be fast- Blotched javelinfish 30 BS 4 Low High High released maturing, short-lived and fecund. Maturity inferred to dead be <40cm. Wide distribution outside fishery.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 297

Productivity Susceptibility

1 off- Excluded Majority Common in inshore/coastal waters along Australia; 10-15 spring 40 years 2.3 m 2 m LB > 3 Low Low from nets released biological traits based on T. aduncus no interactions Dolphins, general years every 3 via grids alive reported in the EGPMF in last 10 years years 500 eggs per season, WA population estimated to be 20000 individuals; but only Juveniles occur throughout EG, but adults primarily breed Majority Excluded found in seagrass/algae areas where they forage; every 1 30 – 40 (> 95 %) 25 years 40 years 1 m CCL DEL 2 Low Medium from nets EG is key nesting and interesting area for green Green turtle – 9 cm CCL released via grids turtles (at Muiron Islands); 10 ‘general turtle’ years alive interactions reported in EGPMF in 2013, with 5 (i.e. ‘green turtle’ interactions reported in 2012 < 100 eggs per year) 500 eggs per season, WA population separate from East Coast population; but Adults primarily found in coral and rocky reefs, females Majority seagrass beds and muddy bays where they forage; Excluded > 25 do not 70 cm (> 95 %) major nesting and interesting area (150-350 females 25 years 1 m CCL DEL > 3 Low Medium from nets Loggerhead turtle years breed CCl released annually) around Muiron Islands and North West via grids each alive Cape (50 -150 females annually); 10 ‘general turtle’ year (i.e. interactions reported in EGPMF in 2013 (all released < 100 alive); eggs per year) 150 Found throughout tropical waters of N. Australia and eggs per PNG, although nesting is confined to Australia; Major ? ? season, Majority nesting areas in WA at Barrow Island and (precauti (precauti Excluded > 25 but (> 95 %) Mundabullangana Station near Cape Thouin; Stay in onary 1 m CCL onary DEL > 3 Low Medium from nets Flatback turtle years females released continental shelf waters after hatching, with adults score of score of via grids do not alive likely to feed in turbid, shallow water (10 – 40 m 3) 3) breed depths); 10 ‘general turtle’ interactions reported in each EGPMF in 2013 (all released alive); MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 298

Productivity Susceptibility

year (i.e. < 100 eggs per year) 500 eggs per season, WA population separate from East Coast population; but fond in tropical tidal and subtidal coral and rocky reef ? ? females Majority habitat; feed on sponges, algae, fish, molluscs, etc.; (precauti (precauti Excluded > 25 do not 80 cm (> 95 %) Major nesting area at Varanus Is. And Rosemary Is. onary onary DEL > 3 Low Medium from nets Hawksbill turtle years breed CCL released (around 3000 nest in WA annually); Cape Preston to score of score of via grids each alive Onslow also important feeding grounds; 10 ‘general 3) 3) year (i.e. turtle’ interactions reported in EGPMF in 2013 (all < 100 released alive); eggs per year) Interactions with Sawfish only reported since 2010 in EGPMF: 3 in 2012, 23 in 2011 and 7 in 2010 (no species level ID available; for comparison, the NPF had 310 interactions in 2010); likely to be dead when released, as many are removed from net by cutting rostrum; however, survival may be increased if kept in water and detangled from net, but this is dangerous for fishers. ? Majority

? (likely < 100 (precauti likely to Approx. Lack of biological data on Pristis species, but likely to > 25 offspring 6 m onary LB 4 Medium High High be dead Green Sawfish 9 years? be long-lived, produce few pups and mature late in years) per year score of when life (Stevens et al. 2005; Walker 1998). 3) released

Green sawfish found around N. Australia, with local EG population size unknown (collective evidence of decline in Pristis spp. in Australian waters over last 15 – 20 years); Green sawfish found in muddy bottom habitats in shallow to deep offshore waters (1 – 70 m depths)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 299

Productivity Susceptibility

As above (Pristis spp. general) Majority

1-12 likely to > 40 Juvenile and sub-adult freshwater sawfish found in 7 years pups per 7 m 3 m LB 4 Medium High High be dead Freshwater sawfish years rivers and estuaries, but large adults occur in coastal year when and offshore waters up to 25 m depth; found in soft released muddy bottom habitats As above (Pristis spp. general)

Majority Australian population of dwarf sawfish likely to < 100 100 -300 likely to > 40 comprise majority of global population; Dwarf sawfish 9 years offspring cm (PSA 3 m LB 4 Medium High High be dead Dwarf Sawfish years are found in shallow (2-3 m) coastal and estuarine per year score 2) when habitats as juveniles, with some inshore movement released as adults; prefer silt/sand habitat with high turbidity

Released Most sea snakes considered abundant or common Small alive; use SB and are found throughout N. Aus.; Sea snakes broods Likely of may be damaged if caught in mesh, but generally in Sea snakes with high 2 years 10 years 1 - 2 m 40 – 200 LB > 3 Low Medium High hoppers good condition inside of net; Trawl duration within mortality (Hydrophiinae) cm may breath-holding capabilities for most species (i.e. < 2 (< 100 increase hours); majority reported as returned alive (351 of the per year) survival 363 individuals reported in 2013) Released Small alive; use ? (as ? (as broods Endemic to North West WA; occupies reef flats or Likely 40 of Short-nosed sea above above with high 60 cm shallow water along outer reef edge in up to 10 m – 200 LB > 3 Low Medium High hoppers used as used as mortality length depths; reported in SB during biodiversity sampling snake cm may proxy) proxy) (< 100 (Kangas et al. 2007) increase per year) survival Relatively low population densities, with strong Small habitat association (generally found around edges of brood Majority seagrass beds and macroalgae-dominated reefs); Syngnathids < 5 < 5 size (< ~ 20 – ~ 10 cm LB > 3 Low Medium High released low natural rates of mortality; very few reported in years years 100 30 cm (Hippocampus spp.) alive SBPMF(< 10 every few years), but likely to be under- offspring reported since difficult to see and count within trawl per year) catch

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 300

Productivity Susceptibility

Trawl speed very low (3-4 knots), allows for Boat strikes: Air- Likely to avoidance of large megafauna; no boat strikes breathing megafauna survive reported in recent years Scored as high productivity across all categories as per most precautionary species Low Low Low due to (Cetaceans, dugongs, low trawl This includes humpback whales as EG and SB used marine turtles) speed as resting areas during southern migration period (Sept- Oct)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 301

Table 2: Results of PSA for EGPMF

Productivity Susceptibility PSA Score MSC Score

Species/Group Average age at age Average maturity age max Average Fecundity size max Average at size Average maturity strategy Reproductive level Trophic Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity mortality Post-capture Susceptibility Total

Western king prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 2 3 3 3 2.33 2.59 81.6

Brown tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 2 3 3 3 2.33 2.59 81.6

Banana prawns (Penaeus merguiensis) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 2 3 3 3 2.33 2.59 81.6 Coral prawns (Metapenaeus spp., 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 2 3 3 3 2.33 2.59 81.6 Metapenaeopsis spp.) Endeavour prawns (Metapenaeus endeavouri) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 2 3 3 3 2.33 2.59 81.6

Blue swimmer crab (Portunus armatus) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 2 3 3 3 2.33 2.59 81.6

Bugs (Thenus orientalis) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 2 3 3 3 2.33 2.59 81.6

Cephalopods (cuttlefish, squid, octopus) 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 1.71 2 2 3 3 1.88 2.54 83.0

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 302

Productivity Susceptibility

Other portunid crabs (Portunus tenuipes and P. rubromarginatus) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 1 3 3 2 1.43 1.83 97.3 Asymmetrical goatfish (Upeneus asymmetricus) 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 93.4 Hair-finned leatherjacket (Paramonacanthus choirocephalus) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.01 94.8 Trumpeter (Pelates quadrilineatus) 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 91.7 Scorpionfish (Paracentropogon vespa) 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 93.4 Gross’ stinkfish (Callionymus grossi) 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 93.4

Rusty flathead (Inegocia japonica) 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 93.4 Zig-zag ponyfish (Equulites moretoniensis) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.01 94.8 Blotched javelinfish (Pomadasys maculatus) 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 93.4

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 303

Productivity Susceptibility

Species/Group Average age at maturity Averageage max Fecundity Averagesize max at size Average maturity Reproductive strategy level Trophic Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Susceptibility Total Score PSA Score MSC Dolphins, general (Family Delphinidae)

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.86 1 1 1 2 1.03 3.04 66.0 Green turtle (Chelonia mydas)

3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2.86 1 2 1 1 1.03 3.04 66.0 Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 1 2 1 1 1.03 3.17 60.3 Flatback turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate)

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 1 2 1 1 1.03 3.17 60.3 Hawksbill turtle (Natator depressus)

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 1 2 1 1 1.03 3.17 60.3 Sawfish (green, freshwater, dwarf) (Pristis spp.) 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.86 2 3 3 3 2.33 3.68 34.8 Short-nosed sea snake (Aipysurus apraefrontalis)

2 2 3 1 2 3 3 2.29 1 2 3 2 1.28 2.62 80.8 Sea snakes, general (Subfamily Hydrophiinae)

2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2.43 1 2 3 2 1.28 2.74 76.8 Sygnathids, general (Hippocampus spp.)

1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1.86 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.34 88.3 Air-breathing megafauna (Cetaceans, Dugongs and Marine Turtles) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 1 1 1 2 1.03 3.17 60.3

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 304

Appendix 3.2: Exmouth Gulf Fishery Harvest Strategy

EGPMF Harvest Strategy Table 1. Summary of the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Harvest Strategy. Note that the ecological objectives are separated into (i) stocks of target species, (ii) stocks of retained non-target species, (iii) bycatch, (iv) endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species, (v) habitat and (vi) ecosystem. Note the reference levels essentially prescribe the operational objective which is to maintain each resource above the threshold level. * indicates decisions made prior to season opening and provided to fishers as part of annual season arrangements.

Management Component Species Performance Indicators Reference Levels Control Rules Objectives In-season Operations Target Ecological: Brown tiger April lunar phase After April full moon phase Fishing season opens; however, fishing may Species & western only occur in areas where March and/or April To maintain king prawns recruitment surveys are not undertaken until all spawning stock recruitment surveys are completed (see

biomass of each Season

Opening* Opening* ‘Commencement of Fishing in Management target species at Areas’ below). a level where the main factor affecting Brown tiger Catch rate of brown tiger Target: Mean catch rate is ≥ 40 If the target level is met, fishing may commence recruitment is prawns prawns from combined kg/hr. in the Central TPSA and Eastern Area. the environment. recruitment surveys Threshold: Mean catch rate is < Review options for fishing and consult with 40 and > 10 kg/hr. industry regarding the timing and spatial extent of fishing operations (also influenced by prawn size).

Eastern Area Area Eastern Limit: Mean catch rate is If the catch rate is at or below the limit, no in Central TPSA and TPSAin Central 10 kg/hr. fishing occurs in the Central TPSA and Eastern Commencement of Fishing of Fishing Commencement Area.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 305

Management Component Species Performance Indicators Reference Levels Control Rules Objectives

Western 1. Size of western king Target: 50% of western king If the target level is met, fishing can commence king prawns prawns in April prawns are larger than 21/30 in the Northern Area. recruitment survey grade116 AND mean catch rate

2. Catch rate of western is ≥ 30 kg/hr. Review options for delaying fishing or king prawns from modifying the spatial extent of fishing April recruitment Threshold: Mean catch rate is < operations within the northern area. survey 30 and > 15 kg/hr.

Northern Area Area Northern If the catch rate is at or below the limit, no Limit: Mean catch rate of western fishing occurs in the Northern Area unless king prawns is 15 kg/hr. additional surveys indicate that catch rates have Commencement of Fishing in in Fishing of Commencement improved.

Brown tiger & Commercial catch rate of Mean commercial catch rate is Central TPSA and Eastern Area are closed to ust

western king g brown tiger prawns in the ≤ 25 kg/hr for two consecutive fishing prior to the August spawning closure. prawns Central TPSA nights.

rior to Au

Closure of Central of Central Closure TPSA and Eastern Area

August lunar phase Start of August moon closure. Central TPSA and Eastern Area are closed to fishing.

and Eastern Central TPSA Area Closure*

116 Count per pound – historical standard for size grading. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 306

Management Component Species Performance Indicators Reference Levels Control Rules Objectives

Catch rate of brown tiger Mean catch rate is > 25 kg/hr. The Central TPSA and Eastern Area may re- prawns in the Central open to fishing.

) TPSA during first two spawning stock surveys in Mean catch rate is ≤ 25 kg/hr. The Central TPSA and Eastern Area do not re- August and September open at this time (re-assess opening after

closure October survey). g

Catch rate of brown tiger Mean catch rate is > 19 kg/hr. Re-open the Central TPSA and Eastern Area on

awnin prawns in the Central 1 November if catch rate is >19 kg/hr subject to p s TPSA during October consultation. If catch rate >25 kg/hr then spawning stock survey Central TPSA and Eastern Area may re-open to and Eastern Area (following (following Area Eastern and Re-opening of Central TPSA Re-openingof Central fishing at an earlier date.

Daily commercial catch (Prior to 1 November) Mean daily The Central TPSA and Eastern Area are closed rate of brown tiger prawns commercial catch rate of brown to fishing. in the Central TPSA and tiger prawns (in Eastern Area in September September/October) is < 25 kg/hr. and October, or in November (1 November onwards) Mean The Central TPSA and Eastern Area are closed

Eastern Area daily commercial catch rate of to fishing. Final closure of closure Final

Centraland TPSA brown tiger prawns (in November) is < 19 kg/hr.

Western Size of western king 50% or more of western king The Northern Area is closed to fishing. king prawns prawns in commercial prawns are 21/30 size grade or

catches from Northern smaller. Area from October

Closure of of Closure onwards Northern Area Northern

Brown tiger Number of total available Season has been open for a Fishing season closes. & western fishing nights since the maximum of ~ 200 fishing nights king prawns season opening date depending on seasonal Season Season

Closure* arrangements and survey results for any one year. Annual Operations

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 307

Management Component Species Performance Indicators Reference Levels Control Rules Objectives Target Ecological: Brown tiger Catch rate of brown tiger prawns Target: Mean catch rate of brown If the target level is met, no change to season Species prawns from spawning stock surveys tiger prawns ≥ 25 kg/hr. management arrangements required for the To maintain following season. spawning stock biomass of each Threshold: Mean catch rate of A review of season management arrangements target species at brown tiger prawns is < 25 and and monitoring system is triggered to a level where the > 10 kg/hr. investigate the reasons for the variation, which main factor may trigger changes to the arrangements for the affecting following season if sustainability is considered recruitment is to be at risk. the environment. Limit: Mean catch rate of brown tiger prawns is 10 kg/hr. If the catch rate is at or below the limit, a comprehensive review of the fleet’s spatial fishing pattern and catch rates is undertaken to investigate the reasons for the low catch rate in the monitored spawning areas. This will either trigger management actions to limit fishing on that species for the following season if sustainability is considered to be at risk or a change to the monitoring system if it is considered to be inaccurate. Western Commercial catch rate of western Target: Mean commercial catch If the target level is met, no change to season king prawns king prawns in fishing grounds R1 rate of western king prawns is management arrangements required for the and S2 during August and ≥ 25 kg/hr. following season. September.

A review of season management arrangements Threshold: Mean commercial and monitoring system is triggered to catch rate of western king prawns investigate the reasons for the variation, which is < 25 and > 15 kg/hr. may trigger changes to management for the following season if sustainability is considered to be at risk.

Limit: Mean commercial catch If the catch rate is at or below the limit, a rate of western king prawns is comprehensive review of the fleet’s spatial 15 kg/hr. fishing pattern and catch rates are undertaken to

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 308

Management Component Species Performance Indicators Reference Levels Control Rules Objectives investigate the reasons for the low catch rates.

This will either trigger management actions to limit fishing on that species for the following season if sustainability is considered to be at risk or a change to the monitoring system if it is considered to be inaccurate. Retained Ecological: Minor prawn Annual retained catch of each Target: The annual catch of each If the target level is met, no changes to non- species (i.e. species species is within an acceptable management arrangements required. To maintain target banana, catch range: spawning stock species coral and Banana prawns: 0 – 60 t (rainfall- biomass of each endeavour dependent species) retained species prawns) Endeavour prawns: 120 – 300 t at a level where Coral prawns: 20 – 100 t the main factor

affecting Threshold: The annual catch of A review is triggered to investigate the reasons recruitment is any species is above the for the variation, which may trigger changes to the environment. acceptable catch range for two management arrangements for the following consecutive years. season if sustainability is considered to be at risk.

Limit: The annual catch of any Management strategies to further protect the species is above the acceptable breeding stock will be investigated and may be catch range for three consecutive initiated. years, with no non-stock related reason identified for this variation as part of the threshold review. All other Annual retained catch of each Target: The annual catch of each If the target level is met, no changes to retained species species is: management arrangements required. non-target Bugs: ≤ 15 t species Blue swimmer crabs: ≤ 40 t Cuttlefish: ≤ 25 t Octopus: ≤ 5 t Squid: ≤ 80 t

Threshold: The annual catch of A review is triggered to investigate the reasons

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 309

Management Component Species Performance Indicators Reference Levels Control Rules Objectives any species is > 25 % above the for the variation, which may trigger additional target level for three consecutive assessment of the risks to sustainability. years. An assessment of the risks to the relevant Limit: The annual catch of any species will be undertaken, which may trigger species is > 50% above the target additional management actions for the following level for two consecutive years. season if sustainability is considered to be at risk. Bycatch Ecological: All bycatch 1. Periodic Risk Assessments Target: Extent of trawling If target level is met, no management action (non-ETP species remains < 50% of the permitted required. To ensure 2. Annual management species) trawl area; fishery impacts arrangements in place

do not result in BRD use remains at 100%; and 3. Extent of area trawled annually serious or Fishery impacts expected to irreversible harm 4. Extent of use and type of BRDs generate an acceptable risk level to bycatch used (i.e. moderate risk or lower). species (To be updated as more data populations. becomes available following Threshold: A potentially material A review of the risk levels is completed. activities outlined in the EGPMF change to risk levels is identified; Bycatch Action Plan) or

Extent of trawling exceeds 50% of the permitted trawl area.

Limit: Fishery impacts are now Appropriate management strategies to reduce considered to be at an the risk will be investigated and may be unacceptable risk level (i.e. high initiated. risk or above). ETP Ecological: All ETP 1. Periodic Risk Assessments Target: Extent of trawling If target level is met, no management action Species species remains < 50% of the permitted required. To ensure 2. Annual amount of interactions trawl area; fishery impacts and return status from daily

do not result in logbooks BRD use remains at 100%; and

serious or 3. Annual management Fishery impacts expected to irreversible harm arrangements in place generate an acceptable risk level to ETP species (i.e. moderate risk or lower). populations. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 310

Management Component Species Performance Indicators Reference Levels Control Rules Objectives 4. Extent of area trawled annually

5. Extent of use and type of BRDs Threshold: A potentially material A review of the risk levels is completed. used change to risk levels is identified; (To be updated as more data or becomes available following Extent of trawling exceeds 50% of activities outlines in the EGPMF the permitted trawl area. Bycatch Action Plan)

Limit: Fishery impacts are now at Appropriate management strategies to reduce an unacceptable risk level (i.e. the risk will be investigated and may be high risk or above). initiated. Habitat Ecological: All habitats 1. Extent of area trawled annually Target: The total area trawled is If target level is met, no management action within < 50% of the permitted trawl area. required. To ensure the 2. Periodic Risk Assessments Exmouth effects of fishing Gulf 3. Annual management Threshold: The total area trawled A review is triggered to investigate the reasons do not result in arrangements in place is > 60% of the permitted trawl for the variation and any appropriate serious or area; or management actions. irreversible harm

to habitat There is an increase in the level of

structure and risk to sensitive habitat types from

function. fishery activities.

Appropriate management strategies to reduce Limit: The total area trawled is the area trawled or the risk level will be 70% of the entire fishery area; or investigated and may be initiated. Fishery impacts on sensitive

habitat types are now at an unacceptable risk level (i.e. high risk or above). Ecosystem Ecological: All species 1. Periodic Risk Assessments Target: Fishery impacts on No management action required. and habitats components (target species, To ensure the 2. Annual management within bycatch species, ETP species and effects of fishing arrangements in place Exmouth habitats) are all maintained at do not result in Gulf 3. Extent of area trawled annually acceptable levels serious or

irreversible harm 4. Annual catch of all retained Threshold: More than one A review of the risk levels is completed. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 311

Management Component Species Performance Indicators Reference Levels Control Rules Objectives to ecosystem species component is not at an acceptable processes. state due to fishing impacts (To be updated as more data become

available following activities Limit: Most of the components Appropriate management strategies to reduce outlined in the EGPMF Bycatch are at unacceptable levels due to the risk will be investigated and may be Action Plan) fishing, and the ecosystem now initiated. has an unacceptable risk level (i.e. high risk or above) Target and Economic: All retained Industry submissions to the Target: No impediments to No management action required. non-target species Department industry optimising efficiency To provide retained identified and raised. industry the species opportunity to Threshold: Impediments to Consider proposals from industry to improve optimise the industry optimising efficiency their economic efficiency that do not adversely economic identified and raised. affect meeting the sustainability objectives. returns

generated by the EGPMF within a sustainable fishery framework.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 312

Appendix 3.3: Ranked Risk Assessment for Multiple Fisheries (RRAMF) Methodology (After Evans, R. and Molony, B. W. 2010)

Evans and Molony (2010) designed a risk assessment to investigate the cumulative risk to bycatch including ETPs, from multiple fisheries at a Bioregional level in WA, including Gascoyne Coast bioregion and thus the SBPMF (Ranked Risk Assessment for Multiple Fisheries - RRAMF) The RRAMF is designed to overcome the differences in fisheries data collection methods that include use of a variety of measures, and variable observer coverage ranging from <1% to 20% of the actual fishery catch in West Australian fisheries. The RRAMF was done as two independent assessments, one for teleosts and elasmobranchs (T & E) and one for threatened, endangered and protected species (TEPS). Out of ETP species, sharks and syngnathids were analysed within T & E assessment at species level and syngnathids were included in TEPS assessment as a group.

Data collection for RRAMF used DoF databases, University libraries, personal contact and the Internet. However, bycatch data for Western Australian State fisheries were only found within DoF databases and reports. However, much of these data are from relatively old studies and many changes in gear and/or fishing effort, have occurred in the fisheries since then. The Shark Bay Prawn Fishery data was collected without Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs) such as Turtle Exclusion Devices (TEDs, now described as Grids) as they allow large marine animals to escape from the net, in combination with fish escape devices (FEDs) such as square mesh panels. Grids and FEDs are mandatory in the SBPMF now, so the bycatch data in this study does not reflect the commercial bycatch of the contemporary trawl fishery in Shark Bay.

T & E RRAMF

Teleosts and Elasmobranchs (T & E) were the focus of this study due to the limited data available on invertebrates. The risk assessment developed here was a three-step process. Firstly, four initial variables were used to reduce the number of species to a manageable list. For the Gascoyne Coast Bioregion (GCB) the list was reduced from 412 to 122. The second stage involved assignment of the biological and fishery impact parameters to the sub-set of species and the weighting of these parameters. The overall risk assessment was calculated using the formula described below. The third step was an arbitrary notation for each of the species based on the latest scientific and fisheries knowledge of that species. This list focused on only the top twenty ranked species for each Bioregion. This notation provides advice on a species risk assessment relative to other species.

To allow an estimate of bycatch across the Bioregions to be determined, a ranking of relative abundance was used for the existing data, which also allows the development of the risk assessment process. For each of the datasets the relative abundance of each species in the bycatch was ranked from 1 – 5. Those species that were rare in the bycatch were given a rank of 1 and those that were highly abundant were given a rank of 5. To be possible to compare the risks, the fisheries had to be weighted according to their comparative catch abundance. Scaled-up estimates demonstrated the relative impact of fisheries on the bycatch and were used for weighting fisheries. That is, the weighting was based on the orders of magnitude differences between the scaled-up data for the fisheries. For example when the Shark Bay Prawn Trawl data was scaled-up from the bycatch study in 2002/03 to the whole fishery based on present effort, the most abundant species that was caught numbered in the tens of

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 313

millions so this fishery received a weighting of 5. The rest of the fisheries were weighted based on the order of magnitude difference from this point (for a detailed weighting procedure see Evans and Molony, 2010).

The reduction of the species list exercise used four inclusion/exclusion parameters to minimise the list to a more manageable subset. These were:

1. Is the species conservation listed? If yes, it was included.

2. Level of endemism (Scale 1 – 5; see distribution in Table 4); Included if endemic to the Bioregion (scale = 5). This is measuring the species ability to recruit from outside an impacted area should the species be depleted.

3. High relative abundance in catches: arbitrary first cut at 50% (>=20 relative abundance weighted rank)

4. Are they a primary target species in another fishery? If yes, it was included.

Note that this exercise assumes that species have no/low risk if they are excluded due to the four categories. For ETP species, this may be problematic because of our lack of knowledge of many of the species, in terms of their range and susceptibility (life history characteristics in relation to minor fishing pressure) and rare species are likely to be excluded but they may be rare due to their vulnerability status.

Life History Characteristics Variables include information on the species ranges and their life history characteristics sourced from Fishbase, Sealife Base, GBIF, OBIS and the scientific literature. For species where no information existed, the most conservative characteristics of a similar sized species within the same genus or family were used. However if no similar species existed, then the highest rank was given for that characteristic. The life history characteristics (Table 4) chosen were limited to those that were available for the majority of species. This provided some level of confidence in the strength of the risk analysis compared with selecting a larger range of descriptive variables and placing maximum ranks to a large majority of species and potentially overestimating their overall risk.

The variables allocated were:

• Age at first reproduction – The longer it takes for a bycatch/ETP species to reproduce the greater the chance that it will be caught before it is able to add to the species’ gene pool and improve the species possible resilience. This follows the assumption of probability of breeding used by Stubutzki et al. (2001).

• Depth rank – This variable reflects the difference among species sensitivity to pressure changes. The depth that these species are caught also reflects a level of stress, which may increase post release mortality.

• Maximum length – Larger species tend to live longer and have longer generation times than smaller species, which slows down their capacity to recover from population reductions (Roberts & Hawkins 1999).

• Mode of Reproduction – Live-bearers, egg producers and brooders generally produce less young than broadcast spawners. Therefore broadcast spawners may have a greater

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 314

capacity to recover quicker (Stobutzki et al. 2001). This variable provides an idea of relative fecundity and amount of care contributed by the adults to nurture their young.

Fishery Impact Profile Variables used were:

• Management – this parameter describes the level that stocks of this species are managed based on biological and ecological data. Species targeted by fisheries are usually the only species that receive this type of attention and received a ranking of 1. Thus, the other inshore demersal species in the fishery are managed by default, despite not necessarily having extensive biological, ecological or genetic information to directly manage that particular species. Default managed species receive a ranking of 3. Three is the maximum scores in this parameter, as all fisheries are managed to some extent and therefore all species are managed by default.

• Sum of Ranks- This parameter is the sum of all the weighted ranks assigned to a species in the fishery.

• Target of another fishery - If a fishery targets a species, there should be a greater impact on the species as a whole (not contained in the bycatch analysis), than for those species that are only caught as bycatch.

• Conservation Listing - Only conservation-listed species in the IUCN Red list and the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 were considered. The status for each species in this study is based on the West Australian level of classification. For example Grey Nurse Sharks are classified as critically endangered in NSW but in WA they are listed at the lower status of near threatened. So this species is ranked as a 2 rather than a 5 as it would be in NSW. Where there were differences between IUCN and EPBC assessments, the most recent assessment was used.

• Mortality- Mortality was estimated for each taxon based on current knowledge in the scientific literature. Mortality from the different fishing gears affects each species differently. Mortality data is lacking for most species, so broad generalisations about taxa were made based on the available literature and the known methods of each fishery. Mortality was calculated as an average rank across all fisheries that impact that species within a Bioregion.

TEPS RRAMF

Different descriptive parameters were used in the TEPS risk assessment (Table 5). As TEPS are not ‘targeted by any fisheries’, this parameter was replaced by ‘other impacts’. ‘Maximum length’ was replaced by ‘maximum age’ and as the ‘Depth’ parameter was a measure of barotrauma in the swim bladder of teleosts, it was replaced by the biological variable ‘number of offspring’. Management was removed because this parameter is constant for all species that are conservation listed. The data used in both the risk assessments were also different; the T & E data is fishery independent and the TEPS data is fishery dependent. The new parameters are described below.

• Other Impacts – These may be anthropogenic or climate-induced. For example coastal housing and industry development may reduce turtle nesting sites. Introduction of pests to isolated islands where colonies of birds or seals exist may reduce colony size.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 315

Dredging of coastal environments may reduce sea grass habitats, decreasing turtle and dugong feeding areas. These are just three examples of many ‘other impacts’ on TEPS.

• Maximum age – Similar to maximum length, is a proxy of the species ability to recover after population disturbance. Longer lived species generally have longer generation times (Roberts & Hawkins 1999).

• Number of Offspring –Species with low numbers of offspring are expected to have reduced ability of recovering from disturbance.

Weighting of Parameters

In risk assessment it is common practice to weight parameters used to characterize a species’ biological and fishery impact profiles depending on which is/are considered more important. The weighting of parameters will always depend on the perspective of the person or group conducting the weighting process. Therefore, this study presents the range of different perspectives, including no weighting and the average of all the weighting perspectives, to determine if some vulnerable species are identified regardless of parameter weighting. The weighted variable in each case was doubled. Some parameters categorize similar characteristics so they were double weighted together.

Overall Risk Assessment Calculation

The overall risk assessment score was derived by the sum of each of the scores multiplied by the associated parameter weighting and then divided by the sum of all the parameter weights. The equation is represented by:

where Vi is the vulnerability score for species i, wj is the weighting for criterion j, Ri is the parameter rank of species i for criterion j, and n is the number of criteria on each axis (See Stobutzki et al. 2001).

The maximum possible score for the TEPS assessment was 25 because all parameters on the ‘fishery impact profile’ and the ‘life history profile’ had a maximum of 5. The maximum possible score for the T & E assessment was less due to the parameter “Management” on the ‘fishery impact profile’ having a maximum score of 3. Thus the maximum score on the ‘fishery impact profile’ and the ‘life history profile’ was 4.6 and 5, respectively, providing a maximum possible score of 23. The maximum score was divided into 5 risk category scores (Low, Low-moderate, Moderate, Moderate-High, High (

Table 28).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 316

Table 28. Division of scores showing colour ratings for risk categories for ‘threatened, endangered and protected species’ and ‘teleost and elasmobranch’ assessments.

Low Low Moderate Moderate High - Moderate - High

Protected 1 to 5 5.1 to 10 10.1 to 15 15.1 to 20 20.1 to 25 Species Teleost and 1 to 4.5 >4.5 to 9 >9 to 13.5 >13.5 to 18 >18 to 23 Elasmobranch

RRAMF Results

It is important to observe the relative effect of the different combinations of the weightings on the final risk assessments. Two common methods used to weight parameters include arbitrary nomination by a group of selected experts from a range of user groups in a workshop style process, or the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which uses a group of experts to independently rank each parameter against the other parameters. The relative weighting is decided using the combined ranking scores. This study presents the full range of possible combinations of weighting so the reader may decide which is more relevant to their situation117. Interestingly, at least 4 of the top 5 species are the same in all combinations of the weighted parameters for both Bioregions and at least 70% of the top 30 were the same species. Therefore, at least for this method, one might deduce that weighting of parameters is not essential.

The highest possible risk score for the teleost and elasmobranch assessment was 23. No species from either Bioregion using every possible weighting combination scored higher than ~45% of the maximum risk assessment score. It is important to note that regardless of individual species rankings in the assessment, all species received a low to low-moderate risk ranking.

117 Evans and Molony (2010), op. cit. MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 317

Appendix 3.4: ETP Species in the Exmouth Gulf Region

Endangered, threatened and protected species occurring within the Exmouth Gulf region: CE: Critically endangered; E: Endangered; V: Vulnerable; NT: Near threatened; LC: Least concern; DD: Data deficient; NA: Not yet assessed by the IUCN. (Species lists compiled from LeProvost Dames and Moore 2000, Environment Australia 2002, SEWPaC 2012a) Common Name Scientific Name WC Act118 EPBC Act119 CITES120 IUCN121 Marine Mammals Sirenia Dugong Dugong dugon Schedule 4 Migratory, Marine Appendix I VU Cetaceans Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Cetacean Appendix I LC Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Schedule 1 Vulnerable, Migratory, Cetacean Appendix I EN Bryde's whale Balaenoptera edeni Migratory, Cetacean Appendix I DD Pygmy blue whale Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda Cetacean Appendix I DD Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Schedule 1 Vulnerable, Migratory, Cetacean Appendix I EN Common dolphin Delphinus delphis Cetacean Appendix II LC Southern right whale Eubalaena australis Schedule 1 Endangered, Migratory, Cetacean Appendix I LC Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata Cetacean Appendix II DD Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus Cetacean Appendix II LC Humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae Schedule 1 Vulnerable, Migratory, Cetacean Appendix I LC Blainville's beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris Cetacean Appendix II DD Killer whales Orcinus orca Migratory, Cetacean Appendix II DD Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Migratory, Cetacean Appendix I VU Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis Migratory, Cetacean Appendix I NT Spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata Cetacean Appendix II LC

118Current list of threatened fauna (Specially protected fauna notice- 17 Feb 2012) 119 EPBC protection status 120CITES Appendices Listing 121 IUCN Redlist 2012 MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 318

Common Name Scientific Name WC Act118 EPBC Act119 CITES120 IUCN121 Long-snouted spinner Appendix II Dolphin Stenella longirostris Cetacean DD Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis Cetacean Appendix II LC Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops aduncus Cetacean Appendix II DD Marine Reptiles Marine turtles Loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta Schedule 1 Endangered, Migratory, Marine Appendix I EN Green turtles Chelonia mydas Schedule 1 Vulnerable, Migratory, Marine Appendix I EN Leatherback turtles Dermochelus coriacea Schedule 1 Endangered, Migratory, Marine Appendix I CE Hawksbill Turtles Eretmochelys imbricata Schedule 1 Vulnerable, Migratory, Marine Appendix I CE Olive ridley turtles Lepidochelys olivacea Schedule 1 Endangered, Migratory, Marine Appendix I VU Flatback turtles Natator depressus Schedule 1 Vulnerable, Migratory, Marine Appendix I DD Sea snakes Short-nosed sea snake Aipysurus apraefrontalis Schedule 1 Critically endangered, Marine CE Horned sea snake Acalyptophis peronii Marine LC Dubois' sea snake Aipysurus doboisii Marine NA Spine-tailed sea snake Aipysurus eydouxii Marine LC Olive sea snake Aipysurus laevis Marine LC Shark Bay sea snake Aipysurus pooleorum Marine NA Stokes' sea snake Astrotia stokesii Marine LC Spectacled sea snake Disteira kingie Marine LC Olive-headed sea snake Disteira major Marine LC Turtle-headed sea snake Emydocephalus annulatus Marine LC North-western mangrove sea snake Ephalophis greyi Marine LC Fine-spined sea snake Hydrophis czeblukovi Marine DD Elegant sea snake Hydrophis elegans Marine LC Ornate sea snake Hydrophis ornatus Marine LC Yellow-bellied sea snake Pelamis platurus Marine LC MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 319

Common Name Scientific Name WC Act118 EPBC Act119 CITES120 IUCN121 Protected Fish Species Sharks, rays and sawfish Grey nurse shark Carcharias taurus Schedule 1 Vulnerable VU White Shark Carcharodon carcharias Schedule 1 Vulnerable, Migratory Appendix II VU Giant manta ray Manta birostris Migratory Appendix II VU Green sawfish Pristis zijsron Schedule 1 Vulnerable Appendix I CE Freshwater sawfish Pristis pristis Vulnerable Appendix I CE Dwarf sawfish Pristis clavata Vulnerable Appendix I EN Narrow sawfish Anoxypristis cuspidata Appendix I EN Giant guitarfish Rhynchobatus djiddensis VU Syngnathids and Solenostomids Braun's pughead pipefish Bulbonaricus brauni Marine NA Three-keel pipefish Campichthys tricarinatus Marine NA Pacific short-bodied pipefish Choeroichthys brachysoma Marine NA Muiron Island pipefish Choeroichthys latispinosus Marine NA Pig-snouted pipefish Choeroichthys suillus Marine NA Many-banded pipefish Doryrhamphus multiannulatus Marine NA Banded pipefish Doryrhamphus dactyliophorus Marine DD Cleaner pipefish Doryrhamphus janssi Marine LC Flagtail pipefish Doryrhamphus negrosensis Marine NA Ladder pipefish Festucalex scalaris Marine NA Brock's pipefish Halicampus brocki Marine NA Gray's pipefish Halicampus grayi Marine NA Glittering pipefish Halicampus nitidus Marine NA Spiny-snout pipefish Halicampus spinirostris Marine NA Ribboned pipefish Haliichthys taeniophorus Marine NA Beady pipefish Hippichthys penicillus Marine LC Winged seahorse Hippocampus alatus Marine Appendix II DD

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 320

Common Name Scientific Name WC Act118 EPBC Act119 CITES120 IUCN121 Western spiny seahorse Hippocampus angustus Marine Appendix II DD False-eyed seahorse Hippocampus biocellatus Marine Appendix II NA Spiny seahorse Hippocampus histrix Marine Appendix II VU Spotted seahorse Hippocampus kuda Marine Appendix II VU Flat-faced seahorse Hippocampus planifrons Marine NA Zebra seahorse Hippocampus zebra Marine Appendix II DD Tidepool pipefish Micrognathus micronotopterus Marine NA Black rock pipefish Phoxocampus belcheri Marine NA Common weedy sea dragon Phyllopteryx taeniolatus Marine NT Gunther's pipefish Solegnathus lettiensis Marine DD Robust ghost pipefish Solenostomus cyanopterus Marine NA Spotted pipefish Stigmatopora argus Marine NA Alligator pipefish Syngnathoides biaculeatus Marine DD Short-tailed pipefish Trachyrhamphus bicoarctatus Marine NA Long-nosed pipefish Trachyrhamphus longirostris Marine NA Migratory Sea and Shorebirds Fork-tailed swift Apus pacificus Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Great egret Ardea modesta Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Sanderling Calidris alba Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Red knot Calidris canutus Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Curlew sandpiper Calidris ferruginea Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Red-necked stint Calidris ruficollis Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Great knot Calidris tenuirostris Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine VU Large sand plover Charadrius leschenaultii Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Lesser sand plover Charadrius mongolus Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Oriental plover Charadrius veredus Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Silver gull Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae Marine LC

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 321

Common Name Scientific Name WC Act118 EPBC Act119 CITES120 IUCN121 Eastern reef egret Egretta sacra Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Oriental pratincole Glareola maldivarum Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC White-breasted sea eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Grey-tailed tattler Heteroscelus brevipes Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Southern giant petrel Macronectes giganteus Schedule 1 Endangered, Migratory, Marine LC Eastern curlew Numenius madagascariensis Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine VU Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Brindled tern Onychoprion anaethetus Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine NA Osprey Pandion haliaetus Migratory, Marine LC Grey plover Pluvialis dominica Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Pacific golden plover Pluvialis fulva Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Soft-plumaged petrel Pterodroma mollis Vulnerable, Marine LC Wedge-tailed shearwater Puffinus pacificus Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Lesser crested tern Sterna bengalensis Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Crested tern Sterna bergii Marine LC Caspian tern Sterna caspia Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Roseate tern Sterna dougallii Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Sooty tern Sterna fuscata Marine LC Greenshank Tringa nebularia Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC Common redshank/Marsh Tringa totanus Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC sandpiper Terek sandpiper Xenus terek Schedule 3 Migratory, Marine LC

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 322

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 323

Appendix 4: Harmonisation

26 December 2014

Sabine Daume, Ph.D. SCS Global Services

Sent by email Dear Sabine:

MRAG Americas is completing the client draft for the Exmouth Gulf and Shark Bay prawn fisheries. As we have nearly completed scoring of the fisheries, we have come to a substantially different conclusion and scoring from the Western Rock Lobster fishery for PI3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities. We scored PI3.1.2 at 75 with a condition, where your assessment scored this PI as a 90. While we agree with the background presented concerning consultation in your report, we believe that the discussion of consultation and the access of all stakeholders to participation in the process is incomplete. The consultation in the WRL public certification report focused on industry and government. We believe that the consultation process in Western Australia in general provides inadequate opportunities for consultation for non‐industry stakeholders.

Annex GCL of GCR V1.1 states in section GCL 1.1: The MSC fishery assessment process depends on an effective engagement with stakeholders that can inform the assessment of a fishery’s performance. Stakeholders, including government agencies, conservation organisations, and other fisheries and commercial interests, represent the most critical source of information regarding a fishery independent of the client.

The explicit recognition of conservation organisations as key stakeholders, plus other relevant clauses in Annex GCL, strongly suggests that the fishery management system cannot tailor its consultation process only to the fishing industry. Your PCR explicitly mentions WAFIC and the WRLC, but does not mention the conservation community.

During the site visit for Exmouth Gulf and Shark Bay prawns, and previously during the preparation of pre‐assessments for the Western Australia South Coast and West Coast bioregions, we identified both NGO and Government, including statutory advisory bodies (under DPaw), concerns that the WA consultation process relegated them to secondary status, with opportunity to comment on draft documents but not to actively participate in development of policy. This observation is consistent with your description of consultation focused on WAFIC and WRLC. As such, the marginalised participation by the conservation community does not meet SG80 of PI3.1.2 scoring issue c:

The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

Our assessment team provided this rationale for PI3.1.2c not meeting the SG80: The existing system for consultation includes both statutory and non‐statutory opportunities for interested stakeholders to be involved in the management system. Opportunities for stakeholder input are provided through calls for submissions on Fisheries Management Papers (e.g. Future Management of the Metropolitan Recreational Roe’s Abalone Fishery), through SLAs with WAFIC and Recfishwest, and through expert reference groups which are open to stakeholders. To ensure coverage and engagement during the

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 324

consultation period with stakeholders and the wider community, the Department uses a variety of processes including: Management meetings, Direct consultation in writing; Press releases; newspaper, radio and television interviews; information posted on the Department’s website information; inviting stakeholders to sit on tasked working groups, scientific reviews / workshops, risk assessments and management reviews.

However, the process, or specifically some of the actions taken, does not appear to provide the opportunity for non‐fisher stakeholders to participate or engage in relevant meetings. Whilst there may be a clear and transparent process where stakeholders can submit comments ahead of fisheries policy decision making processes in the regular course of managing the fishery, evidence suggests that important stakeholders have been marginalized from the important decision making areas such as risk assessment, formulation of the harvest strategy and development of the Bycatch Action Plan. The management plan requires only that license holders be consulted in amending the management plan. Non‐fisher organisations were not invited to key meetings, and from these meetings then offered the opportunity to submit written comments. DPaW and important statutory advisory committees such as the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Area (NCWHA) and the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee (NCWHAC), as well as ENGOs, would also appear to have been excluded from tasked working groups, committees and panels. WWF has raised a concern at the public comment stage of the Western Rock Lobster Recertification process that they remained concerned about the lack of representation of stakeholders concerned with ecosystem impacts. It is therefore not always clear to what extent consultations are open to all, or facilitate effective engagement, for example through more widely advertised public consultations beyond the immediate key stakeholders in the fisheries. In terms of effective engagement, the loss of the Management Advisory Committee appears to have been a retrograde step such that not all the key bodies are in a collective forum at the same time. This suggests that the engagement process is not effective.

Therefore, the MRAG assessment team would like to initiate harmonization on PI3.1.2 to reach a common position as required by Annex CI of the certification requirements. We believe that requiring a condition on PI3.1.2 for the WRL fishery will not require any extra work on the part of your client. The WA DoF has initiated policy development to incorporate a more comprehensive consultation process for all fisheries, and provided this statement to add to our PAs:

Consultation with the non‐harvest sectors. DoF is currently considering ways to increase non‐ harvest sector involvement in the management of the state’s fisheries. Therefore, this policy will apply to the WRL fishery in due course without the WRL clients having to take on measures beyond what the DoF management system will require in any event.

Best regards,

Robert J. Trumble, Ph.D. Vice President‐Fisheries

SCS Response

Thanks for reaching out and initiating harmonization. Happy to discuss.

I am wondering if you have seen the last surveillance report for WRL that specifically considered the indicators and stakeholder concerns raised again. We basically had concerns along the way at the last re‐assessment and then considered these again at the last audit but concluded that a re‐scoring at this stage was probably not warranted.

Conclusion from the report below

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 325

Audit team findings

The audit team formed the view that the consultation processes in place for the fishery struggled to cope with the demands of the movement to a new management regime in the fishery over 2012‐2013. However, these processes have continued to evolve and in the audit team’s view are capable of delivering both opportunities for input from and feedback to fishers now that the management environment has stabilized. Further assessment of the effectiveness of the consultation model, particularly in the light of the proposed new fisheries management legislation, should be undertaken at the next re‐assessment of the fishery. The audit team was advised that the document outlining governance arrangements, including consultation and roles and responsibilities will be revised before that re‐ assessment. This will be important in providing a comprehensive perspective on the elements of consultation process and the allocation of roles and responsibilities.

Please let me know if there is anything else you would like to suggest to discuss this with the rest of the team and specifically with Mary Lack (P3 expert on surveillance audit and for upcoming assessments in WA)?

Cheers Sabine

Sabine Daume, Ph.D. | Regional Director Australasia (MSC and ASC) Sustainable Seafood SCS GLOBAL SERVICES +61 (0) 497943304 mobile Oz [email protected]

WESTERN ROCK LOBSTER FISHERY Harmonization of PI 3.1.2 consultation, roles and responsibilities with Exmouth Gulf Prawn trawl fishery Consultation processes and roles and responsibilities of the individuals and organisations involved in the management process are outlined in New Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties process have been have been identified. Functions, roles and identified. Functions, Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly roles and responsibilities responsibilities are defined and well understood for are generally explicitly defined and all areas of responsibility and understood. well understood for key interaction. areas of responsibility and interaction. Met? Y Y Justif The organisations and individuals involved in the management process are identified in icatio Department of Fisheries (DoF) (2011). That document clearly articulates the overarching n legislative and policy framework in which the WRLF operates and the roles and responsibilities of those involved at both State and Commonwealth level. Within the Department of Fisheries responsibilities for key element of management including policy development, research and compliance are explicitly defined and well understood. B Guid The management system The management system The management system includes epost includes consultation includes consultation consultation processes that processes that obtain processes that regularly regularly seek and accept relevant relevant information seek and accept relevant information, including local from the main affected information, including knowledge. The management parties, including local local knowledge. The system demonstrates knowledge, to inform management system consideration of the information the management demonstrates and explains how it is used or not system. consideration of the used. information obtained. Met? Y Y Not scored Justif The overarching consultation and management framework for Western Australian fisheries icatio is described in Figure 2, DoF (2011). The main affected parties identified include n representative fishing sectors (Recfishwest and WAFIC), and other stakeholders including the public, tourism bodies, the boating industry the Indigenous community, conservation groups, the Commonwealth government and State government agencies. At the time of the re‐assessment the Department of Fisheries was negotiating a service level agreement with WAFIC regarding the consultation role to be undertaken by WAFIC. The consultation principles agreed by WAFIC and DoF were provided in Table 1, DoF (2011). In addition to the consultation role to be played by WAFIC Section 65 of the Fisheries Resources Management Act specifies the consultation that must occur when an existing management plan is amended. DoF also seeks public comment on research, management and discussion papers from time to time. At the fishery‐specific level a number of additional consultation mechanisms are used in the WRLF. These include meetings between the Western Rock Lobster Council and DoF that are open to the public and take place at a number of major rock lobster ports and expert reference group meeting that are open to stakeholders. The assessment team was provided with a list of the consultation processes undertaken in 2010 and DoF (2011) states that the information stakeholders provided to DoF through these processes was considered when making research, management and compliance decisions. The consultation process meets the SG 60 and SG 80 requirements. C Guid The consultation process The consultation process provides epost provides opportunity for opportunity and encouragement

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 327

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties all interested and for all interested and affected affected parties to be parties to be involved, and involved. facilitates their effective engagement. Met? N Not scored Justifi As noted above, at the management system level, there are both statutory and non‐ cation statutory consultation processes in place. In particular the legislation requires that the Minister consult with respect to changes to management plans. DoF (2011) states that “WAFIC and WRLC were involved in detailed consultation with DoF regarding the changes to the WRLF management plan that implemented the quota system”. No mention is made of consultation with non‐fishery stakeholders. The removal of fisheries advisory committees, including the Rock Lobster Industry Council (RLIAC) and its associated committees in July 2010 has compromised the opportunities for involvement of all affected partied in the management system. Stakeholder comment noted that the “consultative framework has a considerable focus on the commercial industry and does not provide equitable access to decision‐making and consultation arrangements across commercial, recreational and conservation interest.” (WWF, 2011). The new arrangements ensure specific consultation with commercial fishers and with Recfishwest through WAFIC but do not specify the nature or frequency with which other affected parties will be consulted. Appendix 2 to DoF (2011) identifies the range of stakeholders engaged at various stages in the WRLF consultation processes in 2010. While this clearly identifies that the consultation processes for the fishery do provide opportunities for all interested parties to be involved in some aspects of the fishery’s management, it remains unclear how decisions are made regarding the breadth and nature of consultation on various management issues. While DoF makes a range of management system and fishery specific level documents available on its website, some of which are available for public comment, there are no principles or requirements in place that guide the level of consultation with all interested and affected parties. As a result, at both a management system level and fishery specific level, the approach to involving affected parties, other than fishers, appears to be ad hoc and the management system does not provide confidence that it will provide opportunities for all interested and affected parties to be involved. Department of Fisheries (2011) Governance of the Western Rock Lobster fishery and Marine stewardship council principle 3 Effective Management. Fisheries References Occasional Publication No. 96. Available at: http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop096.pdf WWF (2011) WWF Comments Received for the May 2011 Meeting, dated 25 May 2011 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Demonstrate that the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 328

Appendix 5. Peer Review Reports (PCDR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS)

Peer Reviewer 1 Overall Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Partial Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: Blue endeavour has been re-considered I have one issue for with scoring for blue endeavor and is dealt with as a P2 species prawns that reduces this UoA to a fail. I have provided a pathway for the CAB to improve the evidence needed to avoid this outcome. Also, for brown tiger prawns and western king prawns the It appears the reviewer is referring to score for 2.1.4 is too high in my opinion, although this will 1.2.4 rather than 2.1.4. See comments not affect the overall outcome for these species. at that PI.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: Yes achievement of the conditions will enable the fishery to reach the SG80 within specified timelines.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification: The CAB has developed a clear and achievable CAP to close the conditions. The recent amendment (emailed received 7/4/15) made to the action for stakeholder engagement improves the CAP for this criteria.

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please follow the link.

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please follow the link.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)

I have one additional but critical concern. I passed the P1 for brown tiger prawns based on my judgement that the reference points are reflective of PRI (limit) and BMSY (target). I have provided text in an attached document to improve the basis for the justifications for this argument as I did not find the CABs argument clear. My logic was based entirely around using the fishery decline and recovery in the early 1980’s as a baseline for a point close to PRI, and the information provided within the text that the department doubled (or close to)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 329

the target reference point from 12-14 kg/h to 25 kg/h to account for increases in fleet power over time. My concern is that the current reference points can be considered as appropriate for the stock today, but if reference points continue to be based on nominal catch rates and are not adjusted for vessel power, then the certainty that these measures are above PRI and somewhere close to BMSY is eroded over time as vessel power increases. Thus even though it is not a specific condition of the fishery, if standardization procedures are not applied to the catch rates within the first 5 years I would not pass the fishery at P1 in a re- assessment. I think a recommendation needs to be made that specifically requests standardization procedures are conducted and applied to the performance measures.

Also, of a more general nature not related to scoring, I believe the hypothesis provided to explain the decline of tiger prawns due to the recent heat events are flawed. In the supporting document I explain why I feel this is the case and have provided an alternative hypothesis that can be considered by the department. While this does not affect the scoring or assessment, it may be useful when reviewing the harvest control rules in light of environmental fluctuations.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 330

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

Example:1.1.2 No No NA The certifier gave a score of 80 for this PI. The 80 scoring guidepost asks for a target reference point that is consistent with maintaining the stock at Bmsy or above, however the target reference point given for this fishery is Bpa, with no indication of how this is consistent with a Bmsy level.

BT= Brown tiger WKP= Western BE= Blue king prawn endeavour

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 331 of 396 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011

1.1.1 BT: Yes BT: Yes but BT: NA BT: Stock status is determined from a weight In response to both peer reviewers the justification can be of evidence approach. Implicit in the justification for this issue has been revised. improved assessment is that the fishery has previously been overfished and rapidly recovered. This is used as evidence that the fishery was above a point of PRI, and limit and target reference points have been based around this. I have provided some additional comments on a better way to structure the justification, but fundamentally I agree that the fishery is currently above a point where PRI is likely to be impaired and is likely to be somewhere at or around BMSY (using catch rates as a proxy).

1.1.1 WKP: Yes WKP: Yes WKP: NA WKP: Stock status is determined from a weight of evidence approach. There is sound evidence to suggest that WKP are also above a point where PRI is likely to be impaired and is likely to be somewhere at or around BMSY (using catch rates as a proxy).

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 332

1.1.1 BE: Yes BE: No BE: NA BE: The certifier scores this at 100 Blue endeavour prawn has been re- suggesting there is a high degree of certainty considered and is treated as a P2 species. (ie 95%) that the stock status is around BMSY. Without any statistical evidence I find it hard to support this position. The PSA outcome was the same as that for BT and WKP suggesting no different risk. There is a valid argument qualitatively that the risk is lower because it is suggested that much of the population exists within closed areas and it has lower selectivity. But these arguments are not reflected in the inputs for the PSA (uses the same score for area overlap and selectivity for all species). If the certifier could demonstrate statistically that the risk is lower than for WKP and BT then i could agree with a score of 100. I suggest a separate estimate of the areal overlap for BE if possible, or something equivalent.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 333

1.1.2 BT: Yes BT: Yes but BT: NA I agree with the outcomes reached but I think The comments are helpful and the justification can be my rationales differ to the justifications justification has been revised. improved provided by the certifier. I have provided supporting text to explain my position, but I A condition is determined for this PI. will summarise here: The reference points pass but only just. I am concerned that there isnt sufficient conservatism in them to pass as not presenting “an appreciable risk” of being above PRI. The majot problem is that the measures are not standardised. Without using standardised measures the risk increases each year that the limit reference point approaches PRI to unacceptable levels. The same is true for the target reference point and confidence that it is fluctuating around BMSY. If standardisation is not applied to future reference points the fishery is likely to fail 1.1.2 on re-assessment.

1.1.2 WKP: Yes WKP: Yes WKP: NA There has been no stock crash for WKP to The comments are helpful and the reference against. It is noted that WKP are justification has been revised. likely a more productive species and this is reflected in the reference points. Again I A condition is determined for this PI. agree with the outcomes reached. The same issues of the need for catch rate standardisation above applies to the reference points for WKP.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 334

1.1.2 BE: Yes BE: Yes BE: Yes, but I BE: The certifier correctly scores the fishery Blue endeavour prawn has been re- would like the at SG 60 for SI-A because the reference considered and is treated as a P2 species. condition to points for BE are based on catch and should reflect that be based on CPUE or a similar measure. standardisation of This is not an indictment on the agency as the measure is given the biology of the species and the applied for manner of operation of the fishery, the risks reference points are lower for this species. based on CPUE.

1.1.3 NA NA NA Stocks correctly assessed as around BMSY so this is not needed.

1.2.1 BT: Yes BT: Yes but BT: NA I agree with the certifier that the harvest Agreed. A comment has been added to justification can be strategy is responsive to the state of the reflect the recent recovery. improved stock and upholds the MSC principles of 1.1.1. The strategy appears to be achieving its objectives, and has been approriately reviewed. I think the justifcation can be strengthened by using the recovery of the stock in the last two years as an example of how it is responsive to the stock and works to achieve these objectives. Also, I think a critical part of the startegy is that they have thresholds that must be met before the fishery is opened to fishing. To me this is a critical component and is worth mentioning here.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 335

1.2.1 WKP: Yes WKP: Yes WKP: NA As above, I agree with the certifier that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and upholds the MSC principles of 1.1.1. The strategy appears to be achieving its objectives, and has been approriately reviewed. The demonstration of how this works for WKP is not as clear cut because it has not had the declines of BT. But the same conservative opening rules apply that afford great confidence that the overall startegy will not have a detrimental affect on the breeding stock.

1.2.1 BE: Yes BE: Yes BE: Yes As BE are not a target stock, their Blue endeavour prawn has been re- exploitation is controlled by effort imparted considered and is treated as a P2 species. on WKP and BT. SI-A is correctly scored as 60 because the strategy fails to respond to the status of BE stocks. Due to the strategies employed for the two target species and the lower susceptibility of this species there is sufficient evidence that the current strategy is achieving the key objectives of Principle 1.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 336

1.2.2 BT: Yes BT: Yes BT: NA The HCRs in place are appropriate to the stock, are well defined, account for the main uncertainties and the evidence indicates that they are working. I almost scored differently here to the CAB for SI-C. In my opinion, this guidepost could score 100 but it is a matter of interpretation. It could be argued that this latest decline in abundance and catch demonstrates the harvest control rules work well to keep the fishery above PRI and close to target, even when environmental conditions directly or indirectly lead to over-exploitation. This is particularly impressive given that you have successfully argued that the fishery has returned to BMSY (target stock levels) only two years after a severe decline. I am happy to stick with 80 but it is food for thought.

1.2.2 WKP: Yes WKP: Yes WKP: NA The same HCRs are in place for WKP and the scoring is correctly applied as it is for BT above. However there is less evidence to argue that the HCRs work as well as what they do for BT because the abundances of WKP have not varied so greatly.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 337

1.2.2 BE: Yes BE: Yes BE: Yes The current reference points regarding BE The peer reviewer agrees with the catch can be related to HCRs to reduce assessment. Therefore, no adjustments exploitation, but they are not as effective or required. responsive as the HCRs implemented for the target species. Implementation of the condition will correct this.

1.2.3 BT: Yes BT: Yes but BT: NA I can agree with a 100 score for SI-A as long The comments are helpful. The score has justification can be as the agency have all the appropriate data been revised to 80 for SI-A. A improved to conduct a data standardisation of CPUE. recommendation has been made that there You have mentioned most elements but one should be further analysis of catch rate critical component is information on changes information. in gear over time. If they don’t have it available immediately then it can be gathered by working with fishers but this is critical and should be mentioned in the justification. I agree that the other SGs are appropriately scored at 80.

1.2.3 WKP: Yes WKP: Yes but WKP: NA As above for BT The comments are helpful. The score has justification can be been revised to 80 for SI-A. A improved recommendation has been made that there should be further analysis of catch rate information.

1.2.3 BE: Yes BE: Yes but BE: NA As above for BT and WKP Blue endeavour prawn has been re- justification can be considered and is treated as a P2 species. improved

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 338

1.2.4 BT: No BT: No BT: NA The CAB has assessed SI-A as 100. I do not Agreed. The shortcomings with catch rate think that this score is justified. I believe that information have been recognized elsewhere using nominal CPUE instead of standardised in the scoring but we agree that meeting a CPUE in the assessment means that they fail score of 100 is marginal on this issue and the to ‘”takes into account the major features score has been revised to 80. relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery.” The nature of this and indeed every other trawl fishery, is that catching power significantly increases over time as gear technology improves. This is particularly important in this fishery where the agency has deliberately removed some input controls to allow for increases in efficiency that will proivide economic benefits. A failure to address this issue is a significant flaw in the assessment. SI-A should be a score of 80, for an overall score of 80 for 1.2.4.

1.2.4 WKP: No WKP: No WKP: NA The same issues apply here for WKP as they As above do directly above for BT.

1.2.4 BE: Yes BE: Yes BE: NA SI-A is correctly scored at 80 for BE. The Blue endeavour prawn has been re- current assessment is appropriate for the considered and is treated as a P2 species. stock and the current HCRs, acknowldeging that new PIs and HCRs need to be developed.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 339

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB has correctly determined that banana prawns are the only main retained species. Banana prawn abudnace is highly correlated with environmental variables, particularly rainfall, and are thus subject to high fluctuations in abundance and catch. This means that while it is justifiable that the stock is above PRI, it is difficult to demonstrate with high certainty that it is fluctuating around target. Banana prawns and minor retained species were determined as low risk under the PSA. There are also catch based reference points for retained species.

2.1.2 There is a partial strategy for main retained species and available data indicates the startegy is working and meeting all objectives. Given the available evidence, particularly the use of TEDS, and the fact that legislation preventing shark finning is in place, it is highly unlikely that finning is occuring.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 340

2.1.3 The information available for assessment of main retained species is consistent with SG80 across the PI.

2.2.1 Yes BT: Yes but NA The certifier determined the main bycatch The recommended changes have been justification can be species correctly according to the >3% rule inserted so as to make the justification improved using data from a project completed in 2002- clearer. 03. Risks were assessed using PSA and all were identified as low risk >90 score. An additional risk assessment method already applied to the Gascoyne region was used to supplement the analysis and to justify that all bycatch species had been assessed. This was used to justify a partial score of 90. This was an appropriate outcome but the justification was poorly organised. I have provided advice on how to better present the justification in the accompanying document.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 341

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The certifier argues successfully that a full The peer reviewer agrees with the strategy is in place to manage bycatch for assessment. Therefore, no adjustments the fishery. This includes a suite of required. management measures underpinned by effort reduction, BRDs and closures that together mean the level of impact on bycatch is demonstrably low risk. There is high likelihood the startegy works and there is approraite evidence to demonstrate this is the case.

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes SI-A: Agreed that the information available is The peer reviewer agrees with the sufficient to assess the risk but it is not assessment. Adjustments were made accurate and verifiable because it is too old. following comments from peeer reviewer 2. This is not a problem to assess the outcome PSA demonstrates that the effects of prawn as it provides a more conservative answer. fishing have low risk for bycatch species. SI-B&C: I agree that they do not meet the SG100 for either SG because there is a lack of quantitative information to assess the strategy. SI-D: Agreed that the information is insufficient to monitor byucatch on-going. Addressing the condition ie implementing the planned strategy for ongoing monitoring, will fix this sufficiently.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 342

2.3.1 SI-B No Yes Yes. As a part of SI-B. I support the conclusions of the CAB in The peer reviewer agrees with the the review of developing a condition for seasnakes. There assessment but suggests to a further alternative gear is insufficent information to assess the true supporting reference which has been added types, the fishery impact of the fishery on the populations. to the text. The Department states within the should review the Clearly given that 400+ were captured in a CAP that they will review current programs to QLD work year there is potential for impacts at the upgrade education for industry. regarding the population level for some species. More implementation of needs to be understood. fish eyes for An important reference has been over-looked seasnake by the CAB. The following report provides mitigation. great context to sea-snake issues and was used as the basis for the recent introduction of “fish-eyes” into the Queensland prawn trawl fishery. This won’t change the outcome but may help with justification and context. Courtney, AJ, Schemel, BL, Wallace, R, Campbell, MJ, Mayer, DG, M & Young, B 2010, Reducing the impact of Queensland’s trawl fisheries on protected sea snakes, final report, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation project 2005/053, Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Brisbane, http://frdc.com.au/research/final- reports/Pages/2005-053-DLD.aspx.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 343

2.3.1 SI-C Yes No NA The justification for SI-C supports a score of None of the SG 100 components are now 100 but the CAB has assessed the criteria at stated as not scored. a score of 80, by writing “Not scored” in the SG 100 box?

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the CAB that there is a strategy The peer reviewer agrees with the in place to manage ETPs, and that it is assessment. Therefore, no adjustments expected to work and there is some evidence required. that the strategy is being implemented effectively. This equates to an 80 pass across the board for this PI.

2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes. As a part of Following the outcomes from 2.3.1, there is The peer reviewer agrees with the the review of some information on intercations but there assessment. Therefore, no adjustments alternative gear are insuffiect information to quantitatively required. The reference is cited and may be types, the fishery assess the impact of the fishery on ETP referred to as part of the client actions when should review the poulations, particularly sea-snakes. meeting this condition. QLD work Fulfilling the condition will address these regarding the issues. implementation of fish eyes for seasnake mitigation.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 344

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Measuring the impacts of trawling on habitats No adjustments are made since the Peer is a complicated and difficult exercise. It Reviewer reafirms the scoring (and seems that WA has done it well for the supporting text). Exmouth Gulf fishery, and I support the conclusion that the fishery is highly unlikley to impact the ecosystem to a point of serious irreversible harm. In Australia, even where convincing anecdotal evidence exists that trawl fisheries have had impacts on habitats such as sponge gardens, proving this is impossible as these impacts would have occurred at the onset of the fishery and there are no habitat data pre-trawling. Therefore it is a moot point to argue about the possibility of such impacts being deemed as serious and irreversible effects. The CAB may suffer resistance to a score of 100 here for these reasons from some sectors, but in my opinion their position on habitats here is well founded thanks to the good work thus far conducted by the DoF.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 345

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA I agree that the management strategy is only No adjustments are made since the Peer partial because habitats impacts are Reviewer reafirms the scoring (and controlled implicitly within the management supporting text). plan. Theprimary control are temporal and spatial closures, but these are extensive. There is confidence the strategy will work and some evidence to demonstrate that it is effective.

2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes. The habitat work completed to date has No adjustments are made since the Peer provided a sound basis for assessing the Reviewer reafirms the scoring (and impacts of the fishery on habitats. However supporting text). there are still some knowledge gaps to be filled, particularly reagrding a startegy for ongoing measurement of habitat impacts as identified by the implementation of a condition for this PI.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 346

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA The outcome that the fishery is highly unlikely to be impacting the structure and function of the ecosystem is well supported by the literature. As identified in the justification, the principle species captured are prawns and collectively the harvest strategy and their own natural diversity among species ensures that there are sufficent prawns left in the ecosystem at all times to ensure that this is not a limiting factor. Also, the use of BRDs and particularly TEDs is important, the latter because it reduces intercations with higher trophic level, more vulnerable species such as sharks. There is a sound basis to assess this score as 100.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA The management system doesn’t specifically address ecosystem issues and thus is scored correctly as a partial strategy. The management system, the data collected, and the cumculative experience from similar fisheries such as the NPF, do provide a sound basis for both confidence and evidence that the strategy is likely to work and is currently working effectively.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 347

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The data available to assess ecosystem impacts from this and adjacent similar fisheries is excellent. The fishery does not receive 100 for this PI is because much of the impacts are inferred as there are no direct studies detailing the specific ecosystem impacts (eg a trophodynamic model).

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Commonwealth and state laws provide a No adjustments are made since the Peer legislative framework that delivers Reviewer reafirms the scoring (and management outcomes consistent with MSC supporting text). Principles 1 and 2. This is consistent with a 100 score. The system contains a dispute resolution process, and acknowledges cutomary rights.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 348

3.1.2 Yes Yes Yes. I have noted The key roles in the management process No adjustments are made since the Peer the Departments are clearly defined and roles and Reviewer reafirms the scoring (and latest response to ersponsibilities understood sufficient to pass supporting text) and the condition. the CAP to at SG80. There is a clear demonstration that address the consultation is effective, however it doesn’t issues raised and appear that all stakeholders have an I believe this opportunity for meaningful and equal strengthens the engagement in the process. Addressing the CAP to help meet condition will demonstrate an effective and the condition. participative engagement program.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The CAB makes a clear and detailed No adjustments are made since the Peer justifcation for a score of 100 which requires Reviewer reafirms the scoring (and that “Clear long-term objectives that guide supporting text). decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach”.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 349

3.1.4 Yes Yes NA The management system is progressive in No adjustments are made since the Peer that it has removed inefficiencies by creating Reviewer reafirms the scoring (and a flexible framework that reduces input supporting text). controls while maintaining controlled exploitation. There has been a clear history The error is corrected. of review and development of the management framework that equates to a score of 100 for this PI. But please note in the last line of their justification the CAB has not identified that the SG100 has been met.

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB has argued for a partial score of 90 Adjustments are made to the scoring on the basis that there are long and short following comments made by Peer Reviewer term objectives, underpinned by measurable 2. These downgrade the scoring to an SG 80 performance indicators, that meet the sice not all short and long-term objectives objectives of principles 1 and 2 for all but are measurable. minor elements of the bycatch system. The argument is well founded and justified by the supporting docuementation.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 350

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA SI-A. The decision making process has an overarching framework that guides long-term decisions and an adaptive management component for short term decisions that is approriate to the stock and the fishery. SI-B. The framework has been demonstrated as responsive to identiifed issues at a scale appropriate to a score of 100. SI-C. Triggering a review when target levels are not met was good use of an example to demonstrate application of the precautionary principle. SI-D. The reporting framework is transparent and comprehensive. SI-E. The flexibility built into the management system through the reduction of input controls also provides greater confidence that the system is developed to embrace collaboration which will ultimately reduce disputes.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 351

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA The CAB argues for a score of 100 across No adjustments are made since the Peer the breadth of this PI. The MCS system put Reviewer reafirms the scoring (and in place by the Dept is comprehensive, well supporting text). resourced, encourages self-regulation, and has thorough assessment and reporting of its outcomes. The MCS is aided by having only a small numbers of vessels managed by one company. Given all this information a score of 100 is appropriate.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA The fishery has an excellent research No adjustments are made since the Peer planning process that develops long term Reviewer reafirms the scoring (and strategic goals but also responds to short supporting text). term needs of serious nature. The program is adequatley resourced and a score of 100 is appropriate.

3.2.5 Yes Yes NA There is clear evidence provided that the No adjustments are made since the Peer fishers regularly evaluates all elements of the Reviewer reafirms the scoring (and management system in a timely and supporting text). approriate manner. Also, the fishery-specific management system is regularly reviewed as demonstrated by the external reviews of compliance, research and TEDs. This also scores 100 across the PI.

Any Other Comments

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 352

Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: Conformity Assessment Body Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to specific how the process referenced? scoring issues and any relevant documentation where used to Yes/No possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. determine risk using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No 1.1.1 Yes Yes The CAB reported on a PSA conducted for target species to supplement the default tree assessment. They provided adequate references and explanation to follow the process. 2.1.1 Yes Yes The CAB reported on a PSA conducted for the one main retained species: banana prawns. They provided adequate references and explanation to follow the process. 2.2.1 Yes Yes The CAB reported on a PSA conducted for the main bycatch species. This included a suite of ETP species that were identified as potential for interactions. They provided adequate references and explanation to follow the process. 2.4.1

2.5.1

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 353

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body Response: from enhancement activities?

Justification:

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 354

Supplementary information for the MSC review of the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery Scoring brown tiger prawns (provided by Peer Reviewer 1, 8 April 2015)

Reference points (P 1.1.2) The rationale and argument for the reference points needs clarifying. I reach the same point as the CAB, but for different reasons (I think).  The critical time for the fishery was the collapse from overexploitation in the early 1980’s. This gives the reference to a limit reference point where the fishery can recover.  The only source of information for this was the spawning stock index, because the juvenile surveys didn’t begin until a few years later. From the graph it appears that the catch rate dropped to about 5 kg/h in 1982 and ranged from 5-10 kg/h from 1980 to 1984. Setting the limit reference point at 5 kg/h for the early 1980’s may be considered “set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity”. (But only just).  As stated in the text, to adjust for increases in vessel power the target spawning stock levels were effectively doubled from 12-14 to 25 kg/h.  Assuming the same were done for the limit reference point, then the original limit of 5 kg/h reflects a current limit reference of 10 kg/h. There are several points of contention. Firstly, that 5 kg/h in the 1980’s (ie 10 kg/h now) represents a biomass “above the level at which there is an appreciable risk…”. Personally I don’t think it does quite, but it is a matter of opinion and the CAB may rethink in light of my interpretation. Secondly and as importantly, the current system does not cater for changes in efficiency over time. Each year as vessel power increases, particularly given that there restrictions have been removed to allow for increased economic efficiency (which personally I support), the limit and target reference points increase in risk of being closer to the point of PRI. In summary, I will accept this score for now if the CAB chooses to maintain it. But there needs to be a recommendation established to examine the limit reference points with mind to incorporating a standardisation of the CPUE data and its associated uncertainty. Without this, this criteria may not pass when the fishery is reviewed in a few years’ time.

Main bycatch species (2.2.1) The logic in 2.2.1 SG-A was hard to follow. I had to read it several times and go back through the main text and the CR to get my head around your argument. I believe the following is clearer to reach the outcome. DoF ran a Productivity Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) workshop in September, 2014 to assess vulnerability of main bycatch (as well as retained and ETP species). These outputs were then discussed in the stakeholder workshop held on Tuesday 28 October, 2014. No changes were made to bycatch scoring for the EGPMF, with all species assessed as low risk. All elements scored at least 90 (in the range of 91.7 to 97.3). CC2.4.4.5 notes ‘if the team has only considered “main” species in its PSA analysis the final PI score shall be adjusted downwards by the team and shall not be greater than 80 to reflect that only a subset of the total number of species has been evaluated’. While the PSA only addressed main species, the Risk Ranked Assessment for Multiple Fisheries (RRAMF) (Evans & Molony 2010) assessed all species caught in the Gascoyne bio-region. In this instance, any low to moderate species caught, most specifically some elasmobranch species Taeniura meyeni (black-blotched sting-ray) and Rhyncobatus spp. (white spot shovelnose ray), do not feature in this fishery. Here we have considered the RRAMF as a comprehensive assessment process of all bycatch species. Therefore when assessing the final score we have applied CC2.4.4.4b which notes’ If there is additional MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 355

information that justifies modifying the MSC score within the 20-point range, such information may be used to reach the final score for the PI’. The data used to measure the outcome status is based on bycatch data from 2002-2003. BRDs were implemented in the fishery in 2005, which preceeded this data collection period. As such the data analysed would less conservative than the catch taken in the fishery at present. That said, there is a need to reassess catch data based on more recent bycatch surveys which are planned. Nevertheless, considering the PSA scores of at least 90 (in the range of 91.7 to 97.3) that used less conservative data than the present fishery, and including the higher level RRAMF analysis, a final score of 90 is applied.

Hypotheses for the recent decline in brown tiger prawn abundance On page 28 you suggest that warm water resulted in “extremes in abundance”. To be pedantic, there can be no direct relationship. Abundance can only increase from increased recruitment which may have resulted from warmer waters. Pedantics aside, on page 32 you introduce the hypothesis of seagrass loss and recruitment. This may be a plausible argument but I am not sure how the mechanisms of this would work due to the timing of the various events. If the warming caused the increased in abundance then it must have been through increased recruitment (that is the only way to increase numbers). But how does this occur if increase in water temperatures has led to the destruction of seagrass beds which you say later decreases abundance of recruits? This could only occur if there was a time lag of the effect from heat; doubling the recruit abundance initially and then killing off the seagrass after the recruitment event? I don’t understand the mechanism being proposed here but I think there are two plausible hypotheses that if explored could help to improve your harvest strategy. Firstly, the underlying assumption of matching catch rates and abundance is that catchability is constant over time. It is possible that the higher water temperatures increased catchability of the prawns which made it appear that abundance was higher in 2011. The high catch rates observed led to a higher catch by the rules in the harvest strategy, effectively overfishing the stock. This may be why recruitment and abundance then declined the following year. I note in the report you suggest catchability of tiger prawns is higher than that of wkp, so perhaps you have some way that you can measure this effect experimentally? This hypothesis is not dis-similar to the trends in the Spencer Gulf prawn fishery when high catch rates observed in surveys during the pre-Christmas period led to overfishing of the spawning biomass on several occasions. Again the mechanisms for the apparent change in catchability are poorly understood as there are no valid environmental data from that time to do post-hoc analyses. The Spencer Gulf fishery have mitigated these circumstances of uncertain catchability pre-Christmas by having more consistent pre-Christmas catch levels rather than highly fluctuating levels based on apparent trends in abundance (survey catch rate). There is some variation built into the system, but it is dampened greatly compared to other times of the year. This significantly improved the consistency of recruitment to the fishery (see figures below, catches stabilised in 2003/04). I think this may be important when developing PIs and the harvest strategy for your fishery.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 356

Secondly, an alternative hypothesis relates to the timing of recruitment. A large pulse of recruits has happened before in the Spencer Gulf fishery, associated with extremes in water temperature. One very hot summer a “double” recruitment was observed in Spencer Gulf. Because of the huge variations in temperature in SG, recruitment is very dynamic in the fishery. The peak is generally observed in February, but juveniles do recruit to the grounds over several months. Many juveniles that have resulted from spawning the previous summer “over-winter” which means they stay on the mudflats during the winter months before recruiting to the fishery. This is believed to be the pulse that is observed in February. The hypothesis is that in the hot year spawning occurred earlier than usual (ie early October) and this resulted in a lot of juveniles in the mudflats early. The warmer temperatures meant that these early juveniles grew through to recruitment size really quickly. Combined with a late February survey saw a “double” recruitment event, with literally twice as many recruits on the ground than ever seen before. The fishery hit the stocks very hard because the catch rates were so high, resulting in the highest catch in the fishery’s history. Obviously the high catches influenced the next year’s recruitment, combined with much fewer overwintering juveniles, and the catches quickly dropped to record lows. Although I am not familiar with the dynamics of tiger prawns in the Exmouth Gulf environment, similar mechanisms may have been at work here too.

Conformity Assessment Body Response The reviewer has provided useful insights which have been taken into account in justifications in the report.

Additional peer review comments (provided by Peer Reviewer 1, 3 May 2015)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 357

Reason for providing additional peer review: I am providing this additional information because I have obtained a greater understanding of the use of proxy indicators for P1.1.1 in the last few weeks since I have been using them under the guidance provided in Version 2.0. Version 1.3 which the assessors used for the Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf assessments provides minimal guidance in the use of proxies. Version 2.0 provides a greatly improved description and I feel it may be beneficial to the assessors to go through the relevant parts of the 2.0 CR to gain a better understanding on how to apply proxies, in conjunction with my own interpretations provided below. This is appropriate to refer to the V2.0 guidance for a V1.3 assessment because the new version simply improves the understanding for assessors and the application and intent in the use of proxies has remained the same. Below I provide the full logic behind my own interpretation in the hope that it assists to strengthen the basis for the P1.1.1 and P1.1.2 justifications.

P1.1.1 stock status and P1.1.2 reference points: There are no direct measures of biomass for the fishery and as such the assessors have appropriately used CPUE as a proxy. Version 2.0 guidance GSA2.2.3.1 states “SA2.2.3 confirms that teams may allow the use of surrogate or proxy indicators and reference points in scoring both stock biomass and exploitation rate. The terms “likely”, and “highly likely” are used to allow scoring by either qualitative or quantitative approaches.  Examples of qualitative interpretation include analogy with similar situations, plausible argument, empirical observation of sustainability and qualitative risk assessment.  Examples of quantitative interpretation include the use of measured data from the relevant fishery, statistical analysis, quantitative risk assessment and quantitative modelling.” Then a bit later the same reference states: Where proxies are used that are not expressed as percentages of B0, teams should generally ensure that:  Any reference point used as a proxy for scoring the PRI is set above the point where there is an appreciable risk of recruitment failure; and  Any reference point used as a proxy for the MSY level maintains the stock well above the PRI and at levels of production and stock sizes consistent with BMSY or a similar highly productive level. In my opinion, the current argument for assessment of stock status is not incorrect, but it could be strengthened. The assessment currently appears to be a qualitative interpretation based on plausible argument. I think the argument for brown tiger prawns could be strengthened by having an explicit quantitative interpretation based on measured data from the relevant fishery. Then for Western King prawns (WKP) I think you can base your assessment on qualitative interpretation include analogy with similar situations (brown tiger), plausible argument and empirical observation of sustainability i.e. refer to brown tiger prawn reference points and add with the weight of evidence approach.

Version 2.0 guidance GSA2.2.3 states “The wording of PI 1.1.1 requires scoring against the conceptual levels PRI and MSY. Such levels may or may not be used as explicit reference points in a fishery.” For these fisheries it seems that the current LRP and targets are appropriate for the stock, and they can be used to assess stock status against the conceptual levels PRI and MSY. It is just the basis for their selection that requires strengthening. The assessors argue that MSY cannot be determined for the fishery(s). Indeed MSY is a roving beast and I agree it is likely problematic for prawns in both these fisheries. However, as stated above it is still necessary to determine some proxy level as a target that is considered a MSY equivalent (but not necessarily directly). Some fisheries, such as those in

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 358

New Zealand that do not have a fully quantitative stock assessment model, often consider the long-term mean of a stable CPUE series (usually standardised) as a proxy for MSY. (I am not sure if this proxy has been successfully applied for a MSC assessment). But given the highly variable nature of biomass and catches for such a productive, short-lived species like prawns, and a relatively de-coupled stock-recruitment relationship that is influenced strongly by the environment, making assumptions about MSY directly from the available data is not the best approach.

So if MSY is not able to be justified, then it is best to provide a strong argument around a LRP to determine how likely the biomass is above PRI. Once a LRP is established, a TRP can be determined using the guidance that will likely reflect MSY levels.

Version 2.0 guidance GSA2.2.3 states “In requiring that fish stocks are ‘likely above the PRI’ (SG60 in PI 1.1.1), MSC recognises that fish stocks do not have an exact and constant level below which recruitment will always be impaired. In a Beverton-Holt type stock-recruit relationship, recruitment declines with any reduction in stock size from the unexploited level. The PRI should be interpreted as the point below which there is an increased risk that recruitment may be substantially impaired and fisheries should be managed such that the risk of stocks falling below this level is very low. Where historical estimates of stock size and resulting recruitment are available, the PRI may be identifiable as the point below which reduced recruitment has been observed in the past, and above which recruitment appears to be more related to environmental factors than to stock size.”

It seems there are several sources of information to determine PRI as defined above. Firstly, there are measures of spawning biomass from the fishery measured as CPUE, coupled with estimates of recruitment from targeted recruitment surveys. Secondly, for brown tiger prawns there is a stock recruitment relationship (SSR) that has been determined and could be used to help justify the LRP. The key uncertainties for these measures, respectively, are that CPUE is unstandardized, and the SSR is based on very old data (not been updated since publication in 1986). But together they would really help to strengthen a position for the LRP. In my opinion I think the argument is best based on the CPUE data, with the SSR providing backup that the LRP is reasonable.

For brown tiger prawns in both Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf there are times in the data series where the biomass has reduced to a very low level but recruitment did not appear to be impaired. In Shark Bay, spawning biomass in 2012 (῀6 kg/h) fell below the LRP (10 kg/h) but recruitment was not impaired and indeed was at least at average levels. For Exmouth Gulf, survey CPUE reached as low as around 5 kg/h in 1982. Although no recruitment surveys were conducted at that time, it can be argued that recruitment was not impaired because catches recovered very quickly after the low to average levels. From these two observations it may be considered that for brown tiger prawns in this region (i.e. both Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf), the LRP of 10kg/h is a point that is above the level where PRI is likely to be reached.

I note that by the previously stated definition, “the PRI may be identifiable as the point below which reduced recruitment has been observed in the past, and above which recruitment appears to be more related to environmental factors than to stock size” the available data does not suggest that stock sizes have reached a point where recruitment was impaired, but the LRP reflects a level of stock size when environmental factors heavily influence recruitment levels. The argument for whether LRP represents an acceptable level of risk of being above PRI is subjective. Each case is not strong on its own because it is only one point in time, but the two points and fisheries considered together, plus the several other occasions throughout history where spawning biomass has been close to the LRP and recruitment was not impaired, provides basis for some confidence. However there needs to be a note of caution. The guidance states “Where empirical values of CPUE (not based on

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 359

an explicit stock assessment) are used as reference points for monitoring biomass, teams could provide rationales that the values adopted are consistent with MSY or a similar highly productive level. Checks may be needed to ensure, in this case, that spatial changes in fishing, or changes in the catchability of gears do not reduce the reliability of the proxy indicators”. The assessors have put a condition on the need for standardisation of CPUE. This is essential, but it is also necessary to strengthen the argument around changes in vessel power and its effects on these measures here, particularly when using the 1982 value for Exmouth Gulf to justify PRI. I think this can be done though, because the Dept appear to have informally assessed changes in power and there are also some restrictions on gear (eg horsepower?) that may have assisted in controlling increases in catchability. There is also reference to doubling the TRP at some point to adjust for changes in catchability; this may be used to help justify.

To strengthen the overall argument for the LRP, I think you should use the SSR to demonstrate that an LRP of 10 kg/h is a reasonable one. Of course the concern here is the same as above that due to the age of the assessment (1986), are there any assumptions in the SSR that may make it invalid?

Once the LRP is established, there is a need to examine the “likelihood” of being above PRI. The V2.0 guidance states “Examples of how the 60, 80 and 100 SG levels may be justified in these situations are given below:

• At SG60: If no decline has been observed in one proxy of biomass for at least one generation time of the species and the proxy indicates that the stock is likely above the PRI. • At SG80: If no decline has been observed in two proxies of biomass for one generation time and at least one proxy indicates that the stock is at a highly productive level. • At SG 100: If no decline has been observed in three proxies of biomass for one generation time and at least two proxies indicate that the stock is at a highly productive level.” So it may be a little difficult to argue SG80 for Shark Bay after the decline due to environment a couple of years ago, but the above is only an example and it’s certainly not impossible to argue that there has been longer term stability.

After establishing the PRI at 10 kg/h, the target can then be set that is reflective of MSY. The Version 2.0 guidance states “In cases where the PRI is set at 20% B0, a default value for the BMSY may be assumed to be 2xPRI. In other cases, for instance where the PRI is set at the lowest historical biomass, it cannot be assumed that BMSY = 2xPRI. Teams shall justify any reference point used as a proxy of BMSY in terms of its consistency with BMSY.”

Then follows “The default PRI values given above (½BMSY or 20%B0) apply to stocks with average productivity. Such points are generally consistent with being above the point at which there is an appreciable risk that recruitment is impaired, though for some short-lived stocks the actual point at which there is an appreciable risk that recruitment is impaired may be lower than 20%B0 and for some long-lived species it may be higher than this.”

Given the ranges of CPUEs observed in the fishery and the very low levels of spawning biomass that have resulted in average recruitment, it is likely that PRI is below 20% Bzero for these species. The current TRP of 25 kg/h does account for this because it is more than twice the LRP of 10 kg/h. I think this is fairly easily justified as an appropriate reflection of MSY on this basis.

For western king prawns, although there are no very low points that help to define PRI like there were for brown tigers, the argument can be provided that WKP are likely to be more resilient than brown tiger prawns (which I recall had previously been done in the text) and therefore the same LRP is probably appropriate. This is the case for Shark Bay where the LRP and TRP are identical to the brown tiger ones. For Exmouth Gulf the LRP of 15 kg/h is

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 360

different. In my opinion, I would argue that the acceptable level above PRI is 10 kg/h as it is for the others but the LRP has been chosen to be a bit higher (for whatever reason). This takes the least amount of explanation compared to other justifications.

Conformity Assessment Body Response The reviewer has provided valuable information on the treatment of proxy indicators as outlined in MSC Certification Requirements v2.0 and suggestion for their possible consideration in this assessment.

Consideration has been given to this material in the revised justifications in the assessment report.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 361

Peer Reviewer 2

Overall Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Response presented in the assessment report? NO Justification: See comments at individual The P1 scoring justification does not adequately support Performance Indicators. scores given in a number of places. The PRD, especially at P1, is lacking in sufficient detail to support arguments. This comment applies also at PI2.1 and 2.5.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Response outcome within the specified timeframe? YES Justification: The conditions are simple restatement of scoring justification with a pro forma planning and implementation structure. With one small exception they are not leading and allow client flexibility in response.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification: Generally. The CAP is very detailed in some areas and might usefully be simplified to relate directly to the plan development and implementation milestones set in the Conditions.

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please follow the link.

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please follow the link.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)

1) There is no specific section on fishery information in the Introduction section for any of the P1 stocks, only in the scoring tables (though there is a brief paragraph on stock biology and structure). This may be an oversight but, if not, an explanation is warranted.

It is problematic for P1 (and elsewhere) that the PRD does not contain sufficient information to make clear judgments about a number of matters. Rather, for example, it is stated at 4.3 that “Unless otherwise indicated, information in the following section is sourced from documentation provided by the Western Australian Department of Fisheries (Kangas et al., 2014). Information, including supporting references, has been checked and verified by the assessors where available.”

This raises a number of general issues. The information presented in the PRD is not self-contained, and arguments made in the scoring rationales are therefore superficially weak. As a Peer Reviewer it MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 362

is difficult to read the scoring without going back at least to Kangas et al (2014) and often to other source materials. For a more casual reader this would be doubly difficult. It is strongly suggested that the Introduction to the main assessment document directly incorporate all relevant materials so that the assessment document can be read in isolation. Generally, too, the lack of information in the PRD and reference to a document that effectively attempts to do the assessment in advance, makes it hard to have the usual complete confidence in the assessment.

I stress this is not a comment on assessor objectivity or on the utility of the Kangas et al work. Rather on the appearance created by the wide recourse to pre-developed syntheses and lack of usual self- containment of PRD and final assessment documents.

It would help enormously if the Introduction section were expanded. This is especially the case at P1 where the information provided is very limited, notably with respect to justifying the adoption of TRP and LRP and how they relate to MSC RP requirements at PI1.1.2.

It would also be helpful at P1 scoring to make use of more references; few are provided in the scoring tables and in many cases none are cited. There is a need to clean up the references at P1. P2 references are good in most sections but are lacking at PI 2.1. References in P3 scoring tables, in contrast, are extensive and accurate.

Conformity Assessment Body Response There have been revisions to the document to address the issues raised. This was an unusual assessment in that the Western Australia Department of Fisheries provided a document of more than 300 pages as background information “…relevant to assist the assessment of this fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing” (i.e. Kangas et al. referred to above). It was difficult to reflect all of the material in that document, but much of the document was important to the assessment report and was summarised in the report. This is the reason the statement referred to at the 2nd paragraph above was made. In response to the peer reviewer’s comments the assessment report has been revised to make it more self contained.

2) I have serious concerns about inclusion of blue endeavour prawn as a P1 stock and the attempt to use the default assessment tree. The EGF Harvest strategy includes the stock in the ‘Retained non- target’ category and provides minimal reference levels and control rules. The reference levels are stated only as catch ranges with review actions if the range is exceeded for 2 or 3 years (see appendix 3.2). Critically, there is no background material available through Kangas et al (2014) and the Introduction section of the PRD consists of eight short paragraphs to cover all of P1, with no accompanying tables or graphics. Whether the management provisions are sufficient to include the stock in P1 is simply unclear; there is a need for a major raising of the bar in terms of documentation and arguments provided.

CAB Response Blue endeavour prawn has been re-considered and is treated as a P2 species.

3) 3.1.2 Si(b) – NB It is unclear to what extent the marginalising of stakeholders from risk assessment processes may impact on the validity of the PSAs used extensively at P2. It might be helpful for the assessment team to comment on this to support use of the existing PSA as opposed to a fully inclusive and transparent RBF conducted as part of the conformity assessment and following the CR.

4) Use of the default assessment tree depends on meeting the criterion laid out in Table AC2 of CR1.3. The test for use of the default tree at PI2.1 and I2.2 depends on whether the impact of the fishery in assessment on the P2 species can be determined quantitatively. The assessment team has argued (e.g. at PI 2.1.1(a) that the PSA is “semi-quantitative” and has proceeded to use the EGPMF PSA as a basis for scoring using the default assessment tree. I am aware that a similar stance was taken (and accepted) for P2 scoring of the Northern Prawn fishery, drawing on an extensive Commonwealth ERAEF. Nevertheless, I am unconvinced this is an appropriate approach.

The CR Vocabulary does not define ‘quantitative’. Generally, however, it would refer to information based on direct measurements or estimates which have a clear scale and which do not rely on MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 363

subjective scoring or difficult-to-measure components. PSA uses subjective scores assigned to components, combined in to overall scores. The resulting scores are interpreted in ranges. The underlying system is not quantitative. It is qualitative. The final PSA outputs are not the numerical scores but the risk ratings that follow from them.

I note the assessment team seems to recognise that PSA is qualitative when at PI 2.3.1 Si(a) is states wrt PSA that “The RRAMF is a higher level [cf PSA] qualitative assessment which further identifies low levels of risk….”

I think it is essential that the MSC clarify whether or not the EGPMF PSA can be used as in the PRD. In my view, if data-deficiency determines RBF should be used, then the processes at CR CC should be undertaken by the assessment team and used for scoring.

The situation is similar at PI2.3, for ETP. Table AC2 implies RBF methods are not deemed to be analytical, used as part of the test to invoke RBF. If so, use of PSA results conducted pre-conformity assessment to support default tree scoring seems incongruous

CAB Response Issues raised are addressed in responses to the Performance Indicators. .

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 364

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

Brown Tiger prawns There are extensive comments on all PI in See comments in response to all issue in the attached document. Formattng problems attached document. with the table make these imposisble to add below.

1.1.1 NO NO

1.1.2 NO NO

1.1.3

1.2.1 YES YES

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 365 of 396 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011

1.2.2 YES YES

1.2.3 ? NO

1.2.4 ? NO

Western King prawns

1.1.1 NO NO

1.1.2 NO NO

1.1.3

1.2.1 YES YES

1.2.2 YES YES

1.2.3 ? NO

1.2.4 ? NO

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 366

Blue Endeavour prawns

1.1.1 ? NO

1.1.2 ? NO Yes, but the CAP, while including good detail and intent leaves possibilties open at the third surveillance rather than agreeing to meet the third meilestone (staisfaction of the condition).

1.1.3

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 367

1.2.1 YES YES Yes, but the CAP stretches the timeline to extend to the final audit whereas the condition expects completion by the third. NB Conditions 1, 2 and 3 are related and the CAP is reasonable.

1.2.2 YES YES Yes, but see comment as per Condition 2.

1.2.3 YES YES

1.2.4 YES YES

2.1.1 NO NO

2.1.2 NO NO

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 368

2.1.3 NO NO

2.2.1 NO NO

2.2.2 YES YES

2.2.3 YES YES Yes

2.3.1 YES YES Yes, but Response assumes use of default tree – see reference to comments in separate text sawfish seems to have been missed (although the CAP picks it up).

2.3.2 YES YES Ditto

2.3.3 YES YES YES Ditto

2.4.1 YES YES

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 369

2.4.2 YES YES

2.4.3 YES YES Yes, but though the condition arises at si(c), si(b) text is also included - this is somewhat leading and might bereconsiderd.

2.5.1 YES YES

2.5.2 YES NO

2.5.3 YES YES

See some minor comments on P3 in the attached document.

3.1.1 YES YES

3.1.2 YES YES Yes, and the CAP is sufficient.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 370

3.1.3 YES YES

3.1.4 YES YES

3.2.1 YES YES

3.2.2 YES YES

3.2.3 YES YES

3.2.4 YES YES

3.2.5 YES YES

Any Other Comments Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: Conformity Assessment Body Response:

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 371

Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to specific how the process referenced? scoring issues and any relevant documentation where used to Yes/No possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. determine risk using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No 1.1.1

2.1.1

2.2.1

2.4.1

2.5.1

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body Response: from enhancement activities?

Justification:

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 372

Comments by Peer Reviewer 2

EGPMF P1 Brown Tiger Prawn PI 1.1.1 Use of the default assessment tree depends on meeting the criterion laid out in Table AC2 of CR1.3. The test effectively depends on scoring at PI1.1.2. Comments on PI1.1.2 suggest the need for strengthening of arguments to support the use of CPUE as a performance indicator and specific values used for LRP(s) and TRP(s). If the arguments cannot be strengthened, consideration should be given to use of the RBF. Assuming use of the default tree, at si(a), reference to Penn and Caputi (1985) would seem more appropriate for scoring at PI1.1.2 SI(b). The main paragraph is unnecessarily discursive and could be simplified to state that LRPs are defined for spawning and recruitment surveys in PI1.1.2(a) and that for all years since the mid 1980s the limits have not been breached. The degree of confidence in current status then depends not so much on the long‐run series (as used in the justification) but rather on recent and current indices relative to the LRP(s). As no confidence intervals are provided it is very difficult to determine if the probability criteria at CB2.2.1 are met and, if so, to what degree. The SG80 scoring depends on an 80% probability (CB2.2.1.2) – more justification of meeting this criterion is needed to support the scoring or, indeed, SG60 scoring. At si(b) the information provided is in the form of graphs at Figures 7 and 8. The text description of Fig 7 seems reasonable as it does also for the overall combined recruitment index in the lower frame at Fig. 8. However, the separate survey results shown in Fig 8 are not so clear cut. Overall, however, Si(b) justification and scoring seems sound.

Conformity Assessment Body Response The assessment team has recognized shortcomings in aspects of the performance indicators but conclude that the criteria in Table AC2 of CR1.3 are met sufficiently to allow use of the default assessment tree. The text has been revised to strengthen the justification as suggested by the peer reviewer.

PI 1.1.2 Much of the scoring justification text is superfluous. In the introduction and justification (at si(a)) the text is confusing. The key issue is that the harvest strategy contains indicators for Brown Tiger prawns based on survey and commercial, unstandardised CPUE. To the extent that interpretation of (commercial) catch rates used in‐season is consistent through time, the indicators are appropriate, as are Brown Tiger prawn‐specifc reference points based on them. The argument needs to be made that the CPUE interpretation is consistent and reliable – there is nothing on this and the arguments for scoring are therefore weak. Notably, however, the key reference points framing management are derived from survey CPUE and consistency should be assured. A distinction needs to be made between the two CPUE sources and the roles of the framing versus in‐season management. Assuming consistency of survey CPUE through time, the SG80 would be met.The justification needs to provide a fuller consideration of the survey and commercial CPUE consistency and potential use as reliable reference points.

At Si(b), The argument that the limit (10kg/hr) is above that which would impair recruitment is not made, just stated. The only justification is a single sentence in the introduction, repeated in the scoring justification. At face value, the limit does appear to be set such that recruitment has not been obviously impaired historically and the SRR from Penn and Caputi (1985) [referenced elsewhere but not actually shown] indicates 10kg/hr may be a reasonable limit. However, the SRR is 30 years old and should be updated; it is not clear if it remains valid or relevant and some comment on this is necessary. It is notable that SG100 scoring is denied because of uncertainty in the CPUE used to set reference points – this needs to be addressed at si(a) as well as here. Why are there CI associated with Western King prawn recruitment indices (Fig. 11) but not Brown Tiger prawn (Fig. 8)? Also of note is that the limits are set as 25% the recruitment index target and40% the spawning index target – all CB2.3 guidance (for analytically determined reference points) suggests LRPs be set at half Bmsy; it would be helpful to see commentary on the relationship between the TRP and LRP. It appears the TRP and LRP are set independently making use of CB2.3 difficult but not impossible. The SG80 may be appropriate but a much stronger argument needs to be made in both the introduction and the scoring, considering both how the RPs have been chosen and how their choice can be interpreted in relation to MSC requirements. The current justification is inadequate.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 373

At si(c), and noting Appendix 3.2, it appears an error is made; no size‐based performance measures/reference points appear to be used for Brown Tiger prawns, only for Western King prawns. The scoring justifications says estimation of Bmsy is impractical. This is true, though estimation is not impossible (see e.g. Northern Prawn stock assessment for the same species). Notwithstanding, the key issue for scoring is whether or not the target reference point(s) is(are) such as to ensure the stock is maintained at (or above) Bmsy or a surrogate with similar intent. The text claims that the TRP(s) are designed to provide outcomes consistent with Bmsy but as for the limit(s) no hard argument is used to demonstrate this. A stronger case needs to be made. Overall, scoring at PI1.1.2 may be correct but the arguments need to be considerably strengthened. As they stand, it is hard to see justification for scoring at the 80 levels.

CAB Response The need for improved analysis of catch rate information has been recognized against several Performance Indicators. However, the assessors agree that this is a significant issue for this Performance Indicator and have revised scoring to require a condition. In addition, the text has been revised to reflect other issues raised by the reviewer.

PI 1.1.3 N/A

PI 1.2.1 No comment.

PI 1.2.2 The introduction describes the harvest control rules as laid out in appendix 3.2. The scoring justification draws on the introduction

Si(a) – the rationale and scoring is reasonable but it would be worth noting, consistent with GCB2.6, that the plausibility and practicality of the design is judged in relation to the size and scale of the fishery, relying on empirical information rather than definitive science or robust evaluation.

Si(b) – no comment on the main rationale but is it appropriate in the scoring table to state what “should be undertaken”? This might be better reflected in the Recommendations at section 7.4 (page 175) which refers to PI1.2.3, where the same sentiment is articulated. I would suggest in the scoring table only stating the facts and leaving the advice and recommendation to section 7.4, at which point both PI 1.2.2 and PI 1.2.3 can be referred to.

Si(c) ‐ no comment.

CAB Response The text has been revised to reflect the reviewer’s comments.

PI 1.2.3 There is no specific section on fishery information in the Introduction, only in the scoring table (though there is a brief paragraph on stock biology and structure). This may be an oversight but, if not, an explanation is warranted. It is problematic here (and elsewhere) that the PRD does not contain sufficient information to make clear judgments about a number of matters. Rather, for example, it is stated at 4.3 that “Unless otherwise indicated, information in the following section is sourced from documentation provided by the Western Australian Department of Fisheries (Kangas et al., 2014). Information, including supporting references, has bene checked and verified by the assessors where available.” This raises a number of general issues but some specific for this PI. Generally, the information presented is not self‐contained, and arguments made in the scoring rationales are therefore superficially weak. As a Peer Reviewer it is difficult to read the scoring without going back at least to Kangas et al (2014) and often to source materials. For a more casual reader this would be doubly difficult. It is strongly suggested that the Introduction to the main assessment document directly incorporate relevant materials so that

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 374

the assessment document can be read in isolation. Generally, too, the lack of information in the PRD and reference to a document that effectively attempts to do the assessment in advance, makes it hard to have the usual complete confidence in the assessment. I stress this is not a comment on assessor objectivity. Rather on the appearance created by the wide recourse to pre‐developed syntheses.

Si(a) – as set out in GCB2.7, this PI addresses the information base as needed to inform the harvest strategy, HCRs and control tools Consideration needs to be given therefore to a range of information types (CB2.7.1.1 and GCB2.7.1) as relevant, but not more widely. Relevance, however (GCB2.7.2) extends to consideration of alternative hypotheses and potential alternate harvest strategies; in this sense, consideration can be wide‐ranging. There appears from Kangas et al (2014) to be good information on stock structure and productivity, fleet composition, environmental impacts, and history, sufficient to support the use of the harvest strategy embodied in the rules laid out in Appendix 3.2. The scoring rationale lists information types, including comment implicitly on fisheries data veracity (see CB2.7.3) sufficient to support SG80 scoring. It also notes that “although” further analyses should be undertaken on CPUE (see comment at PI 1.2.2) there is comprehensive information such as to support SG100 scoring. This is difficult because the key issue is whether or not survey indices really reflect stock abundance – they are used to drive apparently effective management but there is no obvious direct linkage to abundance or even work to test current validity of CPUE, or the 30‐year old SRR. It is very difficult to support SG100 scoring and I suggest limiting the score to the SG80.

Si(b) – No comment.

Si (c) – No comment.

CAB Response This was an unusual assessment in that the Western Australia Department of Fisheries provided a document of more than 300 pages as background information “…relevant to assist the assessment of this fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing” (i.e. Kangas et al. referred to above). It was difficult to reflect all of the material in that document, but much of the document was important to the assessment report and was summarised in the report. This is the reason the statement referred to at the 2nd paragraph above was made. In response to the peer reviewer’s comments the assessment report has been revised to make it more self‐contained.

The text for this PI has been revised to reflect the reviewer’s comments. Scoring for SI‐A has been reduced to 80.

PI 1.2.4 Si(a) ‐ At GCB2.8 it is clear that some harvest strategies may use and rely on simple empirical reference points. There is no requirement that status assessments be complex or even fully evaluated. However, there is a need to score relative to the robustness of the indicator(s) used. Throughout PI1.2.2 and 1.2.3 it has been mentioned that there is a need to undertake work on CPUE. Indeed, there is a recommendation to this effect at section 7.4. This effectively translates to a recommendation to look carefully at CPUE in relation to the nature of the fishery and whether/how it has changed through time; but also in relation to its relationship to stock size and what it might represent. It is hard to reconcile the recommendation and clear need with SG100 scoring at this SI and it is suggested SG80 scoring would be more appropriate.

Si(b) – Agreed, but note comment at PI1.2.3(a).

Si(c) – No comment.

Si(d) – No comment.

CAB Response Agreed. Scoring has been revised to 80 at SI‐A.

Western King Prawn

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 375

Si(a) – assuming the LRPs can be justified and the default tree used, the time‐series of CPUE is the main evidence in support of SG80 scoring The CI on the recruitment index superficially suggest the 2014 value is close to the limit at its lower CI, leaving SG80 scoring available but with a need for scrutiny. It is notable that the lower Cis of the index have not infrequently approached the LRP. I have difficulty with the use of the PSA to support scoring. If the LRP can be justified there is no need to invoke a PSA. If not, the RBF needs to be used and should be conducted as part of the assessment process following CR CC.

At si(b) the information provided is in the form of Figs. 10 and 11 and the commentary is generally reasonable. Use of the PSA seems unnecessary and does not aid any scoring justification.

CAB Response The assessment team has recognized shortcomings in aspects of the performance indicators but conclude that the criteria in Table AC2 of CR1.3 are met sufficiently to allow use of the default assessment tree. The text has been revised to strengthen the justification as suggested by the peer reviewer. The assessors conclude it is reasonable to mention the PSA outcomes as supporting evidence.

PI 1.1.2 Much of the scoring justification text is superfluous. In the introduction and justification (at si(a)) the text is confusing. The key issue is that the harvest strategy contains indicators for Western KIng prawns based on survey and commercial, unstandardised CPUE. It needs to be made clear, however, that unlike Brown Tiger prawn, only recruitment indices are available from surveys, with spawning cpue available only from commercial fisheries. To the extent that interpretation of (commercial) catch rates used in‐season is consistent through time, the indicators are appropriate, as are Western King prawn‐specifc reference points based on them. The argument needs to be made that the CPUE interpretation is consistent and reliable – there is nothing on this and the arguments for scoring are therefore weak. Assuming consistency of CPUE through time, the SG80 would be met.The justification needs to provide a fuller consideration of the survey and commercial CPUE consistency and potential use as reliable reference points. Note that no mention is made at si(a) of the size‐based reference points and their utility. Unlike Brown Tiger prawn RPs, these are imporatnt and consideration of their appropriateness is necessary in the justification.

At Si(b), The argument that the limit (15kg/hr in the recruitment index) is above that which would impair recruitment is not made, just stated. At face value, the limit does appear to be set such that recruitment has not been obviously impaired historically but it is also notable that it is in fact well below the range of estimated indices (Fig. 11); it is not clear, therefore, how it was chosen or how it relates to potential recruitment impairment. Unlike Brown Tiger prawn, there is no SRR to consider and the reliability and validity of the CPUE is critical to any argument. It is notable that SG100 scoring is denied because of uncertainty in the CPUE used to set reference points – this needs to be addressed at si(a) as well as here. Also of note is that the limit is set as 50% of the target, seemingly consistent with CB2.3 guidance (for analytically determined reference points); nevertheless, as for Brown Tiger prawn, it would be helpful to see commentary on the relationship between the TRP and LRP and the rationale for their choice. The SG80 score may or may not be appropriate and a stronger argument needs to be made in both the introduction and the scoring. At si(c), The key issue for scoring is whether or not the target reference point(s) is(are) such as to ensure the stock is maintained at (or above) Bmsy or a surrogate with similar intent. The text claims that the TRP(s) are designed to provide outcomes consistent with Bmsy but as for the limit(s) no hard argument is used to demonstrate this. A stronger case needs to be made. It is notable comparing Figs. 8 and 11 that the TRP is at the bottom of the observed recruitment index range and the LRP is much lower still. It is very unclear how either RP relates to the PRI or Bmsy and much stronger argument is required to score at the SG80 level. Overall, scoring at PI1.1.2 may be correct but the arguments need to be considerably strengthened. As they

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 376

stand, it is hard to see justification for scoring at the 80 levels.

PI 1.1.3 N/A

PI 1.2.1 No comment.

PI 1.2.2 The introduction describes the harvest control rules as laid out in appendix 3.2. The scoring justification draws on the introduction

Si(c) – to avoid any confusion, it would be worth saying “…above the target level of 25 kg/hr being achieved in the commercial fishery in all years.”

CAB Response The text has been revised to reflect the reviewer’s comments.

PI 1.2.3 There is no specific section on fishery information in the Introduction for any of the P1 stocks, only in the scoring tables (though there is a brief paragraph on stock biology and structure). This may be an oversight but, if not, an explanation is warranted. It is problematic here (and elsewhere) that the PRD does not contain sufficient information to make clear judgments about a number of matters. Rather, for example, it is stated at 4.3 that “Unless otherwise indicated, information in the following section is sourced from documentation provided by the Western Australian Department of Fisheries (Kangas et al., 2014). Information, including supporting references, has been checked and verified by the assessors where available.” This raises a number of general issues but some specific for this PI. Generally, the information presented is not self‐contained, and arguments made in the scoring rationales are therefore superficially weak. As a Peer Reviewer it is difficult to read the scoring without going back at least to Kangas et al (2014) and often to source materials. For a more casual reader this would be doubly difficult. It is strongly suggested that the Introduction to the main assessment document directly incorporate relevant materials so that the assessment document can be read in isolation. Generally, too, the lack of information in the PRD and reference to a document that effectively attempts to do the assessment in advance, makes it hard to have the usual complete confidence in the assessment. I stress this is not a comment on assessor objectivity. Rather on the appearance created by the wide recourse to pre‐developed syntheses.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 377

to consideration of alternative hypotheses and potential alternate harvest strategies; in this sense, consideration can be wide‐ranging.

There appears from Kangas et al (2014) to be good information on stock structure and productivity, fleet composition, environmental impacts, and history, sufficient to support the use of the harvest strategy embodied in the rules laid out in Appendix 3.2. The scoring rationale lists information types, including comment implicitly on fisheries data veracity (see CB2.7.3) sufficient to support SG80 scoring. It also notes that “although” further analyses should be undertaken on CPUE (see comment at PI 1.2.2) there is comprehensive information such as to support SG100 scoring. This is difficult because the key issue is whether or not survey indices really reflect stock abundance – they are used to drive apparently effective management but there is no obvious direct linkage to abundance or even work to text current validity of CPUE. It is very difficult to support SG100 scoring.

Si(b) – No comment.

Si (c) – No comment.

CAB Response See comments at PI 1.2.3 for brown tiger prawn. The text for this PI has been revised to reflect the reviewer’s comments. Scoring for SI‐A has been reduced to 80.

PI 1.2.4 Si(a) ‐ At GCB2.8 it is clear that some harvest strategies may use and rely on simple empirical reference points. There is no requirement that status assessments be complex or even fully evaluated. However, there is a need to score relative to the robustness of the indicator(s) used. Throughout PI1.2.2 and 1.2.3 it has been mentioned that there is a need to undertake work on CPUE. Indeed, there is a recommendation to this effect at section 7.4. This effectively translates to a recommendation to look carefully at CPUE in relation to the nature of the fishery and whether/how it has changed through time; but also in relation to its relationship to stock size and what it might represent. It is hard to reconcile the recommendation and clear need with SG100 scoring and it is suggested SG80 scoring would be more appropriate.

Si(b) – Note comment at PI1.2.3(a). It needs to be clarified here, and perhaps for Brown Tiger prawn as well, what types of CPUE are being used – for BT prawn the spawning CPUE are derived from a survey, whereas for WK prawn they are commercial.

Si(c) – No comment.

Si(d) – No comment.

CAB Response Agreed. Scoring has been revised to 80 at SI‐A. The text has been revised for SI‐B.

Blue Endeavour Prawn

CAB Response to comments below on Blue endeavour prawn The Blue endeavour prawn was marginal in the original assessment and several conditions were suggested for this species. After consideration of the comments from both peer reviewers it was decided that Blue endeavour prawn did not meet SG 80 requirements overall and it has been re‐assessed as a P2 species.

I have serious concerns about inclusion of Blue endeavour prawn as a P1 stock and the attempt to use the default assessment tree. The EGF Harvest strategy includes the stock in the ‘Retained non‐target’ category and provides minimal reference levels and control rules. The reference levels are stated only as catch ranges with review actions if the range is exceeded for 2 or 3 years (see appendix 3). Critically, there is no background material available through Kangas et al (2014) and the Introduction section of the PRD consists of eight short paragraphs to cover all of P1, with no accompanying tables or graphics. Whether

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 378

the management provisions are sufficient to include the stock in P1 is simply unclear; there is a need for a major raising of the bar in terms of documentation and arguments provided.

PI 1.1.1 Use of the default assessment tree depends on meeting the criterion laid out in Table AC2 of CR1.3. The test effectively depends on scoring at PI1.1.2. Comments on PI1.1.2 suggest the need for major strengthening of arguments to support the use catch ranges used for LRP(s) and TRP(s). If the arguments cannot be strengthened, consideration should be given to use of the RBF. Si(a) – As for Western King prawn, I suggest the use of PSA to support default assessment tree scoring at P1 is inappropriate. The argument reasonably brings in protection of spawning capacity through spatial/temporal measures. I cannot understand, however, from the rationale provided, how the assessors have been able to conclude it is “highly likely” that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Some clear justification for the probabilistic statement is required. At si(b) – The stock appears to be below its target or target range but likely due to effort reductions rather than stock size. The text says “Although catches have fallen below their target range, this is due to reduced effort in the fishery rather than declines in the Blue Endeavour prawn stock.” While being below the catch target (or range) may not be problematic from a biological perspective, the SI needs to be scored according to whether fluctuation is around the target (or range). If catches are below the range then SG80 scoring is not available, and certainly not SG100. This highlights the real problem of whether or not the RPs are appropriate, as scored at PI1.1.2 – it appears they are not, at least as required by MSC. The MSC CR envisages a target consistent with Bmsy and that RPs relate to stock size (or a proxy). Catch is not generally a suitable proxy indicator. Note also that the target (range) for Blue endeavour prawns is in exactly the same form as for Banana prawn. At 2.1.1 it is said that SG100 scoring cannot be given because the catch‐based RPs are not derived from a robust assessment. How can it then be possible to say SG100 is met under P1.1.1 when the TRP is similarly not derived from a robust assessment?

PI 1.1.2 Si(a) – Only one sentence relates directly to justification of the scoring : “ The catch‐based limit and target…are based on justifiable and reasonable practice approporiate…” The other text says what is not done and what might be done. The single sentence is a statement, not an argument and more is needed to justify the SG60 scoring. See also comments at PI1.1 si(b).

At Si(b) ‐ The argument seems to be that reproductive capacity is unlikely to be compromised because the stock is protected by Brown Tiger prawn spawning closures and its inshore distribution. Some of this is apparent from the Introductory section on stock status (but not that on reference points) and some in the scoring justification. There is a reference in the scoring justification that the catch has exceeded 300t on 7 occasions in the last 40 years – this is not in the introduction and I cannot find a figure or table to support it. Overall, the justification does not clearly support the SG80 scoring. Justification for the LRP catch range needs to be made with respect to CB2.3.1 and CB2.3.2. This is not done. At si(c) ‐ Clearer argument is needed, relating to CB2.3.1.1, to justify SG80 scoring. Currently, the text includes various figures on catch rates and catches but none of these are in the relevant section of the Introduction, though they appear under that related to stock status. It is very difficult to determine how the supposed TRP relates to Bmsy or a surrogate with similar intent.

PI 1.1.3 N/A

PI 1.2.1 Si(d) Should the “NA” be “NO”? The justification is sound.

PI 1.2.2 Si(c) – Should “NA” be “NO”?

PI 1.2.3 See general comments as for other P1 stocks. Si(a) – No comment. Si(b) – It is not at all clear how “…abundance is monitored indirectly through a PSA…” PSA are intended to categorise risks; they do not measure status outcomes. I suggest deleting this clause.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 379

Si (c) – No comment.

PI 1.2.4 See general comments as for other P1 stocks. Si(a) – There is no need to mention PSA. The PI scores the assessment as used for management. That is, a simple comparison of catch (scored under PI1.2.3) against the reference points (scored under Pi 1.1.2). There is not even an assessment step related to translating any comparison to HCR (scored under PI 1.2.2). Si(b) – No comment. Si(c) – No comment. Si(d) – No comment.

P2 Use of the default assessment tree depends on meeting the criterion laid out in Table AC2 of CR1.3. The test for use of the default tree at PI2.1 and I2.2 depends on whether the impact of the fishery in assessment on the P2 species can be determined quantitatively. The assessment team has argued (e.g. at PI2.1.1(a) that the PSA is “semi‐quantitative” and has proceeded to use the EGPMF PSA as a basis for scoring using the default assessment tree. I am aware that a similar stance was taken (and accepted) for P2 scoring of the Northern Prawn fishery, drawing on an extensive Commonwealth ERAEF. Nevertheless, I am unconvinced this is an appropriate approach.

The CR Vocabulary does not define quantitative. Generally, however, it would refer to information based on direct measurements or estimates which have a clear scale and which do not rely on subjective scoring or difficult‐to‐measure components. PSA gives scores by categories and then combines them. The resulting scores are interpreted in ranges but the underlying system is not quantitative. It is qualitative. The final PSA outputs are not the numerical scores but the risk ratings that follow from them.

I think it is essential that the MSC clarify whether or not the EGPMF PSA can be used as in the PRD. If data‐ deficiency determines RBF should be used, then the processes at CR CC should be used. Currently, there is an uncomfortable mix of approaches.

CAB response: The MSC uses the term ‘semi‐quantitative in CR V1.3: CC1.3 The team shall first conduct a “Level 1” qualitative analysis (Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis ‐ SICA), then, if necessary and applicable to that PI, conduct a “Level 2” semi‐quantitative analysis (Productivity Susceptibility Analysis ‐ PSA). If the team conducted RBF, we would have followed the CR V1.3 Annex CC: Risk‐Based Framework – Normative. However, because DoF conducted the PSA and included other analyses for fisheries (Evans and Molony), we considered the entire package as information for evaluation, and then evaluated the entire package of DoF to see if the fishery met the intent of the MSC requirements. All of the information together satisfied the team.

2.1.1 See comment above re use of PSA

Si(a) – It is not clear that Banana prawn should be considered as a main species. The percentage catch in 2012 and 2013 is (unusually) high and above 5% but this is due to lower than usual target species catches and high Banana prawn abundance due to environmental conditions. Given the percentages shown in Table 4b are between 0.0 and 0.3 for all other years, treatment as a main species seems unwarranted. Note that the interpretation of biologically based limits needs, according to the MSC Vocabulary, to refer, at a minimum, to the point of serious or irreversible harm. The scoring justification does not do this but refers directly to the PSA as providing evidence of stocks being within BBL. There is a problem of trying to use PSA and risk‐based methods within the default tree. The argument re not scoring SG100 relates to the TRP‐setting. See comment on Blue Endeavour prawn PI 1.1.1(a).

Si(b) – it is unclear how the target range of 0‐60t was set and how it relates to Bmsy. Given the catch history in Table 4a, it seems strange that the upper range was so high. While there is no specific guidance

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 380

on TRP for P2 species, the only logical guidance comes from P1. Setting TRP needs to meet the CRs. If the RBF were used instead of the default tree, no issues would arise. By using the default tree more scrutiny is needed of the validity of the TRP.

Si(c) – No comment

Si(d) – A score is not given indicating the assessors consider the status is not poorly known. The PSA gives an indication of risk but not of stock status per se. If the default tree is used, the absence of information on status requires this Si to be scored. Presumably, the measures referred to in the second sentence of the scoring justification could be used to justify an SG60 score. Overall, while I am uncomfortable about the use of the default tree, if it is used, I would expect scoring of 80, ‐, NA, and 60, giving a PI score of 70. NB references are given to DoF 2014a and to Kangas et al, 2014. Only the former is cited.

CAB Response There has been revision of the text to address most issues raised, however the assessors disagree re the use of the PSA as supporting evidence and have maintained reference to it. Whilst it is true that banana prawn catches are less than 5% of the total in most years, they have been assessed as a main retained species as a precautionary measure. Additional text has been provided on banana prawns.

2.1.2 Si(b) – There is a citation of Kangas et al, 2006, which is not in the reference list. NB This would not be scored under RBF.

Si(c) – It would be worth noting the Kangas et al (2007) study referenced in the Introduction but not in the scoring justification, though this is more useful and correctly considered at Si(d). More generally, clear evidence of strategy implementation would rely not just on biological outputs but more so on documentation related to decision‐making and reactions to triggered needs under the HS. Are there Management meeting reports or minutes to that effect? Without such evidence, SG100 scoring is not justified. NB If SG100 is not met at Si(c) the overall score will need to be adjusted (to 80).

CAB Response Reference has been added. Text has been revised to address other issues raised and score of 100 has been retained.

2.1.3 Si(b) – as above, the ESD and PSA do not estimate outcome status wrt biologically based limits. Rather, they provide risk ratings. Under RBF this would not be scored. If the default tree is used SG80 scoring is not justified. NB If SG80 is not met at Si(b) the overall score will need to be adjusted (to 75, leading also to condition setting). NB Multiple relevant references are used at PI 2.2.2 but are not drawn on at PI 2.1.2.

CAB Response Text has been revised to justify score of 80.

2.2.1 Si(a) – comments re PSA apply. However, I note that at this Si not only EGPMF PSA scores are invoked, but so too is the RBF scoring to justify a score of 90. If the default assessment tree is being used then the RBF (CR CC) does not apply and should not be used. It is hard to see how scoring above SG80 could be achieved.

CAB Response

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 381

Under Table CC18 for combining PSA scores, we revised the scores on the basis that “All elements score at least 80.

A 3% criterion has been used to define main species, following Kangas et al, 2014. It is not clear from the Introduction or from Kangas et al, 2014, how the percentages were calculated. From Appendix F of Kangas et al, it is possible to derive similar (but not the same) numbers. I have not, therefore, tried to calculate if there are any bycatch species which would exceed the usual MSC criterion for defining main species (5%). It would be useful to know whether the list of main species would be impacted.

CAB Response The precentages were derived sung catch survey data. Three percent was accepted by the team since it was a more conservative estimate. The MSC does not set a hard rule in V1.3. For precautionary reasons, we used the lower limits of Kangas.

2.2.2 NB This would not be scored under RBF. NB There are multiple references which are equally relevant at PI 2.1.2 but which are not alluded to/cited.

CAB Response The References as used are those cited

2.2.3 Si(b) – see comment at PI 2.1.3 Si(b).

CAB response: Catch information was recorded for all bycatch species in 2002/2003. This predated the introduction of a number of bycatch reduction measures. Now that there is a harvest strategy in place for the fishery and the outcome for bycatch species is supported through ESD analysis and PSA which have been undertaken. The PSA demonstrates that the effects of prawn fishing have low risk for bycatch species. The harvest strategy requires a review of available information if acceptable catch ranges are breached, with the possibility of changes to management arrangements if the review indicates this need. Overall, SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met.

Si(c) – note that information to support risk assessments can support a viable and effective strategy. This is not the same as determining outcome status. The point here is that in this case the SG80 scoring is justified.

CAB Response Have changed to ‘Information available is sufficient to support a vaibale and effective strategy’

Si(d)‐ There is potential overlap with Si(c) and it is good to see a distinction made when considering and scoring this Si.

CAB Response The PI relates to potential changes in the outcome status and has been answered correctly.

2.3.1 CR Table AC2 says the default tree should be used if the impact of the fishery in assessment on ETP species ‘can be analytically determined’. This is different to the test at PI2.1.1 and 2.2.1 which requires ‘quantitative’ determination. At AC2, if analytical determination is not available, then the RBF is invoked – implying that the RBF methods, including PSA, are not deemed to be analytical.

CAB Response The scientific/management agency used risk‐based methods, including the RBF, which we evaluated in a stakeholder workshop, as well as the RRAMF. These strongly support the intent of the performance indicators.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 382

Again, therefore, can the default tree be used when all information used to justify scoring is derived from PSA (conducted in advance, not as part of the conformity assessment, following CR CC)? It seems inconsistent to use the default tree but to rely on the risk‐based methods to justify scores. It is notable that if RBF were used directly, not the default tree, some PI would not be scored – for example, PI2.3.3 si(b) would not be scored. Using the default tree, SG60 is scored and a condition raised. This would not have been necessary had RBF been used directly. The use of risk based methods to inform management of EGPMF is laudable, but it is uncomfortable to shoe‐horn pre‐CA risk‐based assessments, however well conducted, in to the default tree. SI(a) – Assuming use of the PSA within the default tree is valid, the scoring justification is extensive and usefully provides information on the ETP components. I note sea snakes and sawfish are given scores at SG60, not SG80 leading to a condition being set – however, the condition seems only to apply to sea snakes, not to sawfish. The CAP, however, for conditions related to PI 2.3.1 and 2.3.3 refers to sea snakes and sawfish. Presumably, the lack of references to sawfish in the PI 2.3.1 condition is an oversight.

CAB Response RBF is not used to score the fishery, but the Reader should be made aware of the extensive amount of work undertaken to justify the status of all ETP species. Sawfish are added to the Condition

2.3.2 – no comment

2.3.3 Si(a) – there is probably no need here to refer to the PSA at all, just to information. The information is used as part of the PSA process.

CAB Response Removed reference to the PSA

Si(b) This would not be scored if RBF were used. It is effectively a double jeopardy with Si(a) given the recourse to scoring based on PSA. It makes no effective difference to the condition‐setting but potentially could skew overall P2 scoring. Note that reference to trend measurement is relevant at Si(c) but not at Si(b).

CAB Response RBF was not used. The comment is therefore irrelevant to the scoring.

Si(c) – The scoring justification refers to outcome status, but the PSA does not do this. As states, information is available to support estimation of outcome status. Would it then be possible to undertake scoring without recourse to the PSA?

CAB Response Under the RBF, the risk score converts to a status score: 27.10.7.5 Where some scoring elements have been scored using the RBF, the converted MSC score shall be treated as an individual scoring element score when combining element scores in Table C2.

It’s true that PSA/RBF is not a true status determination; the MSC uses it that way.

2.4 There is good information and scores are well justified at all PI 2.4.x. The introductory section is good.

Si(a) – No comment.

Si(b) – No comment.

Si(c) ‐ It is unclear why all SG100 are “Not scored” at PI 2.4.3; is this same as “N” elsewhere? If not, an explanation is required. The condition is appropriate but it is not clear that the text from si(b) is required as well as that for ci(c); it seems to be leading. The CAP is very detailed but does not specifically address how plan development and implementation will take place.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 383

CAB Response If we have a condition, there is no need to score SG100. ‘Not scored’ for SG100 in all cases where we have a condition. The CAP has been amended to say ‘DoF will assign appropriate staff to review the issues and develop a plan in consultation with the client. Implementation will get picked up in surveillance’.

2.5.1 – No comment.

2.5.2 Si(a) – No comment.

Si(b) – No comment.

Si(c) – The scoring justification says that “Information is adequate to suggest the components of the ecosystem are understood.” This is not the same as required at SG80 and SG100, namely that “The main functions of the components….are known.” It is not clear from the Introductory material that the SG levels are met. More solid argument is needed here. Note too that the first two sentences of the justification are not relevant.

CAB Response: There appears to be some confusion here in that the peer reviewer is referring to 2.5.3c rather than 2.5.2c. The justification at 2.5.3c has been amended to address the reviewer’s comments.

Si(d) – No comment.

2.5.3 Si(a) – No comment.

Si(b) – No comment.

Si(c) – No comment.

Si(d) – only biodiversity has apparently been considered. Unless this is a complete view of the ecosystem, then only SG80, not SG100, scoring is available.

Si(e) ‐ The Introductory text gives no details and the scoring rationale is terse. It is hard to see how SG100 is justified.

Overall, PI 2.5.3 scoring seems very high but without sufficient justification. It is difficult to see how an overall score of 80 could be given.

CAB Response: Agreed. The justifications have been amended and the scores for 2.5.3d and 2.5.3e have been reduced to 80.

3.1.2 Si(b) – NB It is unclear to what extent the marginalising of stakeholders from risk assessment processes may impact on the validity of the PSAs used extensively at P2. It might be helpful for the assessment team to comment on this to support use of the existing PSA as opposed to a fully inclusive and transparent RBF conducted as part of the conformity assessment.

CAB Response It is preferable for key stakeholders have a chance to participate (e.g DPAW and e‐NGOs), but not likely to invalidate the results. The PSA does not specifically require full stakeholder participation. However, it is an important issue, and DoF should consider changing the CAP statement to providing opportunities for participation, comment and feedback on key fisheries policy matters and initiatives

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 384

3.1.4 – it is not clear what ‘target reference level’ means when “Fishing targets are kept at or below” them. It would be helpful if this could be clarified.

CAB Response Replaced with Fishery catch is targets are kept consistent with the catch‐based target reference level (DoF, Harvest Strategy, 2014), recognizing that below normal fishing effort results in catches below the target range.

3.2.1 – an intermediate score is given (consistent with CR 27.10.5.3a(i)). It does not matter in final outcome but for sake of completeness, it might be worth being explicit about the intermediate scoring. Only one component of the FM system is found lacking; should that invoke 27.10.5.3a (i) or (ii)? There seems to be some vestigial text (related to condition setting) in a grey box at the end of the 3.2.1 table.

CAB Response 27.10.5.3 applies to scoring issues within a performance indicator. This does not allow partial scores. PI 3.2.1 should be 80, not 90: 27.10.6 To contribute to the scoring of any PI, the team shall verify that each scoring issue is fully and unambiguously met. 27.10.6.1 Rationale shall be presented to support the team’s conclusion.

27.10.6.2 The rationale shall make direct reference to every scoring issue and whether or not it is fully met. (note the exception for P2 at 27.10.7)

The justification should read something like: The plan states that information systems require investigation. Therefore, whilst the objectives are explicit, they do not cover all P2 components, therefore scoring SG 80 and not reaching the SG100.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 385

Appendix 6. Stakeholder submissions

Appendix 5.1: Exmouth Gulf site visit report SITE VISIT EXMOUTH GULF, WA, 4-5 November, 2014 Stephen Hood, General Manager Stephen Schilling, Operations manager John Wakeford (Dr), Gear technologist Tony Tomlinson, Net maker/former skipper

Harvest strategy Fishing during the first part of the season (between April and July) focuses primarily on brown tiger prawns, which arrive first on the trawl grounds. The Central TPSA and the Eastern Area of the fishery closes around early August (prior to the August moon closure) to protect spawning tiger prawns, Fishing effort then shifts to the Northern Area of the Gulf to target western king prawns and continues into mid-November. The season lasts for around 145 days, with no fishing taking place during the full moon period when the prawns are soft and are moulting.

Access to partial closures is determined using try nets, and limited access to these areas. The Company makes the decision to change/move ground on based on try nets and encountering any large numbers of juvenile prawns.

Vessels work throughout the lunar cycle and are serviced by a tender vessel. The smaller vessels may come in to land.

At the start of the 2014 season, the two larger vessels in the fleet, moved to Nickol Bay to fish for Banana prawns to give some respite to the tiger prawns.

Bycatch and ecosystems MG Kailis employ their own dedicated gear technologist for the purpose of increasing gear efficiency and reducing interactions with non-target species. He has pioneered many gear changes in prawn trawl fisheries. With this expertise, the process remains very dynamic. Gear comprises quad rig, with TED (the MGK standard grid), square mesh panel (fish eye). The focus is to catch larger sized prawns. The square mesh panel eliminates some fish species, and the TED eliminating sharks and turtles. Sea snakes usually escape through the larger meshes.

The fleet usually conducts tows of 60-200 mins. This is shorter than SB because of lower quantities of weed encountered.

In 2014 MG Kailis pioneered the bigger JW grid to suite its larger vessels (FV Portland Road, and FV Latitude).

In September 2014, 2 x Austral grids were deployed on one of the MGK trawlers towing 8 fathom nets, and the skipper was very pleased with the results (cleaner catch with less net damage in the throat).

During the 2015 season the JW grid will also be evaluated against the Austral grid, with parameters of interest being: bycatch reduction, prawn loss, prawn size composition, prawn

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 386

quality, and quantification of the debris present in the grid region and codend. The results will determine whether MGK adopts the Austral grid or JW grid in future seasons, keeping in mind that one or the other may be better for specific applications.

The use of a fish exclusion device in the form of a large square mesh panel downstream of the grid is mandatory in the EGPMF. Currently the square mesh panel is made from 160mm stretched mesh, and measures 3 bar wide by 5 bar long (c. 240 x 400mm) (refer Fig. 8). Previous studies (Broadhurst et al 2002, Brewer et al 2004; Wakeford 2006; Heales et al 2008) with such devices have shown that it is quite common for fishermen/net-makers to underestimate how closed up the codend meshes become when fishing, and as a consequence an insufficient number of meshes are attached to the lateral edges, and too many are attached to the longitudinal edge. The former error results in the window being compressed laterally, and as a consequence pleats form through the large mesh section; understandably, these pleats reduce the size of the large mesh openings, and intuitively would compromise the effectiveness of the device. Currently the FEDs are inserted by the skipper/crew on each vessel, with the number of meshes sewn to each edge being left to their discretion. In 2015, this will change, and all FEDs will be inserted in the same position (centrally in the top panel at 20 meshes posterior to the leading edge of the codend) and in the same fashion (30 meshes across, 9 meshes deep) according to appropriate in-house guidelines.

Texas drop chains are used and the foot rope sits high above the sea bed. This allows for a lot of debris to go under the net.

Multi foil boards are now used which are half the length and depth of the standard otterboard traditionally used. Half the length (1 metre compared to 2.4 metres. This has reduced the ploughing footprint to less than half. The main advantage is that it avoids debris. Very clean fishery.

Very few sygnathids were encountered by fishermen.

Over the extensive period, i.e. since the 1970s, some skippers have recorded dolphin mortality. This was perhaps one -2 over the period of 30 years. When caught dolphins were never found in the net but were caught up around the tail hitch interactions with the lazy line. The TEDs were reported to have eliminated all the dangerous species, and made handling and sorting much easier. The TEDs are set at a 60 deg angle with a bottom opening. Sorting prawns from fish/sea snakes is done with the use of hoppers. Usually with two crew sorting through fish and debris and animals are thrown over the side. Smaller fish would fall onto the conveyor belt which operators a recirculating system to minimise the damage to fish bycatch.

One skipper reported colliding with a whale but with no apparent damage. Skippers will stop the vessels when there is a whale encounter. Whale interactions are recorded by the Centre for Whale Research – contact Curt Jenner ([email protected])

By catch interactions, other than by-products are not recorded. The hopper systems allow for sorting of the catch. Fish mortality is reported at about 5/4:1, but with very significant reductions experienced since the mid-seventies when it was around 20:1

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 387

Compliance Skippers are paid performance premiums. Success is measured against a performance indicator which includes reporting, fish quality, vessel maintenance and compliance.

The company has dismissed people in the past for doing the wrong thing. Area boundaries are inputted into the plotter. The company has no direct access to VMS. It uses AIS.

Chain of Custody Prawns graded by species (tiger, kings and blue endeavour), size grade (count/lb) and form (Whole raw, whole cooked, whole raw soft, broken and loose) into 5 kg or 3 kg packs on board the vessel. The product is snap frozen at -37 deg to -39 deg. A Red Tick indicates if product cooked, a Black Tick, if the product is raw. All cartons are dated.

All cartons are despatched to Perth direct from the vessels without processing or separation. Frozen boxes are re palletised by size grade on arrival in Perth.

Some prawns are sold via retail outlets either to the company shop in Perth, Melbourne and Exmouth. A retail truck services mining communities up to Port Headland.

Most product is sent through distributors to Eastern Australia or for export. Only a very small quantity is exported – whole raw frozen tiger prawn.

Broken and loose prawns are snap frozen and sent for de-shelling in Vietnam

Breaks in the CoC chain therefore include: ‐ sales to domestic retail outlets ‐ export for thawing and peeling (to Vietnam) and returned to Australia ‐ direct export traders to within Australia, Japan, China and Singapore

Appendix 5.2: Written submission

This submission is made on behalf of the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Area Advisory Committee.

Purpose The purpose of the submission is provide information about the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Area (NCWHA) and the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee (NCWHAC), to comment on the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery (EGPF) in relation to the NCWHA and to make recommendations.

Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Area (NCWHA)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 388

The NCWHA was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2011 as one of the outstanding natural places in the world, for its natural beauty and biological diversity1. In particular, the listing recognises the: • striking natural landscapes of Cape Range and Ningaloo Reef • high biological diversity of the Ningaloo Reef • opportunity for visitors to encounter one of the world’s largest annual aggregations of whale sharks, as well as other marine mammals, turtles and manta rays • unusual diversity of marine turtle species • rare and diverse plants and animals of Cape Range, particularly the subterranean cave creatures.

The Ningaloo Coast is over 200 km long and tourism and recreational activities are concentrated in a number of accessible areas, mostly in the northern section radiating out from the townsite of Exmouth, and in the central areas that surround the settlement of Coral Bay. Wilderness camping is however spread along the entire coastline, often only accessible by 4WD vehicles or boats. The strict control of waste discharges from marinas, canal estates, boat ramps, coastal settlements and from other facilities is essential to the maintenance of Ningaloo’s pristine condition.

Tourism and recreation, including recreational fishing and vessel based interactions with whale sharks and manta rays, is an important industry undertaken in and adjacent to the marine area, and depends for its promotion and success, on the maintenance of a high quality marine environment.

Management Arrangements

The State Government has signed an agreement in 2009 with the Commonwealth Government to manage the NCWHA . The world heritage listing not only creates obligations on the Commonwealth Government but also on the State government to ensure that the world heritage values of the area are conserved so existing and future generations can enjoy them. These obligations on the WA State Government also apply to those agencies with management responsibilities within the area.

The NCWHA is protected through comprehensive legislation, both Commonwealth and State. The marine component is managed through WA State legislation including the Environment Protection Act 1986, the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 and the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. Protection of listed species is managed through the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Fisheries, both commercial and recreational, are regulated through the WA Fish Resources Management Act 1995.

Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee

The Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee was established in 2013 by agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia governments.

The role of the NCWHAC is to:  provide advice to the Commonwealth and State Environment Ministers on the protection, conservation, presentation and management of the values of the World Heritage area;  develop and provide input into initiatives and opportunities for the promotion and presentation of the World Heritage area values to the local, national and international

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 389

communities; and  contribute to enhancing the stewardship and connection of the community to the World Heritage area  nominate members from the NCWHAC to represent the Committee on the Australian World Heritage Advisory Committee and the Australian World Heritage Indigenous Network.

The current membership of the NCWHAC is at Attachment 1.

Commercial Fisheries and the NCWHA

The area of the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Fishery (EGPF) overlaps with the north-eastern part of the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Area. The boundaries of the NCWHA are shown on the attached map Ningaloo_WH_Tenure_Map (Attachment 2) . Areas R1 and S2 of the prawn fishery overlap with the northeastern corner of the NCWHA. The fishery is permitted to operate within the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Area in part of the General Use zone of the Ningaloo Marine Park in Exmouth Gulf and an eastern portion of the Muiron Islands Marine Management Area outside of Conservation Areas.

In the nomination document for the world heritage listing, the existence of commercial fishing, principally prawn trawling, was acknowledged as “minimal”.2 The technical evaluation of the nomination for world heritage listing, by IUCN, noted that “The small-scale commercial and recreational fishing is regulated and appears to constitute no threat to the integrity of the nominated property. “3

It is recognised that the EGPF is subject to a number of controls to minimise the effects of trawling on target and non-target species, through an input control management system and other legislation. Overall effort in the fishery is constrained by limited entry, limits on fishing gear, seasonal and other closures, restricted trawl hours (mainly night-time trawling), and the use of bycatch reduction devices and turtle exclusion devices. In addition fishing activity is monitored using a Vessel Monitoring System.4 It is also noted that the EGPF has been assessed and accredited under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 since 2003.4

Comment and Recommendations

Although the EGPF is highly regulated and may have minimal impact on the values of the NCWHA, the main concerns of the NCWHAC are:

1. There is no indication that the existence of the NCWHA and the outstanding universal value that it embodies is recognised in fisheries policy, planning or management documents and practices. Neither the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 (Fisheries Management Paper 265) nor the Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Bycatch Action Plan 2014 – 2019 (Fisheries Management Paper 266) mention the NCWHA or any special measures that might be needed to ensure that prawn trawling in or adjacent to the area will not affect adversely the outstanding universal value of the area.

Recommendation: It is recommended that MSC certification require that WA fisheries policy, planning and management documents and practices recognise the values of the NCWHA and demonstrates measures to avoid or mitigate affects of prawn trawling in Exmouth Gulf on those world heritage values.

2. It is not clear what the extent of trawling in the NCWHA is, nor is there any evidence of research being undertaken to determine the possible effects of the EGPF on the values of

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 390

the NCWHA.

Recommendation: It is recommended that MSC certification require that Department of Fisheries regular undertake monitoring of the effects of prawn trawling on the values of the NCWHA, and generate publicly available peer reviewed reports of such monitoring that describe (a) the extent of prawn trawling in or adjacent to the NCWHA, and (b) the effects of prawn trawling on the world heritage values of the NCWHA.

3. There has been no consultation to date by the Department of Fisheries with the NCWHAC as a major stakeholder responsible for providing advice to the Commonwealth and State Governments on the management of the NCWHA.

Recommendation: It is recommended that MSC certification require the Department of Fisheries to undertake meaningful consultation with the NCWHAC, including seeking advice from the Committee on the assesment of risks from prawn trawling on the values of the NCWHA.

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 391

References

1 Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Nomination 2010 Commmonwealth of Australia. http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/31a9e336-d04a-48cb-810b- 76a2b53751ac/files/ningaloo-nomination.pdf - page 74

2 Ibid p.111 3 IUCN Evaluation Report May 2011 WHC‐11/35.COM/INF.8B2 4 Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Harvest Strategy 2014 – 2019 WA Department of Fisheries: Fisheries Management Paper 265 p.3

Further information on any aspect of this submission can be obtained by contacting either:

Simon Woodley Chair Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee [email protected] +61 8 92521220 +61 403305162 or

Arvid Hogstrom District Manager Department of Parks and Wildlife Exmouth District [email protected] +61 8 9947 8000 +61 428121127

Yours sincerely

Simon Woodley Chair Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee

6 January 2015

Attachment 1 Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Advisory Committee December 2014 Member Title Mr Simon Woodley - Chair Director, S & J Woodley Pty Ltd Senior Curator, Western Australian Professor William Humphreys Museum

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 392

Chairperson, North West Cape Mrs D. Ann Preest Exmouth Aboriginal Corporation Ms Hazel Walgar Baiyungu Aboriginal Corporation Mr Turk Shales Shire President, Shire of Exmouth Mrs Naomi McMahon Councillor, Shire of Carnarvon Ms Leonie McLeod Owner, Warroora Station Ms Jacqueline Hine Secretary, Cape Conservation Group Manager, Coral Bay Research Station Mr Frazer McGregor & Tourism Operator Principal Planner, Dowling Giudici + Mr Anthony Dowling Associates Joint Venture Coordinator, Chevron Mr Anthony Evans Australia, Perth

Conformity Assessment Body Response The assessment team appreciates these comments, and the letter has been used in support of the score and condition for PI 3.1.2.

(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

1. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify: a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team makes no change. (Reference: CR 27.15.4)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 393

Appendix 7. Surveillance Frequency

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR ONLY)

1. The report shall include a rationale for determining the surveillance score.

2. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance plan table using the results from assessments described in CR 27.22.1

Table A4: Fishery Surveillance Plan Score from Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 CR Table C3 Category [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site surveillance [e.g. 2 or [e.g. Normal surveillance surveillance surveillance audit & re- more] Surveillance] audit] audit] audit] certification site visit]

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 394

Appendix 8. Client Agreement (REQUIRED FOR PCR)

The report shall include confirmation from the CAB that the Client has accepted the PCR. This may be a statement from the CAB, or a signature or statement from the client. (Reference: CR: 27.19.2)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 395

Appendix 9 Objections Process (REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection. (Reference: CR 27.19.1)

MRAG – Exmouth Prawn Public Comment Draft Report page 396