Threatened species & ecological communities

The Spotted Handfish 1999-2001 Recovery Plan

BD Bruce and MA Green
Spotted Handfish Recovery Team, March 1998
ISBN 0 643 061657

Spotted Handfish

Contents

Summary

CURRENT SPECIES STATUS:

Endangered (Schedule 1 Endangered Species Protection Act 1992); Endangered (ASFB Threatened Species Listing); Critically Endangered (IUCN 1996 Red List), protected in 1995 under the Tasmanian State Living Marine Resources Act. The spotted handfish is endemic to a small area of south eastern Tasmania. Once considered to be the most common of the inshore handfishes, it has suffered a significant decline in abundance and is now rarely encountered. Recent surveys of 50 sites covering the species previous known range located colonies at only three localities and isolated individuals at a further seven. Total population estimates are not yet available, although surveys of one site suggest a colony size of 300-500 individuals (adults and juveniles). The spotted handfish is considered to be vulnerable to extinction due to its highly restricted and patchy distribution, low population density, limited dispersal capabilities and a reproductive strategy of producing low numbers of demersal eggs that are highly susceptibility to disturbance.

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITING FACTORS:

Spotted handfish occur primarily on unconsolidated substrate ranging from well sorted coarse sand and shell grit, to areas of fine sand and silt. They have been recorded from depths between 2- 30 m but appear to be most common in 5-10 m. Spotted handfish spawn around small, vertical, semi-rigid structures. The stalked ascidian, Sycozoa sp, provides the primary spawning substrate within the Derwent Estuary, although spawning around seagrasses, sponges, Caulerpa and polychaete worm tubes has been recorded in Frederick Henry Bay. Reduction in available spawning substrate, egg loss and a general decline in habitat quality caused by introduced marine species or urban, rural and industrial development of the Derwent system may be factors which negatively impact on the species. Due to their highly restricted dispersal capabilities, the ability of spotted handfish to recolonise areas from which they have been displaced is considered to be low.

RECOVERY PLAN OBJECTIVES:

To secure existing populations of spotted handfish, reduce the chances of future decline, enhance populations in areas where numbers have been seriously depleted or lost and subsequently achieve down listing from the current endangered status.

RECOVERY CRITERIA:

ACTIONS NEEDED:

ESTIMATED COST OF RECOVERY*:

Actions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Totals
 

TC

ESP

TC

ESP

TC

ESP

TC

ESP

TC

ESP

TC

ESP

TC

ESP

TC

ESP

1999

90.4

75.5

92.7

66.2

124.4

1.4

7.2

5.2

23.9

16.4

1.5

1.0

2.8

1.8

342.9

167.5

2000

93.2

77.8

94.0

67.4

131.4

6.4

22.9

19.9

24.2

15.2

1.5

1.0

2.2

1.2

369.4

188.9

2001

105.4

84.8

95.5

68.6

124.4

1.4

16.7

13.6

21.1

13.1

8.7

6.2

2.2

1.2

374.0

188.9

Total

289.0

238.1

282.2

202.2

380.2

9.2

46.8

38.7

69.2

29.7

11.7

8.2

7.2

4.2

1086.3

545.3

*Costs expressed in $000's

BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS:

The anglerfish family Brachionichthyidae (handfishes) is the most diverse of the eight fish families endemic to Australia. All species occur in either coastal or continental shelf waters of temperate southern and eastern Australia. Five of the eight currently identified species are endemic to Tasmanian waters. Two of these have been listed as vulnerable and a third as restricted by the ASFB Threatened Fishes Sub-committee. The low number of eggs produced, limited dispersal of early life history stages and restricted distributions make all endemic Tasmanian vulnerable to disturbance. Knowledge of the biology, critical habitat requirements and response to threatening processes of spotted handfish will provide information relevant to assessing and managing other handfish species in the region.


1. Introduction

Handfish are small, unusual, slow-moving, benthic fishes that prefer to 'walk' on their pectoral and pelvic fins rather than swim. The pectoral or side fins are leg-like with their extremities resembling a human hand (hence their common name). This adaptation, their curious walking behaviour and colourful patterns give them significant public appeal.

In 1996, the spotted handfish became the first marine fish to be listed as 'endangered' under the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act and followed a similar listing by the Australian Society for Fish Biology in 1994, as well as State protection in 1995 (under Tasmanian Fisheries legislation). It was subsequently listed by the IUCN as 'critically endangered' in 1996 and is the first marine fish for which funding has been dedicated (under the Commonwealth Endangered Species Program) to establish a recovery plan. A recovery team with representatives from CSIRO, DPI Fisheries, DELM, University of Tasmania, EA and the Hobart Marine Board was formed in March 1996 to coordinate the recovery effort.

The spotted handfish was first discovered by the French explorer Peron in the late 1790ís, and formally named and described in 1804, making it one of the earliest described fishes from Australian waters (Last & Bruce, 1996). Despite this historical significance, very few studies were subsequently conducted on the species and thus very little was known regarding its biological characteristics or habitat requirements. This initially presented the most significant impediment to developing recovery actions or indeed identifying the source and magnitude of threat. Thus a series of interim projects were implemented in March 1996 (jointly funded by Environment Australia's Endangered Species Program, CSIRO, DPIF (Tas) and FISHCARE) to establish current status, basic biological details and collect initial data on habitat requirements. Concurrent with this strategy was the development of captive husbandry techniques to study the reproductive characteristics of the handfish and establish aspects of their early life history. A secondary aim of captive husbandry was to establish the protocols required for a captive rearing program (spotted handfish had never been successfully bred in captivity) as an insurance policy should the species continue to decline in the wild or should re-introduction be identified as a recovery action. Results to date are documented in Barrett et al. (1996), Bruce et al. (1997, 1998, 1998-submitted) and Green & Bruce (1998).

This recovery plan builds on these previous initiatives.

1.1 Description of species

The spotted handfish, Brachionichthys hirsutus (Lacepede, 1804), is a small handfish (maximum size 120 mm SL) that is endemic to a restricted area of southern Tasmania (Figure 1).

Diagnosis: Body covered with small spinules; dermal tentacles usually absent. Distance from snout to gill pore about 3.1 in total length. longest dorsal fin spine slightly shorter than longest dorsal fin ray. Length of lure more than 5 in length of illicial stalk. Body white, cream or brown, covered in numerous small closely set brown, orange or blackish spots or (less commonly) stripes. Dark saddles sometimes present dorsally above level of gill pore and below posterior rays of second dorsal fin.

Handfish superficially resemble the more commonly encountered anglerfishes (Antenariidae) and this often leads to incorrect identification (and subsequent misreporting) by the general public. Apart from aspects of their internal anatomy (see Pietsch 1981), handfish can be separated from anglerfishes by the form of the first dorsal fin (second and third spines connected by membrane in handfish; separate in anglerfish) and the location of the gill pore (above and behind pectoral fins in handfish; on 'elbow' of pectoral fin in anglerfish).

1.2 Distribution

Handfish have among the narrowest ranges of any of the 4300, or so, marine fish known from the Australian region (Last et al., 1983, Yearsley et al., 1997). Five of the eight currently identified species are endemic to Tasmania and Bass Strait (Last et al., 1983). The red handfish (Sympterichthys politus)and an undescribed species (Ziebell's handfish, Sympterichthys sp.) appear to be confined to a few restricted, shallow reef habitats in south-eastern Tasmania.

The spotted handfish is endemic to the lower Derwent River estuary and adjoining bays and channels (Figure 2). Spotted handfish appear to be distributed within colonies in restricted areas of their range, although the level of mixing between colonies is unknown. Three reproductively active colonies are currently known, although isolated individuals are occasionally reported from other sites. Due to the restricted area of colonies, their accessibility and concerns regarding either inadvertent or direct disturbance, neither the location of colonies, nor the location of recent sightings are reported here.

1.3 Habitat

Spotted handfish primarily occur on unconsolidated substrate ranging from well sorted coarse sand and shell grit, to areas of fine sand and silt. They are often found in shallow, shell filled depressions or near rocks of low relief projecting from the substrate (Figure 3). They have been recorded from depths between 2-30 m but appear to be most common in 5-10 m (Bruce et al., 1998).

1.4 Biology

Prior to the commencement of the interim research projects, the biology of handfishes was poorly documented. Published accounts included brief aspects of their morphology, osteology and distribution (see Gomon et al., 1994, Last et al., 1983, Edgar et al., 1982, Pietsch, 1981). Whitley (1949) described an adult female spotted handfish with eggs extruding from the body and a 14 mm juvenile verrucose handfish. Last et al. (1983) reported thatspotted handfish attached its eggs to 'solid objects on the bottom via thin threads' and that its diet consisted of small shellfish, shrimps and polychaete worms.

1.4.1 Individual identification

Spotted handfish have individually recognisable colour patterns (Figure 4) and can be measured accurately in situ using vernier callipers. A photographic record has been established of each fish sighted during interim projects as a reference for their identification. Markings start to form after several months of age and are relatively stable after the first year. Changes in the pattern after this age are minor and can be traced (e.g. a streak may break into two or more spots). The ability to easily measure specimens in situ, and identify individual fish allows growth rate data to be verified and individual movement patterns to be monitored. Individual identification also allows the reproductive history of individuals to be monitored and will provide a way of re-identifying and monitoring fish during re-introduction trials.

1.4.2 Feeding

Dietary data for spotted handfish are sparse. Last et al. (1983) reported that they preyed on small shellfish, shrimps and polychaete worms. The stomachs of two small, wild caught, juvenile spotted handfish contained amphipods (Bruce et al., 1997).

In aquaria, adult spotted handfish readily consume mysid shrimp and amphipods but will also accept small live fish. Captive, newly hatched handfish do well on a diet of small amphipods (Bruce et al., 1997).

It is unlikely that further dietary data will become available in the short term as analyses require sacrificing wild fish. It is similarly unlikely that spotted handfish held in museum collections will have their stomach contents analysed. Such specimens are both few in number and now regarded as reference material that should not be damaged.

1.4.3 Reproduction

Spotted handfish spawn during September and October. Spawning occurs within colony boundaries and there is no current evidence to suggest that broad scale changes in distribution occur prior to spawning. Spawning in aquaria is preceded by displays between male and female handfish consisting of a variety of fin and body movements. Fertilization is external. It is not known if a single or multiple males fertilise the eggs of individual females in the wild. Egg masses (comprising 80-250 eggs) are spawned on the bottom around an isolated semi-rigid vertical object. The most common suitable substrate within the Derwent is the stalked ascidian Sycozoa sp. and spotted handfish appear to use this ascidian almost exclusively in this estuary (Figure 5). Spotted handfish eggs have also been observed around a variety of other substrata in the single known colony outside the Derwent (e.g. sponges, seagrasses and polychaete worm tubes - J. Ross, University of Tas. pers. comm.).

Each egg is separately housed in an elliptical, membranous, flask-shaped structure, the neck of which has a prominent cup-shaped central pore as well as a thin tendril and a larger diameter tubule on opposing sides. The surface of each flask is covered with short, papillose, projections each approximately 0.2 mm in length. Tendrils, which are individual non-branching structures form a tangled web within and around the egg mass, and probably assisted in anchoring it to the bottom. Tubules, however, form a continuous branching system that link each flask and hold the egg mass together. Both tendrils and tubules appeared to be hollow. Flasks are approximately 5.5 - 6.0 mm in length and 4.2 - 4.3 mm in width. Eggs with full term embryos are approximately 3.9 - 4.2 mm in length and 2.8 - 3.0 mm in width (Bruce et al., 1998 - submitted).

The female remains with the egg mass for the 7 - 8 weeks until hatching. Females in aquaria continue to feed during this period and have been observed to probe the egg mass with their modified first dorsal fin spine and occasionally mouth the egg mass.

Handfish lack the dispersive larval stage common in marine fishes. They hatch as fully formed juveniles (6 - 7 mm in length), move straight to the bottom and appear to remain in the vicinity of spawning (Bruce et al., 1998 submitted). This has two important consequences. First, colonies may be relatively isolated (ie mixing between them is restricted) thus a reduction in spawning success may seriously impact a colony. Second, the ability for handfish to recolonise areas from which they have been displaced is likely to be low.

1.4.4 Age and growth

Spotted handfish hatch in November and grow at a relatively constant and rapid rate reaching a size of 35 - 50 mm by the end of their first year and 70 - 80 mm in their second (Bruce et al., 1998 submitted). Growth rate declines dramatically at this point to only a few millimetres per year (Bruce et al., 1997).

Female spotted handfish are believed to reach maturity within the Derwent after 2-3 years at a size of 75-80 (Bruce et al., 1998 submitted). Size at maturity for males is yet to be established. However, the smallest male confirmed to have fertilised eggs spawned in captive rearing trials was 87 mm TL (Bruce et al., 1997). Longevity is yet to be determined. Barrett et al. (1996) reported a fish of 117 mm TL from the Derwent and fish of approximately 130 mm TL have been reported from Frederick Henry Bay (J. Ross, University of Tasmania, pers. com.).

1.5 Reasons for listing

The spotted handfish is considered to be vulnerable to extinction due to its highly restricted and patchy distribution, low population density, limited dispersal capabilities and a reproductive strategy of producing low numbers of demersal eggs that are highly susceptibility to disturbance.

There are only sporadic records of the spotted handfish during the 19th and early 20th centuries but, with the advent of SCUBA equipment, numerous specimens were recorded in the Derwent in the 1960ís and 1970ís. The spotted handfish was considered to be common throughout its range (Last & Bruce, 1996, Last et al., 1983) and, ironically, it was sometimes referred to as the common handfish.

In 1989, an honours student from the University of Tasmania attempted to gather information on the basic biology and ecology of the spotted handfish. Surveys conducted at that time failed to locate handfish in areas previously renown for sightings. Subsequently, only two spotted handfish were reliably reported between 1990 and 1994. These results were the first indication that spotted handfish had suffered a substantial decline in abundance during the 1980ís. The decline prompted the Threatened Fishes Sub-Committee of the Australian Society for Fish Biology to list the spotted handfish as endangered in 1994. Subsequently, all species of handfish were protected under the Tasmanian State Fisheries legislation in 1995. The spotted handfish was listed by the IUCN as critically endangered in 1996 and it was listed under the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act, as endangered, also in 1996.

In early 1996, a dedicated dive and trawl survey covering 38 sites and monitoring catches from DPIF trawl surveys at a further 19 sites, recorded 7 spotted handfish across the previous range of the species (Barrett et al., 1996). Subsequent surveys by CSIRO located three small and highly restricted colonies (Bruce et al., 1997).

The cause of the decline in spotted handfish is unclear. Bruce et al. (1998 in press) suggested causes may include predation on egg mass or disturbance of benthic communities by the recently introduced northern Pacific seastar, habitat modification through increased siltation, heavy metal contamination or urban effluent. The Derwent is a heavily impacted estuary receiving contaminant inputs from a variety of sources including sewage treatment works, large industries (eg a paper mill and zinc refinery) and urban run off. Sedimentation rates are high in certain localised areas within the estuary, particularly upstream of Hobart (Coughanowr, 1997). However, whether significant changes have occurred to sediment type within habitats previously occupied by spotted handfish have not been investigated. Improvements have been documented in both heavy metal levels in biota within the Derwent over the last 20 years (Dineen and Noller, 1995) and in water quality over the last 10 years (Coughanowr, 1997) both as a result of decreased emissions from sewerage treatment plants and industries. However, heavy metal contamination within the estuary still remains a significant problem (Coughanowr, 1997) and the impact of this on the spotted handfish is unknown.

The possible role of the northern Pacific seastar in the decline of spotted handfish has not yet been established, although the timing of its discovery and subsequent increase in abundance matches the 1980ís period of spotted handfish decline. The seastar is now abundant in many areas wherespotted handfish were previously common. Predation by northern Pacific seastars on spotted handfish egg masses has not been observed in the wild, although this does not preclude it as a factor in the decline. Northern Pacific seastars have been observed feeding on the stalked ascidian commonly used as a spawning substrate within the Derwent. It is thus possible that predatory loss of the ascidian may impact spotted handfish by reducing the available spawning substrate. This hypothesis is supported by recent observations at one handfish colony where a dramatic increase in seastar abundance coincided with very low numbers of ascidians and very little spawning activity by handfish (Bruce et al., 1997, Bruce et al., 1998 submitted).

1.6 Existing conservation measures

All species of handfish are currently protected under the Tasmanian State fisheries legislation. This legislation prohibits the collection and retention of handfish from state waters without a permit. Spotted handfish were protected under the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act in 1996. Spotted handfish have not yet been listed under the Tasmanian State Endangered Species Protection Act, although a nomination is recommended under this recovery plan.

The collection of baseline biological data, examining habitat requirements, monitoring of the three known colonies, the development of techniques to assess population size and stability and developing captive husbandry protocols have been the subject of previous projects funded by Environment Australia (prev. ANCA), FISHCARE, CSIRO and DPIF (Tas). Small numbers of both spotted and red handfish have now been successfully spawned and reared in captivity and this offers considerable scope for developing a re-introduction strategy (Bruce et al., 1997).

1.7 Strategies for recovery.

This recovery plan is scheduled for a term of three years after which both the progress and effectiveness of recovery actions will be evaluated. The following key strategies have been identified for the recovery of the species. Several of these strategies are integrally linked and their implementation will run concurrently (Figure 6).

The spotted handfish recovery team was established in 1996 and will continue as the coordinating body for the recovery effort. Current team members include representatives from CSIRO Division of Marine Research (lead agency), Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Tas), Department of Environment and Land Management, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Environment Australia and the Hobart Ports Corporation. Membership of the team will be regularly assessed and additional organisations will be invited to participate where and when required.


2. Recovery objectives and criteria

The overall objectives of the recovery process are to secure existing populations of spotted handfish, reduce the chances of future decline, enhance populations in areas where numbers have been seriously depleted or lost and subsequently achieve down listing from the current endangered status.

The criteria for successfully achieving these objectives will be:

The medium to long term objectives of the recovery plan are dependent on the outcomes of the currently listed actions but, in principle, are to:

It is unlikely that the recovery process will result in a down listing of spotted handfish within the three year time frame of this recovery plan. Annual Recovery Team meetings will be a forum for the review of the actions proposed in this document and the status of the species.


3. RECOVERY ACTIONS

3.1 Organisational Arrangements

3.1.1 The recovery team.

The recovery team will be the coordinating body for the recovery effort. The recovery team will meet as required throughout the year and will annually assess the progress and direction of recovery actions.

The current recovery team includes representatives from:

Environment Australia (EA)

CSIRO Division of Marine Research (CSIRO -lead agency)

Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (DPIF)

Tasmanian Department of Environment and Land Management (DELM)

Tasmanian Conservation Trust (TCT)

Hobart Ports Corporation (HPC)

Government and NGO agencies will meet any costs associated with attendance of their representatives at recovery team meetings.

3.1.2 Project officer and project management

A full-time Project Officer will need to be appointed. The Project Officer will be responsible for coordinating and/or implementing all of the proposed actions. They will be required to liaise with government agencies and community groups. The Project Officer will report directly to the recovery team and the Project Leaders.

CSIRO Division of Marine Research will be the lead organisation and shall be responsible for the overall supervision and daily management of the project, providing high level scientific direction and liaison with higher levels of government agencies.

ESP funds are required to employ a full-time Project Officer and as a contribution towards project supervision.

BUDGET*

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

Project Officer

CSOF 3M @100%

66,719

  

68,721

  

70,781

  

206,221

  

Project supervision and management

CSOF5M @ 20% (Yrs 1+2, 30% yr 3)

CSOF7 @ 5%

8,796

8,796

6,132

9,060

9,060

6,406

13,996

13,996

6,600

31,852

31,852

19,138

Total

75,515

14,928

77,781

15,466

84,777

20,596

238,073

50,990

* Salaries include on-costs and DSL

      

TOTAL COST

$289,063

3.2 Management of existing populations

3.2.1 Population Response Model

An integral component of the recovery plan will be the development of a Population Response Model (PRM) using known biological parameters. Model refinement will occur as further data are accumulated. The primary objectives of the PRM are to: (a) assess time frames for population recovery based on the biological characteristics of the species and the evaluation of threats, (b) evaluate recovery performance criteria, (c) predict outcomes of observed population and recruitment fluctuations and, (d) assess the effectiveness of amelioration strategies and to identify and quantify the major sources of uncertainty in the recovery process. The PRM will be used to continually assess the progress of recovery and define the areas and strategies where further work is required. The successful implementation of the PRM is dependent on obtaining good quality estimates of the population parameters defined in Tasks 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. The biological characteristics and cooperative nature of handfish make it possible to obtain such estimates in far greater detail than has been the case for any other fish. Thus they are an ideal candidate to test and refine the general principles of the PRM.

ESP funds are required to employ a modeller (0.5 full-time for the period of this recovery plan) with specialist skills in population dynamics in order to develop, refine and implement the model. CSIRO will augment funding to develop this to a full time position on conservation management strategies in general (these funds are not included in budget calculations).

BUDGET*

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

Population modeller

CSOF 4M @50%

Supervision

CSOF 7M @ 5%

39,034

6,453

40,204

6,646

41,412

6,846

120,650

19,945

Operating

  

5,000

  

5,000

  

5,000

  

15,000

Total

39,034

11,453

40,204

11,646

41,412

11,846

120,650

34,945
         

TOTAL COST

$155,595

* Salaries include on-costs and DSL

3.2.2 Population monitoring

Establishing population estimates that are statistically robust are critical for the interpretation of population stability and thus underpin our ability to monitor population trends, assess the impacts of threatening processes and follow the outcomes of any remedial actions. The statistical power of survey techniques and their corresponding logistic requirements were examined during Project 572 (Haskard, 1997 - see Appendices A + B). The strategy identified provides a compromise between obtaining sufficient statistical power to detect changes in abundance and the constraints of working underwater but will enable us to detect a moderate (50%) decrease in density.

Surveys will count the number of handfish along 30 randomly positioned transects (100 metres long and 3 metres wide) at each colony in Autumn and Spring. The surveys require a team of 6 divers for a period of three days at each colony.

Surveys conducted during the spring will coincide with the breeding season and thus, provide the opportunity to concurrently collect essential information on the reproductive activity within each colony. These data will monitor the number of females in spawning condition and estimate population fecundity (reproductive rate). Supplementary, smaller scale monitoring of located egg masses will also assess fertilisation success and rates of egg loss/mortality (Task 3.2.3).

By Autumn, juvenile spotted handfish are sufficiently large to be effectively surveyed. Prior to this they are difficult to locate due to their small size and cryptic colouration. The Autumn survey will determine recruitment levels, initial juvenile mortality rates and enable a comparison of juvenile growth rates and mortality schedules between colonies.

Maintaining a photographic catalogue of individual fish is integral to the success of surveys. The resighting of fish provides information on movement, growth rates, reproductive history and can be used as another means of estimating population size.

ESP funds are requested for diving costs (including contract divers required to meet the specifications of our diving code and occupational health and safety requirements), photography (continuing the photographic catalogue of sighted fish), provision and maintenance of survey equipment, a contribution to vessel running costs and statistical advice for data analyses.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

Diving costs

contract divers and allowances and equipment (CSIRO)

Field costs

vessel running costs, survey equipment , photographic supplies

Statistical advice

(Div. Maths +Stats)

17,200

6,000

1,300

5,000

8,550

 

17,200

6,000

1,300

5,000

8,550

17,200

6,000

1,300

5,000

8,550

51,600

18,000

3,900

15,000

25,650

Total

24,500

13,550

24,500

13,550

24,500

13,550

73,500

40,650
         

TOTAL COST

$114,150

3.2.3 Definition of population parameters and critical habitat mapping

The effectiveness of the PRM will be in large part dependent on obtaining estimates of critical population parameters such as the number of egg masses spawned, fertilisation and hatching success, rates of egg loss (via predation, deterioration and detachment), the relationship between size of female and number of eggs produced, size/age at maturity, recruitment strength, age and growth and both age and colony specific mortality. Some of these parameters will be defined based on survey data from Task 3.2.2. However, additional surveys will be required to define, particularly, hatching success and rates of egg loss. Additional surveys will be conducted during the spawning season to collect these data at the three sites. These surveys do not require additional diving assistance and will utilise staff resources dedicated to the project.

Successful spawning by spotted handfish is dependant on the availability of suitable vertical structures to which egg masses can be attached. Recent observations (see section 1.5) suggest a loss of available spawning substrate may severely reduce spawning activity. A survey of the quantity and type of available spawning substrate is required in order to define the spatial limits of critical breeding areas within each colony. This will help refine the estimate of population fecundity (the number of eggs produced) for use in the PRM and provide a more accurate base line from which to monitor changes in the availability of spawning substrate. This action will also assist in the identification of threats and help direct where to implement the trial deployment of artificial spawning substrate at Site 1 (Task 3.5.3).

ESP funds are required to contribute to the costs of diving, boat operations, and underwater photography.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

Field costs

vessel running costs, equipment maintenance, photographic supplies

2,700

 

1,500

 

2,700

 

1,500

 

2,700

 

1,500

 

8,100

 

4,500

 

Total

2,700

1,500

2,700

1,500

2,700

1,500

8,100

4,500
         

TOTAL COST

$12,600

3.2.4 Legislative requirements

Spotted handfish are currently protected under the Tasmanian State Fisheries legislation and the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act (1992). The Recovery Team will recommend that the spotted handfish also be listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act and provide appropriate documentation in support of the listing. Options for protecting specific areas or habitat of critical importance will be assessed in consultation between the Recovery Team and regulatory authorities. The Recovery Team will provide advice to relevant regulatory authorities on matters pertaining to handfish where required.

No costs are anticipated for this action but if incurred, they will be met by relevant authorities.

3.3 Identification and amelioration of key threatening processes

Identifying the cause of the decline in handfish numbers in the Derwent remains one of the most critical issues to resolve for the Recovery Plan and will drive what tasks are undertaken to ameliorate impacts. A number of strategies will be followed in order to establish the cause(s) of decline. These strategies will be integrally linked with both other recovery actions and initiatives by other institutions.

Existing colonies offer one of the best opportunities to detect the threatening process at work. The population dynamics of each of the three colonies will be compared for evidence of changes in reproduction, recruitment, growth, survival and habitat parameters (in particular, the availability of suitable spawning substrate). Specific dive surveys to monitor habitat parameters will conducted in summer and winter at the Derwent colonies. This data will augment that collected under other actions and provide both a seasonal and interannual assessment of habitat variability.

Impacts by northern Pacific seastars remain the main hypotheses for the decline of spotted handfish. The observed changes at one Derwent colony during 1997 (see Section 1.5) may offer one of the best opportunities to establish the threat posed by northern Pacific seastars and the impact on colony dynamics of a reduction in spawning success. This information will dictate our response to maintaining the security of the other Derwent colony (which already has a low density of northern Pacific seastars). It is vital to continue monitoring both Derwent colonies during the period prior to implementation of this recovery plan in order to take best possible advantage of documenting changes induced by northern Pacific seastars. The Recovery Team will investigate options for interim funding to continue monthly monitoring of spotted handfish colonies within the Derwent prior to implementation of the recovery plan.

A re-introduction trial will also test the survival of handfish in areas where previous impact has resulted in a population decline. Such trials will utilise captive bred fish and identify if the threatening process is still operating, assist in its identification and pave the way for a more substantial re-establishment of spotted handfish across their range.

A secondary hypothesis for the decline in spotted handfish is the effect of accumulated contaminants in estuarine sediments. Standard toxicity trials (using a microbial standard) will be used to compare differences between areas where handfish have been lost and between known colonies.

CSIRO's Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) has dedicated funds for the development and implementation of strategies to control the northern Pacific seastar. The Recovery Team will continue to liaise with CRIMP (via the project officer and project leaders) on initiatives likely to have benefit to the recovery of spotted handfish and collaborate where appropriate with field and laboratory programs.

A 5 year management plan has been implemented for the Derwent River to reduce the input of contaminants and ameliorate degenerated habitats. The Recovery Team will maintain contact with relevant authorities implementing the management plan and advise, where appropriate, on actions likely to affect the recovery effort.

3.3.1 Monitoring threats at known colonies

ESP funds are required to contribute to the costs of additional (Summer and Winter) dive surveys.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

UT**

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

Dive, field

and

laboratory

costs*

1,400

1,000

 

1,000

1,400

1,000

 

1,000

1,400

1,000

 

1,000

4,200

3,000

 

3,000

Total

1,400

1,000

1,000

1,400

1,000

1,000

1,400

1,000

1,000

4,200

3,000

3,000
         

TOTAL COST

$10,200

* Note: Actions funded under the Derwent River Management Plan have not been included

** University of Tasmania

3.3.2 Sediment toxicity

Microtox analyses will be conducted to assess and compare differences in the potential toxicity of sediments between areas where spotted handfish have been lost and known colonies. Microtox is a routine toxicity test which uses marine microorganisms (luminescence bacteria and algae cells). The tests compare the bacterial luminescence and survival of algae cells in control and field samples. Tests will be run by the University of Tasmania (Launceston) which have a laboratory dedicated to such analyses.

ESP funds are requested for microtox consumables.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

UT

ESP

UT

ESP

UT

ESP

UT

Microtox trials

 

 

5,000

 

2,000

 

 

 

5,000

 

2,000

 

Total

    

5,000

2,000

    

5,000

2,000
         

TOTAL COST

7,000

3.3.3 Strategies for controlling seastars

No ESP funds are requested for this task.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO*

ESP

CSIRO*

ESP

CSIRO*

ESP

CSIRO*

Seastar control

Salaries

Operating

 

96,000

25,000

  

96,000

25,000

  

96,000

25,000

  

288,000

75,000

Total

  

121,000

  

121,000

  

121,000

  

363,000
         

TOTAL COST

$363,000

* Dedicated CRIMP funds

3.4 Establishing colony dynamics

A critical factor in assessing the impact of a threatening process on the overall status of handfish is how distinct (or isolated) colonies are from each other. The low level of juvenile dispersal suggests that colonies may be relatively isolated. If this is the case, then colonies cannot rely on fish from outside their boundaries to replenish their number if they are threatened. This has the effect of making populations more vulnerable to impact because a threatening process may operate by successively wiping out colonies. In this case there is little chance of re-establishing numbers without active re-introduction.

Genetic techniques will be used to assess the extent of genetic variation within and between colonies. Two methods are listed, mitochondrial DNA and micro-satellite analyses. The two techniques differ in their cost, their ability to resolve differences and the extent of the additional information they provide. The first technique is recommended as a higher priority action. The results of this action will contribute to the PRM. The PRM will then be used to assess the relative benefits of pursuing the more expensive micro-satellite analyses.

All tissue samples required for these analyses will be collected by non-destructive fin clipping.

3.4.1 (a) Mitochondrial DNA analyses

Genetic differentiation within and between colonies will initially be estimated from mitochondrial DNA analyses. The estimates of gene flow will be relatively crude but if a signal is sufficiently strong, then this technique may provide sufficient information for our requirements. A student in collaboration with the University of Tasmania will conduct this task.

ESP funds are required for laboratory consumables.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

Field and laboratory costs

5,250

1,000

1,000

            

5,250

1,000

1,000

Total

5,250

1,000

1,000

            

5,250

1,000

1,000
         

TOTAL COST

$7,250

3.4.1 (b) Micro-satellite DNA analyses

This technique is a very powerful method of genetically assessing family and population structure. The variability and abundance of micro-satellites (nuclear DNA markers) will enable a far more accurate quantification of genetic variation both within and between colonies and thus enable a far more accurate assessment of gene flow between colonies. Furthermore due to the uniqueness of the micro-satellite signatures in any single fish, it is possible to genetically fingerprint each individual and assess its contribution to the gene pool of the next generation.

Whether or not to proceed with this task will depend on the outcome of mitochondrial DNA analyses (task 3.4.1a) and an assessment, via the PRM, of the benefits to the recovery process of identifying these population parameters in greater detail.

A PhD student in collaboration with the University of Tasmania would conduct this task.

ESP funds are required to cover the cost of laboratory consumables in all years. Costs do not include a PhD stipend component (it is anticipated that a stipend will be covered under a scholarship to a suitable student).

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

Field and laboratory costs

 

 

 

19,950

1,000

2,000

13,650

1,000

2,000

33,600

2,000

4,000

Total

 

 

  

19,950

1,000

2,000

13,650

1,000

2,000

33,600

2,000

4,000
         

TOTAL COST

$39,600

3.5 Enhancement of wild populations

3.5.1 Refine husbandry protocols

It is important to develop reliable, efficient captive breeding protocols to facilitate the development of a captive breeding program. Maintaining brood stock in captivity is also a practical safeguard should the wild population continue to decline.

Work to date (ESP Project 572) has significantly enhanced our ability to get spotted handfish to spawn in captivity and to rear small numbers of juveniles (see Bruce et al. 1997 for details). Protocols for maintaining and on-growing of juveniles need to be developed. Also, if sufficient juveniles are to be reared for a re-introduction trial, it is essential to develop a technique to continuously culture large numbers of live amphipods.

A refinement of all captive husbandry techniques will occur over the period covered by this recovery plan and a detailed captive husbandry manual will be produced.

The program will utilise DPIF facilities at Taroona where a culture room has been dedicated to the project. An improved filtration system is necessary to ensure a continuous supply of contaminant free seawater. Another bank of larger aquaria is also required for on-growing juvenile handfish.

It will be necessary to employ a technician (0.5 full-time for a period of 3 months, based at DPIF) to assist with the increased work load during the hatching and initial grow out period.

ESP funds are required to employ the technician and purchase filtration equipment, aquaria consumables and as a contribution towards the use of facilities.

BUDGET

Year 1**

Year 2**

Year 3**

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

DPIF

ESP

CSIRO

DPIF

ESP

CSIRO

DPIF

ESP

CSIRO

DPIF

Aquaculture technician

(3 mo @ 50%)

Facilities and equipment;

consumables

5,250

9,550*

1,300

500

6,500

5,250

5,000

1,300

500

6,500

5,250

5,000

1,300

500

6,500

15,750

19,550

3,900

1,500

19,500

Total

16,100

500

6,500

11,550

500

6,500

11,550

500

6,500

39,200

1,500

19,500
         

TOTAL COST

$60,200

* Includes initial costs of grow out tanks for juvenile handfish, amphipod culture tanks and dedicated filter units

** DPIF contribution in (kind) of facilities and expertise including feed culture room, seawater pumping facilities, infrastructure and advice on captive husbandry

3.5.2 Re-introduction trials

Re-introduction is the primary action that will result in an improvement of the species status. However, it will be necessary to develop appropriate protocols for re-introduction if this strategy is to succeed in a timely and cost effective manner. In addition, re-introduction cannot proceed independently to threat identification and amelioration. We will utilise trial re-introductions to establish the protocols necessary for re-establishing handfish in areas of their previous range as well as using it to assist with threat assessment (ie can handfish currently survive in areas where they have been lost).

3.5.2 (a) Stock for re-introduction trials

Trials will utilise captive spawned juveniles. The size at which fish are released is important to maximise survival of released stock (Brown, 1987). The size at release will take into account both natural mortality schedules derived from the PRM (if juvenile survival increases after a certain size then release will occur after the fish have reached that size) and the ability to monitor released individuals (juveniles need to be large enough to be effectively surveyed).

It is expected that an adequate supply of suitable fish for re-introduction will be available early in the second year of this plan.

3.5.2 (b) Site selection

A suitable site for re-introduction trials will be located. The site must be within the historic range of spotted handfish (preferably an historic 'hot spot') and have suitable habitat.

Three sites in the Derwent estuary have already been identified as potentially satisfying these criteria. Each site will be surveyed and the most suitable selected.

ESP funds are required for a survey of potential sites.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

Field costs

vessel running costs, equipment maintenance,

  

 

700

 

500

 

 

 

700

 

500

 

Total

    

700

500

    

700

500
         

TOTAL COST

$1,200
3.5.2 (c) Monitoring of re-introduced fish

Re-introduced fish will be regularly surveyed to monitor survival and movement. This will occur on a monthly basis (for 8 months) in the first year of release and every 2 months in the second.

ESP funds are required to contribute to the costs of monitoring re-introduced handfish.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

Field costs

vessel running costs, equipment maintenance, photographic supplies

    

2,300

 

1,000

 

1,600

 

900

 

3,900

 

1,900

 

Total

    

2,300

1,000

1,600

900

3,900

1,900
         

TOTAL COST

$5,800

3.5.3 Artificial spawning substrate trials

The success of artificial spawning substrate in captive breeding trials implies that artificial structures may be used to augment depleted or low quality substrate in the wild. Artificial spawning substrate will be less susceptible to destruction and subsequent egg loss. It will be necessary to develop and trial an appropriately designed structure and deployment strategy. A schedule for deployment at the monitoring sites will be developed and implemented.

ESP funds are required for the construction of the artificial substrate, its deployment and monitoring.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

Materials and deployment costs

300

 

500

 

700

 

500

 

 

 

1,000

 

1,000

 

Total

300

500

700

500

    

1,000

1,000
         

TOTAL COST

$2,000

3.6 Develop a collective functional plan for endemic Tasmanian handfish

3.6.1 Community network for reporting sightings of all handfish species

We have received a number of very useful reports of handfish sightings (both spotted handfish and other species) from the general public during our work to date. These have, for example, identified spawning sites for red handfish and Ziebell's handfish. Very little is known of the population parameters for any endemic handfish species in Tasmania. It is generally accepted that they are all very uncommon and have highly restricted distributions. We now know that, similar to spotted handfish, these species have a very limited capacity for reproduction and dispersal.

The ASFB Threatened Fishes Sub-Committee have listed Ziebell's, the Waterfall Bay and the red handfish on their threatened species list, yet there are few data to confirm their current placements. By developing a community sighting network, we can cost effectively develop the database necessary to establish the status of these species, identify potential threats, maintain the diving public's interest in assisting with the recovery effort and continue to promote marine conservation and education issues. These species are more likely to be encountered by the diving public than spotted handfish (because they occur in reef areas), however we have already had reports of spotted handfish from people diving across soft substrate areas (eg for old bottles) or near reef edges. Thus the spotted handfish recovery effort will also directly benefit from a community reporting system.

The work will require liaison with community based groups such as dive clubs, commercial divers and the marine naturalists society (linked to Task. 3.7.2). Follow up surveys will be conducted by CSIRO to gather data at selected sites.

ESP funds will be required to assist with the costs of follow up diving, boat operations, photography and field accommodation.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

Dive, field + local travel costs

1,000

 

500

 

1,000

 

500

 

1,000

 

500

 

3,000

 

1,500

 

Total

1,000

500

1,000

500

1,000

500

3,000

1,500
         

TOTAL COST

$4,500

3.6.2 Taxonomy and systematics of handfish

Establishing the conservation status of Tasmanian endemic handfish that are highly restricted in distribution requires a firm knowledge of the number of species involved. Some handfish species are yet to be formally described (eg Ziebell's handfish) and there are distinct colour morphs in different areas that may represent either a local colour pattern or different species entirely. If these colour morphs are different species, then these populations may be more restricted then originally thought. Clarification of the number of species within the handfish family will require a combination of (non-destructive) genetic analyses and classical taxonomy. Discussions have commenced with the University of Tasmania to encourage a suitable student to carry out the work.

ESP funds are required for the costs of genetics consumables.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

ESP

CSIRO

UT

Field and laboratory costs

,

            

5,250

1,000

1,000

5,250

1,000

1,000

Total

            

5,250

1,000

1,000

5,250

1,000

1,000
         

TOTAL COST

$7,250

3.7 Public education and community participation

3.7.1 Ongoing strategy

Public education and support (including scientific liaison) is a key part of the recovery process and interest (both national and international) in the plight of spotted handfish has been extremely high. The Recovery Team is committed to an ongoing public information and education program. To date, project objectives and results have been publicised by way of:

These strategies will continue during the recovery plan. ESP funds are requested as a contribution to local travel costs.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

ESP

CSIRO

Travel costs and extension materials

500

 

1,000

 

500

 

1,000

 

500

 

1,000

 

1,500

 

3,000

 

Total

500

1,000

500

1,000

500

1,000

1,500

3,000
         

TOTAL COST

$4,500

3.7.2 New initiatives

A more streamlined approach is required to deal with the increasing number of public enquires requesting information on handfish.

To achieve this, an information pack will be produced and distributed to school groups via the Woodbridge Marine Discovery Centre where an information display on handfish has already been established. The information pack will also be available to the general public on request.

A poster will be produced and distributed to dive clubs, aquarium shops and professional fishing organisations (eg abalone and urchin divers) to encourage these groups to report sightings and promote the protected status of handfish. Liaison with these groups will promote an effective exchange of information and provide the basis for developing a collective functional plan for endemic Tasmanian handfish (Action 3.6).

These initiatives will also be used to encourage corporate and community sponsorship of the recovery effort, thereby reducing the future dependence on ESP funds.

ESP funds are required to assist with the costs of producing and printing information packs and posters.

BUDGET

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total
 

ESP

ESP

ESP

ESP

Posters and information kits

1,300

 

700

 

700

 

2,700

 

Total

1,300

700

700

2,700
         

TOTAL COST

$2,700

4. Acknowledgments

The authors thank the continued support and helpful comments provided by the Recovery Team during the drafting of this Recovery Plan. Helpful comments and advice were provided by Alan Beech, Jeff Ross, Keith Sainsbury, Tony Smith and Ron Thresher.

The drafting of this Recovery Plan was funded by Environment Australia (Endangered Species Unit), Project 572.


5. References

Barrett, N., Bruce, B.D. and Last, P.R. (1996). Spotted handfish survey. Report to Endangered Species Unit. ANCA. CSIRO Div. Fisheries Hobart.

Brown, A.M. (1987). Genetic aspects of the propagation and dispersion of fishes. in Proceedings of the ASFB Conference on Australian Threatened Fishes. J.H. Harris (ed). NSW Fisheries. Sydney.

Bruce, B.D., Green, M.A. and Last, P.R. (1998 submitted).Aspects of the biology of the endangered spotted handfish (Brachionichthys hirsutus: Lophiiformes) off southern Australia. Proceedings of the 5th Indo Pacific Fish Conference. Cybium.

Bruce, B.D., Green, M.A. and Last, P.R. (1998). Threatened fishes of the world: spotted handfish, Brachionichthys hirsutus (Lacepede). Environmental Biology of Fishes in press.

Bruce, B.D., Green, M.A. and Last, P.R. (1997). Developing captive husbandry techniques for spotted handfish, Brachionichthys hirsutus, and monitoring the 1996 spawning season. Final report to Endangered Species Unit, Environment Australia. CSIRO Div. Marine Research Hobart. 29 pp.

Coughanowr, C. (1997). State of the Derwent Estuary: a review of environmental quality data to 1997. Supervising Scientist Report 129. Supervising Scientist. Canberra.

Dineen, R.D. and Noller, B. (1995). Toxic elements in fish and shellfish from the Derwent Estuary. Dept. Environment and Land Management, Hobart, Tasmania. 40 pp.

Edgar, G.J., Last, P.R. and Wells, M.W. (1982). Coastal fishes of Tasmania and Bass Strait. Cat and Fiddle Press, Hobart. 173 pp.

Gomon, M.F., Glover, J.C.M. and Kuiter, R.H. (1994). The fishes of Australia's south coast. State Print, Adelaide. 992 pp.

Green, M.A. and Bruce, B.D. (1998). Spotted handfish: distribution, abundance and habitat. Final Report to FISHCARE. CSIRO Div. Mar. Res. Hobart.

Last, P.R. and Bruce, B.D. (1997). Spotted handfish. Nature Australia. 25(7): 20-21.

Last, P.R., Scott, E.O.G. and Talbot, F.H. (1983). Fishes of Tasmania. Tasmanian Fisheries Development Authority, Hobart. 563 pp.

Pietsch, T.W. (1981). The osteology and relationships of the anglerfish genus Tetrabrachium, with comments on lophiiform classification. US Fish. Bull. 79: 387-419.

Yearsley, G.K., Last, P.R. and Morris, G.B. (1997). Codes for Australian Aquatic Biota (CAAB): an upgraded and expanded species coding system for Australian fisheries databases. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report No. 224.

6. Implementation schedule

Task

Task Description

Priority

Feasibility

Responsible party

Funding

Cost estimates

      
           

($000s/year)

      
           

1999

2000

2000

Total

1.1

The recovery team

1

100%

ESP, CSIRO

          
       

DPIF, DELM

          
       

TCT, HCP

          

1.2

Project Officer & Project

1

100%

CSIRO

a

14.9

15.4

20.6

50.9
 

Management

      

b

75.5

77.8

84.8

238.1

2.1

Population Response Model

1

100%

CSIRO

a

11.4

11.6

11.8

34.8
         

b

39.1

40.1

41.5

120.7

2.2

Population monitoring

1

95%

CSIRO

a

13.5

13.5

13.6

40.6
         

b

24.5

24.5

24.5

73.5

2.3

Define population parameters

1

100%

CSIRO

a

1.5

1.5

1.5

4.5
 

& critical habitat mapping

      

b

2.7

2.7

2.7

8.1

2.4

Legislative requirements

1

95%

DELM, DPIF

          

3.1

Threats at known colonies

1

100%

CSIRO

a

1.0

1.0

1.0

3.0
         

b

1.4

1.4

1.4

4.2
         

c

1.0

1.0

1.0

3.0

3.2

Toxicity trials

2

90%

UT

b

  

5.0

  

5.0
         

c

  

2.0

  

2.0

3.3

Seastar control

1

75%

CSIRO (CRIMP)

a

121.0

121.0

121.0

363.0

4.1 (a)

Mitochondrial DNA

2

100%

UT

a

1.0

    

1.0
       

CSIRO

b

5.2

    

5.2
         

c

1.0

    

1.0

4.1 (b)

Microsatellite DNA

2

100%

UT

a

  

1.0

1.0

2.0
       

CSIRO

b

  

20.0

13.6

33.6
         

c

  

2.0

2.0

4.0

5.1

Refine husbandry protocols

1

95%

CSIRO, DPIF

a

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.5
         

b

16.1

11.5

11.6

39.2
         

d

6.5

6.5

6.5

19.5

5.2 (b)

Site selection

1

100%

CSIRO

a

  

0.5

  

0.5
         

b

  

0.7

  

0.7

5.2 (c)

Monitoring of released fish

1

95%

CSIRO

a

  

1.0

0.9

1.9
         

b

  

2.3

1.6

3.9

5.3

Artificial spawning

1

100%

CSIRO

a

0.5

0.5

  

1.0
 

substrate trials

      

b

0.3

0.7

  

1.0

6.1

Community network for

3

100%

CSIRO

a

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.5
 

reporting handfish sightings

      

b

1.0

1.0

1.0

3.0

6.2

Taxonomy and systematics

3

100%

UT

a

    

1.0

1.0
 

of handfish

    

CSIRO

b

    

5.2

5.2
         

c

    

1.0

1.0

7.1

On-going strategy

2

100%

CSIRO

a

1.0

1.0

1.0

3.0
         

b

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.5

7.2

New initiatives

2

100%

CSIRO

b

1.3

0.7

0.7

2.7
 

Total ($000's)

        

342.9

369.4

374.0

1086.3

a: CSIRO, b: ESP funds required, c: University of Tasmania, d: DPIF

The preparation of this Recovery Plan was funded under the Commonwealth Endangered Species Program (ESU Project 572) and the Commonwealth FISHCARE program (Department of Primary Industries and Energy).

All or parts of this document may be reproduced for research or education but not for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife.

This draft has been prepared as an application for funding to Environment Australia under the Natural Heritage Trust. The views expressed in it are those of the Recovery Team.

Before you download

Some documents are available as PDF files. You will need a PDF reader to view PDF files.
List of PDF readers 

If you are unable to access a publication, please contact us to organise a suitable alternative format.

Key

   Links to another web site
   Opens a pop-up window