Threatened Species Nomination 2020

Details of the nominated species or subspecies NAME OF SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES) Scientific name: Squalus chloroculus Common name(s): Greeneye Spurdog, Greeneye Dogfish TAXONOMY Provide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order). Squalus chloroculus (Last, White and Motomura 2007).

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Chondrichthyans Subclass: Elasmobranchii Order: Squaliformes (Bramble, sleeper and dogfish sharks) Family: Squalidae (Dogfish sharks) Genus: Squalus Species: Chloroculus

Dogfish species of the Squalus genus are small sharks with slow molecular evolution (Daley-Engel et al. 2018). For this reason they have been generally classified within species complexes. In 1994 the “greeneye spurdog” was classed as conspecific with other dogfish in the ‘mitsukurii’ complex (Last and Stevens 1994). Although comparatively low between-species diversity exists within this genus (Daley-Engel et al. 2018), molecular analysis has since revealed S. chloroculus to be a unique species endemic to south-eastern Australia (Last et al. 2007; Last and Stevens 2009). Distinguishing between similar species is possible morphometrically and from its geographical distribution (see Description), although records from the northern-most part of their range (in New South Wales; NSW) show some range overlap with other Squalus species. Many historical (and some contemporary) records do not make the distinction and care must be taken when referring to these records for population analysis due to previous uncertainty of the Squalus taxonomy.

This species is not known to hybridise 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 19 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? Squalus chloroculus is a large deep-water dogfish, attaining around 990mm total length (TL; Figure 1). It has characteristically vivid green eyes (when alive or fresh). Its body is fusiform, relatively elongated and stocky, with a prominently humped nape (Last et al. 2007). It has a relatively broad head, with a moderately elongated snout (Last et al. 2007). It has small nostrils, moderately sized eyes and spiracles, and an almost transverse mouth (Last et al. 2007). Its first dorsal fin is larger than the second, which is located on the tail. It is generally uniformly grey, with black margins on its dorsal fins, and black and white patterning on the caudal fin (although these colorations can vary; Last et al. 2007). The tricuspid flank denticles are very small (Last et al. 2007).

Although it shares morphological similarities with other Squalus species, it can be distinguished by several features. Its broad head and the position and size of the dorsal fins are distinctive from S. montalbani (Philippine spurdog; Last et al. 2007). It has different caudal fin coloration to S. mitsukurii (Shortspine spurdog) and a lower vertebral count (Last et al. 2007). Identification may only be problematic in the northern-most part of its range in NSW where these species are partially sympatric.

The social structure of S. chloroculus is unknown. 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. Squalus chloroculus is one of 11 Australian Squalus species and is endemic to the temperate waters of south-eastern and southern Australia (Last et al. 2007). Its range is restricted to upper and mid-continental slope habitats, from Jervis Bay in New South Wales (ca. to the Great Australian Bight (Eucla, Western Australia; Last et al. 2007; Last et al. 2009).

The daily and seasonal movements of S. chloroculus are not well understood. Some Squalus species are known to migrate and have strong diel movement patterns and clear home ranges (Carlson et al. 2014) but this has yet to be investigated in this species. One study found S. chloroculus to have travelled up to 480km from where it had been fitted with an acoustic tag (Daley et al. 2009). There is some evidence for spatial age segregation. Using trawls and lines, Rochowski et al. (2015) caught only mature adults, despite catches of small sharks of other species. This may occur in other Squalus species, for example Campagno et al. (1991) found separate pupping groups in Squalus megalops. Spatial partitioning such as this has implications for how fisheries impact on demographics and how populations might respond to management actions.

There are no captive breeding populations or proposed re-introduction plans. This species does not occur in any EPBC listed ecological communities.

The < 700m depth exclusion introduced in 2007 for all Commonwealth fishing licenced operators (750m in the Great Australian Bight) may provide some refuge. Deepwater dogfish fishing exclusion areas in NSW (NSW Government Official Notice 29 April 2011), as well as larger marine park designations (for example the South-East Marine Parks network in 2007) that prohibit demersal otter trawls (amongst other methods) are also likely to have some benefit for S. chloroculus (Walker and Rochowski 2019). However only around 19.1 per cent of its range falls within Australian marine parks, and of this, only three per cent overlaps with fishery exclusion zones (Heupel et al. 2018). Further, these protected areas are not managed for this species, and systematic monitoring in place to determine the efficacy of such protection specifically for S. chloroculus.

Page 3 of 19 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. chloroculus shows female-biased sexual size dimorphism, and both sexes mature slowly. Females grow to around 990mm TL and have been known to live for 26 years. They reach maturity at 799mm TL at around 9-12 years (Last and Stevens 2009; Rochowski et al. 2015). Males grow to 856mm TL with a 24-year lifespan, reaching maturity at 629mm TL at around 16 years old (Last and Stevens 2009; Rochowski et al. 2015). The generation length is 21 years (determined by female age at maturity and longevity; Walker and Rochowski 2019). Natural mortality rates are unknown. Females have a triennial reproductive cycle (Rochowski et al. 2015), with the longest known gestation period of any species (31 - 34 months; Rochowski et al. 2015). This means that each year, only around one third of females will give birth, contributing to a low overall recruitment rate. The conditions needed for breeding are not known, however the female reproductive cycle is seasonal (births from September to December) and the males are likely to be in breeding condition year round (Rochowski et al. 2015). Pups are born at 250mm and litter sizes range from 4 to 15 embryos (average of 9), with a 1:1 sex ratio (Rochowski et al. 2015). Typical breeding success is not known, however higher fecundity (larger litters) has been found more prevalent in larger maternal females (Rochowski et al. 2015), making the species susceptible to length-selective fishing practices (where larger individuals are more likely to be harvested). Further, the continuous male reproductive cycle may be an indication of low mating probability, typical of species living in deeper waters (see Rochowski et al. 2015). Given its longevity, late onset of maturity, triennial reproduction, long gestation period and relatively low fecundity, the species is considered to have very low biological productivity and this makes it highly vulnerable to population loss. Rochowski et al. (2015) observed that TL at maturity varies before and after severe length-selective fishing mortality (potentially biasing reproductive length estimates), demonstrating that fishing impacts may also have sublethal recruitment impacts.

S. chloroculus is a bathydemersal species, occurring on both hard and soft substrate on the upper to mid- continental slope at depths of 216 to 1360m (Last et al. 2009). Its habitat use and diet are not well understood, but some Squalus species prey on benthic and demersal teleosts, crustaceans, cephalopods and molluscs (for example, Braccini et al. 2005; Dunn et al. 2013), and this may make them susceptible to demersal fisheries.

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 Targeted catch and bycatch in Most of the geographic range of S. chloroculus has experienced intensive commercial trawl fisheries commercial fishing over the past few decades, and major declines in catch rates have been reported as a result. The species was previously targeted in the large-scale Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF; Figure 3), a multispecies and multi-gear fishery that operates on the continental shelf and upper slope of much of the distribution of S. chloroculus (Figure 2).Within this fishery, the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS), the Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector (GABTS) and the Auto-longline Sector the GHAT Fishery have had the major impact on upper-slope dogfish (AFMA 2012), and have been the primary source of population stress and mortalities for S.chloroculus. Between 2000 and 2006, the SESSF reported around 212 tonnes of S.

Page 4 of 19 chloroculus with a 24% retention rate (Walker and Rochowski 2019). Rapid declines of abundance resulted in the species (and sympatric dogfish) no longer being targeted, however it continues to be caught as bycatch. Although the fishery has operated in most of the geographical range, the majority of S.chloroculus caught within these fisheries was at <600m depths. Given that this species is found to depths of c. 1300m, this may have provided some deeper-water refuge, however the extent to which this has alleviated fishing pressures is unknown.

In south-eastern Australia, trawling has been undertaken on the upper slope since 1968 (Graham et al. 2001; Novaglio et al. 2018). This was expanded south to Tasmania and the western Bass Straight, as well as to depths of 600m in the 1970s (Tilzey and Rowling 2001). Historical fisheries records of this species are difficult to interpret because of taxonomic uncertainty prior to 2007 (see Taxonomy). This uncertainty is also due to generic recording, for example dogfish of the Centrophorus and Squalus species have typically pooled into the categories “dogfish” or “greeneye dogfish” (Graham et al. 2001; Wilson et al. 2009). However records of species assemblages are still valuable in assessing the impacts of fisheries on this species. In the SESSF, ‘dogfish (including Squalus spp)’ catches peaked in 1992 at around 500 tonnes (AFMA 2012; Daley et al. 2002; Walker and Gason 2005). In NSW, the commercial ‘dogfish’ catch peaked at 250 tonnes in 1992-93 (Scandol et al. 2008). This was followed by a major decline in Squalus species catch rates. Fishery-independent surveys have highlighted the marked decline of these species in large sections of the range of S. chloroculus. For example, trawl surveys conducted on the upper-slope (220-605m) in its north-eastern range (from central NSW to northern Victoria) reported a >95% decline in mean catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) in large squalids (including S. chloroculus) over 20 years (1976/77: 44.8 kg/h to 1996/97: 1.2 kg/h; Graham et al. 2001). The species in the central NSW surveys may have included S. montalbani and S. grahami (Eastern longnose spurdog; Graham et al. 2001), however it is likely that most of the southern surveys were dominated by S. chloroculus, as these other species do not occur as far south (Last et al. 2007, Last and Stevens 2009). It is thought the low numbers in NSW remained stable from 1997 to 2007 (Walker and Gason, 2007), where it is still considered rare. Standardised CPUE from scientific on-board observer monitoring of trawls (depths 120 – 800m) from 1996 to 2006 show that S. chloroculus was mostly absent from southern NSW, eastern Victoria and Tasmania (Walker and Gason 2007). This absence was further confirmed from another fishery- independent survey using longlines and baited underwater cameras (McLean et al. 2015).

Populations in its central and western range have had similar falls in relative abundance. In the region between Cape Otway (Victoria) and Kangaroo Island (South Australia) observer data from the CTS (then known as the South-east Trawl Fishery) indicated a c. 99 per cent reduction in S. chloroculus over 3 generations (63 years; Walker and Gason 2007). Standardised CPUE fell from 4.10 kg/km in 1996 to 0.20 kg/km in 2004. This was based on data from the Integrated Scientific Monitoring Programme of the SESSF and mandatory logbooks. Within the Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery (GABTF) of the SESSF, a >90% standardised catch rate reduction was observed from 1996-2006. Information on the full extent of this decline is limited, as changes in species targeting and fishing practices over this time make CPUE standardisation difficult (Walker and Rochowski 2019). Relative

Page 5 of 19 abundance varies across its range but it appears that overall abundance is higher in the western areas (Walker and Gason 2007), and more highly depleted in the east. This in part could be due to the GABTF targeting the shelf area rather than the deeper slope, resulting in less intensive fishing pressure (Walker and Rochowski 2019). Fishing operations continue to be mostly limited in these areas (Patterson et al. 2017).

More recently declines in the Squalus species assemblage are indicated in fishery-independent surveys over the full extent of the Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the SESSF (depths 50 – 700m). Here the abundance of ‘greeneye dogfish (Squalus spp)’ dropped from 16.64 kg/km – 5.97 kg/km in eight years (from 2008 – 2016; Knuckey et al. 2017). Total catch in NSW in 2016 was 1298kg (Knuckey et al. 2017). Further, in a review that combined all known data of upper-slope dogfish catches in the SESSF, a decline of 90% was reported in upper slope dogfish in a few decades, in particular the four identified by fisheries as high risk (including S. chloroculus; Wilson et al. 2009). Landings of Squalus species by NSW fisheries are currently small where this species is thought to be almost extirpated (Graham et al., 2001; Walker and Rochowski 2019).

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

Current threats Impact of threat Bycatch in commercial trawl The number of mature individuals is still considered to be declining due fisheries to ongoing stress and mortalities from fisheries, resulting its upgrade of from Near Threatened in 2009 (Valenti et al. 2009) to Endangered in 2018 (A2bd, Walker and Rochowski 2019). In a sustainability assessment of the SESSF (Zhou et al. 2012) and an ecological risk assessment of the CTS and Auto-Longline sectors of the SESSF (AFMA 2014), S. chloroculus was identified as being at extremely high risk of extinction from fishing. Management initiatives have reduced the intensity of fishing on S.chloroculus since 2006 (see Threat Abatement), however the population response is not known in detail. Upper-slope dogfish are no longer targeted in Commonwealth fisheries and are now generally low- level bycatch, and S.chloroculus is currently designated as a no-take species (AFMA 2019). However, survival rates of those discarded are not known. Because it is listed as a bycatch species, no quantitative stock assessments have been carried out (AFMA 2012) and the current population size is unknown. Small quantities are still sold domestically (Last and Stevens 2009). A recent study using DNA barcoding implicated S. chloroculus (and other dogfish) species as being traded as “flake” in the seafood market ( pers. comms.). Actual future threats Impact of threat Bycatch in commercial trawl It is likely that the species will continue to be caught as bycatch, but the fisheries impact of this is yet to be determined.

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.

Page 6 of 19 THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed. This species has not been targeted since 2006 because of rapid depletion and management initiatives resulted in around 50 per cent effort reduction in the CTS (AFMA 2012). In part this reduction is a result of reforms within the relevant fisheries for example buy-back of commercial fishing licences as part of the restructuring of the SESSF from 2006-07 (Penney et al. 2014). Catch limits were first introduced around two decades ago to reduce fishing intensity of dogfish in south-eastern Australia. These included a progressive reduction in Total Allowable Catches (TAC) for all deeper-water dogfish (NSW) and trip limits (currently 10kg with fins attached of deep-water dogfish per day; Government Official Notice 29 April 2011). Whole carcasses (including liver and fins) are required to be landed since 2003, and Catch Disposal Records are required for Commonwealth-licenced operators. Reductions in the TAC of targeted deep-water teleost species has also shifted the fishing grounds to shallower waters (Walker and Gason 2007). Progressive spatial closures since 2007 should provide some refuge. For example, Commonwealth fishing exclusion zones for depths below 700m depths (750m in the GAB). Deepwater dogfish fishing exclusion areas in NSW (NSW Government Official Notice 19 February 2013 and 29 April 2011), as well as larger marine park designations (for example the South-East Marine Parks Network in 2007) that prohibit demersal otter trawls (amongst other methods) are also likely to have some benefits for recovery (Walker and Rochowski 2019). Spatial closures are one of the strategies under the Upper-Slope Dogfish Management Strategy however the strategy applies only to Commonwealth waters, and is not binding for other jurisdictions (AFMA 2012).

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority notes that these measures should halt the decline in dogfish species, however more may need to be undertaken in order to rebuild these populations (AFMA 2012). The expectation that these measures may stabilise the population is the basis for the specie’s recent fisheries classification of Transitional Recovery (Simpfendorfer et al. 2019). However, other fisheries assessments have identified S. chloroculus as being at very high risk from fisheries (AFMA 2014; Zhou et al. 2012). It was identified as one of four species of south-eastern Australian upper-slope dogfish that have significantly declined due to fishing pressures (see AFMA 2012), leading to protection for two of these species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Centrophorus harrissoni and C. zeehaani). This protection has not yet been afforded to S. chloroculus. Although the species is currently subject to a mandatory no-take status within AFMA-managed fisheries (AFMA, 2019) much of the management is generalised, highlighting the need for a specific management plan for this species. This should include systematic monitoring to provide population assessments and identify key sites for conservation. Further research into life history and ecology will help inform effective recovery plans.

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 7 of 19 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

Page 8 of 19 Fisheries have operated for decades throughout much of the relatively restricted distribution of S. chloroculus. Substantial population declines are evident across its range, reflecting the high vulnerability of this species to heavy fishing pressures. Abundance varies across its range, reflecting localised depletion mostly in the eastern portion of its range and a relatively lower fishing pressure in western areas (Walker and Gason 2007). Fishery- independent surveys of ‘greeneye dogsharks’ in the north-eastern range of S. chloroculus revealed a >95 per cent decline in CPUE in 20 years (Graham et al. 2001). The species in the central NSW surveys may have included S. montalbani and S. grahami (Graham et al. 2001), however it is likely to have been primarily S. chloroculus otherwise (Last et al. 2007, Last and Stevens 2009). Standardised CPUE from scientific on-board observer monitoring of trawls from 1996 to 2006 show that S. chloroculus was absent from southern NSW, eastern Victoria and Tasmania (Walker and Gason 2007). This absence was further confirmed from another fishery-independent survey using longlines and baited underwater cameras (McLean et al. 2015). It is still considered rare in eastern Victoria and Tasmania, and almost extirpated in NSW (Walker and Rochowski 2019).

Similar declines have been observed in the central and western areas of its range. Standardised CPUE from observer data from trawls between Cape Otway (Victoria) and Kangaroo Island (South Australia) indicated a c. 99 per cent reduction in S. chloroculus over 3 generations (63 years; Walker and Gason 2007; 4.10 kg/km in 1996 to 0.20 kg/km in 2004. Further, a >90% reduction in CPUE reductions was observed from 1996 to 2006 in the GABTF (Walker and Gason 2007). These declines in CPUE may to some extent reflect changes in species targeting and fishing practices in these regions, and fishing operations have been, and continue to be, less intensive here (Patterson et al. 2017). More recently, fishery-independent surveys of the full extent of the CTS showed a drop in ‘greeneye dogfish (Squalus spp)’ from 16.64 kg/km to 5.97 kg/km in eight years (2008 – 2016; Knuckey et al. 2017). Further, a review of upper slope dogfish records found a 90% within a few decades (Wilson et al. 2009).

Given the declines in CPUE and actual level of exploitation, and considering that populations in some areas are relatively larger and stable than others (from lower fishing pressures), the global population reduction is inferred to be 50-75% over the past three generations (Walker and Rochowski 2019). The generation time of 21 years was determined by female age at maturity and longevity (Walker and Rochowski 2019).

Overall populations are likely still declining due to ongoing stress and mortalities from fisheries, resulting in the upgrade of its IUCN status from Near Threatened (2009; Valenti et al. 2009) to Endangered A2bd (2018; Walker and Rochowski 2019). This is despite the expectation that management measures will improve numbers (see Threat Abatement). Various abatement strategies have been employed, such as depth exclusions, catch limits and spatial closures, primarily to benefit other dogfish species, and the impacts of these strategies are not being monitored for this species. Although this is expected to rehabilitate the population (Simpfendorfer et al. 2019), given its life history characteristics and low biological productivity, it make take several decades (Walker and Rochowski 2019). Despite being currently designated as a no-take species, fishing pressure continue as species-specific harvest monitoring is problematic, the post-discarding survival rates are not known, nor are the sublethal effects of these pressures on its recruitment and viability known.

submits that S. chloroculus is eligible for listing as Endangered under Criterion 1 A2(b&d).

Page 9 of 19 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 a substantial decline numbers but the spatial patterning of this has not been studied in detail.

Page 10 of 19 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 major reduction in the population of S.chloroculus is inferred from fishery-independent surveys and projections, however there are no quantitative assessments of the number of mature individuals.

Page 11 of 19 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 S.chloroculus.

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 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.

Page 12 of 19 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.

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.chloroculus. 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.chloroculus to be listed as 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 13 of 19 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.

Page 14 of 19 Images have been removed due to Copyright

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

Page 15 of 19 Image has been removed due to Copyright

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:

REFERENCE LIST Please list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.

AFMA (2012) Upper-Slope Dogfish Management Strategy: AFMA-managed fisheries, October 2012, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia.

AFMA (2019) Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2019, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia.

AFMA (2014) Ecological Risk Management - Strategy for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia.

Braccini J.M., Gillanders B.M. and Walker T.I. (2005) Sources of variation in the feeding ecology of the piked spurdog (Squalus megalops): implications for inferring predator–prey interactions from overall dietary composition, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62(6): 1076-1094.

Carlson A.E., Hoffmayer E.R., Tribuzio C.A. and Sulikowski J.A. (2014) The use of satellite tags to redefine movement patterns of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) along the US east coast: implications for fisheries management, PLoS One, 9(7).

Daly-Engel T.S., Koch A., Anderson J.M. and Cotton C.F. (2018) Description of a new deep-water dogfish shark from Hawaii, with comments on the Squalusmitsukurii species complex in the West Pacific, ZooKeys, (798): 135.

Daley R, Williams A and Smith T (2009). Movement ecology of gulper sharks (Centrophorus zeehaani) and other shark species in a fishery area closure on the upper continental slope off southern Australia. Abstract

Page 16 of 19 66. Book of Abstracts – 8th Indo Pacific Fish Conference & 2009 ASFB Workshop & Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia. 31st May – 5th June 2009.

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.

Dunn M.R., Stevens D.W., Forman J.S. and Connell A. (2013) Trophic interactions and distribution of some squaliforme sharks, including new diet descriptions for Deania calcea and Squalus acanthias, PloS One, 8(3).

Graham K.J. (2005) Distribution, population structure and biological aspects of Squalus spp. (Chondrichthyes: Squaliformes) from New South Wales and adjacent waters, Marine and Freshwater Research, 56: 415-416.

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.

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

Last P.R., White W.T. and Motomura H. (2007) Description of Squalus chloroculus sp. nov., a new spurdog from southern Australia, and the resurrection of S. montalbani Whitley, In: Last P.R, White W.T. and Pogonoski J.J. (eds), Descriptions of New Dogfishes of the genus Squalus (Squaloidea: Squalidae), pp: 55‒69. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Paper No. 14, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

McLean D.L., Green M., Harvey E.S., Williams A., Daley R. and Graham K.J. (2015) Comparison of baited longlines and baited underwater cameras for assessing the composition of continental slope deepwater fish assemblages off southeast Australia, Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 98: 10–20.

Novaglio C., Smith A.D., Frusher S., Ferretti F., Klaer N. and Fulton E.A. (2018) Fishery development and exploitation in South East Australia, Frontiers in Marine Science, 5(145).

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.

Patterson H., Georgeson L., Noriega R., Koduah A., Helidoniotis F., Larcombe J., Nicol S. and Williams A. (2017) Fishery Status Reports 2017. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Penney A., Georgeson L., and Curtotti R. (2014) Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. In: Georgeson L., Stobutzki I., and Curtotti R. (eds) Fishery status reports 2013–14, pp. 111–127. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Rochowski B.E.A., Graham K.J., Day R.W. and Walker T.I. (2015) Reproductive biology of the greeneye spurdog Squalus chloroculus (Squaliformes, Squalidae), Journal of Fish Biology, 86(2): 734-754.

Scandol J., Rowling K and Graham K. (2008) (Eds). Status of Fisheries Resources in NSW 2006/07, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Cronulla, 334.

Page 17 of 19 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.

Tilzey R.D.J. and Rowling K.R. (2001) History of Australia's South East Fishery: a scientist's perspective. Marine and Freshwater Research, 52(4): 361-375.

Valenti S.V., Stevens J.D. & White W.T. (2009) Squalus chloroculus, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T161360A5406265.

Walker T.I. and Gason A.S. (2007) Shark and other chondrichthyan byproduct and bycatch estimation in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, Final report to Fisheries and Research Development Corporation Project No. 2001/007, July 2007, Primary Industries Research Victoria, Queenscliff, Victoria, Australia.

Walker T.I. and Rochowski B.E.A. (2019) Squalus chloroculus, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T161360A68644464.

Ward R.D., Holmes B.H., Zemlak T.S. and Smith P.J. (2007) Part 12 - DNA barcoding discriminates spurdogs of the genus Squalus. Descriptions of new dogfishes of the genus Squalus (Squaloidea: Squalidae), 117-130.

Wayte S., Dowdney J., Williams A., Bulman C., Sporcic M., Fuller M., Smith, A. (2007) Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Report for the otter trawl sub-fishery of the Commonwealth trawl sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. Report for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.

Wilson D.T., Patterson H.M., Summerson R. and Hobsbawn P.I. (2009) Information to support management options for upper-slope gulper sharks (including Harrisson's Dogfish and Southern Dogfish), Final Report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Project No. 2008/65. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra

Zhou S., Fuller M., and Daley R. (2012). Sustainability assessment of fish species potentially impacted in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery: 2007-2010. Report to the Australia Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia. June 2012.

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:

Page 18 of 19 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 19 of 19