Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery

Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery Scallop Resource Assessment Group (ScallopRAG)

27 August 2013, Meeting via Teleconference

FINAL MINUTES Members present Mr Bill Talbot Chair Dr Ilona Stobutzki Research Member Mr Allan Barnett Industry Member (Tasmania) Dr Jayson Semmens Research Member Mr David Jarvis Permanent Observer (Tasmanian Government) Mr Nic Martin Research Member Ms Melissa Schubert Permanent Observer (Victorian Government) Mr Steve Shanks AFMA Member Mr Andrew Trappett AFMA Executive Officer (acting) Observers Mr Nic Martin Observer (ABARES) Apologies Dr Mike Dredge Research Member

The meeting opened at 9:00am on 27 August 2013.

Agenda item 1 – welcome and apologies 1. The Chair, Mr Bill Talbot, welcomed members to the teleconference and advised that Mike Dredge was an apology.

Agenda item 2 – conflicts of interest

2. The Chair asked if any ScallopRAG members had additional conflicts of interest they wished to add to the standing conflict of interest declarations. No additional conflicts of interest were added.

Agenda item 3 and Agenda item 4 – review of areas open to fishing in 2013 and potential area to be opened

Presentation on August survey report by Dr Jayson Semmens 3. Dr Jayson Semmens provided a summary of the August survey results from the report “Draft BSCZSF Survey Report August 2013”. Key findings from the report included:  Two main areas were surveyed, no biomass estimates were provided, as the surveying was about determining the discard rates for the purpose of establishing if areas could be defined as ‘Viable Areas’.  Densities in both areas (Areas 3 and 4 as shown in Attachment 1) were reported to be low, 107 and 203 kg’s per hour for Areas 3 and 4 respectively, which indicated the likelihood of low commercial catch rates (see Table 1).

Draft minutes ScallopRAG teleconference, 27 August 2013 1

 Low densities indicated that should either Area 3 or 4 be opened they would not provide significant catches for an extended period.  Size distributions showed that Area 4 had a 35% discard rate, which did not meet the requirements of the discard rule (at 85mm size limit). Dr Semmens advised that his preliminary growth estimates indicated that Area 4 would meet the discard rate (at 85mm size limit) by 1 October 2013.

Table 1: Summary of facts about two areas being considered as ‘Viable Areas’ for the 2013 season (Areas 3 and 4). AFMA MAP label Proposed Area 3 Proposed Area 4 IMAS survey label Area 1 Area 2 Density Est. (kg.km2) ~8.9 ~16.9 Est. catch rate (kg.hr) ~100 ~200 meets 90mm discard rate rule? No No meets 85mm discard rate rule? Yes No Size km2 (based on map in 54 21.25 Attachment 1)

Discussion on IMAS report 4. ScallopRAG noted that some of the shots recorded in the report had been undertaken in Tasmanian state waters. ScallopRAG members noted that while the survey was for the Commonwealth fishery, concession holders undertaking the survey were also licensed to fish in the Tasmanian Scallop Fishery. 5. The Industry Member noted that during the survey, both Areas 3 and 4 had yielded decent size scallops and meat sizes/kg and was surprised that the survey results showed such a high discard rates for area 4 (but did not dispute the results of the analyses). 6. ScallopRAG noted the biomass estimates, which were used to set the TACs, had not produced the expected yield. This was evident from the yields that had come out of Area 1 that was opened on 19 August 2013. ScallopRAG were advised by the Industry Member that 17 tonnes had come out of Area 1 in the first week of fishing and approximately 65 tonnes had come out in the last few days. However, it was expected that limited fishing would now be undertaken as catch rates had dropped off. The industry member further explained that while the biomass estimate for the area was 2,197 tonnes, and the biomass of the core “defined beds” in the centre of this area was only 308 tonnes, the area had only yielded a maximum of 80 tonnes.

Viability of Proposed Areas 7. The AFMA member advised ScallopRAG that only areas that had been determined as being ‘Viable Areas’ or ‘Potential Viable Areas” under the Harvest Strategy, following surveying, could be opened to fishing. The meeting was further advised that the intent of surveying was to locate beds in the first instance, with further surveys undertaken to determine biomass once beds had been located. 8. Based on the results of the August survey, AFMA was seeking advice from ScallopRAG on whether or not Areas 3 and 4 could be defined as ‘Viable Areas’ or ‘Potential Viable Areas’ under the Harvest Strategy. The intent was for this information to go to ScallopMAC as advice. 9. ScallopRAG discussed the merits of opening Area 4 and closing Area 3 (to meet the Harvest Strategy proportion rule) later in the 2013 season. 10. The industry member suggested that Area 3 was too small in size to enable a reasonable catch to come out of it, but if this area was expanded in size it would potentially enable

a reasonable catch to be extracted. The industry member raised the issue that the current Harvest Strategy was not providing the ability for large enough areas to be opened and the pre-season surveys did not provide the capacity to determine where all the beds were in the fishery. 11. ScallopRAG discussed extensively the definition of a ‘Viable Area’ in the Harvest Strategy and there was some concern that the Harvest Strategy referred to assessments being made at the start of the season, as opposed to mid-season. Some ScallopRAG members had reservations about assessing scallop beds as ‘Viable Areas’ midway through the season rather than at the start of the season. It was further noted that the Harvest Strategy also refers to ‘Prospective Viable Areas’ which are areas that do not currently meet the discard rate (at 85mm size limit), but will meet the discard rate during the season. 12. It was further noted, that the Harvest Strategy states that the proportion rule requiring that at least 40 per cent is closed to fishing relates to both Viable Areas and Potential Viable Areas. It further states that “Prospective Viable Areas must not be opened to fishing during the season ”. 13. Some ScallopRAG members were concerned that determining Area 4 to be a ‘Viable Area’ under the definition in the Harvest Strategy was not appropriate given the high discard rates (71% at 90mm and 35% at 85mm). 14. ScallopRAG and ScallopMAC had already agreed to reduce the size limit requirement in the Harvest Strategy for the 2013 season to 85mm. Some members of ScallopMAC noted it would be less precautionary again to couple a smaller minimum size (85mm) with a ‘Prospective Viable Area’ to open further areas in the fishery under the Harvest Strategy. 15. Given the concerns around the timeframes for scallops in Area 4 growing to a size whereby the discard rate would be meet the AFMA member proposed that Area 4 be defined as a Viable Area on the proviso that this area not be fished or utilised under the Harvest Strategy to open a further area in the fishery until 1 November. Given the preliminary nature of Dr Semmens’ advice on potential growth rates some ScallopRAG members still had reservations around declaring Area 4 a ‘Viable Area’ from 1 November. 16. The AFMA member also noted that should Area 3 be opened to fishing for the 2013 season a further minute of latitude would need to be taken off the top and bottom of the area in order to meet the proportion rule requirements of the Harvest Strategy. It was identified that should Area 3 be opened to fishing Area 4 would need to be used as a no-navigation area in order to meet the requirements of the Harvest Strategy. Attachment 1 illustrates the actual size of Areas 3 and 4 under the proposal whereby Area 3 would be open to fishing and Area 4 would be closed. The AFMA member noted that in order to enact these arrangements ScallopRAG would need to be in agreement that both Areas 3 and 4 were Viable Areas under the Harvest Strategy (or in the case of Area 4 would be defined as a ‘Potential Viable Area’). To address concerns around Area 4 being defined as a Viable Area it was further suggested that Area 4 be defined as a Viable Area on the proviso that this area not be fished or utilised under the Harvest Strategy to open a further area in the fishery until 1 November. 17. ScallopRAG considered whether Area 1 (currently open) could now be shut and used as a ‘reservoir’ population to open both Area 3 and Area 4, to satisfy the proportion rule of the Harvest Strategy. Research member, Dr Semmens, was of the opinion that once fished the densest areas had been disturbed and the useful spawning biomass would likely have been removed. 18. Some ScallopRAG members were concerned that Area 4 (a potential proposed area to be opened) was the same bed as in Area 2, which is currently closed under the proportion rule in the Harvest Strategy (see Attachment 1). The concerns related to

recruitment spill-over between the beds and the fact that these two areas were effectively the same scallop bed. In response to the question of recruitment spill-over between the two beds Dr Semmens stated it is unknown whether major spill-over from Area 2 to Area 4 would be occurring, however the bed in Area 4 was likely an extension of the bed in Area 2, but was not included in the original area as it was not covered in the May 2013 survey.

Meeting outcomes:

19. As a consensus on both a proposal to open an further area to fishing for the 2013 season and whether Areas 3 and 4 could be defined as Viable Areas under the Harvest Strategy could not be reached it was agreed all views would be put forward to ScallopMAC in a meeting summary. The AFMA member advised ScallopRAG that if upon reading the meeting summary members did not consider their views or opinions were accurately represented then they should either make comment on the meeting summary or provide additional information outlining their views. All comments on the meeting summary and any additional information will be provided to ScallopMAC to consider at their meeting of 29 August 2013. 20. The AFMA member advised ScallopRAG that if upon reading the meeting summary members did not consider their views or opinions were accurately represented then they should either make comment on the meeting summary or provide additional information outlining their views. With all information provided to be forwarded to ScallopMAC for consideration.

21. The Chair thanked Members for their contributions.

Meeting ended at 10:20 am.

Attachment 1: Map showing areas proposed to be defined as ‘Viable Areas’ (Areas 3 and 4) and current area open to fishing (Area 1).