Science is always a progressive thing with knowledge added every year, but you need a starting point. So I think a golf clap is due to those who decided that the GSS was worth looking at in the first place. I sugest that much of the initial force for study, recognition & protection came from the local community.
I'm not going to bag the science used, or the young & keen people tasked with compiling data and drawing conclusions. Any fault in the quality of the study lies at the door of the funding decision makers.
Lets accept that we probably disagree with the findings. What we might be able to agree on is that there is now a structure in place on which to build. [A sceptic may call this 'Another layer of red tape']
EPA has quite different priorities to DPI Fisheries.
So perhaps over time EPA will increase the level of protection in sensitive areas, ie the yellow zones become green - further limiting the areas open to harvest. This may eventually exclude all commercial operations and even concievably all rec take as well.
This is not the thunderclap total protection that some may call for, but it may be a more fare, more science based, and more managable way to progress this.