Brachaelurus Colcloughi (Australian Synonym: Heteroscyllium Colcloughi)

Threatened Species Nomination 2020

Details of the nominated species or subspecies NAME OF SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES) Scientific name: Brachaelurus colcloughi (Australian Synonym: Heteroscyllium colcloughi)

Common name(s): Colclough's Shark, Bluegray carpetshark, Bluegrey catshark , Bluegrey shark, Southern blind shark, Colclough’s Blind Shark TAXONOMY Provide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order). Brachaelurus colcloughi (Ogilvy 1908).

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Chondrichthyans Subclass: Elasmobranchii Order: Orectolobiformes Family: Brachaeluridae Genus: Brachaelurus Species: Colcloughi

Brachaelurus colcloughi was first described in 1908 (Ogilvy 1908). It is one of only two extant species within the carpet shark (Orectolobiformes) family Brachaeluridae (blind sharks), the other being the partially sympatric blind shark (B. waddi; Compagno 2001). There was some uncertainty about the taxonomy until the Queensland Museum analysed two further samples and confirmed the genus (Compagno 2002). It was sometimes classified in the genus Heteroscyllium (e.g. Compagno 2001; Last and Stevens, 2009), however more recently molecular analysis confirmed that the genus Heteroscyllium is synonymous with Brachaelurus (Naylor et al. 2012).

The importance of addressing the conservation status of B. colcloughi is heightened by the species belonging to a highly evolutionarily distinct lineage (Stein et al. 2018).

There is no evidence to suggest that this species hybridises with others.

CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTED Is the species’ taxonomy conventionally accepted? Yes. No If the species is not conventionally accepted please provide the following information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000: • a taxonomic description of the species in a form suitable for publication in conventional scientific literature; OR • evidence that a scientific institution has a specimen of the species, and a written statement signed by a person who is a taxonomist and has relevant expertise (has worked with, or is a published author on, the class of species nominated), that the species is considered to be a new species. n/a

Page 2 of 17 DESCRIPTION Provide a description of the species including where relevant, distinguishing features, size and social structure How distinct is this species in its appearance from other species? How likely is it to be misidentified? Brachaelurus colcloughi (Fig. 1 & 2) is a relatively small shark, with a maximum recorded size of 88 cm total length (TL; Rigby et al. 2016). It has a stout body, and a wide, slightly flattened and narrowly arched head (around 22% of TL). It has a moderately long and blunt snout (prenarial and preoral snout around 2.5% and 6% of TL respectively). A pair of long barbels preceeding the nostrils are distinctive, with enlarged posterior flaps midway along each barbel. It has a small, transverse and subterminal mouth ahead of the large, elongated-fusiform eyes, which are placed high dorsally and are not elevated. When removed from the water, the bluegrey carpetshark will close its eyes like the closely related Blind shark (Brachaelurus waddi).

It has large, rounded spiracles positioned just behind the eyes, and five short pairs of gill slits, with the fourth and fifth pair relatively more closely spaced (Compagno 2002).

Brachaelurus colcloughi has large, rounded pectoral and pelvic fins. It has two spineless dorsal fins placed far back anterially, both free with angular rear tips. The anterior dorsal fin is clearly smaller (less than 0.9 times the height and base length). The spineless anal fin, also with a free rear tip, is positioned far from the base of the caudal fin and is less than half the size of the first dorsal fin (Compagno 2002). The caudal fin is long (around one quarter of total length) and it has a short precaudal tail.

Adult colouring ranges from grey to golden brown dorsally and laterally and are white ventrally, with white patches on the anterior webs of dorsal fins. Young sharks have conspicuous black and white saddle-shaped markings along their backs, dorsal fins and caudal fin, which fade with growth. It has small, smooth and non-overlapping dermal denticles (Compagno 2002).

As with many cryptic sharks, it is unknown whether it is social. Another species of Orectolobiformes shows social grouping behaviour (Armansin et al. 2016) but this needs further investigation for B. colcloughi.

Although B. colcloughi have some morphological similarities with the closely related B. waddi, it is distinguishable by colour, morphology of the nasal barbels, location of the anal fin, and the size variation of the dorsal fins (Last and Stevens, 2009). Although it may have been mistaken for B. waddi in fisheries records in past decades, a greater understanding of its anatomy now means these species are unlikely to be confused. It is also very unlikely to be confused with other sympatric Orectolobiformes due to substantial morphological differences. DISTRIBUTION Provide a succinct overview of the species’ known or estimated current and past distribution, including international/national distribution. Provide a map if available. Is the species protected within the reserve system (e.g. national parks, Indigenous Protected Areas, or other conservation estates, private land covenants, etc.)? If so, which populations? Which reserves are actively managed for this species? Give details. Brachaelurus colcloughi is endemic to shelf waters off central and southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. Its recorded distribution is limited, ranging from the Hardline Reefs off central Queensland to Julian Rocks, off Byron Bay, NSW ) (Fig 3; Kyne et al. 2011). Occurrence reports from northern QLD are unsupported (Kyne et al. 2011). Its extent of occurrence is an area covering approximately 8° of latitude, however its core range is considered to be much narrower (<2°; Kyne et al. 2015). Prior to 2016, its core range was thought to be within Moreton Bay (56% of known records gathered from museums, bycatch landings and literature records; Kyne et al. 2011). Despite rigourous surveying of suitable habitat in southerneastern Queensland from 2008-2011, there were very few observations outside of Moreton Bay. In 2016, a confirmed sighting of 27 individuals by Rigby in the Swain Reef areas indicates a significant extension of its limited distribution and indentifies a second area of

Page 3 of 17 critical habitat (Rigby et al. 2015). The restricted distribution of B. colcloughi makes it inherently vulnerable to disturbances and population decline (Compagno 2001).

B. colcloughi is known to refuge in caves during the day, and forage at night, making it susceptible to night trawling activities (Kyne et al. 2011). Its home range and seasonal movements is not known.

There are no captive breeding populations or proposed re-introduction plans.

The distribution of B. colcloughi is partially covered by marine parks, some of which is designated as sanctuary zones in which no extractive activities are permitted (Kyne et al. 2015), for e.g. 15% of Moreton Bay Marine Park is fully protected, with trawling also restricted in some other areas . It is also partially protected in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, however trawling is permitted in Swain Reef National Park, in which 27 of the known records were gathered. In NSW, it is found in Julian Rocks Aquatic Reserve (Byron Bay; Kyne et al. 2011) and the Cape Byron Marine Park (Kyne et al. 2015) which offers some protection. These reserves are not actively managed for B. colcloughi, and no systematic monitoring is in place to assess the efficacy of zoning for this species.

B. colcloughi are known to forage in seagrass areas , and these habitat areas are protected under the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994 but not nationally. BIOLOGY/ECOLOGY Provide a summary of biological and ecological information. Include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on: • life cycle including age at sexual maturity, life expectancy, natural mortality rates • specific biological characteristics • habitat requirements for the species • for fauna: feeding behaviour and food preference and daily seasonal movement patterns • for flora: pollination and seed dispersal patterns Females are classified as mature at 54.5 cm and males at 61 cm TL (Kyne et al. 2011). Such sexual dimorphism difference is atypical in viviparous elasmobranchs (Last and Stevens 2009). Age at maturity, growth rate and longevity are not known, however in the closely related B. waddi, males reach maturity at 7.3 years (females unknown) and have been known to live for 19 years (Norén 2013). From this, generation length is estimated to be 15.5 years. Little is known about the breeding system, and breeding success. It demonstrates aplacental yolksac viviparity, in which embryonic nutrition is provided by the yolk of a single ovum and have one of the lowest litter sizes of viviparous species in this order, with 6-7 pups born at 17 – 19cm TL (Kyne et al. 2011). The duration of the breeding season and the conditions needed for breeding are not known, although gravid females and fertile males have been observed in austral winter months and winter parturition is expected (Kyne et al. 2011). The frequeny of breeding is also unknown, however B. waddi and other Orectolobiformes are known to have biennial and triennial cycles (Norén 2013, Huveneers et al. 2007). This may be a reasonable expectation with B. colcloughi which have a lengthy ovarian cycle (Kyne et al. 2011). Given its late maturity, relatively long life expectancy, potentially non-annual breeding periodicity and low litter sizes, B. colcloughi populations are likely to be sensitive to disturbances, and a greater understanding of its reproductive capacity is essential for assessing the viability of its populations.

B. colcloughi is a benthic species. It is restricted to shelf waters, and are generally found at around 100m depths (range: <4m – 217m; Kyne et al. 2011, Weigmann 2016). It is a nocturnal species which refuges in topologically complex habitat such as drop-offs, ledges, ship wrecks and reef-associated habitat during the day (Ceccarelli et al. 2014; Kyne et al, 2011) and forages in adjacent areas with soft substrates and seagrass beds at night night (Compagno 2001, Kyne et al. 2011). Inner coastal reefs and seagrass beds are therefore critical habitat, however these are also among the most impacted by human activities throughout its known range. Its level of site fidelity has not been assessed, however other Orectolobiformes demonstrate high levels of site fidelity in similar habitats (Carraro and Gladstone 2006; Huveneers et al. 2006) and this makes these species sensitive to habitat degredation. Dispersal levels and distances are unknown. It was previously thought to feed on benthic invertebrates (Compagno 2001), however, it is now considered to be a demersal feeder, mostly on teleost fish and cephalopods (Kyne et al. 2011). Its trophic level is 3.5 (Kyne et al. 2011) suggesting that it is functionally a meso-predator, and may therefore refuge in part to avoid predation.

Page 4 of 17

Threats IDENTIFICATION OF KNOWN THREATS AND IMPACT OF THE THREATS Identify in the tables below any known threats to the species, under the provided headings indicate if the threat is past, current or future and whether the threats are actual or potential. Past threats Impact of threat Fisheries bycatch The geographical and bathymetric distribution of B. colcloughi overlaps with key fisheries, and historically these areas have had significant pressure from predominantly trawling activities. This is also an ongoing and future pressure. For further details, please see Current Threats. Habitat degredation Its geographic range is located in highly utilised shallow waters, adjacent to some of the most populated areas of Australia. Urban growth in these areas is likely to have resulted in degredation of shallow coastal reefs and seagrass habitat. Seagrass is thought to be an important foraging habitat for B. colcloughi. In Moreton Bay, a core area of its range, a decline in the distribution and health of many seagrasses has been observed since the 1980s, as a result of land runoff and physical disturbances associated with marine activities such as dredging and vessal activity (QLD Government 2015). Habitat degredation is an ongoing and likely future threat. For further details, please see Current Threats. Current threats Impact of threat Fisheries bycatch Commercial fishing activities are present over most of its range. B. colcloughi is of low commercial value, and the predominant threats are trawl, gillnet and tunnel net fisheries, in the which the species is caught as bycatch (Kyne et al. 2015). This is likely to be causing mortalities and potentially has sub-lethal effects that may affect recruitment. Most notable is the the Queensland East Coast Trawl Fishery (ECOTF). Within this fishery, by far the largest component (by overall take) are otter trawl vessels. These operate the species’ core range of Moreton Bay as well as throughout its range on the continental shelf. B. colcloughi have also been reported irregularly captured in the Great Barrier Reef, in the Eastern King Prawn (EKPF) sector of the ECOTF (Kyne et al. 2011). This trawling is often conducted at night, when individuals are foraging. Beam trawl vessels operating in shallow nearshore waters are a threat to a lesser extent. It is also caught in gillnet and tunnel nets of the Queensland East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (ECIFFF; Kyne et al. 2011). Survival rates are unknown for those able to be realeased post-capture.

Many popular recreational fishing spots are located within its range, for example Moreton Bay (Pascoe et al. 2014). At this stage, little is known about the impacts of these activities on its numbers and habitat. Reports of capturing B. colcloughi are anecdotal, and given its nocturnal nature, would not be expected to be high (Kyne et al. 2015), but this needs to be confirmed. Aquarium trade Small numbers of juveniles are taken for the aquarium trade due to its striking colouration and the perception that it adapts well to captivity due to its benthic nature (Kyne et al. 2015; Pogonoski et al. 2002). The impacts of this are yet to be assessed quantively. Habitat degredation Trawling activities also result in habitat degredation by damaging coastal reefs and sensitive substrates (Rigby et al. 2016), and this may reduce its already restricted area of occupancy (Pogonoski et al. 2002; Compagno et al. 2005). This is of concern across its range in southeast Queensland, and particularly its core range within Moreton Bay, with large-scale port developments and an airport reclamation project. Other urban

Page 5 of 17 pressures include terrestrial runoff and marine pollution. These are thought to pose significant threat to critical habitat in inshore, shallow water (Kyne et al. 2015), and the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors needs to be assessed. Actual future threats Impact of threat n/a

Potential future threats Impact of threat Fisheries bycatch In a review of the Southern Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery, Jacobsen et al. (2017) assessed the overall resilience of B. colcloughi as low. The authors graded resilience as intermediate when accounting for current fishing pressures, however this suggests that if fishing pressures were to increase, there may be substantial consequences for the populations. Habitat degredation Population growth rates in southeast Queensland are some of the highest in Australia (Queensland Government Statistician's Office, 2018), and several marine infrastructure developments along the central and southern coasts may pose further threat to critical habitat. Construction of these projects requires land reclamation and ongoing maintenance activities such as dredging, and may increase shipping traffic. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed. The species was first listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List in 2000 and currently remains so (Kyne et al. 2015). It is not directly protected under any Australian legislation. It may receive indirect conservation benefits from broader management imperatives, such as a one shark take and possess limit for recreational fisheries in Queensland. Some habitat protection measures are in place, for example all seagrasses are protected in Queensland (Queensland Government 2015). Areas protected from fishing in Moreton Bay Marine Park were increased from 3% per cent to 16% in 2009, along with further commercial fisheries exclusions (Pascoe et al. 2014). The use of turtle exclusion devices (TEDs) is required for QLD otter trawlers, however the small size of B. colcloughi means that it is still susceptible to capture (Kyne et al. 2011). This is thought to mitigate some risk of bycatch for larger individuals, however mature individuals have been captured in TED-fitted nets (Kyne et al. 2011).

Given that fisheries pose the greatest threat to this species, fishery-related mortalities could be addressed by designating B. colcloughi as a “no-take” species under state legislation. Further the inclusion of the species in commercial fisheries logbooks and the development of safe release protocols may also be of benefit (Pogonoski et al. 2002).

A precautionary approach is valuable for cryptic and poorly understood species, and given its restricted range and low productivity, data deficiency should not prevent further protective measures. Where possible, addressing the significant gaps in important baseline data will be beneficial in conserving this species, and allow for a quantitative assessment of its extinction risk. This includes data on population trends and further assessment of its geographic range. An assessment of its genetic connectivity will further inform which areas of its distribution are key to its viability. These data should be collated from a systematic monitoring plan (including fisheries records and landings, as well as targeted surveys) and should inform spatial management measures. Further understanding of its biology including age at maturity and longevity, and knowledge of its behavioural ecology, such as social behaviour, foraging range and seasonal movements, will be informative for spatial protection measures, particularly in relation to fishing activities (Pogonoski et al. 2012).

Page 6 of 17 Listing category CURRENT LISTING CATEGORY What category is the species currently listed in under the EPBC Act? (If you are nominating the species for removal from the list, please complete the nomination form for removal from the list). Not Listed Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent NOMINATED LISTING CATEGORY Note: after answering the questions below relating to the eligibility again the criteria sufficient evidence should be available to determine the category for listing. Refer to the indicative threshold criteria in the guidelines.

Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent

Transferring a species to another category in the list Note: If the nomination is to transfer a species between categories in the threatened species list, please complete this section. If the nomination is for a new listing please skip this section and proceed to the Eligibility section below. If the nomination is to remove a species from the list, please use the nomination form for removal from the list. REASON FOR THE NOMINATION TO TRANSFER TO ANOTHER CATEGORY Please mark the boxes that apply by double clicking them with your mouse. What is the reason for the nomination: Genuine change of status New Knowledge Mistake Other Taxonomic change – ‘split’ newly described ‘lumped’ no longer valid

INITIAL LISTING Describe the reasons for the species’ initial listing and if available the criteria under which it was formerly considered eligible. n/a

CHANGES IN SITUATION With regard to the listing criteria, how have circumstances changed since the species was listed that now makes it eligible for listing in another category? n/a

Eligibility against the criteria

Page 7 of 17 CRITERION 1 Population size reduction (reduction in total numbers) Population reduction (measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations) based on any of A1 to A4 Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Very severe reduction Severe reduction Substantial reduction A1 ≥ 90% ≥ 70% ≥ 50% A2, A3, A4 ≥ 80% ≥ 50% ≥ 30% A1 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred or suspected in the past and the causes of the reduction (a) direct observation [except A3] are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased. A2 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred (b) an index of abundance appropriate to or suspected in the past where the causes of the the taxon reduction may not have ceased OR may not be based understood OR may not be reversible. (c) a decline in area of occupancy, on any extent of occurrence and/or quality of A3 Population reduction, projected or suspected to be of the habitat met in the future (up to a maximum of 100 years) [(a) following cannot be used for A3] (d) actual or potential levels of A4 An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or exploitation suspected population reduction where the time period must include both the past and the future (up to a (e) the effects of introduced taxa, max. of 100 years in future), and where the causes of hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, reduction may not have ceased OR may not be competitors or parasites understood OR may not be reversible.

Please identify whether the species meets A1, A2, A3 or A4. Include an explanation, supported by data and information, on how the species meets the criterion (A1 – A4). If available include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on: • whether the population trend is increasing, decreasing or static • estimated generation length and method used to estimate the generation length You must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate a population size reduction this must be stated There is evidence to suggest decling numbers however there has been no systematic monitoring or population assessments over a period long enough to satisfy this criterion.

CRITERION 2: Geographic distribution is precarious for either extent of occurrence AND/OR area of occupancy Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Very restricted Restricted Limited B1. Extent of occurrence (EOO) < 100 km2 < 5,000 km2 < 20,000 km2 B2. Area of occupancy (AOO) < 10 km2 < 500 km2 < 2,000 km2 AND at least 2 of the following 3 conditions: (a) Severely fragmented OR Number of = 1 ≤ 5 ≤ 10 locations (b) Continuing decline observed, estimated, inferred or projected in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat; (iv) number of locations or subpopulations; (v) number of mature individuals (c) Extreme fluctuations in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) number of locations or subpopulations; (number of mature individuals

Please refer to the ‘Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria’ for assistance with interpreting the criterion particularly in relation to calculating area of occupancy and extent of occurrence and understanding the definition and use of location. Please identify whether the species meets B1 or B2. Include an explanation, supported by data and information, on how the species meets at least 2 of (a) (b) or (c).

Page 8 of 17 Please note that locations must be defined by a threat. A location is a geographically or ecological distinct area in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the species present. If available include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on: • Whether there are smaller populations of the species within the total population and, if so, the degree of geographic separation between the smaller populations within the total population • Any biological, geographic, human induced or other barriers enforcing separation You must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate that the geographic distribution is precarious for either extent of occurrence AND/OR area of occupancy this must be stated. There are two areas in which the majority of records of B. colcloughi occur, despite substantial surveying in other suitable habitat within its range. The first is Moreton Bay (28 known records; Kyne et al. 2011) which is approximately 1500km2. The second, although not yet widely recognised as an area of occupancy, is Swain Reef in the southern Great Barrier Reef (Rigby 2016) covering less than 1km2. A conservative estimate of the area of occupancy therefore totals <2000km2, meeting the core requirement of Criterion 2B2. B. colcloughi has also been confirmed in only a few other locations in southeast Queensland and northern NSW at much lower frequencies and densities (Kyne et al. 2011). The extent to which it is encountered by divers and fishers in other areas of its range is unknown, and the limited reports of this can not be ruled out as vagrancy (Kyne et al. 2011). It has therefore been confirmed in less than 10 locations. Further, it is suspected that the number of mature individuals is declining (Kyne et al. 2015), the details of which are described under Criterion 3.

submits that B. colcloughi is eligible for listing as Vulnerable under Criterion 2 B2(a) and (b).

CRITERION 3

Small population size and decline

Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Very low Low Limited Estimated number of mature individuals < 250 < 2,500 < 10,000 AND either (C1) or (C2) is true C1 An observed, estimated or projected Very high rate High rate Substantial rate continuing decline of at least (up to a 25% in 3 years or 20% in 5 years or 10% in 10 years or max. of 100 years in future 1 generation 2 generation 3 generations (whichever is longer) (whichever is (whichever is longer) longer) C2 An observed, estimated, projected or inferred continuing decline AND its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival based on at least 1 of the following 3 conditions: (i) Number of mature individuals in ≤ 50 ≤ 250 ≤ 1,000 each subpopulation (a) (ii) % of mature individuals in one 90 – 100% 95 – 100% 100% subpopulation = (b) Extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals

Please identify the estimated total number of mature individuals and either an answer to C1 or C2. Include an explanation, supported by data and information, on how the species meets the criteria. Note: If the estimated total number of mature individuals is unknown but presumed to be likely to be >10 000 you are not required to provide evidence in support of C1 or C2 just state that the number is likely to be >10 000. You must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate small population size and decline this must be stated. Within its restricted range, there have only been 77 confirmed records since 2008 (Kyne et al. 2011; Rigby 2016) This is in contrast to the closely related, and partially sympatric B. waddi, which was found to be common across its range (Kyne and Bennett 2015). B. colcloughi is therefore considered uncommon to rare (Simpfendorfer et al. 2019). Estimates of historical catch rates are problematic. Although some commercial fishers describe higher catch rates in the 1970s compared with 2011, this is anecdotal and does not account for

Page 9 of 17 decreased effort (Kyne et al. 2011). The current paucity of confirmed records is not attributable lack of survey effort, as extensive surveying has been conducted within and adjacent to its known geographical and depth ranges (Kyne et al. 2011). For example, surveys in 2008 of the QLD ECTF (including Morton Bay and surrounds) had a catch rate of 0.005 +- 0.003 ha-1, which was less than one per cent of the total catch rate of chondrichthyan fishes (Kyne et al. 2011). In 2011 – 2012, Rigby (2016) recorded 27 captured by trawl fishers at Swain Reef in the Capricornian region of Queensland, and although it was the second most commonly captured chondrichyan, it comprised only 1.6% of total bycatch.

In its most recent assessment as Vulnerable under the IUCN criteria, it was estimated that there were fewer than 10,000 mature individuals (Kyne et al. 2015). Although there have been no ongoing census counts to estimate population size, its IUCN listing also reflects declining numbers, given its restricted geographic and bathymetric range, in a highly populated and utilised region presenting many threats (Kyne et al. 2015).

Given its restricted overall range, and that most observations are from Moreton Bay, it has been thought to consist of one continuous population (Kyne et al. 2015). There is no available data on levels of genetic or functional connectivity, and hence for the presence of subpopulations. The more recently identified population at Swain Reef (Rigby 2016) may constitute a second critical population, but this is to be confirmed.

submits that the B. colcloughi is eligible for listing as Vulnerable under Criterion 3 C2(a)(i).

CRITERION 4:

Very small population

Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Extremely low Very Low Low

Number of mature individuals < 50 < 250 < 1,000

Please identify the estimated total number of mature individuals and evidence on how the figure was derived. You must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate very small population size and decline this must be stated. B. colcloughi is considered to be an uncommon to rare species (Simpfendorfer et al. 2019). However without a quantitative population assessment, there is no evidence that the population size of B. colcloughi is less than 1,000 individuals.

CRITERION 5

Quantitative Analysis

Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Immediate future Near future Medium-term future ≥ 50% in 10 years or 3 ≥ 20% in 20 years or Indicating the probability of extinction in the generations, 5 generations, ≥ 10% in 100 years wild to be: whichever is longer whichever is longer (100 years max.) (100 years max.)

Please identify the probability of extinction and evidence as to have the analysis was undertaken. You must provide a response. If there has been no quantitative analysis undertaken must be stated. There are currently no quantitative analyses of the future extinction probability of B. colcloughi.

SUMMARY OF CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE SPECIES IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING Please mark the criteria and sub-criteria that apply.

Criterion 1 A1 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR

Page 10 of 17 A2 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A3 (specify at least one of the following) b) c) d) e); AND/OR  Criterion 2 A4 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e)

B1 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c); AND/OR  Criterion 3  B2 (specify at least two of the following)  a)  b) c)

 estimated number of mature individuals AND either C1 or C2 either a or b C1 OR 2 of C2 a(i), a(ii) or b  C2  a (i) a (ii) Criterion 4 C2 b)

Criterion 5

For conservation dependent nominations only: Criterion 1 Criterion 2

Conservation Dependent Considerations Only complete this section if nominating for consideration under the conservation dependent category, or if nominating a fish (or harvested marine species) with a management plan answer either the first or second question below, whichever is more appropriate. Please note that the currently only fish species that have been listed under this criterion. However it can be applied to other species. CONSERVATION PROGRAM (if species is a fish or harvested marine species, answer the question below instead) a) Give details of the conservation program for which this species is a focus. b) Provide details of how the species would become Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangeredshould the program cease. n/a

FISH MANAGEMENT PLANS a) Give details of the plan of management that focuses on the fish. b) Provide details of how the plan provides for management actions necessary to stop the decline of and support the recovery of the species, so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised. c) Explain the effect on the fish if the plan of management ceased n/a

MANAGEMENT PLAN’S LEGISLATIVE BASIS Is the plan of management (or some component/s of it) in force under Commonwealth or State/Territory law? If so, provide details. n/a

Page 11 of 17 Other Considerations INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Is the species known to have cultural significance for Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available. has been unable to locate relevant information on the Indigenous cultural significance of B. colcloughi. CONSERVATION THEME The conservation theme for the 2020 nomination period is: ‘Listed threatened species which require reassessment to harmonise their listing status across range states and territories’ Explain how the nomination relates to this theme. Note that nominations which do not relate to the theme will still be considered. This nomination for B.colcloughi to be listed as Vulnerable is not relevant to this year’s assessment theme. FURTHER STUDIES Identify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.). n/a

Page 12 of 17 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/INFORMATION Please include any additional comments or information on the species such as survey or monitoring information, maps that would assist with the consideration of the nomination.

Image/map removed due to copyright issues

Figure 3: Distribution map of B. colcloughi showing the limited extent of occurence. Source: IUCN Red List (Kyne et al. 2015).

Page 13 of 17 IMAGES OF THE SPECIES Please include or attach images of the species if available.

Images removed due to Copy rights

Figure 1: Brachaeluris colcloughi. Immature male of 536 mm TL. © CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Reseach in Kyne et al. 2011.

Figure 2: B. colcloughi on the Gold Coast, Queensland (November 2017). Source: Nigel Marsh. http://fishesofaustralia.net.au/home/species/3263.

Reviewers and References REVIEWER(S) Has this nomination been peer-reviewed? Have relevant experts been consulted on this nomination? If so, please include their names, current professional positions and contact details. This nomination was drafted by

Email: Phone:

Page 14 of 17 Consultation with:

E: P:

E: Mobile:

REFERENCE LIST Please list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination. Armansin, N.C., Lee, K.A., Huveneers, C. and Harcourt, R.G. (2016) Integrating social network analysis and fine-scale positioning to characterize the associations of a benthic shark. Animal Behaviour, 115: 245-258.

Carraro R., Gladstone W. (2006) Habitat preferences and site fidelity of the ornate wobbegong shark (Orectolobus ornatus) on rocky reefs of New South Wales. Pacific Science, 60: 207–217.

Ceccarelli, D.M., Frisch, A.J., Graham, N.A., Ayling, A.M. and Beger, M. (2014) Habitat partitioning and vulnerability of sharks in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 24(1): 169-197.

Compagno, L.J.V. (2001) FAO Species Catalogue. Vol 2: Sharks of the world, Bullhead, mackerel and carpet sharks (Heterodontiformes, Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes). FAO Species Catalogue for Fishery Purposes No. 1, Vol. 2: 1–250.

Compagno, L.J.V. (2002). Sharks of the World: An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Shark Species Known to Date (Volume 2). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 142–148.

Heupel, M.R., Kyne, P.M., White, W.T. and Simpfendorfer, C.A. (2018) Shark Action Plan Policy Report. Report to the National Environmental Science Program, Marine Biodiversity Hub., Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Huveneers C., Harcourt R.G., Otway N.M. (2006) Observation of localised movements and residence times of the wobbegong shark Orectolobus halei at Fish Rock, NSW, Australia. Cybium 30:103–111.

Huveneers, C., Walker, T. I., Otway, N. M., and Harcourt, R. G. (2007). Reproductive synchrony of three sympatric species of wobbegong shark (genus Orectolobus) in New South Wales, Australia: reproductive parameter estimates necessary for population modelling. Marine and Freshwater Research, 58, 765–777. doi:10.1071/MF06187.

Kyne, P.M., Compagno, L.J.V., Last, P.R. & Stevens, J.D (2015) Brachaelurus colcloughi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T39335A68610594. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T39335A68610594.en.

Kyne, P.M. & Bennett, M.B. (2015) Brachaelurus waddi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41732A68610784.

Page 15 of 17 Kyne, P.M., Compagno, L.J., Stead, J., Jackson, M.V. and Bennett, M.B. (2011) Distribution, habitat and biology of a rare and threatened eastern Australian endemic shark: Colclough’s shark, Brachaelurus colcloughi Ogilby, 1908. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62(6), 540-547.

Jacobsen, I., Zeller, B., Dunning, M., Garland, A., Courtney, T. & Jebreen, E. (2018) An ecological risk Assessment of the southern Queensland east coast otter trawl fishery and river and inshore beam trawl fishery, Fisheries Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Last, P. R., and Stevens, J. D. (2009) ‘Sharks and Rays of Australia’, 2nd edition, CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Victoria.

Naylor, G. J. P., Caira, J. N., Jensen, K., Rosana, K. A. M., White, W. T. & Last, P. R. (2012). A DNA sequence- based approach to the identification of shark and ray species and its implications for global elasmobranch diversity and parasitology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 367, 1–263. 10.1206/754.1.

Norén, Y.M. (2013) Reproductive biology and age determination of the Blind shark, Brachaelurus waddi, in New South Wales. Masters thesis. University of Newcastle.

Ogilby, J.D. (1908) On new genera and species of fishes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland, 21: 1–26.

Pascoe, S., Doshi, A., Dell, Q., Tonks, M. and Kenyon, R. (2014) Economic value of recreational fishing in Moreton Bay and the potential impact of the marine park rezoning. Tourism Management, 41: 53-63.

Pogonoski, J. J., Pollard, D. A., and Paxton, J. R. (2002). Conservation overview and action plan for Australian threatened and potentially threatened marine and estuarine fishes. Environment Australia, Canberra. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/ marine-fish-action/pubs/marine-fish.pdf.

Queensland Government (2015) ‘Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan review Habitat information: Seagrass’, Department of Environment and Science, available at: https://parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/moreton-bay/zoning/information-sheets/seagrass.html.

Queensland Government Statistician's Office, Queensland Treasury (2019) Population growth highlights and trends, Queensland, available at: https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/issues/3071/population-growth-highlights- trends-qld-2019-edn.pdf.

Rigby, C.L., White, W.T., Simpfendorfer, C.A. (2016) Deepwater Chondrichthyan Bycatch of the Eastern King Prawn Fishery in the Southern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. PLoS ONE, 11(5): e0156036. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156036.

Simpfendorfer, C. A., Chin, A., Kyne, P. M., Rigby, C., Sherman, C. S., & White, W. T. (2019) A Report Card for Australia's Sharks - Species Profiles. Retrieved from Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Stein, R.W., Mull, C.G., Kuhn, T.S., Aschliman, N.C., Davidson, L.N., Joy, J.B., Smith, G.J., Dulvy, N.K. and Mooers, A.O., 2018. Global priorities for conserving the evolutionary history of sharks, rays and chimaeras. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(2): 288.

Nominator's Details Note: Your details are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties, except for state and territory governments and scientific committee which have agreed to collaborate with the Commonwealth on national threatened species assessments using a common assessment method. If there are multiple nominators please include details below for all nominators. TITLE (e.g. Mr/Mrs/Dr/Professor/etc.)

Page 16 of 17 FULL NAME

ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE)

CONTACT DETAILS Email: Phone: Postal address:

DECLARATION I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this nomination and its attachments is true and correct.

Signed:

*If submitting by email, please attach an electronic signature

Date:

Where did you find out about nominating species?

The Committee would appreciate your feedback regarding how you found out about the nomination process. Your feedback will ensure that future calls for nominations can be advertised appropriately. Please tick Department website Web search The Australian newspaper word of mouth Journal/society/organisation web site or email? If so which one ...... Social media? If so which ...... Other ......

Lodging your nomination

Completed nominations may be lodged either: 1. by email in Microsoft Word format to: [email protected], or 2. by mail to: The Director Species Information and Policy Section Department of the Environment and Energy GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601 * If submitting by mail, you must include an electronic copy on a memory stick.

NOMINATIONS CLOSE AT 5PM ON 31 MARCH 2020.

Page 17 of 17