Page 1 of

Threatened Species Nomination 2020

Details of the nominated species or subspeciesNAME OF SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES)Scientific name: Dentiraja australisCommon name(s): Sydney skate, Common skate

TAXONOMYProvide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order).Dentiraja australis (Macleay 1884), synonymous with Dipturus australis and Raja australis

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: ChondrichthyansSubclass: Elasmobranchii Order: Rajiformes Family: RajidaeGenus: DentirajaSpecies: Australis

This species was originally classed as Raja australis (Macleay 1884). A more fine-scale assessment of Australian skates placed it in the Dipturus genus (Last and Yearsley 2002; Last and Stevens 2009; Weigmann 2016) however a recent molecular assessment has reclassified it within the Dentiraja genus (Last et al., 2016, unpubl.).

There is no evidence of hybridisation with other species.

CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTEDIs the species’ taxonomy conventionally accepted?

YesNo

If the species is not conventionally accepted please provide the following information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000:

a taxonomic description of the species in a form suitable for publication in conventional scientific literature;

OR evidence that a scientific institution has a specimen of the species, and a written statement

signed by a person who is a taxonomist and has relevant expertise (has worked with, or is a published author on, the class of species nominated), that the species is considered to be a new species.

n.a.

DESCRIPTIONProvide a description of the species including where relevant, distinguishing features, size and social structureHow distinct is this species in its appearance from other species? How likely is it to be misidentified?

Dentiraja australis is a skate of medium size, with males and females both reaching approximately 55cm total length (TL; Last et al. 2016). Its disk is dorsoventrally flattened, quadrangular and smooth, usually brown with pale yellow blotches on the dorsal side (Last et al. 2016; Figure 1). Its snout is moderately elongated. Similar to other skates, it has five pairs of ventral gill slits and its flat pectoral fins are fused to the head. Its eyes are located dorsally, along with relatively large spiracles. It has two dorsal fins located near the tail tip, and rows of thorns along the tail (three in males, five in females; Last et al. 2016).

Page 2 of

It has several features that are distinctive from similar skates, including the breadth of the tail, number of thorn rows, a single thorn in the central disc area and males have malar thorn patches near each eye (AFMA 2015; Last et al. 2016). Misidentification of this species is therefore unlikely.

The social system of D. australis is unknown.

DISTRIBUTIONProvide a succinct overview of the species’ known or estimated current and past distribution, including international/national distribution. Provide a map if available.Is the species protected within the reserve system (e.g. national parks, Indigenous Protected Areas, or other conservation estates, private land covenants, etc.)? If so, which populations? Which reserves are actively managed for this species? Give details.

Skates of the Dentiraja genus are endemic to Australian waters and D.australis is found only on the east coast. It has a relatively restricted latitudinal and bathymetric range, occurring on the inner continental shelf to the upper slope (Last et al. 2016), from Moreton Bay (Queensland) in the north to Tathra (New South Wales) in the south (Stevens and Valenti 2009; Figure 2). There is evidence to suggest that other skates are geographically philopatric (Flowers et al. 2016), however the home range and movement patterns of D. australis are not known. Understanding the seasonal movements of this species should be a priority as this has major implications for fisheries impacts (the main threat to its viability, see Threats) and its response to management actions.

There are no captive populations used for propagation.

Heupel et al. (2018) found a range overlap of only 9.6% with Commonwealth marine protected parks (9.6% of distribution), all of which has no fishery exclusions. Therefore its range is afforded very little protection. The extent of state-based protected areas has not been assessed. The species is not known to occur within an ecological community listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999(EPBC Act).

BIOLOGY/ECOLOGYProvide a summary of biological and ecological information.Include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on: life cycle including age at sexual maturity, life expectancy, natural mortality rates specific biological characteristics habitat requirements for the species for fauna: feeding behaviour and food preference and daily seasonal movement patterns for flora: pollination and seed dispersal patterns

The biology and ecology of this species is poorly understood, but inference from closely related and sympatric skates can provide some insights. It is known that males and females both reach around 55cm TL (Last et al. 2016). Generation length is unknown but males are thought to be sexually mature at 43-48cm TL (Last and Stevens 1994). The average life expectancy is also unknown but closely related Australian skates are thought to live between 9 – 12 years (Treloar 2008). This late maturity suggests that, as with many skates and rays (Simpfendorfer and Kyne 2009), this species may have protracted recovery rates and are therefore vulnerable to exploitation. Natural mortality rates are unknown.

D. australis is oviparous, and eggs are deposited in large, quadrangular cases with corner extensions. Our knowledge of its breeding system is limited, although some detail is known about related species. For example, the similarly sized and late maturing D. lemprieri (Thornback skate; maximum size 55cm; females mature at 42cm) have a gestation period of 4 to 5 months and a birth size of 9.5 to 10.8cm (Treloar 2015). It is generally agreed that this group of species have low productivity and are highly vulnerable to extinction with ongoing levels of exploitation (Simpfendorfer and Kyne 2009; Treloar 2008).

D. australis is found on the inner continental shelf to upper slope, at depths of 22 to 325m, and is a demersal species that spends time resting on the sandy substrate (Last et al. 2016). Its trophic level is 3.34,

Page 3 of

suggesting it is a meso-predator (Reis and Figueira 2020). It is likely to be an ambush predator, with a benthic diet of crustaceans, cephalopods and bony fish (Reis and Figueira 2020).

ThreatsIDENTIFICATION OF KNOWN THREATS AND IMPACT OF THE THREATSIdentify in the tables below any known threats to the species, under the provided headings indicate if the threat is past, current or future and whether the threats are actual or potential.Past threats Impact of threatMortalities from commercial trawl fisheries.

Given its demersal habitat, D. australis is most impacted by small and large-scale trawl operations (Stevens and Valenti 2009), predominantly from the otter trawl method (Figure 3), and to a lesser extent from the mid-water Danish Seine method (Walker and Gason 2007). It has been caught as marketable byproduct in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF; Figure 4) which has been operating (in various forms) since 1915 (Stevens and Valenti 2009; Novaglio et al. 2018). In particular, the upper slope of NSW has been subject to relatively intensive trawling since 1968 (Graham et al. 2001). Historical estimates of catch and landing numbers are hampered by the lack of species-specific records (Stevens and Valenti 2009) but these records can still provide insight into population trends for this species. For example, a fishery-independent survey showed a decline of 83% in skate catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) in southern NSW over 20 years (falling from 32-33 kg/h in 1976-77 to 4-8 kg/h in 1996-97; Graham et al. 2001; Graham et al. 1997). However, it is known that D. australis was one of the most common skates on the central-eastern continental shelf and this was reflected in the high proportion of D.australis in catches from its depth range (Graham et al. 2001). It is therefore likely that this decline is reflective of the species trend.Furthermore, data from the Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program (ISMP) of the SESSF and fisher logbooks from the South Eastern Trawl Fishery (now the CTS), showed a substantial decline of D. australis was observed, following a rise-peak-decline trend (from 1998 -2006, peaking in 2003; Walker and Gason 2007). During this period, the total annual catch of this species was 157 239 kg, all of which was discarded (Walker and Gason 2007). The targeted teleost species in the SESSF are now under quota and skates have increasingly been considered as an attractive alternative meat for consumption (Stevens and Valenti 2009). Skates in this region were generally discarded, but it is likely now that larger skates are more often retained as marketable byproduct (Stevens and Valenti 2009). In 2005 observer-monitored catches found a 29% retainment rate of D. australis (ISMP data in Stevens and Valenti 2009). Recent bycatch restrictions for D. australis may offset this (see Threat Abatement), but this is yet to be measured, and the post-release survival of discarded skates is unknown.

Monitoring harvest numbers through sales is difficult due to ambiguous labelling in the major markets locally and nationally (Stevens and Valenti 2009) and requires on inference from pooled species numbers. For example, 43 tonnes of “flaps” (pectoral fins?) were sold in 2002 (around 134 tonnes live weight; Stevens and Valenti 2009).

Trawling may also disturb benthic habitat and key behavioural processes, which in turn can have sublethal impacts that affect the species viability. It may also impact on recruitment, for example by damaging egg cases or juvenile refuges ( ). The full extent of this has yet tobe assessed for D. australis.

Page 4 of

Page 5 of

This threat is ongoing – please see Current and Future Threats.Current threats Impact of threatMortalities from commercial trawl fisheries.

As the species is not under mandatory quota, current population trends are not quantitatively assessed within the fisheries. Given that some level of fishing pressure is still present over most of its range, it likely that numbers continue to decline. In 2007, the species was IUCN listed as Vulnerable, based on past and continuing population declines of >30% across its range (Stevens and Valenti 2009). At the time of the assessment, some areas of its distribution in central and northern NSW were lightly trawled and trawl-free areas (Stevens and Valenti 2009).However more recently Heupel et al. (2018) found no overlap with Commonwealth fishing exclusion zones, and the current IUCN listing is due to be updated. In addition, in both a sustainability assessment of the SESSF (Zhou et al. 2012) and a residual risk assessment of the otterboard trawl sub-fishery (AFMA 2014), D. australis populations were considered to be unsustainable and the species was assessed as being at extremely high risk of extinction. Based on data from 2007 to 2010, Zhou et al. (2012) found it to be one of the four species (of the 447 fish species assessed) for which the fishing mortality rate (F) was higher thanthe mean Fcrash (defined as the minimum unsustainable mortality rate that would likely lead to population extinction).

Actual future threats Impact of threatMortalities from commercial trawl fisheries.

Given that the impacting fisheries are still in operation over most of its range, the threats listed above are likely to continue in some form. The extent to which this will be offset by species-general bycatch management (see Threat Abatement) is yet to be assessed, and thepopulation effect of this may be substantially lagged.

Potential future threats Impact of threatSmall population effects. The large declines observed suggest that there may be ongoing

underlying threats associated with small population sizes, for example Allee effects (Dennis et al. 2016) and inbreeding depression (O’Grady et al. 2006). These factors have been demonstrated to not only exacerbate the effects of current threatening processes but also to increasevulnerability to stochastic disturbances.

THREAT ABATEMENTGive an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed.

Bycatch assessment and mitigation is required for Commonwealth fisheries and the relevant trawl fisheries are under quota management. The fishery has general mitigation strategies employed for all at risk species.D. australis has been recognised as being at high risk (AFMA 2019) and catches of D. australis should be discarded. However the post-release survival rate is unknown. Species-general actions that have been adopted may benefit this species including six monthly log book checks, species identification guides for operators and the trial of Gulper Shark Exclusion device (GED). Given that these strategies are not species- specific, the benefits of these actions for D. australis are yet to become clear.

Skates are one of the most understudied of marine taxa (Last et al. 2016). Additional contemporary baseline data (such as population size, distribution and connectivity) are needed in order to understand population trends, the impacts of current fisheries practices, and the response of D. australis to management initiatives. Close monitoring of harvest levels and better supply-chain labelling at the species level will inform population viability models. These models will be improved with a greater understanding of the life history characteristics and movement of this species. Despite the lack of complete data, enough can be inferred about the species decline to suggest a precautionary approach may be valuable, particularly as it demonstrates a restricted range and low productivity. In the ICUN assessment, Stevens and Valenti (2009) suggested that better monitoring may result in a higher protection category in the future.

Page 6 of

Listing categoryCURRENT LISTING CATEGORY

What category is the species currently listed in under the EPBC Act? (If you are nominating the species for removal from the list, please complete the nomination form for removal from the list).

Not Listed Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation

dependentNOMINATED LISTING CATEGORYNote: after answering the questions below relating to the eligibility again the criteria sufficient evidence should be available to determine the category for listing. Refer to the indicative threshold criteria in the guidelines.

Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent

Transferring a species to another category in the listNote: If the nomination is to transfer a species between categories in the threatened species list, please complete this section. If the nomination is for a new listing please skip this section and proceed to the Eligibility section below.If the nomination is to remove a species from the list, please use the nomination form for removal from the list.

REASON FOR THE NOMINATION TO TRANSFER TO ANOTHER CATEGORYPlease mark the boxes that apply by double clicking them with your mouse.

What is the reason for the nomination:Genuine change of status New Knowledge Mistake Other

Taxonomic change – ‘split’ newly described ‘lumped’ no longer valid

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

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

Eligibility against the criteria

Page 7 of

CRITERION 1Population size reduction (reduction in total numbers)Population reduction (measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations) based on any of A1 to A4

Critically Endangered Very severe reduction

Endangered Severe reduction

Vulnerable Substantial reduction

A1 ≥ 90% ≥ 70% ≥ 50%

A2, A3, A4 ≥ 80% ≥ 50% ≥ 30%A1 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred or

suspected in the past and the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased.

A2 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred or suspected in the past where the causes of the reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible.

A3 Population reduction, projected or suspected to be met in the future (up to a maximum of 100 years) [(a) cannot be used for A3]

A4 An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population reduction where the time period must include both the past and the future (up to a max. of 100 years in future), and where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible.

(a) direct observation [except A3]

(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon

based (c) a decline in area of occupancy,on any extent of occurrence and/or quality ofof the habitatfollowing

(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation

(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites

Please identify whether the species meets A1, A2, A3 or A4. Include an explanation, supported by data and information, on how the species meets the criterion (A1 – A4). If available include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on: whether the population trend is increasing, decreasing or static estimated generation length and method used to estimate the generation lengthYou must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate a population size reduction this must be statedDue to its distribution, benthic behaviour and marketability, D. australis has been highly impacted by commercial trawl fisheries, and this is likely to have been exacerbated by a low intrinsic rates of increase that is typical of low productivity skates. The precise level of impact is difficult to determine for this species as it has often been recorded under a generic label with other skates and rays. However estimates of skate decline within areas of its range are likely to be representative of this species as it has previously been one of the most common skates in its depth range. A fishery-independent survey showed a decline of 83% in skate CPUE in southern NSW over 20 years (CPUE falling from 32-33 kg/h in 1976-77 to 4-8 kg/h in 1996-97 (Graham et al.1997, Graham et al. 2001), in which D. australis was well represented in its depth zone. Data from observer monitoring of the CTS found a rise-peak-decline trend from 1998 to 2006 (Walker and Gason 2007). Further, a population decline was estimated at >30% across its range, leading to an IUCN listing of Vulnerable (under Criterion 1 A2bd and A4bd; Stevens and Valenti 2009). It is possible that this decline is a conservative relative to contemporary numbers, as a more recent assessment has found that its range is no longer partially protected from fishing pressures (Heupel et al. 2018), and abatement measures employed have not been specific to this species. Further, in fisheries assessments, D. australis populations were considered to be unsustainable and at extremely high risk of extinction from fishery impacts, with a fishing mortality rate (F) greater than Fcrash (defined above; AFMA 2014; Zhou et al. 2012). It continues to be taken as marketable byproduct, and the benefits of the shift in targeted species are yet to be assessed.

submits that D. australis is eligible for listing as Vulnerable under Criterion 1 A2(b) and (d).

Page 8 of

CRITERION 2:

Geographic distribution is precarious for either extent of occurrence AND/OR area of occupancy

Critically Endangered Very restricted

Endangered Restricted

Vulnerable Limited

B1. Extent of occurrence (EOO) < 100 km2 < 5,000 km2 < 20,000 km2

B2. Area of occupancy (AOO) < 10 km2 < 500 km2 < 2,000 km2

AND at least 2 of the following 3 conditions:

(a) Severely fragmented OR Number of locations = 1 ≤ 5 ≤ 10

(b) Continuing decline observed, estimated, inferred or projected in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat; (iv) number of locations or subpopulations; (v) number of mature individuals

(c) Extreme fluctuations in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) number of locations or subpopulations; (number of mature individuals

Please refer to the ‘Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria’ for assistance with interpreting the criterion particularly in relation to calculating area of occupancy and extent of occurrence and understanding the definition and use of location.

Please identify whether the species meets B1 or B2. Include an explanation, supported by data and information, on how the species meets at least 2 of (a) (b) or (c).

Please note that locations must be defined by a threat. A location is a geographically or ecological distinct area in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the species present.

If available include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on: Whether there are smaller populations of the species within the total population and, if so,

the degree of geographic separation between the smaller populations within the total population

Any biological, geographic, human induced or other barriers enforcing separationYou must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate that the geographic distribution isprecarious for either extent of occurrence AND/OR area of occupancy this must be stated.There is evidence to suggest declining numbers but the spatial patterning of this decline has not been studied.

Page 9 of

CRITERION 3

Small population size and declineCritically Endangered

Very lowEndangered

LowVulnerable

LimitedEstimated number of mature individuals < 250 < 2,500 < 10,000

AND either (C1) or (C2) is true

C1 An observed, estimated or projected continuing decline of at least (up to a max. of 100 years in future

Very high rate 25% in 3 years or

1 generation (whichever is longer)

High rate 20% in 5 years or

2 generation (whichever is

longer)

Substantial rate 10% in 10 years or

3 generations (whichever is longer)

C2 An observed, estimated, projected or inferred continuing decline AND its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival based on at least 1 of the following 3 conditions:

(i) Number of mature individuals in each subpopulation ≤ 50 ≤ 250 ≤ 1,000

(a)(ii) % of mature individuals in one

subpopulation = 90 – 100% 95 – 100% 100%

(b) Extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals

Please identify the estimated total number of mature individuals and either an answer to C1 or C2. Include an explanation, supported by data and information, on how the species meets the criteria. Note: If the estimated total number of mature individuals is unknown but presumed to be likely to be>10 000 you are not required to provide evidence in support of C1 or C2 just state that the number is likely to be >10 000.

You must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate small population size and declinethis must be stated.Although there is evidence for declining population size, no robust estimates of the number of matureindividuals are available.

CRITERION 4:

Very small populationCritically Endangered

Extremely lowEndangered

Very LowVulnerable

Low

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

Please identify the estimated total number of mature individuals and evidence on how the figure was derived.

You must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate very small population size and decline this must be stated.

A substantial reduction in the population of D. australis is inferred from fishery-independent surveys however there are no quantitative assessments of the number of mature individuals.

Page 10 of

CRITERION 5

Quantitative AnalysisCritically Endangered

Immediate futureEndangered Near future

Vulnerable Medium-term future

Indicating the probability of extinction in the wild to be:

≥ 50% in 10 years or 3 generations,

whichever is longer (100 years max.)

≥ 20% in 20 years or5 generations,

whichever is longer (100 years max.)

≥ 10% in 100 years

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

There are currently no comprehensive analyses of the future extinction probability of D. australis.

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

Criterion 1 A1 (specify at least one of the following) a) b)AND/OR A2 (specify at least one of the following) a) b)AND/OR

A3 (specify at least one of the following) b) c) A4 (specify at least one of the following) a) b)

B1 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) B2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b)

estimated number of mature individuals AND

either C1 or C2 either a or bC1 OR 2 of C2 a(i), a(ii) or b C2 a (i) a (ii)C2 b)

Criterion 1Criterion 2

c) d) e);

c) d) e);

d) e); AND/OR

c) d) e)

c); AND/OR

c)

Criterion 2

Criterion 3

Criterion 4

Criterion 5

For conservation dependent nominations only:

Conservation Dependent ConsiderationsOnly complete this section if nominating for consideration under the conservation dependent category, or if nominating a fish (or harvested marine species) with a management plan answer either the first or second question below, whichever is more appropriate.

Please note that the currently only fish species that have been listed under this criterion. However it can be applied to other species.CONSERVATION PROGRAM (if species is a fish or harvested marine species, answer the question below instead)

a) Give details of the conservation program for which this species is a focus.b) Provide details of how the species would become Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically

Endangeredshould the program cease.

n.a.

Page 11 of

FISH MANAGEMENT PLANSa) Give details of the plan of management that focuses on the fish.b) Provide details of how the plan provides for management actions necessary to stop the

decline of and support the recovery of the species, so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised.

c) Explain the effect on the fish if the plan of management ceasedn.a.

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

Other Considerations

INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCEIs the species known to have cultural significance for Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available.

has been unable to locate relevant information on the Indigenous cultural significance of D. australis.

CONSERVATION THEMEThe conservation theme for the 2020 nomination period is:‘Listed threatened species which require reassessment to harmonise their listing status across range states and territories’Explain how the nomination relates to this theme. Note that nominations which do not relate to the theme will still be considered.This nomination for D. australis to be listed as Vulnerable is not relevant to this year’s assessment theme.

FURTHER STUDIESIdentify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.).n.a.

Page 12 of

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

Page 13 of

Figure 2: Distribution of D. australis. Source – IUCN Red List (Stevens & Valenti, 2009).

Page 14 of

Image removed due to Copyright

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

Page 15 of

Image removed due to Copyright

Page 16 of

Image removed due to Copyright

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

This nomination was drafted by ,

Email: Phone:

E:

Page 17 of

Mobile:

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

AFMA (2014) Residual Risk Assessment: Teleost and Chondrichthyan Species. Report for the Otter Board Trawl Method of the Commonwealth Trawl Sector, Canberra, Australia.

AFMA (2015) Deepwater Shark and Skate Identification Guide for Commercial Fishers in Southern Australia, Canberra, Australia.

AFMA (2019) Commonwealth Trawl Sector (Otterboard trawl & Danish Seine), Bycatch and Discarding Workplan 2018 – 2019, Canberra, Australia.

Dennis B., Assas L., Elaydi,S., Kwessi E. and Livadiotis G. (2016) Allee effects and resilience in stochastic populations. Theoretical Ecology, 9(3): 323-335.

Flowers K.I., Ajemian M.J., Bassos-Hull K., Feldheim K.A., Hueter R.E., Papastamatiou Y.P. and Chapman D.D. (2016) A review of batoid philopatry, with implications for future research and populationmanagement, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 562: 251-261.

Graham K.J., Andrew N.L. and Hodgson K.E. (2001) Changes in relative abundance of sharks and rays of on Australian Southeast Fishery trawl grounds after twenty years of fishing. Marine and Freshwater Research 55: 549–561.

Graham K. J., Wood B. R. and Andrew N. L. (1997) Survey of upper slope trawling grounds between Sydney and Gabo Island (and comparisons with the 1976-77 survey), Kapala Cruise Report 117, NSW Fisheries Cronulla, New South Wales, Australia.

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

Last P.R. and Stevens J.D. (2009) Sharks and Rays of Australia, CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Last P.R., Weigmann S., and Yang L. (2016) Changes to the nomenclature of the skates (Chondrichthyes: Rajiformes), Rays of the World: Supplementary Information, CSIRO Special Publication, Clayton, Australia.

Last P.R., Naylor G., Séret B., White W., de Carvalho M. and Stehmann M. (eds.) (2016) Rays of the World. CSIRO publishing, Australia.

Last P.R. and Yearsley G.K. (2002) Zoogeography and relationships of Australasian skates (Chondrichthyes: Rajidae), Journal of Biogeography, 29(12): 1627-1641.

Macleay W.J. (1884) Some results of trawl fishing outside Port Jackson, Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 8(4): 457-462.

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

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

Reis M. and Figueira W.F (2020) Diet and feeding habits of two endemic demersal bycatch elasmobranchs:Trygonorrhina fasciata & Dentiraja australis. Ichthyological Research; 1-10.

Page 18 of

Simpfendorfer C.A. and Kyne P.M. (2009) Limited potential to recover from overfishing raises concerns for deep-sea sharks, rays and chimaeras, Environmental Conservation, 36(2): 97-103.

Stevens J.D. and Valenti S.V. (2009) Dipturus australis, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T161637A5470186.

Thrush S.E. and Dayton P.K. (2002) Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and dredging: Implications for Marine Biodiversity, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33: 449-473.

Treloar M.A. (2008) Aspects of the life history of skates from south-eastern Australia (PhD thesis), Deakin University.

Treloar M.A. (2015) Dentiraja lemprieri, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T161489A68619906.

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

Weigmann S. (2016) Annotated checklist of the living sharks, batoids and chimaeras (Chondrichthyes) of the world, with a focus on biogeographical diversity, Journal of Fish Biology, 88(3): 837-1037.

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

Nominator's DetailsNote: Your details are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties, except for state and territory governments and scientific committee which have agreed to collaborate with the Commonwealth on national threatened species assessments using a common assessment method.If there are multiple nominators please include details below for all nominators.

FULL NAME

ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE)

CONTACT DETAILSEmail: Phone:Postal address:

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

Signed:

TITLE (e.g. Mr/Mrs/Dr/Professor/etc.)

* If submitting by email, please attach an electronic signature

Date:

Page 19 of

Where did you find out about nominating species?

The Committee would appreciate your feedback regarding how you found out about the nomination process. Your feedback will ensure that future calls for nominations can be advertised appropriately.

Please tick

Department website Web search The Australian newspaper word of mouth

Journal/society/organisation web site or email? If so which one ..............................................

Social media? If so which ............................................................................................................

Other............................................................................................................................................

Lodging your nomination

Completed nominations may be lodged either:1. by email in Microsoft Word format to: epbc.nominations@environment.gov.au, or2. by mail to: The Director

Species Information and Policy Section Department of the Environment and Energy GPO Box 787CANBERRA ACT 2601

* If submitting by mail, you must include an electronic copy on a memory stick.

NOMINATIONS CLOSE AT 5PM ON 31 MARCH 2020.