Threatened Species Nomination 2020

Details of the nominated species or subspecies NAME OF SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES) Scientific name: Squatina albipunctata Common name(s): Eastern Provide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order). Squatina albipunctata, Last and White (2008).

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Chondrichthyans Subclass: Order: Squatiniformes Family: Squatinidae Genus: Squatina Species: Albipunctata

This species has previously been confused with the Australian angelshark (Squatina australis), due to a range overlap from central to eastern Victoria (Last and Stevens 1994). The distinction between the species was clarified in Last and Stevens (1994). It was identified as a unique species by Last and White (2008), and confirmed by molecular analysis by Stelbrink et al. (2010). 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. 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? Squatina albipunctata is a medium-sized, ground-dwelling with a robust, dorsoventrally flattened body (Last and White 2008; Figures 1 and 2). The dorsal surface is tan to dark brown with dense white spots and brown splotches and is densely covered with denticles (Last and White 2008). It has a ray-like appearance, with a depressed trunk and large, broad pectoral fins. Unlike rays, the pectoral fins are not fully fused to the body and the gills are located dorsally. It has two upright dorsal fins of similar size and shape, located on the relatively short tail and large, elongated pelvic fins (Last and White 2008). Its broad head is depressed and laterally extended, with orbital spines and wide spiracles located near its small, widely spaced eyes (Last and Stevens 2009). It has a terminal mouth and fringed nasal barbels (Last and Stevens 2009).

Page 2 of 15 The social system of S.albipunctata is unknown.

S. albipunctata is one of four species of angelshark in Australian waters, however only S. australis has an overlapping range, from Newcastle in central New South Wales (NSW) to Eastern Victoria (Last and Stevens 1994). These species are readily differentiated as S. albipunctata has dense white dorsal spots, stronger coloration, “heavy” orbital spines and no midline spines (Last and Stevens, 2009). S. albipunctata also occur mostly in deeper waters than S. australis (Last and Stevens 1994). Raoult et al. (2017) noted that the relative eye size of S. albipunctata is larger and this may benefit hunting given its deeper bathymetric range. 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. S. albipunctata is endemic to eastern . It occurs on the outer continental shelf and upper slope from Cairns in far north Queensland to Lakes Entrance in Victoria ( Last and Stevens 2009; Figure 3).

The home range and movement patterns of S. albipunctata are not known. Some Squatina species have pronounced seasonal movements depending on size and sex (see Meyers et al. 2016). This has not been assessed in S. albipunctata, but has major implications for how the species is impacted by fisheres (the main threat to its viability – see Threats) and how it may respond to management actions.

There are no captive populations used for propagation.

Although a large portion of its range occurs in Australian Marine Parks (75.3 per cent), only 12.6 per cent of this portion is located in fishery exclusion zones (Heupel et al. 2018). These areas are not actively managed for this species, nor are quantitative measures in place to assess the efficacy of this protection for this species. 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 S. albipunctata can reach 130cm total length (TL) with a maximum published weight of 17kg (Raoult et al. 2017). The species displays female-biased sexual size dimorphism, with maturity occurring at 91cm TL for males and 107cm TL for females (Last and Stevens 2009, Raoult et al. 2017). The corresponding age is particularly difficult to measure in this species but is inferred from the closely related S. californica which is considered mature at around 5 years of age (Cailliet et al. 1992). The average life expectancy and natural mortality rates are unknown. This late maturity suggests that this species may have protracted recovery rates and therefore particularly vulnerable to population loss.

The reproductive biology of S. albipunctata is not well understood, and the following attributes are largely inferred from related species. It is presumed that it has similar parity to the partially sympatric S. australis which is lecithotrophic viviparous (Pogonoski et al. 2016) with litter sizes of up to 20 pups (Michael 2001). The gestation period is assumed to be similar to S. californica (Pacific Angel Shark) of around 10 months (Michael 2001). It is known that S. albipunctata pups are born at around 27-30cm TL (Last and Stevens 2009) and S. californica is thought to have a generation length of 23 years (estimated from age data; Cailliet et al. 1992). The timing of breeding has not been confirmed, however in one study, embryos were observed in females specimens in April (austral autumn) at 60mm (gestation is complete at 250mm; Raoult et al. 2017). Fisheries that impact this species operate year round. Its breeding habitat, behaviour and success are not known.

Page 3 of 15

S. albipunctata is a marine demersal shark, mainly occurring at depths of 35 to 415m on the outer continental shelf and upper slope (Last and Stevens 2009; Last and White 2008). At the shallower end of its range, it is found on sandy or muddy substrates, and both hard and soft substrate in deeper waters (Pogonoski et al. 2016). S. albipunctata is a visual ambush predator that typically targets benthic and demersal species of crustaceans, cephalopods and bony fish. This means particularly susceptible to disturbances and mortalities from demersal trawl operations. It is possible that size segregation in habitat use occurs, with juveniles found in shallower waters, as observed in some Australian (Bridge et al. 1998). The relative eye length differentiation between juveniles and adults S. albipunctata (Raoult et al. 2017) may support a similar behaviour. The impact of such behavioural segregation is important to consider as it may result in disturbances having disproportionate demographic effects.

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 Mortalities from commercial In the southern half of its range, where it was likely most abundant, this trawl fisheries species has been valuable component of the marketable byproduct taken in the NSW Prawn Trawl Fishery and Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) demersal trawl operations (Graham et al. 2001; Simpfendorfer et al. 2019). It is a popular eating fish, sold as angel shark, boneless fillet and monkfish (Last and Stevens 2009). This is thought to be a major contributing factor to a dramatic decline in abundance. Populations were assessed in a fishery-independent trawl survey which found a decline in abundance of 96% over 20 years, with catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) falling from 32.6 kg/h to 1.3 kg/h from 1976 to 1997 (Graham et al. 2001). This decline was found in all areas surveyed in the southern end of its range, between central NSW (Sydney area) and northern Victoria (Eden/Gabo Island). Furthermore, the mean size of large S.albipunctata caught during these surveys fell substantially (recorded as Squatina sp. nov. A; Graham et al. 2001). The surveyed area consists of about one quarter of the species overall distribution(Pogonoski et al. 2016). Catch rates are very low in the northern half of its range where it is thought to be less abundant (Rigby et al. 2016). Here it is discarded bycatch in the deepwater section of the Eastern King Prawn sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (Rigby et al. 2016).

This is an ongoing threat – please see Current and Future Threats.

Current threats Impact of threat Mortalities from commercial The overall population of S. albipunctata is considered to be declining trawl fisheries further (Pogonoski et al. 2016). Little species-specific action has been taken to offset this threat, and trawling operations continue to operate in key areas of its range (mostly southern end of its distribution), providing an ongoing threat to the viability of this species. These are the major factors for its IUCN designation as Vulnerable in both 2003 (Pogonoski and Pollard 2003) and again in 2016 as numbers continue to decline (Pogonoski et al. 2016). It has also been classified as Transitional Depleting in a recent shark assessment (Simpfendorfer et al. 2019). In NSW, it is estimated that 30 to 40 tonnes of S.albipunctata is taken annually, however estimating exact numbers is confounded by pooled species labelling (that includes S. australis) (Rowling et al. 2010).

Page 4 of 15 Shark meshing program Reid et al. (2011) found limited numbers of S. albipuncata to be affected by the NSW shark meshing program (SMP), however Raoult et al. (2017) obtained 25 individuals from the NSW SMP for analysis. The impact of this program on this species is yet to be assessed. Actual future threats Impact of threat Mortalities from commercial The decline of 96% from 1976-1997 equates to a projected 98 to 100 % trawl fisheries decline over 3 generations (69 years from 1976-2045; Pogonoski et al. 2016). This is an ongoing threat, as significant fishing pressures are still present in these areas and no species-specific conservation measures are in place. Potential future threats Impact of threat Small population effects The large declines observed suggest that there may be ongoing underlying threats associated with small population sizes, for example Allee effects (Dennis et al. 2016) and inbreeding depression (O’Grady et al. 2006). These factors have been demonstrated to not only exacerbate the effects of current threatening processes but also to increase vulnerability to stochastic disturbances. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed. Despite the evident rapid declines in abundance, no species-specific conservation management is in place, such as ongoing monitoring, recovery action or harvest management plans. The species does occur in some protected areas with fisheries exclusions (see Distribution; Heupel et al. 2018; Pogonoski et al. 2016) however a lack of systematic monitoring of this species hampers the ability to assess population trends and viability. Further, these areas are not specifically managed for this species and therefore the benefit is yet to be measured.

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

Page 5 of 15 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

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 The distribution of S.albipunctata is limited to the intensively fished waters of the outer continental shelf and upper slope of eastern Australia. The species has been heavily fished (as byproduct) due to high marketability in the areas where it is considered most abundant (central NSW to northern Victoria). In these areas, fisheries- independent surveys of commercial trawls demonstrated a substantial decline in relative abundance of 96%

Page 6 of 15 over 20 years (CPUE falling from 32.6 kg/h to 1.3 kg/h from 1976 to 1997; Graham et al. 2001). Fishing pressures are ongoing, and projections suggest that this decline equates to a future reduction of 98 to 99% over three generations (69 years from 1976 – 2045; Pogonoski et al. 2016). The generation time is inferred from age data of a related species (23 years, S. californica, Cailliet et al. 1992). No species-specific conservation measures are currently place for this species.

Although there are no estimates of overall population size, it is considered to be declining further with limited species-specific action taken to offset these threats (Pogonoski et al. 2016). Trawling operations continue to operate in key areas of its range (mostly southern end of its distribution). For these reasons, it has been IUCN- listed as Vulnerable in both 2003 (Pogonoski and Pollard 2003) and again in 2016 (Pogonoski et al. 2016). It has been classified as Transitional Depleting in a recent shark assessment (Simpfendorfer et al. 2019).

submits that S. albipunctata is eligible for listing as Critically Endangered under Criterion 1 A2(b&d) and A4(b&d).

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). 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 is evidence to suggest declining numbers but the spatial patterning of this decline has not been studied.

Page 7 of 15 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. Although there is evidence for declining population size, no robust estimates of the number of mature individuals are available.

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. A severe reduction in the population of S. albipunctata is inferred from fishery-independent surveys and projections, however there are no quantitative assessments of the number of mature 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. Page 8 of 15 There are currently no quantitative analyses of the future extinction probability of S.albipunctata.

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  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  A4 (specify at least one of the following) a)  b) c)  d) e)

Criterion 2 B1 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c); AND/OR B2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c)

Criterion 3 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) C2 b)

Criterion 4

Criterion 5

For conservation dependent Criterion 1 nominations only: 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. a) n.a. b) 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 a) n.a. b) c) 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 9 of 15 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 S.albipunctata. 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 S. albipunctata to be listed as Critically Endangered 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 10 of 15 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 removed due to Copyright

Figure 3: Distribution of S. albipunctata. IUCN Red List (Pogonoski et al. 2016). IMAGES OF THE SPECIES Please include or attach images of the species if available.

Page 11 of 15 Image removed due to Copyright

Figure 1: Dorsal view of S. albipunctata. (Australian National Fish Collection, CSIRO).

Image removed due to copyright

Figure 2: Dorsal view of S. albipunctata. Cabbage Tree Bay, Manly, NSW, November 2016. (John Turnball, Flickr licenced)

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 Australia Email: Phone:

Page 12 of 15 REFERENCE LIST Please list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination. Bridge N.F., Mackay D. and Newton G. (1998) Biology of the ornate angel shark (Squatina tergocellata) from the Great Australian Bight, Marine and Freshwater Research, 49(7): 679-686.

Cailliet G.M., Mollet H.F., Pittinger G.G., Bedford D. and Natanson L.J. (1992) Growth and demography of the Pacific angel shark (Squatina californica), based upon tag returns off California, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 43: 1313–1330.

Dennis B., Assas L., Elaydi,S., Kwessi E. and Livadiotis G. (2016) Allee effects and resilience in stochastic populations. Theoretical Ecology, 9(3): 323-335. Graham K.J., Andrew N.L. and Hodgson K.E. (2001) Changes in the relative abundances of and rays on Australian South East Fishery trawl grounds after twenty years of fishing, Marine and Freshwater Research, 52: 549–561.

Graham K.J., Andrew N.L. and Hodgson K.E. (2001) Changes in the relative abundances of sharks and rays on Australian South East Fishery trawl grounds after twenty years of fishing, Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 52: 549‒561.

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.

Last P.R. and Stevens J.D. (1994) Sharks and Rays of Australia, CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, Australia (as Squatina sp A).

Last P.R. and Stevens J.D. (2009) Sharks and Rays of Australia, Second Edition, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Last P.R. and White W.T. (2008) Three new angel sharks (: Squatinidae) from the Indo- Australian region, Zootaxa, 1734: 1-26.

Michael S.W. (2001) Aquarium sharks and rays: an essential guide to their selection, keeping, and natural history, Microcosm Ltd., Charlotte, Vermont, and T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey.

O’Grady J.J., Brook B.W., Reed D.H., Ballou J.D., Tonkyn D.W. and Frankham R. (2006) Realistic levels of inbreeding depression strongly affect extinction risk in wild populations. Biological Conservation, 133(1): 42- 51.

Pogonoski J. and Pollard D. (2003) SSG Australia and Oceania Regional Workshop, March 2003, Squatina albipunctata, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2003, e.T42729A10749579.

Pogonoski J., Pollard D.A. and Rigby C.L. (2016) Squatina albipunctata, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016, e.T42729A68645549.

Raoult V., Peddemors V. and Williamson J.E. (2017) Biology of angel sharks (Squatina sp.) and sawsharks (Pristiophorus sp.) caught in south-eastern Australian trawl fisheries and the New South Wales shark- meshing (bather-protection) program, Marine and Freshwater Research, 68(2): 207-212.

Rigby C.L., White W.T. and 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.

Rowling K., Hegarty A. and Ives M. (2010) Status of Fisheries Resources NSW 2008/09, Industry and Investment NSW, Cronulla.

Page 13 of 15 Simpfendorfer C.A., Chin A., Kyne P.M., Rigby C., Sherman C.S. and White W.T. (2019) A Report Card for Australia's Sharks - Species Profiles, Retrieved from Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Stelbrink B., von Rintelen T., Cliff G. and Kriwet J. (2010) Molecular systematics and global phylogeography of angel sharks (genus Squatina). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 54: 395-404.

Wearmouth V.J. and Sims D.W. (2010) Sexual segregation in elasmobranchs, Biologia Marina Mediterranea, 17(1): 236.

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.)

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.

Page 14 of 15 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 15 of 15