Application to Environment Australia on the West Coast ...€¦ · Appendix 2 Catch and Effort Data Form.....80 Appendix 3 Logbook Information Form .....81. Application to Environment

APPLICATION TO ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA ON THE

WEST COAST DEEP SEA CRAB INTERIM MANAGED FISHERY

Against the Guidelines for the Ecologically

Sustainable Management of Fisheries

For Initial Listing on Section 303DB of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999

JULY 2003

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

LOCKED BAG 39, CLOISTERS SQUARE

WA 6850

Application to Environment Australia for the West Coast Deep Sea Crab Interim Managed Fishery

July 2003 2

This submission has been prepared by the West Australian Government Department of Fisheries. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage or the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.


July 2003 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................3 TABLE OF FIGURES.......................................................................................5 TABLES ............................................................................................................6

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE APPLICATION ......................................................7 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF INFORMATION PROVIDED ...........................................7 1.2 OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION.......................................................................8

2. BACKGROUND ON THE WCDSCF ...................................................................9 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...................................................................9 2.2 BIOLOGY OF GIANT CRABS........................................................................12 2.3 BIOLOGY OF CHAMPAGNE CRABS...........................................................14 2.4 BIOLOGY OF SNOW CRABS.........................................................................15 2.5 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTS .............................................................................15

2.5.1 Physical Environment .................................................................................15 2.5.2 Economic Environment ..............................................................................16 2.5.3 Social Environment.....................................................................................16

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................17 3.1 SCOPE ...............................................................................................................17 3.2 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................17 3.3 ISSUE IDENTIFICATION (component trees) .................................................18 3.4 RISK ASSESSMENT/PRIORITISATION PROCESS.....................................19 3.5 COMPONENT REPORTS ................................................................................20

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE WCDSC FISHERY MANAGEMENT REGIME AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH (EA) GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES..22

4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EA GUIDELINES...........................22 4.2 PRINCIPLE 1 OF THE COMMONWEALTH GUIDELINES ........................26

Objective 1. Maintain Viable Stock Levels of Target Species ............................26 Objective 2. Recovery of Stocks..........................................................................33

4.3 PRINCIPLE 2 OF THE COMMONWEALTH GUIDELINES ........................33 Objective 1. Bycatch............................................................................................33 Objective 2. Protected, Threatened and Endangered Species..............................37 Objective 3. General Ecosystem..........................................................................39

OVERVIEW TABLE ................................................................................................43

5. PERFORMANCE REPORTS ..............................................................................46 5.1 RETAINED SPECIES.......................................................................................46

5.1.1 PRIMARY SPECIES..................................................................................46 5.1.1.1 Giant Crabs ..........................................................................................46 5.1.1.2 Champagne Crabs ................................................................................47 5.1.1.3 Snow Crabs ..........................................................................................50

5.2 NON-RETAINED SPECIES .............................................................................54 5.2.1 CAPTURED BY POTS ..............................................................................55


July 2003 4

5.2.1.1 Western Rock Lobster..........................................................................55 5.2.1.2 Sea Lice................................................................................................55 5.2.1.3 Spider Crabs.........................................................................................55 5.2.1.4 Finfish ..................................................................................................56 5.2.1.5 Molluscs...............................................................................................56 5.2.1.6 Octopus ................................................................................................56

5.2.2 DIRECT INTERACTION BUT NOT CAPTURED IN POTS..................57 5.2.2.1 Whales and Dolphins ...........................................................................57 5.2.2.2 Leatherback Turtles .............................................................................57 5.2.2.3 Manta Rays ..........................................................................................58 5.2.2.4 Sponges ................................................................................................58 5.2.2.5 Corals ...................................................................................................58

5.3 GENERAL ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................59 5.3.1 ADDITION/MOVEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL....................59

5.3.1 1 Discarding/Provisioning ......................................................................59 5.3.2 REMOVAL OF/DAMAGE TO ORGANISMS .........................................60

5.3.2.1 Impacts From Ghost Fishing................................................................60 5.3.2.2 Impacts to Benthic Biota – Mud ..........................................................60 5.3.2.3 Impacts to Benthic Biota – Coral.........................................................60 5.3.2 4 Impacts to Fishing Trophic Level ........................................................61

5.3.3 OTHER IMPACTS – WATER QUALITY................................................61 5.3.3.1 Debris...................................................................................................61

5.4 GOVERNANCE................................................................................................62 COMPONENT TREE FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF THE WCDSCF ...........62 5.4 1 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES – MANAGEMENT..............................62

5.4.1.1 Management Effectiveness (Outcomes) ..............................................62 5.4.1.2 Management Arrangements .................................................................64 5.4.1.3 COMPLIANCE....................................................................................68 5.4.1.4 ALLOCATION AMONG USERS ......................................................70

5.4.2 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES - LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS ............71 5.4.2.1 OCS Arrangements ..............................................................................71

5.4.3 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES - CONSULTATION.............................73 5.4.3.1 Consultation (including communication) ............................................73 5.4.3.2 Reporting..............................................................................................75

6. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................78

Appendix 1 Acronyms ...............................................................................................79

Appendix 2 Catch and Effort Data Form................................................................80

Appendix 3 Logbook Information Form .................................................................81


July 2003 5

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 The location of the fishery and its five fishing areas......................................9 Figure 2 Summary of the ESD reporting framework processes. ................................18 Figure 3 Example of a component tree structure. .......................................................19 Figure 4 Component tree for the retained species. .....................................................46 Figure 5 Catches (t) of giant crabs in the WCDSCF, 1993-2002. ..............................47 Figure 6 Catches (t) of champagne crabs in the WCDSCF, 1989-2002. ....................48 Figure 7 Catch (t) of snow crabs in the WCDSCF, 1997-2002. .................................51 Figure 8 CPUE of snow crabs in the WCDSCF, 1999-2003. .....................................51 Figure 9 Component tree for the non-retained species. ..............................................54 Figure 10 Component tree for the general environment. ............................................59 Figure 11 Component tree for the governance of the WCDSCF................................62


July 2003 6

TABLES Table 1 Main National ESD Reporting Framework Components. .............................17 Table 2 Risk ranking definitions.................................................................................20 Table 3 The National ESD reporting framework headings used in this report...........21 Table 4 Summary of risk assessment outcomes for environmental issues related to

the WCDSCF......................................................................................................40 Table 5 Objects of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994. .................................64


July 2003 7

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE APPLICATION

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF INFORMATION PROVIDED This is an application to Environment Australia (EA) to assess the West Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery (WCDSCF) against the Commonwealth’s Guidelines for the ecologically sustainable management of fisheries. The submission of a successful application against these guidelines is now needed to meet the requirements under Part 13A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC), to enable the giant crab (Pseudocarcinus gigas), champagne crab (Hypothalassia acerba), snow crab (Chaceon bicolor) and other relevant by-product species to be listed on the section 303DB list of species exempt from export regulations (previously Schedule 4 of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act, 1982) past December 2003. The information provided in this application covers all the elements specified in the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (located on the EA website www.ea.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/assessment/guidelines.html) along with other information (at a variety of levels of complexity) considered relevant to those who wish to gain an understanding of the management for these fisheries. The application includes:

• Comprehensive background information on the history of the WCDSCF and a description of the management arrangements, which provides the context for assessing this application and the biology of the primary species caught (see Section 2 for details).

• A description of the National Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Reporting Framework and methodology, which was used to generate the information that is presented in the application (see Section 3 for summary and www.fisheries-esd.com for full details).

• Specific supporting statements relevant to each of the criteria within the Commonwealth Guidelines. These criteria include the “General Requirements”, which cover many of the governance aspects related to the management of the WCDSCF, plus each of the objectives listed under “Principle 1” (target species issues) and “Principle 2” (broader ecosystem issues) of the Guidelines (see Section 4).

• Section 4 also has, where appropriate, specific links and references to the detailed ESD component reports contained in Section 5. Referral to this additional information is facilitated by the incorporation of appropriately placed hyperlinks (electronic version only).

• At the end of Section 4 there is an OVERVIEW TABLE that outlines for each issue, which EA Guidelines are relevant if there is an operational objective, the availability of suitable data for the indicators, whether the current performance against the limit/measure chosen is acceptable, and a summary of what (if any) future actions are required.

• Section 5 includes a comprehensive account of the risk assessment outcomes and current performance of the fisheries, presented in the National ESD Reporting


July 2003 8

format, covering each of the environmental and governance issues relevant to this application for the fisheries. These reports cover each of the issues in a comprehensive manner and include either; the explicit objectives, indicators, performance measures, current and future management responses and justification for each major component; or a full justification for why specific management of this issue within the WCDSCF is not required.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION The WCDSCF extends from the Western Australian/Northern Territory border to Cape Leeuwin, Western Australia. The primary species for the WCDSCF are the giant crab, champagne crab, and snow crab. The WCDSCF harvests approximately 300 tonnes per year with a landed value of around $2.8 million. The management arrangements for this fishery have and will continue to be refined through time and are subject to regular reviews to achieve the overall aim of successful management. The Fish Resources Management Act, 1994 (FRMA) provides the legislative framework to implement the management arrangements for this fishery. The FRMA, the regulations in the Fish Resources Management Regulations, 1995 (FRMR) and the specific interim management plan for this fishery, adheres to arrangements established under relevant Australian laws with reference to international agreements as documented in Section 5.4.2. The WCDSCF is at a transitional state as it is being managed under an interim management plan. With the finalisation of the interim management arrangements accompanied by the input controls already existing in the fishery, the Department of Fisheries is confident in the maintenance of the primary species stocks as well as the successful continuation of the fishery. Consequently, the management regime for the WCDSCF should meet the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. Detailed justification for this conclusion is documented within the remainder of this application.


July 2003 9

2. BACKGROUND ON THE WCDSCF

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY The WCDSCF extends from Western Australia (WA)/Northern Territory (NT) border in the north to Cape Leeuwin in the south (Figure 1). The WCDSCF licensees are not permitted to operate inside the 150 m depth contour (Figure 1). The fishery is further divided up into five fishing areas and these are described below:

• Area 1 From the WA/NT border (129° east longitude), west and then south to the North West Cape (21°44’ south latitude).

• Area 2 From North West Cape (21°44’ south latitude) to Carnarvon (25° south latitude).

• Area 3 From Carnarvon (25° south latitude) to Geraldton (29° south latitude). • Area 4 From Geraldton (29° south latitude) to Fremantle (32° south latitude). • Area 5 From Fremantle (32° south latitude) to Cape Leeuwin (34°24’ south

latitude). Figure 1 The location of the fishery and its five fishing areas.


July 2003 10

Under the interim plan access to the WCDSCF is limited to seven permit holders. At the time of writing the Department was about to issue, five full time (Class F) access and two part-time (Class P) permits. Full time licensees may operate for up to 12 months per year and part-time licensees may fish a maximum of 3 months in the fishery. The Department is intending to issue 5 Class F permits for each of the areas 1 to 5 and a part time permit for each of the areas 3 and 4. Fishing Methods The WCDSCF is a ‘potting’ fishery. This activity occurs from 150 m to 1200 m depth with the only allowable method for capture being from the use of pots (traps). However, since the fishery is in its developmental phase experimentation with different pots is permitted providing prior authorization is obtained. Otherwise, the operators are required to use a standard plastic Elvinco pot (782 mm length x 565 mm with and 470 mm height) with one top entrance. A standard escape gap of 504 mm x 54 mm is required in each pot. The interim management plan that was implemented in January 2003 has now standardised the pot design and size used in all five zones of this fishery. Each licensee is permitted to use 700 pots in the fishery. Between 50 and 100 pots are attached to a main line marked by a float at each end. Baited pots are released (set) from boats in areas where crabs are thought to be. This is based upon a combination of information gained from depth sounders, global positioning system (GPS), previous experience and recent catch rates in the area. The pots are left at sea for one to four days during which time crabs are attracted to the baits and enter the pots. The pots are then retrieved (pulled) with the captured crabs of legal or agreed appropriate size and of appropriate reproductive status (e.g. not berried etc.) placed into holding tanks and returned to on-shore processing plants where the majority are prepared for live shipments to overseas and local markets. The gear used in this fishery generates minimal bycatch and the design of the pots (one entrance with escape gaps) is such that they are believed not to ‘ghost fish’ if lost. Although there is no empirical evidence to support this, the experience of the fishers is that the small crabs escape from the pots through the escape gaps, while they are convinced that the larger crabs find their way out of the neck of the pot within a period of time (days or even a few weeks) after the bait has all been consumed. Management The Interim Managed Fishery Plan for the WCDSCF was completed in July 2002 and implemented in January 2003. The WCDSCF is managed by input controls, which include limited entry, minimum size limits, biological controls, spatial and temporal closures and gear restrictions. These management restrictions help to sustain the crab species while maintaining the supporting environment. The interim plan expires in December 2004 and the Department has indicated that at that time it intends to grant equal access to all licensees; albeit at the same time it is likely to impose new effort controls and management initiatives that will ensure that effort is not increased and that the biological sustainability of the fishery is ensured. The Department will undertake a review of fishery in 2004 before the expiry of the interim plan to determine if the fishery should continue, and if so under what management regime.


July 2003 11

While only at the point of very preliminary consideration, options for future management that will be considered include individual transferable quota based management, introduction of satellite location monitoring and imposition of restrictions on days fished. The current management strategies for the fishery are as follows: Limited Entry. Access to the fishery is limited to the seven fishers currently holding a Fishing Boat Licence (FBL) endorsed with either Condition 106 or 260. Minimum Size Limits. There are legal minimum size limits for the giant and champagne crab under the FRMR and a voluntarily agreed minimum size for snow crabs. These size limits are based on research conducted by Andrew Levings and Kim Smith and ensure sufficient egg production to avoid recruitment overfishing. The size limits are as follows: • Giant crab- 140 mm carapace length. • Champagne crab- 92 mm carapace length. • Snow crab- 120 mm carapace length.

Biological restrictions. All under size and egg bearing female crabs are to be retuned to the water within five minutes of coming on board and before the next trap comes on board. Area closures. All waters less than 150 metres depth are closed to commercial deep-sea crab fishing. Time access. There are three full time access (9-12 months) fishers and four part-time (maximum of 3 months) fishers in the fishery. It is proposed that equal access will be granted to the seven fishermen at the completion of the Interim Management Plan. Gear restrictions. Each licensee is permitted to use a maximum of 700 pots with an escape gap of 54 mm x 504 mm in size. Access to fishing areas. Fishermen will be granted access to the five areas based on their personal preference and a rank of fishing history where conflicting preferences occur. Other relevant issues identified by the Executive Director of the Department of Fisheries may also be considered. In addition, the Department has required licensees in this fishery to fill out two compulsory forms, one of which is normally a voluntary logbook form in other fisheries but is compulsory in this fishery (Appendix 3). This approach was taken as this is an interim managed fishery and this extra form will provide more information regarding all the species caught within the pots which will be used for the assessment of the fishery after the interim managed plan expires. The Department is also in the process of consulting with interest groups over its proposals to introduce regulations to:

a) Impose a state-wide minimum size of 140 mm for snow crabs. b) Prohibit the take of all egg bearing female deep-sea crabs.


July 2003 12

c) Prohibit the daily take of deep-sea crabs by rock lobster fishers to 12 crabs per vessel.

History The West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery (WCRLMF) first caught champagne crabs (Hypthalassia acerba) as bycatch in the early 1970s when the fishery was operating around late December to February in the deep waters. Since this time the fishery has predominantly focused on champagne crabs with small numbers of giant crabs (Pseudocarcinus gigas) captured as bycatch by the Augusta-Windy Harbour rock lobster fishery on the lower west coast. In 1990/91 seven fishers were given authorization to fish for deep-sea crabs outside the rock lobster season, from July 1 to November 14. In 1997/98, one fisher explored deeper waters, discovering commercial quantities of snow crabs (Chaceon bicolor) in depths between 600 and 1200 m. Their higher value, lack of supply and declining prices for champagne crabs saw fishing effort by crab fishers shift almost completely towards snow crabs. Rock lobster fishers also stopped retaining champagne crabs as bycatch due to their low prices and a campaign for conservation by the Department of Fisheries and industry interests. Research Aspects of the giant crab fishery have been researched by Mr Andrew Levings, with funding provided by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) (Levings et al., 2001). Research on aspects of the champagne crab fishery are currently being undertaken by a Ph.D. student, Mr Kim Smith, under funding provided by FRDC Project 99/154. Currently, there are two studies (FRDC projects 1999/154 and 2001/055) being conducted, which apply to this Fishery. One of the aims of the FRDC project 1999/154 is to produce a yield per recruit and egg per recruit model of the champagne crab. This model will provide the ability to evaluate the appropriateness of the current legal minimum size for the champagne crab species. The work being done through the FRDC project 2001/055 will determine the catch and distribution of the commercial fishery and the size (carapace length), sex ratio and relative abundance by depth of snow crabs that form the basis for this fishery. These two projects have been amalgamated into one project and thus will be analysed and reported on together in June 2005.

2.2 BIOLOGY OF GIANT CRABS Distribution Giant crabs also known as king crabs (Pseudocarcinus gigas), are distributed from Cape Naturaliste in Western Australia, throughout South Australia to mid-New South Wales in depths between 120 to 370 m (Gardner, 1998). They inhabit the steep


July 2003 13

terrain of the continental shelf where they move upwards into the warmer waters to access the more abundant benthic food resources and move into deeper waters to moult and to spawn. Males are captured from a wider depth range than females, with the majority of crabs captured in water depths less than 120 m being male (Levings et. al., 2001). In terms of the West Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery, giant crabs are only a very minor component of the fishery and very much on the northern margin of their southern ocean distributional range. The warm Leeuwin Current flowing in an easterly direction around the lower west coast of Australia acts as a boundary to giant crabs, requiring cooler temperate waters (between 7-11°C) to survive. The presence of champagne crabs, potentially aggressive competitors for food, may also deter giant crabs from further westerly migration (Levings et al., 2001). The results of allozyme electrophoresis indicate that there is genetic homogeneity across the whole species range (Levings et al., 2001). Life History This species is both long-lived and slow growing. In South Australia (and therefore probably also in Western Australia), female moulting peaks strongly in winter (June and July), while males moult in summer (November and December) (McGarvey et al., 2002). McGarvey et al. (2002) also showed in the South Australia region of the fishery, that intermoult period estimates for giant crabs varied from three to four years for juvenile males and females (80-120 mm CL), with rapid lengthening in time between mouting events to approximately seven years for females and four and a half years for males at the legal minimum length. Results of studies estimating average female size at first maturity indicate a carapace length of approximately 114 mm at first maturity for WA crab stocks (Levings et al., 2001). Maturity occurs at a smaller size (Levings et al., 2001) and moult increments are smaller (McGarvey et al., 2002) for giant crabs in Western Australia than in the eastern states. As a result in these differences in growth and maturity the legal minimum size is smaller in Western Australia than elsewhere in Australia (140 mm compared to 150 mm CL in South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania). Egg per recruit analyses indicate that with a minimum size limit of 140 mm carapace length, egg production would remain above 35% of unfished levels. Levings (Deakin University, Victoria, pers. comm.) has calculated that the 140 mm minimum size conserves 22% of functionally mature male giant crabs in the Augusta region and based on his work, it is considered that an adequate proportion of males is protected to ensure fertilisation of all mature females in the population. Future research priorities There are no plans to do any giant crab research on the west coast in the future, due to the small catch (and therefore low economic value) of this species on this stretch of coast. Catch and effort data will continue to be collected and some tagged giant crabs are still being recaptured after several years at large. These data are the property of Mr Andrew Levings (Deakin University, Victoria) and will form part of his PhD thesis on giant crabs.


July 2003 14

2.3 BIOLOGY OF CHAMPAGNE CRABS Distribution Champagne crabs, or spiny crabs (Hypothalassia acerba) are distributed in and around the 200m water depth on the 17-18° latitude line (K. Smith1, pers. comm.) preferring warm temperate waters. Biology Studies by Kim Smith (Murdoch University) have shown that both male and female champagne crabs are most abundant on the west coast in depths of between 200 and 250 m. There are indications that the crabs may be more abundant at the shallower of these two depths in summer, but that the reverse may be true in spring. Preliminary analyses (K. Smith, Murdoch University, pers comm.) of the relationship between the abundance of champagne crabs and bottom water temperature indicate that the species is typically found at temperatures of 17 and 18oC. According to Kim Smith (Murdoch University, pers comm.) the mean size of both male and female champagne crabs decreases with increasing water depth. This type of depth-related trend has been recorded in other deep-water crab species (eg. giant crabs, see Levings et al., 2001). The mean sizes of champagne crabs captured by the fishery varies between the sexes and time of year captured. The mean size of female captured from the lower west coast in 2000 was 93.8 mm carapace length while the mean size for males was 97 mm (K. Smith1, pers. comm.). Some tagging of champagne crabs has taken place in recent years. Kim Smith (Murdoch University, pers. comm.) has recorded a small number of recaptured tagged crabs; none recorded moult increments (despite some being at large for over a year) and most were caught close to the location at which they were tagged. Future research priorities At this stage there are no plans to undertake research on champagne crabs on the west coast of Western Australia. The crabs have ‘fallen from favour’ with fishers and processors, due to the limited market and low $/kg value. There are currently no fishers targeting the species. Some unpublished results on catch, effort and biology of champagne crabs does exist and the analysis of these data is currently taking place and will form part of a PhD thesis that is being written by Mr Kim Smith (Murdoch University, Western Australia).

1 Mr. Kim Smith, Murdoch University.


July 2003 15

2.4 BIOLOGY OF SNOW CRABS Distribution Snow crabs are distributed over large areas of the Australian and New Zealand continental shelf in water depths between 300 and 1600 m (D Jones, WA Museum, pers. comm.). Their known distribution in WA extends from Exmouth to the Western Australian/South Australian border. Biology The size at first maturity for female snow crabs is 86 mm and for males 84 mm CL (K. Smith2, pers. comm.). The current minimum size is 120 mm carapace width, which is estimated to protect over 95% of all breeding females. Sampling from commercial catches and log book information, show that ovigerous females are caught in all months of the year; at this stage it would appear that the species spawns throughout the year without any particular spawning season. Substantial quantities of snow crabs have been tagged over the last couple of years. In excess of 70 crabs have been recaptured to date (April 2003) and distances moved by these recaptured crabs have ranged from 0.1 to 101 km. Only one of the recaptured crabs has recorded a moult whilst at large, which indicates that as expected, growth rages for this species (particularly of large individuals) are likely to be very slow. Future research priorities Snow crab research is currently being funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC Project 2001/055). The project, which has a number of objectives aimed at better understanding the biology and response to fishing pressure of the species, is due to be completed in July 2005. Some objectives, such as setting up catch recording log book systems and initiating a commercial monitoring system, have already been initiated. Other work such as better understating movement patterns, growth rates, reproductive biology, moulting patterns etc, as well as assessing future sustainable catch levels, are ongoing and will be available at the end of the project.

2.5 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTS

2.5.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The WCDSCF operates off the entire west coast of WA from the NT border to Cape Leeuwin in depths from 150 m to 1200 m. This region is characterized by coastal limestone reefs covered in macroalgae. Offshore there are a series of deeper reefs that


July 2003 16

were formed under previous lower sea level conditions. In between these reefs are extensive areas of sand. Research done by Levings et al. (2001) has shown that sediments at depths greater than 300 m are mostly mud with the macrobenthic fauna decreasing with increasing depth. The water in this region is oligotrophic and is influenced greatly by the seasonal flow of the Leeuwin Current, which is a warm body of water of tropical origin that flows strongest during the winter months of April through September. The strength of the Leeuwin Current varies annually depending upon the value of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation index (ENSO), which is the difference in air pressure between the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

2.5.2 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT The beach value of the fishery was about $2.8 million in 2001, based on an average beach price of $13/kg for snow, $9.5/kg for champagne and $25/kg for giant crabs. The Department has concerns that in the longer term the fishery will not be able to provide the level of returns necessary to support the fishing costs associated with having the existing number of active full time and part time permits. Accordingly it is considered that market forces may encourage rationalisation or some reduction in the number of licence holders through trading of authorisations, particularly if, as the Department considers is likely, further effort controls are imposed on the licensees on the expiry of the existing interim plan.

2.5.3 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT The developing fishery is based on mobile vessels that employ two or three crew. The product is landed live at ports between Carnarvon and Fremantle, generating some additional economic activity and benefits.


July 2003 17

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 SCOPE This application is based upon the ESD report for the WCDSC fishery. The ESD report was generated by assessing “the contribution of the WCDSCF to ESD”. This assessment examined the benefits and the costs of the WCDSCF across the major components of ESD (see Table 1). In doing so, it will eventually provide a report on the performance of the fishery for each of the relevant ecological, economic, social and governance issues associated with this fishery. Given the timeframes involved, only the criteria required for the “Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries”, which cover mainly the environmental elements of ESD (outlined below in Table 1) were generated for this application. Table 1 Main National ESD Reporting Framework Components. Nb: Only those ESD components in bold* are reported in this application.

3.2 OVERVIEW There were four steps involved in completing the ESD report for the WCDSCF. It was based upon using the National ESD Reporting Framework, which is outlined in detail in the WA ESD policy paper (Fletcher, 2002) and in the “How to Guide” (Fletcher et al., 2002) located on the website (www.fisheries-esd.com): 1. The issues that needed to be addressed for this fishery were determined through

an external workshop held for the West Coast Rock Lobster Managed Fishery (WCRLMF) and an internal workshop held for the South Coast Crustacean Fisheries (SCCF) due to the similarities between the three fisheries. These similarities include the fishing method used, species caught, habitats they operate over and location of the fisheries (all of which are adjacent to one another). This process was facilitated by adapting the set of “Generic ESD Component Trees” into a set of trees specific to the WCDSCF.

National ESD Framework – ESD COMPONENTS Contribution to Ecological Wellbeing Retained Species* Non-Retained Species* General Ecosystem* Contribution to Human Wellbeing Indigenous Community Issues Community Issues National Social and economic Issues Ability to Achieve Governance* Impact of the environment on the fishery


July 2003 18

2. A risk assessment/prioritisation process was completed that objectively determined which of these identified issues was of sufficient significance to warrant specific management actions and hence a report on performance. The justifications for assigning low priority or low risk were, however, also recorded.

3. An assessment of the performance for each of the issues of sufficient risk to require specific management actions was completed using a standard set of report headings where operational objectives, indicators and performance measures, management responses etc were specified.

4. An overview assessment of the fishery was completed including an action plan for activities that will need to be undertaken to enable acceptable levels of performance to continue or, where necessary, improve the performance of the fishery.

Report onJustification for Risk

Rating Only

Low Risk/Priority

Develop ObjectivesIndicators

Performance limitsReport Current Status

> Low Risk/Priority

Risk Assessment

ESD ComponentTrees

(issues identified) PLUS

GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

=

ESD REPORT

Use Data for other

purposes

For example,

Applications to EA

Figure 2 Summary of the ESD reporting framework processes.

3.3 ISSUE IDENTIFICATION (COMPONENT TREES) The National ESD Reporting Framework has eight major components, which fall into three categories of the “contributions to ecological wellbeing”, “contributions to human wellbeing” and the “ability to achieve the objectives” (Table 1). Each of the major components is broken down into more specific sub-components for which ultimately operational objectives can be developed. To maximize the consistency of the approach amongst different fisheries, common issues within each of the components were identified by the Standing Committee for Fisheries and Agriculture (SCFA) and ESD reference groups within each of the major component areas and arranged into a series of “generic” component trees (See Fletcher (2002) and the www.fisheries-esd.com web site for a full description). These generic trees were used as the starting point for identifying the issues. These trees were subsequently adapted into trees specific to the WCDSCF fishery by expanding (splitting) or contracting (removing/lumping) the number of sub-components as required (see Figure 3).


July 2003 19

Sub-sub-subComponent

Sub-sub-subComponent

Sub-Sub-Component

Sub-Component 1

Sub-Sub-Component

Sub-Component 2 Sub-Component 3

Component

Figure 3 Example of a component tree structure. The trees for the WCDSCF were developed at an internal Departmental meeting held in August 2002.

3.4 RISK ASSESSMENT/PRIORITISATION PROCESS After the components/issues were identified, a process to prioritise each of these needs was completed using a formal risk assessment process. The risk assessment framework that was applied at the internal workshop was consistent with the Australian Standard AS/NZS 4360:1999 Risk Management, concentrating on the risk assessment components. The general Risk Assessment process is well documented but in summary, it considers the range of potential consequences of an issue/activity and how likely those consequences are to occur. The combination of the level of consequence and the likelihood is used to produce an estimated level of risk associated with the particular hazardous event/issue in question. Due to the similarities of this fishery with the Western Australian WCRLMF (which went through the full risk assessment process with two external workshops) and the South Coast Crustacean Fishery (which had an internal assessment workshop), no workshop was held for this fishery. Alternatively, the information collected through the other fisheries risk assessment process was applied and utilised to generate the application for this fishery. An estimate of the consequence level for each issue was made by the group at this internal workshop. This level was from 0-5, with 0 being negligible and 5 being catastrophic/irreversible (see Appendix 2 for details of consequence tables). This assessment was based upon the combined judgments of the participants at the workshop, who collectively had considerable expertise in the areas examined. The level of consequence was determined at the appropriate scale for the issue. Thus for target species the consequence of the WCDSCF was based at the population not at the individual level. Obviously catching one fish is always catastrophic for the individual but not always for the population. Similarly, when assessing possible ecosystem impacts this was done at the level of the whole ecosystem or at least in terms of the entire extent of the habitat, not at the level of an individual patch or individuals of non-target species.


July 2003 20

The likelihood of a consequence occurring was assigned to one of six levels from remote to likely. In doing so, again it was considered the likelihood of the “hazardous” event (consequence) actually occurring based upon collective wisdom, which included an understanding of the scale of impact required. From these two figures (consequence and likelihood), the overall risk value, which is the mathematical product of the consequence and likelihood levels (Risk = Consequence x Likelihood), was calculated. Finally, each issue was assigned a Risk Ranking within one of five categories: High, Moderate, Acceptable, Low and Negligible based on the risk value (see Table 2). Table 2 Risk ranking definitions.

RISK Rank

Likely Management Response Reporting

Negligible 0 Nil Short Justification Only

Low 1 None Specific Full Justification needed

Moderate

2 Specific Management

Needed Full Performance Report

High

3

Possible increases to management activities needed

Full Performance Report

Extreme

4

Likely additional management activities needed

Full Performance Report

In general, only the issues of sufficient risk (Moderate, High & Extreme), - those that require specific management actions- need to have a full performance reports completed. Nonetheless, the rationale for classifying issues as low risk or even negligible were also documented and formed part of the ESD report. This allows all stakeholders and interested parties to see why issues were accorded these ratings. This process is summarized in Figure 2 (above). It is important to note that the Risk Assessment involves the completion of reports that contain the completed justifications for the scores generated. Thus, the scores determined within the meeting by themselves are insufficient.

3.5 COMPONENT REPORTS Only the issues of sufficient risk or priority that require specific management actions have a full performance report completed (which form section 5 of this application). Nonetheless, the rationale for classifying issues as low risk/priority were also


July 2003 21

documented and forms part of the report so that stakeholders can see where all the identified issues have finished. For each of the lowest level sub-components (assessed as being of sufficient risk/priority to address), a detailed assessment of performance is generated. The SCFA Working Group in conjunction with the ESD Reference Group agreed upon a set of 10 standard headings each of which need to be addressed (Table 3). Added to this list a further heading, “Rationale for Inclusion”, has been added. This specific heading allows the issues raised within the risk assessment process to be explicitly recorded. A full description of each of these headings is located in the WA ESD policy (Fletcher, 2002), which is available on the Department of Fisheries WA website. Table 3 The National ESD reporting framework headings used in this report. 1. Rationale for Inclusion 2. Operational Objective (+ justification) 3. Indicator 4. Performance Measure (+ justification) 5. Data Requirements 6. Data Availability 7. Evaluation 8. Robustness 9. Fisheries Management Response

-Current -Future -Actions if Performance limit is exceeded

10. Comments and Action 11. External Drivers The completion of these component reports was initiated after the internal workshop for the SCCF back in August 2002. Progress towards completing these reports was subsequently made by a variety of Departmental staff. The draft application was sent to EA and stakeholders including industry members and industry groups for review. This final application was generated after the review process.


July 2003 22

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE WCDSC FISHERY MANAGEMENT REGIME AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH (EA) GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES

4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EA GUIDELINES The management arrangements must be: Documented, publicly available and transparent; As per the FRMA (1994) “the Executive Director is to cause a copy of every order, regulation and management plan in force under this Act:

-To be kept at the head office of the Department; and -To be available for inspection free of charge by members of the public at the office during normal office hours.”

In addition to these legislative requirements, the current management regime, as documented in the formal set of management regulations, can be purchased by interested parties from the State Law Publisher. Of more relevance is that any discussion papers and proposals for modifications to these management arrangements are distributed widely to stakeholder groups automatically and other interested individuals by request in hard copy format. Where appropriate, they are now also available from the Departmental web site www.fish.wa.gov.au. Finally, once completed, the full ESD Report on the Fishery will be made publicly available via publication and electronically from the Departmental website. This will provide increased transparency through explicitly stating objectives, indicators, performance measures, management arrangements for each issue and how the fishery is currently performing against these criteria. There is also a proposal to formally publish the relevant objectives and performance measures for each fishery, including the WCDSCF, in a series of Ministerial Guidelines, which would form an adjunct to the management plan. Developed through a consultative process providing opportunity to all interested and affected parties, including the general public; S64 and S65 of the FRMA define the requirements for procedures that must be undertaken before determining or amending all management plans. More specifically, the management arrangements for the WCDSCF have been developed through formal consultation with industry and also from requested submissions from industry groups


July 2003 23

(eg WA Fishing Industry Council - WAFIC), other stakeholder groups (eg Recfishwest, Conservation Council of WA) and the general public. Ensure that a range of expertise and community interests are involved in individual fishery management committees and during the stock assessment process; The Department holds regular meetings (several each year) with deep-sea crab authorisation holders on the west coast. These meetings typically involve discussions about management, research and compliance issue in the fishery and provide a forum for industry to raise concerns and/or ask questions of the Department concerning management arrangements. Information generated from the external workshops for the WCRLMF was used in developing this application. A wide variety of stakeholders were involved in the two workshops for the WCRLMF and included members from conservation groups, government organisations and industry representative groups. The groups that have been involved in the review of the information contained within this application include:

• Department of Fisheries, WA; • The industry; and • Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC).

The general consultation methods used for this fishery are summarised in the Governance Section 5.4.3.1. Be strategic, containing objectives and performance criteria by which the effectiveness of the management arrangements is measured; The ESD Component Reports (see Section 5) contains the objectives, indicators and performance measures for determining the effectiveness of the management arrangements for the WCDSC Fishery2. For some components, the objectives, indicators and performance measures are already established and the data are available to demonstrate levels of performance over time. For other components, the objectives, indicators and performance measures have only just been developed and/or the necessary data collection is only just being initiated. The status of this information is documented within each of the individual component reports within the ESD Reports in Section 5. Be capable of controlling the level of harvest in the fishery using input and/or output controls; The FRMA, and specifically the interim management plan for the WCDSCF, provides the legislative ability to control the level of harvest within this fishery. This is achieved through the use of an effective combination of input control measures including limiting entry, legal minimum size for the giant and champagne crabs and voluntarily agreed minimum size for snow crabs, area closures, temporal closures, gear restrictions and access restrictions.

2 These will also be formally published in a set of Ministerial Policy Guidelines


July 2003 24

These arrangements have been modified during the past 30 years to ensure that management remains appropriate to achieve the sustainability objectives for the fishery. Thus, there have been recent changes to the management regime that has lead to the development of the Interim Managed Fishery Plan for the WCDSCF. This interim management plan was implemented in January 2003 and will allow for the development of the fishery and a thorough assessment of the level of fishing effort necessary to maintain sustainability. Contain the means of enforcing critical aspects of the management arrangements; The Department employs a large number of operational staff to ensure compliance with the critical aspects of the management arrangements for the WCDSCF. This includes inspections of licences and gear. Due to the small number of operators within the fishery (7 licensees and three to five boats operating) and the extensive distance that they operate off shore, compliance checks are minimal outside the WCRLMF season (15 November to 30 June the following year). Since the WCDSCF operates adjacent to the WCRLMF, during most of the year, the ability to conduct at-sea patrols and factory inspections on the west coast is high. Due to the very high at-sea enforcement pressure for the WCRLMF, the compliance for the WCDSCF is also high. Given the value of the licenses, fishers themselves are also a source of information on illegal activities. A full summary of these compliance activities and their effectiveness is provided in Section 5.4.1.3. Provide for the periodic review of the performance of the fishery management arrangements and the management strategies, objectives and criteria; There is an annual review of the performance for the major aspects of the Fishery through the completion of the “State of the Fisheries” report. This is updated and published each year including periodic reviews by the Office of the Auditor General (OAG). It forms an essential supplement to the Department’s Annual Report to the WA Parliament with the latest version located on the Departmental website www.fish.wa.gov.au. The ESD Component Reports contain comprehensive performance evaluations of the Fishery based upon the framework described in the Fisheries ESD policy (Fletcher, 2002). This includes the development of objectives, indicators and performance measures for most aspects of this fishery and includes status reports for those components that are not subject to annual assessment. This full assessment, including an examination of the validity of the objectives and performance measures, is planned to be completed and reviewed externally every five years. Be capable of assessing, monitoring and avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse impacts on the wider marine ecosystem in which the target species lives and the fishery operates; Capabilities for the assessment, monitoring and avoidance, remedying or mitigating any adverse impacts on the wider marine ecosystem are documented in “General Environment” Section 5.3. Due to the similarities of this fishery with the WCRLMF


July 2003 25

and SCCF information generated through the workshops for the assessment of those fisheries was used and applied in the application for this fishery. No issues were identified as posing greater than a minor risk and hence there is currently no need to implement specific monitoring for such impacts. Require compliance with relevant threat abatement plans, recovery plans, the National Policy on Fisheries Bycatch, and bycatch action strategies developed under that policy; The management regime for WCDSCF complies with all the relevant threat abatement plans for species where there are significant interactions. Details are provided in the ‘non-retained species’ section of this application (Section 5.2.).


July 2003 26

4.2 PRINCIPLE 1 OF THE COMMONWEALTH GUIDELINES

OBJECTIVE 1. MAINTAIN VIABLE STOCK LEVELS OF TARGET SPECIES A fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that maintain ecologically viable stock levels at an agreed point or range, with acceptable levels of probability.

The component tree detailing the stocks of retained species relevant for this fishery is shown above. There are three target crab species for this fishery, giant crab (Pseudocarcinus gigas), champagne or spiny crab (Hypothalassia acerba) and snow crab (Chaceon bicolor). The main stocks for each of these three species have been assessed with the appropriately detailed reports having been completed. The full reports are located in Section 5.1. The internal risk assessment workshop determined that the fishery was of Moderate risk to snow crab stocks and a Low risk to the stocks of champagne crabs. The fishery is only having a Negligible risk to giant crabs due to less than one tonne per year being caught. The WCDSCF is managed through a series of input controls including limited entry, legal minimum size limits for giant and champagne crabs, voluntarily agreed minimum size for snow crabs, biological restrictions (the retention of all undersize and egg bearing crabs is prohibited), area closures, temporal closures, gear restrictions and access to fishing areas. Analysis of the current performance by the WCDSCF demonstrates that the giant, champagne and snow crab stocks are being maintained above levels necessary to maintain ecologically viable stock levels in each area. Thus, in summary:

• The legal minimum size of 140 mm for giant crabs in Western Australia protects at least 40% of unfished levels of egg production in these populations. This is

Giant Crabs

Champagne Crabs

Snow Crabs

Primary Species

Retained Species


July 2003 27

well above the levels (generally 25% of pristine egg production) that are considered to provide levels of egg production that avoids recruitment overfishing for crustacean fisheries.

• Catches of champagne crabs have remained within the acceptable range for the past four years.

• Catches of snow crabs have also remained within the acceptable range for the past two years.

• There are no by-product species taken by this fishery. Currently, there are two studies (FRDC project 1999/154 and 2001/055) being conducted, which apply to this Fishery. One of the aims of the FRDC project 1999/154 is to produce a yield per recruit and egg per recruit model of the champagne crab. This model will provide the ability to evaluate the appropriateness of the current legal minimum size for the champagne crab species. The work being done through the FRDC project 2001/055 will determine the catch and distribution of the commercial fishery and the size (carapace length), sex ratio and relative abundance by depth of snow crabs that form the basis for this fishery. These two FRDC projects have since been amalgamated into one project which will be completed in June 2005. Consequently, this fishery is meeting the requirements of Principle 1. The information relevant to this principle for these species is detailed below. Information Requirements 1.1.1 There is a reliable information collection system in place appropriate to

the scale of the fishery. The level of data collection should be based upon an appropriate mix of fishery independent and dependent research and monitoring.

Data are mostly collected through fishery dependent means that have been in place for decades. Some data have been obtained through the current and past fishery independent research projects. Currently, the fishery dependent data collection systems monitor the catch, effort and catch per unit effort (CPUE) of the fishery. These data are collected by a combination of compulsory catch and effort data (Appendix 2) and logbook information (Appendix 3). The Department of Fisheries recognises the need for more fishery independent data collection systems and thus has two projects underway to investigate the effectiveness of the minimum size limit for champagne and snow crabs currently being used as well as catch and distribution of the commercial fishery and specific characteristics of the snow crab caught in the fishery. The specific data requirements needed to assess performance for each of the relevant objectives are detailed in the relevant sections of the ESD report, which is in Section 5.1. Retained Species. These requirements are summarised as follows: Monitoring Program Information Collected Robustness FRDC Project 2001/055 Catch and distribution of

commercial fishery. The size, sex ratio and relative abundance by depth of

High


July 2003 28

snow crabs that form the basis for the fishery.

FRDC Project 1999/154 Production of a yield per recruit model and egg per recruit model to evaluate the appropriateness of the current legal minimum size for champagne crabs.

High

Levings, WA Fisheries Department Contract Report, 2001.

Assessment of the appropriateness of the 140 mm legal minimum size.

High

Compulsory catch and effort data

Catch, effort and CPUE. Catch information is considered very reliable, but effort is less so due to the limited way that it can be recorded on the data form (Appendix 2).

Moderate

Logbook information Catch, effort and CPUE. These forms are compulsory in this fishery whereas in other fisheries these forms are voluntary. All information is considered very reliable, but some pot settings do go unreported leading to a lower than actual catch. The combination of data collected by the compulsory catch and effort forms and these forms (Appendix 3) provides high quality information catch and effort information and moderate quality bycatch information.

High

Climatic data

Rainfall data; Wind data; and Swell Height conditions.

High


July 2003 29

Assessments 1.1.2 There is a robust assessment of the dynamics and status of the

species/fishery and periodic review of the process and the data collected. Assessment should include a process to identify any reduction in biological diversity and/or reproductive capacity. Review should ideally take place at regular intervals but at least every three years.

There are three main target species for the fishery, giant crabs, champagne crabs and snow crabs. Currently, the take of all crab species by this fishery is managed through a minimum size (legal and voluntarily agreed) and annual catch rates. The legal and voluntarily agreed minimum size is well above size at maturity for all three species and ensures that sufficient egg production will occur to avoid recruitment overfishing. There are two studies currently underway in the fishery. The FRDC Project 1999/154 aims to develop a yield per recruit and egg per recruit model to evaluate the appropriateness of the current legal minimum size for champagne crabs. The second FRDC Project 2001/055 is collecting and evaluating data on the distribution of the commercial fishery and the size, sex ratio and relative abundance by depth of snow crabs. These data will be used to determine the appropriateness of the current voluntarily agreed minimum size. As was previously discussed, these two projects have been amalgamated into one project, which will be completed in June 2005. The assessments for the three crab species are detailed in Section 5- Performance Reports. A review of this fishery is conducted annually. Giant Crabs The risk of the fishery to giant crabs was considered Negligible. The current legal minimum size is 140 mm and protects 40% of pristine egg production in the population (Levings, WA Fisheries Department Contract Report, 2001). Moreover, the catch of giant crabs have remained below 1 tonne for the past five years (since 1996/97). The full performance report is located in Section 5.1.1.1. Champagne Crabs The risk to champagne crabs was considered Low. The current legal minimum size is 92 mm (carapace length). The risk was considered Low rather than Moderate because the catch of champagne crabs by the fishery has declined significantly during the past 5 years due to a decrease in effort targeting this species in all depths and areas of its distribution. This decline in targeting is a result of commercial quantities of a more valuable species, snow crabs, being discovered in deeper depths. Lack of demand and declining prices has also resulted in fewer champagne crabs being targeted as bycatch by rock lobster fishers. In 1998, the Fishery took around 45 tonnes but by 2001 the fishery only took around 1 tonne. The full performance report is located in Section 5.1.1.2. Snow Crabs The risk to snow crabs was considered Moderate. The voluntarily agreed minimum size for snow crabs is 120 mm (carapace width). Small catches of snow crabs have been reported since 1993 but significant landings only started being made in 1998 with catches escalating rapidly since that time. In the 1997/1998 season, 4 tonnes


July 2003 30

were caught and this increased to 10.5 tonnes for the next season 1998/1999. By 2000/2001 over 200 tonnes of snow crabs were caught but this reduced to 150 tonnes in the 2001/02 season. The full performance report is located in Section 5.1.1.3. 1.1.3 The distribution and spatial structure of the stock(s) has been established

and factored into management responses. The distribution of giant crabs and champagne crabs is well documented. The giant crab is widely distributed along the southern continental shelf of Australia from the Perth Canyon in southwest Western Australia to central New South Wales (Kailola et al., 1993). It is found in depths from 18 to 400 metres with the greatest concentration of the population occurring on the outer shelf at depths between 140-270 metres (Levings et al., 1995). The champagne crab is distributed across southern Australia from Geraldton in WA eastwards to NSW. This species is caught in depths between 30-550 m on areas of sand or rocky substrate (Yearsley et al., 1999). There is less known about the distribution of snow crabs. Whilst the precise distribution for snow crabs is unknown, this species has been found in waters off west, north and eastern Australia. In WA, the snow crab has been described as occurring offshore at depths between 200-2000 m on sand, mud or shell debris (Jones and Morgan, 2002) although most fishing has concentrated in the depths between 600-800 m. While the three species of deep-sea crabs covered by this report have wide distributions of occurrence (see above), the regions from which they are known to occur in big (or commercial) quantities is more restricted. For example commercial quantities of champagne and snow crab have only ever been taken in Western Australia. Although commercial quantities of snow crabs might be found outside of Western Australia no fisheries targeting this species have been established outside of the state. Finally, commercial quantities of giant crabs are found in Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia, but not in similar commercial quantities in WA. Because of these regional differences in abundance, it has not been considered necessary to establish formal communication channels through which to exchange deep-sea crab fishery management arrangements between the states. Informal arrangements ad hoc discussions take place and more formal arrangements would be entered into if it were felt necessary for managing the stocks. 1.1.4 There are reliable estimates of all removals, including commercial

(landings and discards), recreational and indigenous, from the fished stock. These estimates have been factored into stock assessments and target species catch levels.

The crabs taken in this fishery are only targeted by commercial fishing. Most of the fishery occurs 150 km offshore in very deep water (600 m to 800 m) and as such, recreational fishing is possible but very unlikely and for similar reasons it is also unlikely that indigenous groups ever accessed these species.


July 2003 31

The monitoring programs outlined above for the WCDSCF covers the catch by the commercial fishers and any illegal fishing activities, which are obtained on a daily and yearly basis respectively. Sector Catch Data Collected Frequency Commercial Catch and effort data Daily Recreational N/A N/A Indigenous N/A N/A Illegal Estimated from

compliance data. Annually

1.1.5 There is a sound estimate of the potential productivity of the fished

stock/s and the proportion that could be harvested. There has been a long history of exploitation of crabs in this region, which is in excess of 30 years, with spiny crabs first caught as byproduct by the WCRLMF back in the 1970s. This history combined with the catch and effort data and research that has been collected in recent years has lead to the introduction of a conservative minimum size for each crab species in the Fishery. The setting of the minimum size allows sufficient egg production to avoid recruitment overfishing. The minimum size is set well above the size at maturity and therefore protects a significant proportion of the brood stock. According to Levings (2001) the 140 mm legal minimum size that is in place for Western Australia protects at least 40% of unfished egg production for these populations. This is well above the levels (generally 25% of unfished egg production is considered the lower limit for crustacean fisheries) that are considered to appropriate to provide sufficient egg production to avoid recruitment overfishing. Nonetheless, the minimum sizes for each of the three crab species will be reviewed once the FRDC Project 1999/154 has been completed and a yield per recruit and egg per recruit model has been produced to evaluate the appropriateness of the current size limits. Furthermore, the FRDC Project 2001/055 will expand the Department of Fisheries’ knowledge in regards to snow crabs. This work will determine the catch and distribution of the commercial fishery and the size (carapace length), sex ratio and relative abundance by depth of snow crabs that form the basis for the fishery. Management Responses 1.1.6 There are reference points (target and/or limit), that trigger management

actions including a biological bottom line and/or a catch or effort upper limit beyond which the stock should not be taken.

As stated above, the crab stocks in the WCDSCF are monitored using the annual catch, effort and catch per unit effort values given the management arrangements of having a conservative minimum size for each species. This ensures that the crabs caught are above size at maturity thereby protecting the broodstock. Any new information stemming from the current FRDC Projects (mentioned above) will be incorporated into the management regime for this fishery. In the future there are plans for a validation process to be developed between the compulsory catch and effort forms and the logbook forms for this fishery.


July 2003 32

The trigger points related to catch for each species are as follows: • Giant crab – Catch outside of the acceptable range of 0 to 2 tonnes. • Champagne crab – If the catch increases beyond 50 tonnes. • Snow crab – If the catch increases beyond 300 tonnes or declines below 100

tonnes (representing an increase by more than 100% or decline to less than 50% of the previous years’ catch).

1.1.7 There are management strategies in place capable of controlling the level

of take. A full description of the management arrangements for the commercial fishery is located in the attached interim management plan. A full discussion of the main regulations and their justifications are located in Section 2.2. The following is a summary of the management arrangements for all Areas in the Fishery:

• Limited entry fishery; • Minimum size limits for each species; • Protection of undersize, spawning and egg-bearing crabs; • Area closure; • Temporal closures; • Gear restrictions; • Access to Fishing Areas; and • Compliance policing including gear checks.

As previously discussed there is a legal minimum size limit for giant and champagne crabs and a voluntarily agreed minimum size is in place for snow crabs. The current minimum size limits are as follows:

• Giant crab – 140 mm (CL). • Champagne crab – 92 mm (CL). • Snow crab – 120 mm (carapace width).

1.1.8 Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not threaten stocks of by-product species.

Currently, there are no by-product species retained in this fishery. 1.1.9 The management response, considering uncertainties in the assessment

and precautionary management actions, has a high chance of achieving the objective.

Management actions taken over the past 30 years have been effective and there is, therefore, an extremely high probability that these will continue to achieve the main objective of maintaining the spawning stock/biomass for all crab species retained in the WCDSCF. The WCDSCF is currently managed through input controls including gear restrictions, limited entry and spatial closures. In addition, the Department is able to manage the fishery on a whole (across all five zones) or by each individual zone.


July 2003 33

The current research being conducted through the FRDC Projects 1999/154 and 2001/055 will result in the management targets (i.e. legal and voluntarily agreed minimum sizes etc) to be re-examined (see Sections 5.1.1.1 – 5.1.1.3). Even so, if the performance limit is exceeded for any of the three crab species there are actions which the Department of Fisheries can employ before the next year. The strategies available to Department of Fisheries to offer further protection to the spawning stock for each crab species, if required, would include:

• Review of the amount of fishing effort (number of fishers, months of operation, areas of operation);

• Review of pot numbers allowed; and • Review of legal and voluntarily agreed minimum size.

The ability to implement these strategies is provided for within the FRMA, FRMR and interim management plan for the WCDSCF.

OBJECTIVE 2. RECOVERY OF STOCKS Where the fished stocks are below a defined reference point, the fishery will be

managed to promote recovery to ecologically viable stock levels within nominated timeframes.

There are no stocks within the fishery that are currently below defined reference points/limits.

4.3 PRINCIPLE 2 OF THE COMMONWEALTH GUIDELINES

OBJECTIVE 1. BYCATCH The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten bycatch species. Eleven non-retained species were identified in this fishery and all of them were ranked as having a Negligible risk from the WCDSCF. Five of the eleven issues identified relate to the species not actually being captured in the pot, but only potentially affected by general fishing operations. The two protected/threatened species issues identified for this fishery was in the direct interaction but no capture category and will be covered in objective 2.2. The remaining non-retained (bycatch) species will be covered under objective 2.1. A comprehensive report on the bycatch species is presented in Section 5.2 Non-Retained Species. This assessment indicates that the performance of the WCDSCF is currently adequate in not threatening the bycatch (non-retained) species and is therefore meeting Objectives 1 and 2 of Principle 2.


July 2003 34

Information Requirements 2.1.1 Reliable information, appropriate to the scale of the fishery, is collected

on the composition and abundance of bycatch. Information on the composition and abundance of bycatch has been obtained through personnel communication with the WCDSCF fishers themselves, logbook information forms which are completed by the fishers (Appendix 3), monitoring programs in other WA fisheries with similar fishing methods (i.e. WCRLMF) and through communication with the Department of Conservation and Land Management. Assessments 2.1.2 There is a risk analysis of the bycatch with respect to its vulnerability to

fishing. A risk assessment for the identified non-retained/bycatch species (including those that the fishery has direct interaction with but does not result in capture) was completed

Protected Sp

Western RockLobster

Spider crabs

Fish

Molluscs

Octopus

Sea LiceBathynomous spp.

Other

Capture

Whales and Dolphins

Leatherback Turtles

Manta Rays

Sponges

Corals

Direct interactionbut no capture

Non RetainedSpecies


July 2003 35

(see Section 3.4 for details). As previously mentioned, none of the non-retained species were given beyond a Negligible risk rating. Western Rock Lobster– Summary

ERA Risk Rating (C0 L2 Negligible) The western rock lobster (Panulirus cygnus) has a commercial range extending from Shark Bay to Bunbury. Western rock lobsters (WRL) are only captured as bycatch by this fishery in small quantities when the fishers are targeting champagne crabs in waters between 150-200 m. Since the majority of the fishing effort for the fishery has now shifted to snow crabs in water depths of 600 m to 1200 m, WRL are unlikely to be captured, because these depths are well outside the normal distribution of this species. There is also a ban on retaining any WRL by the WCDSCF and coupled with the current depth range restrictions (>150 m), few lobsters would be caught by these fishers and those that are caught are returned alive. Therefore, this fishery is a Negligible risk for WRL. Sea Lice- Summary

ERA Risk Rating (C0 L2 Negligible) Sea lice (Bathynomous spp.) are small isopod crustaceans that are captured in pots in small numbers, generally in locations where snow crabs are not abundant. The escape gaps on the pots mean that few lice are retained. Those that are brought to the surface are returned to the sea quickly and would be unlikely to suffer significant levels of mortality. Spider Crabs- Summary

ERA Risk Rating (C0 L4 Negligible) Several other species of deep-sea crabs are captured in the pots in small numbers such as spider crabs. Some of these deep-sea crabs are currently unidentified. None of these crabs are retained due to their low meat content and market values. Tagging experiments with snow crabs have indicated low mortality of released crabs and it is likely that the same low mortality rates would apply to other crab species. Finfish- Summary

ERA Risk Rating (C0 L4 Negligible) Finfish are only infrequently captured in pots and the species captured vary markedly. Most of the species have yet to be identified but have been passed on to the Western Australian Museum (WA Museum) for this purpose. None of the finfish captured by the fishery are retained as by-products in the fishery. Molluscs- Summary

ERA Risk Rating (C0 L3 Negligible) Some species of molluscs are directly impacted when brought to the surface with the pot. However, quantities are insignificant and specimens are returned immediately to the water. Species vary and some are not easily identifiable; a number of specimens have been sent to the WA Museum for formal identification. Their ability to survive


July 2003 36

capture and release into extreme depths is not known, but would seem likely to be high. Octopus- Summary

ERA Risk Rating (C0 L4 Negligible) Octopus are infrequently captured in this fishery because most enter the pots but are able to escape through the top entrance or through the escape gaps. Given the insignificant number captured, it is considered that their capture would have a negligible impact on the breeding stocks of these species. Direct Interaction but No Capture Manta Rays- Summary

ERA Risk Rating (C0 L2 Negligible) While there have been rare reports (none resulting in death) of manta rays becoming entangled in the ropes of rock lobster pots there is no evidence of interactions with manta rays within the WCDSCF. The use of substantially heavier ropes spaced a long distance apart and the level of effort by this fishery being two orders of magnitude lower than the WCRLMF significantly reduces the risk of entanglement in this fishery. Sponges/Corals - Summary

ERA Risk Rating Summary (C0 L2 Negligible) Sponges and corals are infrequently brought to the surface with pots. The occasional presence of a small number of sponges with minimal foot print of potential damage caused by these pots suggest that their impact on the abundance of sessile invertebrates would be negligible. Management Responses 2.1.3 Measures are in place to avoid capture and mortality of bycatch species

unless it is determined that the level of catch is sustainable (except in relation to endangered, threatened or protected species). Steps must be taken to develop suitable technology if none is available.

Not applicable. 2.1.4 An indicator group of bycatch species is monitored. Due to the minimal risks associated with this group of non-retained species, it is not necessary to monitor any of these species in the longer term. 2.1.5 There are decision rules that trigger additional management measures

when there are significant perturbations in the indicator species numbers. The risks associated with this group of species will be reassessed at the next major review of this fishery. This will occur within five years, as a requirement of the WA ESD policy.


July 2003 37

2.1.6 The management response, considering uncertainties in the assessment and precautionary management actions, has a high chance of achieving the objective.

Given the relatively low levels of interactions of the fishery with non-retained species and the relatively selective method of fishing used in the fishery it is likely that the level of interaction will continue to be only minimal with only acceptable levels of impact occurring.

OBJECTIVE 2. PROTECTED, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The fishery is conducted in a manner that avoids mortality of, or injuries to,

endangered, threatened or protected species and avoids or minimises impacts on threatened ecological communities.

Information Requirements 2.2.1 Reliable information is collected on the interaction with endangered,

threatened or protected species and threatened ecological communities. The information provided in this submission regarding the interaction of this fishery with endangered, threatened and/or protected species is from fishers within this fishery and unpublished data from the Department of Conservation and Land Management. Assessments 2.2.2 There is an assessment of the impact of the fishery on endangered,

threatened or protected species. A formal risk assessment for each of the identified non-retained/bycatch species/groups (including those with direct interaction but no capture) was completed (see Section 3.4 for details). The assessment concluded that the WCDSCF did not capture any endangered, threatened or protected species. However, for the direct interaction but no capture category for non-retained species, this assessment concluded that the fishery was of Negligible risk to whales & dolphins and leatherback turtles. Direct Interaction but No Capture Whales and Dolphins- Summary

ERA Risk Rating (C0 L1 Negligible) Unpublished data from the Department of Conservation and Land Management report that there have been a total of 20 incidences of migrating whales becoming entangled in rope associated with various fishing operations between 1985 and 2002 (D. Coughran3, pers. comm.). However, there are no reports of whales becoming entangled within the WCDSCF.

3 Dan Coughran, Department of Conservation and Land Management – Perth Office.


July 2003 38

Two species of dolphins, the Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) and the Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) have been reported following crab boats, possibly feeding on discarded bait. It was concluded that this fishery was of Negligible risk to whale and dolphin species because there have been no reported incidents between this fishery and these species. There are so few boats operating in the fishery - only three boats currently fishing each with 700 pots used in a longline arrangement such that up to 14 surface ropes are used. Furthermore, the use of substantially heavier ropes spaced a long distance apart and the level of effort by this fishery being two orders of magnitude lower than the WCRLMF significantly reduces the risk of entanglement in this fishery. Leatherback turtles- Summary

ERA Risk Rating (C0 L1 Negligible) The Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is a scarce but regular, non-nesting feeding migrant visitor to WA waters. The main risk of interactions between fishing operations and turtles in the WCDSCF would be from boat strikes and entanglement in ropes and lines, not from being caught in pots. There is a very low chance of these vessels or their equipment encountering a leatherback turtle. There have been no reports of boat strikes or entanglements of turtles in this fishery therefore the WCDSCF was of a Negligible risk to turtles. 2.2.3 There is an assessment of the impact of the fishery on threatened

ecological communities. There are no threatened ecological communities associated with the WCDSCF. Management Responses 2.2.4 There are measures in place to avoid capture and/or mortality of

endangered, threatened or protected species. There are no measures in place because to date there has been no reported captures or interactions between the fishery and any endangered, threatened and/or protected species. 2.2.5 There are measures in place to avoid impact on threatened ecological

communities. Not applicable. 2.2.6 The management response, considering uncertainties in the assessment


There have been no reported interactions (including captures) of endangered, threatened and/or protected species with this fishery therefore it is unlikely that this fishery is having any unacceptable impacts on these species. Nonetheless, if they are inappropriate and/or the level of interactions increases, appropriate alterations to practices will be taken.


July 2003 39

OBJECTIVE 3. GENERAL ECOSYSTEM The fishery is conducted, in a manner that minimises the impact of fishing

operations on the ecosystem generally. The issues that relate to the broader ecosystem, which were identified for this fishery are shown below in the component tree. An internal risk assessment process subsequently assessed each of these issues with the information relating to each issue detailed in Section 5.3. There were six issues identified, all of which were given a Negligible risk rating. Consequently, the fishery’s current performance is meeting Objective 3 and this acceptable performance is likely to at least continue or improve in the future due to the implementation of further management arrangements.

Information Requirements 2.3.1 Information appropriate for the analysis in 2.3.2 is collated and/or

collected covering the fisheries impact on the ecosystem and environment generally.

Appropriate levels of information have been obtained for most of the issues identified, which has allowed for a sensible assessment of the level of risk to be determined. This information includes data collected directly related to the fishery – in terms of the catch and effort. In addition, current and future research in this fishery and other similar fisheries (i.e. fisheries using pots) has and will continue to provide the Department of Fisheries with relevant information to allow for the development of appropriate management responses.

Bait(same as WRL fishery)

Stock enhancement(not for this fishery)

Translocation

Discarding/Provisioning

Addition/movementof biological material

Bait Collection(not specifically by this fishery)

Ghost Fishing

Mud Corals

Benthic Biota

FishingTrophic levels

Removal of/damageto organisms

Impacts on biologicalCommunity

Fuel Usage/Exhaust

Greenhouse GasEmissions

Air Quality

Debris

Oil discharge

Water Quality

Substrate Quality

Other

General Environment


July 2003 40

Given the very small size of the WCDSCF and the small amount of catch and other direct impacts it has on the environment, a large amount of information is not needed to assess its level of impact on the broader ecosystem. Assessments 2.3.2 Information is collected and a risk analysis, appropriate to the scale of the

fishery and its potential impacts, is conducted into the susceptibility of each of the following ecosystem components to the fishery.

A risk assessment was completed (see Section 5.3 for details) on each of the identified issues relevant to the fishery (see component tree for issues). The identified issues that were assessed and a summary of the outcomes are located in Table 4. Complete justifications are located in the performance reports in Section 5.3. Table 4 Summary of risk assessment outcomes for environmental issues related

to the WCDSCF. ISSUE RISK SUMMARY JUSTIFICATION FULL

DETAILSImpact from addition/movement of biological material:

5.3.1

Discarding/Provisioning Negligible This fishery discards a small amount of finfish and invertebrates. Traps are usually left soaking for several days between hauls and therefore little bait is left when the pots are brought to the surface. There are only three to five boats operating in the fishery thus resulting in an insignificant impact on the marine foodwebs.

5.3.1.1

Impact from removal/damage to organisms:

5.3.2

Impacts from ghost fishing

Negligible The gear used in this fishery generates minimal non-retained species and the design of the pots (one entrance with 1 or 2 escape gaps) is such that they do not ‘ghost fish’ if lost. From observations in other crustacean fisheries animals are rarely seen in any type of pot without bait, showing that the animals are able to escape from the pot if given enough time.

5.3.2.1


July 2003 41

Impacts to benthic biota – Mud

Negligible The WCDSCF operates in depths ranging from 150 m to 1200 m and there are only a very small number of operators. Sediments at depths greater than 300 m are mostly mud with the macrobenthic fauna decreasing with increasing depth (Levings et al., 2001). Soft sediment dwelling biota are infrequently brought to the surface and are immediately returned to the water.

5.3.2.2

Impacts to benthic biota – Coral

Negligible Again the small number of operators in this fishery makes it impossible for them to affect a large amount of habitat. Solitary coral are occasionally brought to the surface after being entangled in the pots. Occurrences are infrequent and there is minimal damage.

5.3.2.3

Impacts to fishing trophic level

Negligible Deep-sea crabs are considered to be high up the trophic food chain and their exploitation is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact on species in higher trophic levels. Furthermore, the minimum size limit is such that only a relatively small portion of the standing stock is harvested. This combined with the fact that the fishery covers a large stretch of coastline and only produces approximately 300 tonnes of product per year, justifies the negligible risk rating.

5.3.2.4

Other impacts – Water Quality

5.3.3

Debris Negligible There is a code of practice among the WCDSC fishers to return packaging and garbage back to the wharf. Waste disposal bins are located at all points where commercial boats tie up.

5.3.3.1

Thus, all of these issues were rated as Negligible risk.


July 2003 42

Management Responses 2.3.3 Management actions are in place to ensure significant damage to

ecosystems does not arise from the impacts described in 2.3.1. The most important management methods required to ensure that there is minimal impact on the broader ecosystem include maintaining significant stock/biomass levels of crab species. In most cases this serves to achieve both objectives of having a sustainable fishery and minimizing the potential for any trophic interactions. Other management measures such as limited entry, minimum sizes, spatial and temporal closures, biological restrictions, gear restrictions, access to fishing areas and future research also further minimise the potential for impacts. 2.3.4 There are decision rules that trigger further management responses when

monitoring detects impacts on selected ecosystem indicators beyond a predetermined level, or where action is indicated by application of the precautionary approach.

None of the issues were of sufficient risk to require specific target levels as they are effectively covered by the other management arrangements and trigger points. 2.3.5 The management response, considering uncertainties in the assessment


Given that the risk assessment identified that under current management arrangements there have been minimal or negligible impacts from the fishery on the broader ecosystem even after around 30 years of fishing, it is highly likely that the fishery will continue to meet the objectives of having only acceptable levels of impacts.


July 2003 43

OVERVIEW TABLE The following table provides a summary of the material presented in the report. Issue Objective

Developed Indicator Measured

Performance Measure

Current Performance

Robustness EA Guidelines Covered

Actions

RETAINED SPECIES (Component Tree)

1.1

5.1.1.1 Giant Crabs No- Negligible Risk

N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.1.1 – 1.1.7 Review Risk at next major assessment.

5.1.1.2 Champagne Crabs

Yes Annual catch Below historical high of 50 tonnes per annum

Acceptable Medium 1.1.1 – 1.1.7 Continue and improve current monitoring, management and assessment arrangements

5.1.1.3 Snow Crabs Yes Assessment of trends in catch, effort and CPUE in the target area

Catch remains within 100 tonnes to 300 tonnes per annum

Acceptable Medium 1.1.1 – 1.1.7 Continue current monitoring, management and assessment arrangements

NON-RETAINED SPECIES (Component Tree)

2.1,2.2

5.2.1.1 Western Rock Lobster

No- Negligible Risk

N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.1.1 – 2.1.6 Review Risk at Next Major Assessment

5.2.1.2 Sea Lice No- Negligible Risk


5.2.1.3 Spider Crabs No- Negligible Risk


5.2.1.4 Finfish No- Negligible Risk


5.2.1.5 Molluscs No- Negligible Risk



July 2003 44

Issue Objective Developed

Indicator Measured

Performance Measure

Current Performance


Actions

NON-RETAINED SPECIES (cont.)

2.1 – 2.2

5.2.1.6 Octopus No- Negligible Risk


5.2.2.1 Whales and Dolphins

No- Negligible Risk


5.2.2.2 Leatherback Turtles

No- Low Risk

N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.2.2 - 2.2.6 Review Risk at Next Major Assessment

5.2.2.3 Manta Rays

No- Negligible Risk


5.2.2.4 Sponges

No- Negligible Risk


5.2.2.5 Corals No- Negligible Risk


GENERAL ENVIRONMENT (Component Tree)

2.3

5.3.1.1 Discarding/Provisioning

No- Negligible Risk


5.3.2.1 Ghost Fishing No – Negligible Risk


5.3.2.2 Impacts to Benthic Biota- Mud

No- Negligible Risk


5.3.2.3 Impacts to Benthic Biota- Coral

No- Negligible Risk


5.3.2.4 Impacts to Fishing Trophic Level

No- Negligible Risk



July 2003 45

Issue Objective Developed

Indicator Measured

Performance Measure

Current Performance


Actions

GENERAL ENVIRONMENT (cont.))

2.3

5.3.3.1 Debris No- Negligible Risk



May 2003 46

5. PERFORMANCE REPORTS

5.1 RETAINED SPECIES COMPONENT TREE FOR RETAINED SPECIES OF THE WCDSCF

Figure 4 Component tree for the retained species. Yellow boxes indicate that the issue was considered high enough risk to warrant having a full report on performance. Blue boxes indicate the issue was rated as a low risk and no specific management is required – generally only the justification is presented.

5.1.1 PRIMARY SPECIES 5.1.1.1 Giant Crabs Rationale for Inclusion: The giant crab (Pseudocarcinus gigas) is distributed along the southern continental shelf of Australia from the Perth canyon in southwest WA to central NSW (Kailola et al., 1993). It is found at depths from 18 to 400 meters with the greatest concentration of the population occurring on the outer shelf at depths between 140-270 meters (Levings et al., 1995). Only small quantities of giant crabs have been landed on the lower west coast of WA as part of the WCDSCF. Annual catches of giant crabs in the WCDSCF reached 2 tonnes in 1994 and have been small and sporadic ever since then (Figure 5). No information on CPUE is provided because catches are so small and sporadic there is no way of separating out catches that targeted giant crabs from catches in which the species was taken as a bycatch of other pot effort directed

Giant Crabs

Champagne Crabs

Snow Crabs

Primary Species

Retained Species


May 2003 47

fisheries. The only data available for this fishery is catch and effort information supplied on the compulsory catch and effort returns (Appendix 2).

00.5

11.5

22.5

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Year

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Figure 5 Catches (t) of giant crabs in the WCDSCF, 1993-2002. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L4 NEGLIGIBLE) Catches of giant crabs in the WCDSCF are small (Figure 5) in relation to the vast stretch of coastline that they cover. The annual catch of giant crabs fluctuates quite markedly. The “bycatch” nature of the fishery and its overall low dollar value means that any management and corresponding performance measures need to be simple to administer. A legal minimum size that is well above size at maturity is expected to be a robust means of protecting the brood stock. The appropriateness of this legal minimum size has been generally assessed for all regions in the giant crab fishery (Levings et al., 2001) and for WA specifically (Levings, WA Fisheries Department Contract Report, 2001). According to Levings (WA Fisheries Department Contract Report, 2001) the 140 mm legal minimum size that is in place in WA protects 40% of pristine egg production in the population. This is well above the levels (generally 25% of pristine egg production) that are considered to provide sufficient egg production to avoid recruitment overfishing. Returned undersize animals are believed (from tag recapture information) to have a high rate of survival (Levings et al., 2001). Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this species in place given the very low level of catch. If major changes in annual landings were recorded within a season, then investigations would be undertaken to identify the cause of these changes. 5.1.1.2 Champagne Crabs Rationale for Inclusion: The champagne or spiny crab (Hypothalassia acerba) is caught in depths between 30 to 550 m on areas of sand or rocky substrate (Yearsley et al., 1999). The champagne


May 2003 48

crab is distributed across southern Australia from Geraldton in WA eastwards to NSW. Historically, champagne crabs were the primary target species of the WCDSCF with substantial catches landed (Figure 6) from depths of between 200-400 m. However, catches of champagne crabs have declined significantly due to a decrease in effort targeting this species in all depths and areas of its distribution resulting from commercial quantities of a more valuable species, snow crabs, being discovered in deeper depths. Lack of demand and declining prices are also responsible for the decline in champagne crab catches. No information on CPUE is provided because catches are generally small and sporadic and for all but a couple of years in the history of the fishery there has been no way of separating out catches that targeted champagne crabs, from catches in which the species was taken as a bycatch of other pot effort directed fisheries. Catch and effort information for this fishery has been on compulsory catch and effort returns (Appendix 2) with a small amount of information spanning 1999 and 2000 on the more detailed catch and effort forms shown in Appendix 3.

01020304050

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Year

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Figure 6 Catches (t) of champagne crabs in the WCDSCF, 1989-2002. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C2 L3 LOW) Champagne crabs are considered to be long-lived. Their history of exploitation is likely to have led the virgin biomass to be reduced to some extent from pre-exploitation levels. Operational Objective To maintain, by way of an appropriate legal minimum size, the spawning stock of champagne crabs above levels that might risk recruitment overfishing. Justification: Meeting this objective will ensure that there is sufficient breeding stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors.


May 2003 49

Indicator Annual Catch. Performance Measure If the annual catch increased beyond 50 tonnes (which is the historical high), then investigations would be undertaken to identify the cause of these changes. Justification: Research data are in the process of being collected and evaluated under the FRDC Project 99/154, with one of the objectives being the production of a yield per recruit and egg per recruit model. This model will provide the ability to evaluate the appropriateness of the current legal minimum size. The current legal minimum size for the fishery is based on a size below which this species is considered to be unmarketable. The present minimum size is well above size at maturity (K. Smith, Murdoch University, Perth, unpub. Data). A future minimum size will be based on yield and egg per recruit research. Examining the appropriateness of the legal minimum size for protecting egg production by way of yield and egg per recruit models, is justifiable on the basis of it being well known and often used for this purpose in fisheries literature. Data Requirement for Indicator (and Availability) Data Required Availability Estimates of natural mortality, age/growth and fecundity.

These data are currently being researched under FRDC Project 99/154.

Evaluation Catches of champagne crabs in the WCDSCF are small (Figure 6) in relation to the vast stretch of coastline that they cover. The annual catch of champagne crab in the WCDSCF have declined markedly due to the targeting of snow crabs in deeper waters. The nature of the fishery and its overall low dollar value means that any management and corresponding performance measures need to be simple to administer. Robustness Medium A legal minimum size that is well above size at maturity is expected to be a robust means of protecting the brood stock. The appropriateness of this legal minimum size is to be re-evaluated in the near future as more data become available from FRDC Project 99/154. Discarded undersize animals are believed (from tag recapture information) to have a high rate of survival.


May 2003 50

Fisheries Management Response Current: The fishery is managed through input controls:

• Pots are fitted with escape gaps to allow the escapement of undersize crabs and rock lobsters.

• There are limits to the number of pots that may be fished per vessel. • Waters less than 150 m in depth are closed to the WCDSCF. • Compliance policing includes gear checks.

Future: Under the current management plan, fishers are restricted to a maximum of 700 traps in the water at any time, however, pot numbers may be adjusted in the future, if required. Actions if Performance Limit is Exceeded: In the first instance, a review will be undertaken of the causes for the change in catch. If necessary, changes to the management arrangements can be instigated. Comments and Actions None. External Drivers The factor considered most likely to affect harvestable biomass, is decreased recruitment to the fishery due to environmental conditions. For example, crab megalopae settlement on the WA west coast might be influenced by a sustained change in the wind or current directions, leading to some megalopae being lost to their normal distributional range. 5.1.1.3 Snow Crabs Rationale for Inclusion: The snow crab (Chaceon bicolor) occurs offshore at depths between 200-2000 m on sand, mud or shell debris (Jones and Morgan, 2002). Found in west, north and eastern Australia their precise distribution is unknown, however, off the WA coast the species has been reported from 450-1220 m (WA Museum records) but most fishing has concentrated in the depths between 600-800 m. Significant landings only started being made in 1998 with catches escalating rapidly since that time (Figure 7).


May 2003 51

050

100150200250

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Figure 7 Catch (t) of snow crabs in the WCDSCF, 1997-2002. The fishery has only been in operation since 1998 and logbook information suitable for examining trends in CPUE (see example in Appendix 3) has only been collected since 1999. Indications in year-to-year changes in CPUE are shown in Figure 8. Catch rates started off low, probably due to a period of learning during which time fishers perfected their pot setting techniques and established depths at which the crabs were most prolific. Overall catch rates in the fishery have declined since 2000, but this is not unexpected given that the fishery had not been exploited to any extent prior to that point and new long-term yields have yet to be established. A CPUE point has been included for 2003, but this value is only based on data obtained in the first quarter of the year.

00.5

11.5

22.5

3

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

cpue

(kg/

pot/p

ull)

Figure 8 CPUE of snow crabs in the WCDSCF, 1999-2003. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (C2 L4 MODERATE) Snow crabs are considered to be long-lived. Their history of exploitation is likely to have resulted in the virgin biomass being reduced from pre-exploitation levels.


May 2003 52

Operational Objective To maintain, by way of an appropriate minimum size, the spawning stock of snow crabs above levels that might risk recruitment overfishing. Justification: The genus Chaceon, to which the snow crabs belong, are well known deep-water crabs and are commercially fished in north eastern USA and Namibia (Hastie, 1995). They are known to be very slow growing and therefore vulnerable to overexploitation (Hastie, 1995). Meeting this operational objective will ensure that there is sufficient breeding stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors. Indicator Assessment of the trends in catch, effort and CPUE in the target area. Performance Measure If the catch increases beyond 300 tonnes or declines below 100 tonnes (representing an increase by more than 100% or decline to less than 50% of the previous years’ catch). Justification: If major changes in annual landings were to be recorded, then investigations would be undertaken to identify the cause of these changes. The development of performance measures based on CPUE are possible in this fishery by using logbook information (Appendix 3) that is completed by all fishers that are currently fishing for the species in Western Australia. However, no specific performance measures have as yet been put in place for this fishery. Data Requirement for Indicator (and Availability) Data Required Availability In the short to medium term, estimates of the extent and depth distribution of snow crabs is required. In the longer run other information will be required, in particular estimates of growth.

Not available at present, but is the objective of current FRDC funded research.

Catch, effort and CPUE Collected by a combination of compulsory catch and effort data and logbook information (Appendix 2 and 3).


May 2003 53

Evaluation Catches of snow crabs in the WCDSCF have increased substantially in the last five years. Given the vast stretch of coast and range of depths over which the crabs are distributed catches may still increase as new areas of the coast are explored. Robustness Medium A minimum size that is well above size at maturity could be expected to be a robust means of protecting the brood stock. The appropriateness of the currently voluntarily agreed minimum size is to be re-evaluated in the near future as more data become available (FRDC Project 2001/055). Returned undersize animals are believed (from tag recapture information) to have a high rate of survival. Fisheries Management Response Current: The fishery is managed through input controls:

• Pots are fitted with escape gaps to allow the escapement of undersize crabs and rock lobsters.

• There are limits to the number of pots that may be fished per vessel. • There are three full-time and four part-time licences currently authorized. • Waters less than 150 m in depth are closed to the WCDSCF. • Compliance policing includes gear checks.

. Future: As biological and fishery data becomes available from the research currently being conducted (FRDC project 2001/055), management targets within the fishery will be re-examined. Actions if Performance Limit is Exceeded: If the fishery were to experience a drastic downturn in catch rates, the catch rates for the individual zones and the amount of fishing effort in each zone would be reviewed. Comments and Actions None. External Drivers The relatively high market demand and dollar value coupled with the slow growth and suspected lengthy periods between mating cycles make this species prone to overexploitation.


May 2003 54

5.2 NON-RETAINED SPECIES COMPONENT TREE FOR NON-RETAINED SPECIES IN THE WCDSCF

Figure 9 Component tree for the non-retained species. Yellow boxes indicate that the issue was considered high enough risk to warrant having a full report on performance. Blue boxes indicate the issue was rated as a low risk and no specific management is required – generally only the justification is presented.

Protected Sp

Western RockLobster

Spider crabs

Fish

Molluscs

Octopus

Sea LiceBathynomous spp.

Other

Capture

Whales and Dolphins

Leatherback Turtles

Manta Rays

Sponges

Corals

Direct interactionbut no capture

Non RetainedSpecies


May 2003 55

5.2.1 CAPTURED BY POTS 5.2.1.1 Western Rock Lobster Rationale for Inclusion: The western rock lobster (WRL) (Panulirus cygnus) is the main target of the WCRLMF and has a commercial range extending from Shark Bay to Bunbury. WRL have been captured as bycatch in small quantities by deep-sea crab fishers targeting champagne crabs in waters between 150-200 m. However, as the majority of the fishing effort in the WCDSCF has now shifted to snow crabs in water depths of 600-1200 m WRL are unlikely to be captured, as these depths are well outside their normal distribution. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L3 NEGLIGIBLE) Few western rock lobsters are captured in the WCDSCF due to the depth range fished. There is a ban on retaining WRL in the WCDSCF and any lobsters captured are immediately returned to the water. Therefore the impact on breeding stock would be negligible. No annual evaluation is required. The prohibition on retaining WRL will remain in place. This prohibition coupled with the focus of the WCDSCF on snow crabs in deeper waters means that catches of WRL are negligible. 5.2.1.2 Sea Lice Rationale for Inclusion: Sea lice (Bathynomous spp.) are small isopod crustaceans that are captured in pots in small numbers, generally in locations where snow crabs are insignificant. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L3 NEGLIGIBLE) The impact on the breeding stock of sea lice is presently unknown. The escape gaps on the pots mean that few lice are retained. Those that are brought to the surface are returned to the sea quickly and would be unlikely to suffer mortality. It is considered that the capture of sea lice would have a negligible impact on the breeding stocks of these species. 5.2.1.3 Spider Crabs Rationale for Inclusion: Several other species of deep-sea crabs are captured in pots in small numbers such as spider crabs. Some of these deep-sea crabs are currently unidentified. None of these crabs are retained due to their low meat content. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L6 NEGLIGIBLE)


May 2003 56

Low numbers of other crabs species are captured in the pots and none are retained due to low market values. Tagging experiments with snow crabs have indicated low mortality of released crabs and it is likely that the same low mortality rates would apply to other crab species. 5.2.1.4 Finfish Rationale for Inclusion: Finfish are infrequently captured in pots. The species of fish caught in the pots vary and some species have yet to be formally identified by science. Specimens have been passed on to the WA Museum for this purpose. Any finfish that are caught are usually retained as their ability to survive capture and release into extreme depths is likely to be low. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L4 NEGLIGIBLE) The impact on the breeding stock of taking these fish is presently unknown. The insignificant number captured would be likely to have a negligible impact on the breeding stocks of these species. 5.2.1.5 Molluscs Rationale for Inclusion: Some species of molluscs are directly impacted when brought to the surface with the pot. However, quantities are insignificant and specimens are returned immediately to the water. Species vary and are not identified but a number of specimens have been sent to the WA Museum for identification. Their ability to survive capture and release into extreme depths is not known, but would seem likely to be high. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L4 NEGLIGIBLE) The impact on the breeding stock of these molluscs is presently unknown. Molluscs are returned to the sea quickly, but the impact of being brought to the surface is unknown. Given the insignificant number captured due to most falling through escape gaps on the pots, it is considered that their capture would have a negligible impact on the breeding stocks of those species. 5.2.1.6 Octopus Rationale for Inclusion: Deep-sea crab pots are an inefficient way of catching octopus; most that enter the pots are able to escape either through the top entrance or through the escape gaps. Octopus are infrequently captured in this fishery. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L4 NEGLIGIBLE)


May 2003 57

The impact on the breeding stock of octopus is presently unknown. Given the insignificant number captured, it is considered that their capture would have a negligible impact on the breeding stocks of those species.

5.2.2 DIRECT INTERACTION BUT NOT CAPTURED IN POTS 5.2.2.1 Whales and Dolphins Rationale for Inclusion: Two species of whales are regularly observed migrating along the coast of WA, the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and the southern right whale (Eubalaena australis). Unpublished data from Department of Conservation and Land Management report a total of 20 incidences of migrating whales becoming entangled in rope associated with various fishing operations between 1985 and 2002 (D. Coughran4, pers. comm.). However there are no reports of whales becoming entangled within the WCDSCF. Two species of dolphins, the Bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncates) and the Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) have been reported following crab boats, possibly feeding on discarded bait. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L1 NEGLIGIBLE) Of the 18 whales encounters specifically attributed to lobster ropes reported for WA between 1985 and 2002, 17 involved Humpback whales, none of those encounters resulted in the death of a whale (ibid). Anecdotal evidence from WCDSC fishers suggests that no interactions with whales have been reported from the fishery that currently is made up of three boats fishing. The pots are on longlines and therefore have few surface ropes (approximately 16). Given this very small level of effort, the likelihood of any incidence is remote. The lack of any whale interactions attributable to crab fishing gear justifies the Negligible risk rating for this item. 5.2.2.2 Leatherback Turtles Rationale for Inclusion: The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is listed as “vulnerable” in the Commonwealth EPBC Act and “Special Protected Fauna” under WA Legislation and all forms of mortality need to be minimized for the leatherback turtles. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C1 L1 LOW) The leatherback turtle is a scarce but regular, non-nesting feeding migrant visitors to WA waters.

4 D. Coughran, Department of Conservation and Land Management – Perth Office.


May 2003 58

The main risk of interactions between fishing operations and turtles in the WCDSCF are from boat strikes and entanglement in ropes and lines, not from being caught in pots. There are no reports of boat strikes or entanglements of turtles in the WCDSCF. The lack of any interaction between WCDSCF fishing gear and turtles and the remote likelihood of this happening, justifies the Low risk rating for this item. 5.2.2.3 Manta Rays Rationale for Inclusion: Although there have been no deaths reported, there have been rare reports of manta rays becoming entangled in the ropes of rock lobster pots, dragging them a considerable distance. There is no evidence of interactions with Manta rays within the WSDSCF. The use of substantially heavier ropes, spaced long distances apart reduce the risk of entanglement however it remains a potential threat. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L1 NEGLIGIBLE) The absence of reports of interactions with manta rays in the WCDSCF and rare interactions in other crustacean fisheries using similar gear indicates that the impacts on the breeding stock of this species is negligible. 5.2.2.4 Sponges Rationale for Inclusion: Sponges are infrequently brought to the surface with pots. A number of sponge specimens have been sent to the WA Museum for identification. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L5 NEGLIGIBLE) The occasional presence of a small number of sponges with minimal damage in the pots suggests that the impact on breeding stocks would be negligible. 5.2.2.5 Corals Rationale for Inclusion: Occasionally solitary corals are directly impacted when infrequently brought to the surface with the pot. A number of solitary coral specimens have been sent to the WA Museum for identification. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L5 NEGLIGIBLE) The occasional presence of solitary coral with minimal damage in the pots suggests that the impact on breeding stocks would be negligible.


May 2003 59

5.3 GENERAL ENVIRONMENT COMPONENT TREE FOR THE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE WCDSCF

Figure 10 Component tree for the general environment. Yellow boxes indicate that the issue was considered high enough risk to warrant having a full report on performance. Blue boxes indicate the issue was rated as a low risk and no specific management is required – generally only the justification is presented.

5.3.1 ADDITION/MOVEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL 5.3.1 1 Discarding/Provisioning Rationale for Inclusion: There are some non-retained species in this fishery which when discarded might be considered to provide a food source to other species either following the vessel (e.g. sharks, dolphins) or on the bottom (e.g. sharks, finfish and invertebrates). ERA Risk Rating: Impact on other species trophic arrangements (C0 L1

NEGLIGIBLE) As has already been noted, the amount of finfish and invertebrates that are discarded is small. Traps are normally left soaking for several days between hauls and little bait is left when the pots are brought to the surface. It is considered that the small quantities of discard catch and bait by the three to five boats currently operating would have an insignificant impact on marine foodwebs, thereby justifying the negligible risk rating that was accorded this item.

Bait(same as WRL fishery)

Stock enhancement(not for this fishery)

Translocation

Discarding/Provisioning

Addition/movementof biological material

Bait Collection(not specifically by this fishery)

Ghost Fishing

Mud Corals

Benthic Biota

FishingTrophic levels

Removal of/damageto organisms

Impacts on biologicalCommunity

Fuel Usage/Exhaust

Greenhouse GasEmissions

Air Quality

Debris

Oil discharge

Water Quality

Substrate Quality

Other

General Environment


May 2003 60

5.3.2 REMOVAL OF/DAMAGE TO ORGANISMS 5.3.2.1 Impacts From Ghost Fishing Rationale for Inclusion: The gear used in this fishery generates minimal non-retained species and the design of the pots (one entrance, with 1 or 2 escape gaps) is such that they do not ‘ghost fish’ if lost. Fishers in the WCDSCF use plastic Elvinco (rock lobster) pots with a top entrance and one or two escape gaps. Pot dimensions have been defined by the interim management plan (Clause 20(1)) and are in accordance with the specifications set out for the rock lobster pots in Schedule 13(2) of the FRMR. The number of commercial pots lost in the fishery each season is unknown. Observations in other crustacean fisheries that animals are rarely seen in any type of pot without bait show that the animals are able to escape from the pot if given enough time. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on other species breeding stock (C0 L1 NEGLIGIBLE) The fact that there is no retention of animals in pots that are not baited, justifies the Negligible risk rating. 5.3.2.2 Impacts to Benthic Biota – Mud Rationale for Inclusion: The WCDSCF operates in depths ranging from 150 m to 1200 m. Sediments at depths greater than 300 m are mostly mud with the macrobenthic fauna decreasing with increasing depth (Levings et al., 2001). ERA Risk Rating: Impact on macro fauna in mud habitats (C0 L2 NEGLIGIBLE) Soft sediment dwelling biota are infrequently brought to the surface and are immediately returned to the water. The probability of any one area of this habitat being contacted by a pot is extremely low. Combined with the infrequent presence of these benthic biota suggests minimal damage by the pots even when contact does occur. This suggests that the impact on these fauna would be negligible. 5.3.2.3 Impacts to Benthic Biota – Coral Rationale for Inclusion: Solitary coral is occasionally brought to the surface after being entangled in the pots. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L2 NEGLIGIBLE) The probability of any area of this habitat being contacted by a pot is extremely low. These occurrences are infrequent and damage is considered to be minimal, justifying the Negligible risk rating that has been accorded to this category.


May 2003 61

5.3.2 4 Impacts to Fishing Trophic Level Rationale for Inclusion: All fisheries give rise to concerns about the impact that large-scale removals of a species might have on lower and higher trophic levels. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on trophic levels (C0 L3 NEGLIGIBLE) The risk rating has in this instance been accorded as negligible. Deep-sea crabs are considered to be high up the trophic food chain and their exploitation is therefore unlikely to have had a significant impact on species in higher trophic levels. In terms of the effect that their exploitation might have had on the lower trophic levels, the minimum sizes are such that only a relatively small portion of the standing stock is harvested. This combined with the fact that the fishery covers a large stretch of the coastline and only produces approximately 300 tonnes of product per year, justifies the Negligible risk rating accorded to the impact of the fishery on food chains.

5.3.3 OTHER IMPACTS – WATER QUALITY 5.3.3.1 Debris Rationale for Inclusion: There is a general code of practice among WCDSC fishers to return packaging and garbage back to the wharf. Waste disposal bins are located at all points where commercial boats tie up. Fishers are aware of the related public perceptions and sensitivities. There is the potential for lost lines of pots, discarded bait boxes and bands and other flotsam to impact on water quality. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding stock (C0 L5 NEGLIGIBLE) The code of practice with regard to disposal of refuge means that debris constitutes no threat to the environment.


May 2003 62

5.4 GOVERNANCE

COMPONENT TREE FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF THE WCDSCF

Managementeffectiveness

Arrangements

Compliance

Information

Resources

Allocation

Proactivemanagement

Management Consultation

Assessment &Reviews

Reporting

Fisheries law

Access rights

OCS arrangements

Integrity

Transferefficiency

LIcence registry

Legal Framework

Department ofFisheries

Central policyAuditing

Other Agencies

Government

codes of conductparticipationseafood healthpeak bodiesReportingskilled people

Industry

watchdog rolerepresentativeness(proven constituency)

others (NGOs etc)

Governance

Figure 11 Component tree for the governance of the WCDSCF. Nb- no generic components have been removed from the tree but only those boxes that are yellow will be reported in this application.

5.4 1 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES – MANAGEMENT 5.4.1.1 Management Effectiveness (Outcomes) Rationale for Inclusion: The effectiveness of management arrangements in the WCDSCF is ultimately measured by assessing the outcomes of various strategies employed to manage the fishery. Deep-sea crab fishing in this State is still relatively recent with the initial licensees commencing in the early 1990s. Effort has been controlled since fishing began and has been limited to seven licensees. Research is currently underway to accurately determine the size of the resource. The stocks are currently being fished down in size ranges; when the larger sizes are removed smaller crabs are then targeted. The operational objectives with regard to management are largely directed towards capping potential effort, and determining an appropriate sustainable catch level for the fishery. In January 2003 the Department implemented an interim management plan for this fishery. This plan will allow for the development of the fishery as well as a thorough assessment of the level of fishing effort necessary to maintain sustainability. Current indications are that on completion of the trial period ending on December 2005, the


May 2003 63

Department will be able to establish the appropriate level of fishing to maintain sustainability. Operational Objective To introduce a comprehensive management plan for the WCDSCF that will enable the sustainable harvesting of deep-sea crab species, both biologically and economically.

Justification: A comprehensive management plan for all deep sea crab species in this area is required and should be developed, given that fishermen are now able to exclusively target deep sea crab species on the west coast and that these species are highly vulnerable to overfishing.

Indicator

That management arrangements exist to permit the take of a predicted, sustainable quantity of deep sea crab while also being flexible enough to facilitate changes in effort (and therefore catch) if the predicted level of catch is not achieved. Management arrangements will also need to be flexible to rapidly change if there is evidence of over-exploitation such as declining stock numbers. This will be indicated by any large unexplained variation, particularly reduction, in catch figures (i.e. those variations not explained by environmental factors or introduction of management controls or shifts in target species). The Department is able to manage and respond in this fishery on a zone by zone basis.

Performance Measure A comprehensive management plan that achieves the operational objective is in place for the WCDSCF. Justification: Currently, the WCDSCF is valid under subsection 10A(2) of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, which has been carried over under the EPBC. In March 2003 this condition expired however the intentions of subsection 10A(2) were carried over; the equivalent stature under the EPBC Act is Section 303FN - which is a Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO). Environment Australia approved an extension of the deadline for the introduction of management arrangements until January 2003. The Interim Management plan for this fishery was implemented in January 2003 and therefore management arrangements were in place before the expiry of subsection 10A(2) in March 2003.


May 2003 64

5.4.1.2 Management Arrangements Rationale for Inclusion: In WA, a number of instruments are used to articulate the management arrangements for fisheries. The Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA) has elements that affect all fisheries. The FRMA provides for the creation of Management Plans, Orders, Regulations, Ministerial Policy Guidelines (MPG) and Policy Statements. The Act sets out the objects for the sustainable management of fish resources in WA, and provides the framework for developing and implementing management plans for each of the State’s fisheries (Table 5). The interim management plan for the WCDSCF is effectively a set of rules for the fishery and include, inter alia, clauses concerning the spatial boundaries of the fishery, gear restrictions, temporal closures and transferability arrangements. Table 5 Objects of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994. Objects

(1) The objects of this Act are to conserve, develop and share the fish resources of the State for the benefit of present and future generations.

In particular, this Act has the following objects- • to conserve fish and protect their environment; • to ensure that the exploitation of fish resources is carried out in a sustainable

manner; • to enable the management of fishing, aquaculture and associated industries and

aquatic eco-tourism; • to foster the development of commercial fishing and recreational fishing and

aquaculture; • to achieve the optimum economic, social and other benefits from the use of fish

resources; • to enable the allocation of fish resources between users of those resources; • to provide for the control of foreign interests in fishing, aquaculture and

associated industries; • to enable the management of fish habitat protection areas and the Abrolhos

islands reserve. Regulation 118 provides for the Executive Director of the Department of Fisheries (ED) to grant a fishing boat licence if the ED is satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person to hold the licence, and it is the better interests of the fishing industry to grant the licence. Management arrangements for the deep-sea crabs species fished commercially off the west coast of WA was previously provided for in a condition [endorsements] on fishing boat licences. The capture of deep-sea crabs is also regulated by Division 5A (Regulations 38A, 38B and 38C) of the FRMR. An interim management plan has been gazetted and drafted for the fishery. This has resulted in the Department issuing


May 2003 65

permits to the 7 existing licensees. A copy of the interim management plan and associated deep-sea crab regulations are attached. Fishing Boat Licence Conditions 106 and 260 specify that: “Condition 106 The fishing boat named herein is authorised to take deep-sea crabs in the waters situated on the west coast of the State bounded by a line commencing at the intersection of the high water mark and 21 degrees 44 minutes south latitude drawn due west to the intersection of 21 degrees 44 minutes south latitude and the boundary of the Australian fishery zone, thence southwards along that boundary to its intersection with 34 degrees 24 minutes south latitude, thence due east along 34 degrees 24 minutes south latitude to the intersection 115 degrees 8 minutes east longitude, thence due north along 115 degrees 8 minutes east longitude to the high water mark, thence along the high water mark to the commencing point, subject to the following conditions:

• Rock lobster boats may only use their pot allocation during the rock lobster season, but can use crab traps during the rock lobster off season, but are not permitted to have any rock lobster on board during the rock lobster off season.

• Boats other than rock lobster boats can use traps all year round provided that no rock lobsters are onboard.

• Boats other than rock lobster boats at all times and rock lobster boats operating during the rock lobster off season, will only be permitted to operate outside the 200 metre depth contour for the purposes of taking deep sea crabs.

• The Minister for Fisheries can, at his discretion, withdraw access to the fishery at any time.”

“Condition 260 The fishing boat named herein is authorised to take deep sea crabs in the waters situated on the west coast of the State bounded by a line commencing at the intersection of the high water mark and 21 degrees 44 minutes south latitude drawn due west to the intersection of 21 degrees 44 minutes south latitude and the boundary of the Australian fishery zone, thence southwards along that boundary to its intersection with 34 degrees 24 minutes south latitude, thence due east along 34 degrees 24 minutes south latitude to the intersection 115 degrees 8 minutes east longitude, thence due north along 115 degrees 8 minutes east longitude to the high water mark, thence along the high water mark to the commencing point, subject to the following conditions:

• Rock lobster boats may only use their pot allocation during the rock lobster season, but can use crab traps during the rock lobster off season, but are not permitted to have any rock lobster on board during the rock lobster off season.

• Boats other than rock lobster boats can use traps all year round provided that no rock lobsters are onboard.

• Boats other than rock lobster boats at all times and rock lobster boats operating during the rock lobster off season, will only be permitted to operate outside the 150 metre depth contour for the purposes of taking deep sea crabs.

• The boat, the subject of this licence, will only be permitted to operate outside the 150 metre depth contour for the purposes of taking deep sea crabs until 31 December 2002.”


May 2003 66

Operational Objective In consultation with the industry members and other stakeholders, the Department periodically reviews the legislation, regulations and MPG to ensure the management framework remains relevant and aligned with the fishery’s management objectives. To have an effective and understandable plan for the management of this fishery with all of the 10 principles covered within the suite of arrangements developed for the fishery. Justification: Management arrangements ultimately enable the sustainable exploitation of a natural resource where the potential to harvest the resource could exceed the ability of the resource to replenish itself. The development of rules can restrict the potential to harvest (effort) to an appropriate level, and management arrangements can define processes within which access to the resource can be allocated to competing user groups (including natural ecosystems).

Indicator The extent to which the FRMA, FRMR, Management Plans, MPG and other management arrangements allow for the timely setting of appropriate effort levels and resource allocation in the fishery. The extent to which the interim management plan and supporting documentation addresses each of the issues and has appropriate objectives, indicators and performance measures, along with the planned management responses

Performance Measure This should be 100%. Evaluation To date, no formal evaluation of the management arrangements of the WCDSCF has been completed. The Department developed and implemented a comprehensive interim management plan for the WCDSCF in January 2003. The Interim Plan expires on 31 December 2004. To ensure that the level of effort within the fishery does not become inappropriately high while longer term management arrangements are developed, several of the current licensees had volunteered to be classified as ‘part time’ because of the potential for large amounts of excess effort within the fishing fleet. The interim plan formalised this arrangement by providing for Class P (part time) and Class F (full time) permits. The performance of current management arrangements can be evaluated on two levels – the micro level, i.e. the relevance of individual clauses/regulations and the role they


May 2003 67

play; and on the macro level, i.e. the relevance of the plans, endorsements or arrangements as a whole and the role that they play. Current Performance against each of the areas required within the “plan”5 are: An explicit description of the management unit – The management unit for the WCDSCF is currently an ‘endorsed’ FBL, however with the introduction of the draft plan the management unit will be an Interim Managed Fishery Permit. The issues addressed by the plan – The issues that need to be addressed by the WCDSCF management arrangements have been examined thoroughly and are documented within the 8 ESD component trees and their reports. Descriptions of the stocks, their habitat and the fishing activities – Although little is known about deep-sea crab stocks, a general description of their habitat and fishing activities are provided in section 2. Clear operational (measurable) objectives and their associated performance measures and indicators – These are now located in Section 5 for each of the major issues. Clearly defined rules, including what actions are to be taken if performance measures are triggered – For each of these major issues, the management actions that are planned to be taken if performance limits are exceeded are now articulated in Section 5. Economic and social characteristics of the groups involved in the fishery – A brief articulation of the economic and social characteristics of the fisheries is located in Section 3.3 and there is to be a greater level of detail accumulated during the process of completing the remainder of the ESD components. Management and regulatory details for the implementation of the actual management plan – The regulations relating to deep sea crab fisheries are located in the FRMR (copy provided to EA). They will also be located in the new (currently draft) ‘West Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery (Interim) Management Plan’. The reporting and assessment arrangements – These arrangements are documented in Section 5.4.4.1 and include annual reporting against current agreed performance limits and targets and a five year review of these arrangements and assumptions. How and when reviews of the plan will occur (including consultation mechanisms). – The FRMA clearly sets out how the process for the review of any management plan must occur. A review of the management arrangements for deep-sea crabs is currently underway with a view to developing a comprehensive management plan. A synopsis of how each of the ESD issues are being addressed – A synopsis of ESD issues has been compiled within the Overview Table of this report.

5 “Plan” – includes all management arrangements


May 2003 68

Robustness High The management plans and related legislation have provided a diverse but reasonably complete set of fisheries management legislation. The fact that the management arrangements are contained within legislation provides a high degree of stability with respect to how the fishery is managed. Fisheries Management Response Management has successfully begun to administer the management plan and related legislation to achieve and pursue the stated objectives for the WCDSCF. Changes will occasionally occurred to address key concerns or issues. Comments and Actions The Department developed the interim management plan in consultation with industry members. External Driver Check List Potential resistance of fishers to support Department initiated management arrangements. Potential reluctance of Minister to exercise power. 5.4.1.3 COMPLIANCE Rationale for Inclusion: Effective compliance is vital to achieve the management objectives of any fishery. At certain times of the year the WCDSCF operates adjacent to the WCRLMF. During the WCRLMF season (15 November to 30 June each year) the ability to conduct at sea compliance patrols and factory inspections on the west coast is high. The WCRLMF has a very high at sea enforcement presence. Outside of the WCRLMF season enforcement effort at sea for the WCDSCF is minimal. To counter this landing inspections are conducted to regularly ensure that fishers are adhering to fishing rules specified in legislation. Operational Objective To have sufficiently high levels of compliance with the FRMA, FRMR and various management plans, regulations, conditions [endorsements] and notices. Justification: The activities of the participants in the fishery need to be sufficiently consistent with the management framework and legislation in order to make it likely that the expected outcomes and objectives of the fishery will be achieved.


May 2003 69

Indicators The levels of compliance with the legislation, including the estimated level of illegal landings. Degree of understanding and acceptance of rules governing the operation of the WCDSCF by licensees and the broader fishing community. Performance Measure That 100% of inspected landings have no illegal catch. Data Collection Requirements and Processes Random Inspections of landings. Ongoing collection of data on illegal activities. Comparative data on the relative effectiveness of certain compliance techniques. Evaluation There have been minimal at-sea patrols and factory inspections of deep-sea crabs. The Department cannot justify the cost of checking seven boats so far out in the ocean. There has not been any detected offence within this fishery to date. Fisheries Officers carry out licence and gear inspections and provide advice to industry during the season. Robustness Medium The Department has limited patrol boat capacity for minor fisheries in the State. The compliance resources dedicated to the WCDSCF (when considering competing compliance requirements in other fisheries) are considered to be low, but gain greater compliance effort due to the fact that the spiny crab component of the fishery operates so closely alongside the WCRLMF (which has a high level of at-sea compliance effort). Current compliance effort is insufficient to accurately determine the level of non-compliance with fishery rules. However, a concern from the WCRLMF is that deep-sea crab operators could illegally take rock lobster. It is likely that these fishers closely monitor any fishing activity including the WCDSCF and report appropriate incidences to the Department for investigation and action; therefore introducing a high level of self-compliance. Fisheries Management Response Despite the relatively low levels of compliance work being done in the fishery, the Regional Services Branch of the Department continues to gather intelligence on suspected illegal activity within the fishery. The Department will also investigate allegations of non-compliant behaviour that may be reported to Fisheries Officers.


May 2003 70

Comments and Actions The Department will continue to provide high standard compliance service within budgetary and resourcing constraints to the WCDSCF. It is expected that in due course the completion of a compliance risk assessment for the fishery will enable the Department to better direct resources to further increase the effectiveness of the limited compliance activities. External Driver Check List Overseas/Northern Hemisphere deep-sea crab fisheries are over-exploited and result in declining catches eg. The Alaskan Snow Crab Fishery. This is likely to push up demand thus increasing prices for the WCDSCF and may provide a greater incentive for non-compliance. There are limited resources explicitly allocated to undertake intensive enforcement activities. However the proximity and interaction with the WCRLMF means that some of the compliance effort in that fishery will flow into the WCDSCF. 5.4.1.4 ALLOCATION AMONG USERS Rationale for Inclusion: With regard to deep-sea crab species, the recreational component of the fishery is negligible. Most of the fishery occurs up to 150 kilometres offshore in very deep water (600 m – 800 m) and as such, recreational fishing is possible but very unlikely. For similar reasons it is also unlikely that indigenous groups ever accessed this fishery. The allocation of deep-sea crab species to these sectors is therefore not addressed below. The spiny crab component of the fishery does overlap with the WCRLMF. There are measures to reduce the take (bycatch) of deep-sea crabs by this fishery to a daily allowance of 12 crabs per vessel. This limit is yet to be legislated although the Minister has agreed in principal to doing so. In addition, anecdotal evidence from licensees indicates that the Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery catch and retain deep-sea crabs. The crabs are caught on the fringes of their distribution and fetch a lesser price because they are a trawl by-product. The exact amounts of deep-sea crabs are unknown. There are other non-extractive interests in the resource and its related ecosystem that also need to be considered within the management process, for example conservation groups. Operational Objective To ensure that adequate management processes are in place that allow for the inclusive management (i.e. including a variety of stakeholders) in the WCDSCF. The processes should serve as a means of facilitating debate on management arrangements


May 2003 71

that will achieve an appropriate allocation of the deep-sea crab resource amongst the extractive (commercial fishers) and non-extractive stakeholders. Indicator The level of resource sharing conflict amongst stakeholder groups. The level of participation of interested groups / parties in any focused resource sharing process. The willingness of the various interest groups to participate in the resource sharing process and include other user-groups. Robustness High Presently, there is no specific catch by the recreational or indigenous sector. Due to the nature of the fishery, it is considered unlikely that recreational fishers will ever take deep-sea crabs. Fisheries Management Response To legislate to reduce the amount of potential effort that the WCRLMF may have for deep-sea crabs.

5.4.2 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES - LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS 5.4.2.1 OCS Arrangements Rationale for Inclusion: The Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) arrangements between Western Australia and the Commonwealth Government of 1988 established that it is the sole responsibility of the State of Western Australia to manage the deep-sea crab fisheries. The OSC “was developed to simplify legal arrangement for the management of fisheries operating in both State and Commonwealth waters”. (Fisheries Department of WA, 1988). This OCS agreement, jointly signed by Ministers Kerin, for the Commonwealth Government, and Grill for Western Australia, prescribes that all aquatic invertebrate fishing in Western Australia (including deep-sea crabs) out to the limit of the Australian Fishing Zone is under the jurisdiction of WA. This simplified the management of the fishery from the previous system where jurisdiction was split between WA within 3 nm of the coast and the Commonwealth, outside of this area. These arrangements are developed using Part 3 of the FRMA relating to the Commonwealth State management of fisheries and Section 12H of the Fisheries Act 1952 of the Commonwealth.


May 2003 72

Operational Objective To uphold the existing jurisdictional arrangements for the management of this fishery. Indicators Approaches from the Commonwealth Government to alter the existing OCS. Performance Measure Maintenance of the existing responsibility of the State for the management of the fishery. Data Requirements None specific. Evaluation The current jurisdictional arrangements are appropriate given the distribution of deep-sea crab and the good track record that exists under these arrangements for the management of these fisheries. Robustness Very high. Fisheries Management Response The Department has successfully managed the WCDSCF to date and sees no reason to alter the jurisdictional arrangements that currently exist as they relate to deep-sea crabs. Comments and Actions No action required. External Driver Check List Pressure to change any of the OCS arrangements.


May 2003 73

5.4.3 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES - CONSULTATION 5.4.3.1 Consultation (including communication) Rationale for Inclusion: The FRMA has certain requirements with regard to consultation that must be undertaken in the course of managing fisheries. The management of the WCDSCF is based around a robust communication process. There are sections in the FRMA that relate to the development of management plans (Section 64) and to the amendment of a management plan (Section 65). Although the WCDSCF does not currently fall under a management plan, it will be in the very near future. For this fishery, Section 64 has and will apply in the development of a management plan.

Section 65 of the FRMA states: Section 65. Procedure before amending management plan

(1) A management plan must specify an advisory committee or advisory committees or a person or persons who are to be consulted before the plan is amended or revoked.

(2) Before amending or revoking a management plan the Minister must consult

with the advisory committee or advisory committees or the person or persons specified for that purpose in the plan.

(3) Despite subsection (2), the Minister may amend a management plan without

consulting in accordance with that subsection if, in the Ministers opinion, the amendment is –

(a) required urgently; or

(b) of a minor nature

(4) If –

(a) the Minister amends a management plan; and

(b) the amendment is made without consultation because it is, in the Minister’s opinion , required urgently,

the Minister must consult with the advisory committee or advisory committees or the person or persons specified for that purpose in the plan as soon as practicable after the plan has been amended.


May 2003 74

All licensees within the fishery must be consulted prior to amending the management plan. In the development of new management arrangements, all current [106 or 260] condition holders on their FBLs have been involved in the process. The Department holds regular meetings (several each year) with deep-sea crab authorisation holders on the west coast. These meetings typically involve discussions about management, research and compliance issues in the fishery, and provide a forum for industry to raise concerns and/or ask questions of the Department concerning management arrangements. Operational Objective To administer a consultation process that is in accordance with the requirements of the FRMA and allows for the best possible advice from all relevant stakeholders to be provided to the decision maker (Minister/ED) in a timely manner. Indicators The Minister (or the Department on his behalf), conforms to the consultation requirements of the FRMA. The level to which licensees and other stakeholders consider that they are adequately and appropriately consulted. Performance Measures Proper consultation procedures have been followed in development of the new management plan. Regular industry meetings. Data Requirements The views of industry collected from stakeholders at each meeting. When an amendment is proposed, documentation of the formal consultation procedures. Evaluation Consultation on management of the WCDSCF are conducted in an open, accountable and inclusive environment where all sectors of the industry and the Departments managers collectively identify and discuss appropriate courses of action. Decision makers are provided with advice based on this consultation and reasons are provided for decisions that vary from consultation-based advice. Robustness High The consultation process is very well understood with relatively high levels of participation from the various stakeholder groups.


May 2003 75

Fisheries Management Response The Department is attempting to improve communication links with industry in the WCDSCF through regular correspondence and encouraging phone communications with the fishery manager. Comments and Actions The Department will continue to provide a commercial fisheries management officer who coordinates and further develops the consultation process for the WCDSCF. External Driver Check List Despite the aforementioned consultation processes that are in place, disaffected parties may still seek to use political avenues to further their cause. 5.4.3.2 Reporting Rationale for Inclusion: It is important that the outcomes of the fisheries management processes administered by the Department for the WCDSCF are available for review by external parties. It is also important that the community is sufficiently informed on the status of the fisheries, given that industry are utilising a community resource. The reports that are currently developed annually include: the State of the Fisheries Report, the Annual report to the Auditor, the ESD report, and this application to EA. Operational Objective To report annually to the Parliament and community on the status of the fishery.

Indicators

• The extent to which external bodies with knowledge on the management of fisheries resources have access to relevant material.

• Level of acceptance within the community. Performance Measure General acceptance of the management system by the community. Data Requirements The majority of data required to generate reports is already collected in the course of pursuing resource management objectives. The Department conducts an annual survey of the community with respect to its opinion on the status of the State’s fisheries and their attitudes to the performance of the Department.


May 2003 76

Evaluation The Department has implemented more than one process to report on the performance of this fishery and in doing so has ensured that the community has access to this information. The Department has been the recipient of a number of awards for excellence for its standard of reporting - Premiers Awards in 1998, 1999 for Public Service excellence, Category Awards in Annual Reporting in 1998, 1999, 2000; Lonnie Awards in 2000, 2001. Current Reporting Arrangements for this fishery include: State of Fisheries There is annual reporting on the performance of the fishery against the agreed objectives within the “State Of The Fishery Report”. The document is available in hard copy format but is also available from the Department’s web site in PDF format. Annual Report A summary of this report is presented within the Department’s Annual Report and is used in some of the Performance Indicators that are reviewed annually by the OAG. The OAG also periodically audits that the information (both the data and processes) used to generate these reports. ESD The Department is currently completing a full ESD report (of which the material presented in this application is a subset), which will cover not only the environmental aspects of the fishery but the full social and economic issues. Once completed this too will be available from the web site. Reports to Industry Each year, the status of the resource and effectiveness of current management are presented to the whole of industry in a meeting in major population centre. Robustness High Fisheries Management Response For many years the Department has produced substantial and high quality documents that report on the operation of the Department and the status of its fisheries – these reports are the Annual Report and the State of the Fisheries.


May 2003 77

External Driver Check List The assessments provided by independent review bodies and the community.


May 2003 78

6. REFERENCES Fisheries Department of WA (July 1988). The Offshore Constitutional Settlement

Western Australia 1988. Fisheries Management Paper No. 20. Fletcher, W.J. (2002) Policy for Implementation of Ecologically Sustainable

Development for Fisheries and Aquaculture with in Western Australia. Fisheries Management Paper, No. 157.

Fletcher, W., Chesson, J., Sainsbury, K., Fisher, M., Hundloe, T., and Whitworth, B.

(2002) Reporting on ecologically sustainable development: a “ How to Guide” for fisheries in Australia. FRDC project report 2000/145.

Gardner, C. (1998) The larval and reproductive biology of the giant crab

(Pseudocarcinus gigas). Ph.D thesis, University of Tasmania, Australia. Hastie, L. C. (1995) Deep-water Geryonid crabs: a continental slope resource. In:

Ansell, A. D., Gibson, R. N. and Barnes, M. (Eds.), Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review. UCL Press, London, pp. 561-584.

Jones, D. and Morgan, G. (2002) A field guide to crustaceans of Australian waters.

Western Australian Museum. pp.224. Kailola, P. J., Williams, M. J., Stewart, P. C., Riechelt, R. E., McNee, A. and Grieve,

C. (1993) Australian Fisheries Resources, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra. 422pp.

Levings, A., Mitchell, B. D., Heeren, T., Austin, C. and Matheson, J. (1995) Fisheries

biology of the giant crab (Psuedocarcinus gigas, Branchyura, Oziidae) in Southern Australia. In: High Latitude Crabs: Biology Management and Economics. University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report no. 96-02, Laska. Pp 126-151.

Levings, A., Mitchell, B. D. McGarvey, R., Mathews, J., Laurenson, L., Austin, C.,

Heeron, T., Murphy, N., Miller, A., Roswell, M., and Jones, P. (2001) Fisheries biology of the giant crab Psuedocarcinus gigas. FRDC Final Report 93/220 and 97/132: 390pp.

McGarvey, R., Levings, A.H. and Matthews, J. (2002) Moulting growth of the

Australian giant crab, Pseudocarcinus gigas. Marine and Freshwater Research, 53: 869-881.

Yearsley, G. K., Last, P. R. and Ward, R. D. (1999) Australian Seafood Handbook.

CSIRO Marine Research Hobart. pp461.


May 2003 79

APPENDIX 1 ACRONYMS CL Carapace Length CPUE Catch per Unit Effort EA Environment Australia ED Executive Director of the Department of Fisheries EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development FBL Fishing Boat Licence FRDC Fisheries Research and Development Corporation FRMA Fisheries Resources Management Act, 1994 FRMR Fisheries Resources Management Regulations, 1995 GPS Global Positioning System MPG Ministerial Policy Guidelines NT Northern Territory OAG Office of the Auditor General OCS Offshore Constitutional Settlement SCCF South Coast Crustacean Fisheries SCFA Standing Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture WA Western Australia WA Museum Western Australia Museum WAFIC Western Australia Fishing Industry Council WCRLMF West Coast Rock Lobster Managed Fishery WCDSCF West Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery WRL Western Rock Lobsters WTO Wildlife Trade Operation


May 2003 80

APPENDIX 2 CATCH AND EFFORT DATA FORM Copy of the compulsory catch and effort form that is required to be completed on a monthly basis by all commercial fishers using pots.


May 2003 81

APPENDIX 3 LOGBOOK INFORMATION FORM Copy of the catch and effort form that is completed on a voluntary basis by commercial fishers using pots. In the case of the WCDSCF, being an interim managed fishery the completion of this form is compulsory.

Documents

Application to Environment Australia on the West Coast ...€¦ · Appendix 2 Catch and Effort Data Form.....80 Appendix 3 Logbook Information Form .....81. Application to Environment