imawg newsletter - april 2014

Deadline Fast ApproachingThe deadline to provide your comments/questions to DFO is fast approaching,

April 7, 201 4 marks the deadline for feedback.

imawg.ca

South Coast

Salmon IFMP

April 201 4

1

TAXWE 'GILA"Gaining and Building Strength"

Photo: Fl ickr Tuchodi

-Submitted by: Bernette Laliberte, IMAWG Marine

Biologist

At the March Forum on Conservation and Harvest

Planning (Forum) in Kamloops, DFO started canvassing

for recommendations on the three important

management actions:

• Spring/Summer 52Chinook (page 56)

DFO is planning to start the season with Zone 1

management actions (i.e. similar if not the same

actions taken last year); however they have

asked for feedback on using a different method

for assessing the return which would mean

starting in zone 2 (i.e. l imited directed fisheries,

First Nations directed fisheries subject to

abundance, reduce by-catch / incidental harvest

in commercial fisheries). Important points to

keep in mind regarding this change is the fact

that the alternate method is based on "paper

fish" counting while the current method is based

on the catches at the Albion test fishery; also if

we start in Zone 2, what is the process to move

back into Zone 1 if needed, and who would that

effect most?

• FRSSI

Fraser River Sockeye Spawning Initiative (pg 91 )

Applying a total al lowable mortal ity (TAM) rate of

60% started in 2006, this means no matter how

large a run size the TAM cannot exceed 60%

(other words is capped at 60%). Total Al lowable

Mortal ity includes mortal ity from fishing (test

fishing, FSC, other user groups) as well as the

management adjustment. The management

adjustment attempts to account for historical

differences seen between the escapement at

Mission (A) and the final escapement as

enumerated on the spawning grounds (B) which

is basical ly giving you the number of extra fish

needed to account for en-route mortal ity

between point A and B. So in order to use the

TAM rule, an upper and lower fishery reference

point have to be developed to describe the

shape of the rule for each management

aggregate for each management unit.

If you do not have a copy of the Draft IFMP, you can

cal l your local DFO office to request a copy .

I ssue 04, Apri l 201 4

imawg.ca Issue 04, Apri l 201 4

2

Continued - Fraser River Sockeye

Spawning Initiative) (pg 91 )

Along with the reference points, a lower abundance

exploitation rate (LAER) is also added in to account for

the amount fish incidental ly harvested in either,

fisheries targeted at other stocks/species or fisheries

in terminal areas, when the run size is below the lower

fishery reference point (i .e. when there is no fish

available for harvest because the run is small , the

management adjustment is large then the LAER allows

some impact when fishing for other stocks/species).

DFO is recommending the same lower fishery

reference points as 201 0 but has 3 options for

the TAM cap, either

• 60% which is status quo or l ike cycle year

'201 0' or

• 65% which al lows for increase harvest at

larger run sizes but sti l l results in adequate

escapement or

• Would you like to recommend something

higher than 65% ?

• Some things to consider:

• The sockeye forecast is for potential ly a very

large return overal l , with almost al l stocks

returning at values greater than those that

have been seen for the last few years but the

more harvested means smaller amounts on

the spawning grounds.

• With such a large return, how should the

management adjustment (MA) be dealt with

since it increases as the run increases (ex.

Return is 37M and the escapement with 60%

TAM cap is 1 5M and the MA is 9M - do you

think 9 mil l ion past Mission is needed to try

and get 1 5 mil l ion escapement?) or should

there be a cap on the number of al lowable

spawners to prevent overspawn?

• Additional ly, you wil l not see a difference in

harvest between the two options until the run

increases in size and reaches the upper fishery

reference point (pre-determined before run

comes in for both options).

Interior Fraser Coho

Exploitation Rate (ER)

Scientific review has been done under the Canadian

Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) to determine the

extent to which stock status has improved and the

degree to which this might affect al lowable ER on

Fraser Coho for 201 4.

Based on the CSAS review DFO has presented 3

options in the IFMP (pg 58), but also presented a

discussion document at Forum

(see www.frafs.ca ):

• Status Quo - Keep the ER at 3%

• Increase the ER to 4-9% permitting flexibil ity

but sti l l within the Pacific Salmon Treaty low

status zone

• Increase the ER to 1 0-1 6%, this would mean

moving into an overal l ER consistent with the

PST moderate status zone (>20% overal l ER,

al lowing for USA cap to increase by 2%).

However, some things to keep in mind around these

proposals are the fact that no formal status

assessment (WSP) has been completed yet (fall 201 4

- early 201 5). A status assessment should be

completed prior to increasing the USA cap as that

move would be more permanentl than what is

suggested with options 1 and 2 (for 201 4 season only).

There is no evidence that we have departed from the

low productivity period that has persisted since the

1 994 return, these coho wil l be co-migrating with a

potential ly large run of sockeye and what do you want

your management actions to look like.

Other Factors for the Season

Some other items that could potential ly change this

season, include:

• The degree of certainty that they protect Fraser

Steelhead at; it was protect 80% with 90%

certainty but now reads protect 80% of the

Interior Fraser River steelhead run with a high

degree of certainty - How is "high degree" going to

be defined so it isn't a moving target?

• The Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB) has

made proposal in the IFMP regarding Chinook

management. For the Juan de Fuca, they would

l ike to consolidate al l the zone action plans,

removing the zone 1 l imitations and have the date

extend the opening to July 31 st And in a portion

of the Strait of Georgia similar changes, remove

zone 1 l imitations and consolidate with the same

date extension.

IMAT Update

The Island Marine Aquatic Technical working group

met in person during March to discuss the draft

Salmon IFMP. Feedback from this process wil l be

included in the table of comments IMAWG wil l

provide to DFO prior to the deadline of April 7th.

IMAT first met in late October and has been meeting

or conference cal l ing quite regularly since. There has

been quite a camaraderie amongst the regulars and

good discussion on the present issues but also others

that participants feel the need to raise for feedback.

Feedback to date has been positive as this process

grows, so let's keep up good work and relations for

the new fiscal year.

imawg.ca

3


Fishery Option 1

Status quo at 3%

Option 2

Increase 4-9%

Option 3

Increase 10-1 6%

Food, Social and

Ceremonial

Incidental catch or non-

retention in fisheries

directed on other species.

Small tributary harvests

where abundances are

identified.

Retention of wild coho

bycatch in fisheries

directed on other species

and increased tributary

harvests where

abundances are

identified.

Retention of wild coho

bycatch in fisheries

directed on other species,

relaxation of the coho

window closure dates

and additional directed

harvest opportunities in

tributaries.

Economic

Opportunity/ FN

Demonstration

fishery

Non-retention of wild

coho in fisheries directed

on other species or

stocks.



on other species or

stocks. Additional fishing

effort/time compared to

Option 1 results in

increased release

mortal ity.



on other species or

stocks. Additional fishing

effort/time compared to

Option 2 resulting in

increased release

mortal ity.

For other management characteristics regarding other fisheries please see discussion

document posted on www.frafs.ca.

Catch Monitoring Workshop SummaryThe output from this workshop is to ensure the work from this session is

encapsulated in strategies that wil l be presented to DFO on a collective basis.

- Submitted by Sonora Thompson: IMAWG Coordinator

Day One was a Tier One level meeting and as such, the summary wil l be made available only to First Nation

participants, the fol lowing is a summary of the key points that were made:

imawg.ca

4

Photo: Josh Duncan


Day One (Tier One):

Hard working session;

Presentations by A-Tlegay Fisheries & Skeena FN:

The new approach undertaken was to show why the

data base is important to First Nations and show the

importance to others of the benefits.

A-Tlegay Fisheries

• Model and how they use their catch data

• Prawn

• Conversations with DFO

• Why and how they do their work

Skeena Model

• 200 employees, 8 biologists,

• Partnering with UBC

• Holding people accountable (LNG),

• Their process wil l lead the charge,

• 30 years of catch monitoring data to prove

and protect their aboriginal right

These presentations helped participants understand

the importance of catch monitoring, however there is

sti l l a lot of work to be done in regards to working

col laboratively.

During the afternoon break-out sessions, particpants

took recommendations from the FNFC catch

monitoring report released last year, those pertinent

to the region, applied the strengths and opportunities

and laid them side by side and developed

recomendations and strategies for col laboration.

Recommendation #1

Increased interface/field trips and cultural exchanges

between harvest sectors to demonstrate and educate

about each fishery.

Recommendation #2

Provincial : presently there are about 26 Commercial

Fishing Enterprises (CFE) in the province with varying

levels of capacity. DFO should consider a pilot project

with and advanced level CFE to util ize resources and

opportunities these organizations provide.

Recommendation #3

Due to various reasons, some First Nation find

themselves with unused/underutil ized capacity and

want to explore ways of making better use of their

human resources. A comprehensive gap analysis for

CM and test fishing should be conducted.

imawg.ca

5


Recommendations from CM Workshop

Day 1 Continued

Recommendation #4

• Plan on hosting a series of inter-sectoral workshops to

share best practices and latest know-how on catch

monitoring.

• DFO collaborate with First Nations to expand their CM

programs to monitor other fisheries. There are already

examples of First Nation doing this in BC. Any expan-

sion opportunities must be based on best science and

information standards.

Recommendation #5

a.) Definition of FSC – First Nation and DFO need to

agree upon a definition of what FSC section 35(1 ) is

in order to develop standards and criteria for col-

lection, use, analysis, and storage of the informa-

tion. Refer to Cohen; and

b.) The M&C panel report (roadmap) has developed

some generic criteria (conservation risk, fisheries,

operations, catch, ecosystem/habitat, and statistical

qual ity) for measuring monitoring levels.

c.) Develop regional information sharing protocols

that respect the local area First Nation and their

objectives

d.) DFO must seek ways in which, to the best abil ity,

these systems integrated into the current First Na-

tion systems. That it requires fewer resources and

is not onerous on the First Nation.

Day Two CM Workshop Summary

DFO Presentation.

Key sl ides in the presentation encapsulated the fol-

lowing main topic areas:

• Benefits of Improved fishery monitoring and re-

porting;

• Resource Management;

• How does DFO use the catch information;

• Framework;

• Advancing framework implementation in FSC

Fisheries

• KREST (data) system;

• FNFC Report;

• Economic chal lenges

There may be possibil ity of other harvesters

to contract First Nation monitors if they were

available.

If Framework is fol lowed, new programs are designed

together to address required levels, find money with-

in DFO but this is not enough, then the thinking is

finding answers together with First Nations – could

mean additional resources being put into AFS.

Next Steps• First Nations and DFO to take the proceedings back to constituents;

• Finalize report and send back to IMAWG and DFO;

• IMAWG Standing Committee (ISC) Take back to constituents and ask want what and cannot be worked on

(Deadline: May);

• ISC will try to figure out what topics/projects are on table and what is not;

• ISC will meet with DFO representatives to plan mutually agreeable topics to be discussed in whatever

format;

Trust remains a huge issue given DFO’s

presentation and their decision to direct where

AFS funds should be used (monitoring). Their

Adjacency Policy was also raised in terms of

being unacceptable to First Nations. Therefore,

meeting with DFO to discuss policy was

suggested.

Submitted by Katie Beach - IMAWG Biologist

Background

In October 201 3, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

engaged the Salmon Coordinating Committee (SCC)

in a discussion about updating the Commercial

Salmon Allocation Framework (CSAF) in preparation

to revise and update the Allocation Policy for Pacific

Salmon (1 999). The revisions are intended to make

the al location of commercial access to salmon more

responsive to current situations, chal lenges,

international and First Nations treaties and

constitutional and legal obligations.

Please note that the scope of this work is l imited to

the al location of the commercial shares of salmon in

BC. It does not address recreational harvest, harvest

to fund research or stock assessment, nor does it

address aboriginal right or title.

The First Nations’ proposal

The CSAF proposal developed by the SCC-First

Nations’ representatives includes an 74 row matrix

that breaks down the Framework into the main

components. Major changes include:

• Allocation categories: Adding a First Nations’category (or “basket”) to the current al location

categories of seine, gil lnet and trol l . This provides

First Nations with a defined share and a position

to participate in decisions about al locations.

• Consideration of fishing location: Some fisherieshave different values and fishing constraints than

do other fisheries. Considerations should be

made of the location (e.g., marine, in-river,

terminal , preferred fishing location) when

al locating share and fishing opportunities.

• Duration: Instead of annual agreements, FirstNations are proposing 5-year agreements with

flexibil ity for adjustments through a post-season

review process. This wil l provide more certainty

to businesses to invest, develop partnerships, etc.

This wil l also provide an opportunity to evaluate

the mechanisms of the updated CSAF.

• Valuation: Instead of using “sockeyeequivalents” which are based on landed value

and can work as a disincentive to add value to

product, First Nations are proposing that harvest

shares be defined on a species and catch area

basis, including inland fisheries, and encourage

innovation in business.

• Flexible management: Once shares are determined,each gear sector, First Nation, or First Nations’ group

can determine the best approach for the fair

distribution of the harvest opportunities and benefits

while reducing impacts on stocks of concern. Options

may include competitive fishing, individual quotas,

communal access, etc. Also, in-season transfers can

occur if pre-season plans outl ine possibil ities.

imawg.ca

6

Photo: Josh Duncan


Commercial Salmon AllocationFramework (CSAF) ReviewBriefing note of the SCC First Nations’ Working proposal

imawg.ca

7


• Transfers: Pre-season plans outl ining the rulesand mechanisms for transfers to al l al location

categories (including the FN basket) wil l be

developed prior to the fishing season. This

includes species-specific harvest shares that are

associated with PICFI and ATP licences, since

trading amongst FNs wil l help to achieve local

harvest priorities and access to local stocks. Within

season, transfers cannot occur but uncaught fish

can be harvested by upstream fisheries.

• Uncaught fish: Groups "upstream" of the fisherythat could not catch their share could be provided

opportunities to harvest a portion of the share not

caught by the "downstream" fishery. No

compensation is required.

• Role in management: First Nations want to have adefined role in management. Currently, annual

changes to fleet/fishery shares can have an impact

on the First Nations shares associated with the

inventory of l icenses that DFO uses to provide

First Nations with economic access to salmon.

First Nations’ communal-commercial l icenses are

not presently represented at the CSAB (inter-

sectoral discussions), but wil l be according to the

First Nations’ proposal (under the First Nations’

“basket”). Furthermore, a separate management

body/process may be developed to manage the

First Nations’ “basket” of salmon (intra-sectoral).

This central First Nations’ l icensing authority

would harmonize with DFO's systems to

administer/document share util ization, short and

long term transfers, etc. First Nations also want to

have more flexibil ity in managing their fisheries to

meet their community and fisher’s interests and

priorities.

• Dual fishing: First Nations fishers may retain non-target species for FSC purposes. If the species has

a conservation concern, only those l ikely to die

may be retained for FSC.

• Catch monitoring: Sufficient val idationrequirements would be established for al l

fisheries with provisions for increased monitoring

where necessary to achieve compliance and catch

reporting goals. The process would be more

transparent than it is now and costs would be

shared between harvesters and government (i.e.,

Federal , Provincial). First Nations monitors wil l be

preferable where available.

What happens next?

There have been seven Tier 2 meetings and three Tier

1 meeting days on the CSAF to date, plus two small-

group meetings the CSAB representatives. The SCC-

First Nation proposal was formally tabled to DFO at

the end of February, bringing to an end Phase 1 of the

process. The focus of the SCC-CSAF has now shifted to

guiding the socio-economic analysis which is being

done by Sandy Fraser (consultant). He is gathering

information and indicators to be used in evaluating

whether the CSAF proposals put forward by First

Nations and the CSAB wil l meet mutual objectives and

be cost efficient (Phase 2). The analysis is scheduled to

be completed by the end of March and presented to

the SCC-CSAF on April 1 st.

First Nations are proposing a Phase 3 where First

Nations work with the CSAB to expand discussions

and to focus on commonalities between proposals,

especial ly those areas highl ighted by the socio-

economic analysis. During this phase, DFO wil l also be

expected to continue bilateral consultations with First

Nations about the process. When a recommendation

is completed by DFO based on the CSAB and First

Nations’ proposals and the socio-economic analysis,

DFO wil l meet with the SCC representatives prior to

submission to the Minister to review the

recommendations. This wil l complete the Phase 3.

Date: March 1 1 , 201 4

IMAWG Election & AGMMonday March 31 , 201 4IMAWG wil l be holding their first Annual General Meeting and a delegate election

at the Coast Bastion Hotel in Nanaimo on March 31 , 201 4.

The election is to choose fifteen First Nation delegates that work with/for First Nation communities in support of

Section 35.1 aboriginal fishing rights. Al l the nominees wil l be present as they are prepared to present their

positions, and how they wil l work for the Nations in regard to your rights.

Attendees of the meeting can vote for their five delegates in their language area. Each voter can be the only voter

for their Nation and must be Chief, Counsel or any person with a proxy letter from their band to vote (one person

can hold as many proxies as they l ike).

The nominees are:

Kwakwaka'wakw (Four Seats, Plus One Elder Open for a total of FIVE Seats):

Tony Roberts Jr.: A-Tlegay Board Member and Wei Wai Kum Counsel lor

Greg Wadhams: Namgis Counsel lor and Board Member of Mama’Omas Limited Partnership

Brian Wadhams: Namgis Counsel lor and Board Member of Mama’Omas Limited Partnership

Nick Chowdhury: Da’naxda’xw Fisheries and First Nations Health Council Delegate

Tom Nelson : Chief of Quatsino

Coreen Child: Chief of Kwakiutl (new nomination to IMAWG)

Wilfred Hunt: Kwakiutl Fisheries

Coast Salish (Four Seats, Plus One Elder Open for a total of FIVE Seats):

Jordan Maher: Qullhanumutsun Executive Director

Larry George: Cowichan Land and Governance Manager

Ray Silvey: Sechelt Commercial Fisherman

Simon Smith: Tsartl ip Fisheries.

imawg.ca

8

Photo: Josh Duncan


I f you need help with travel to attend and vote, please contact Sonora Thompson at

smorin.imawg@gmail .com.

imawg.ca

9


IMAWG Election & AGM - Monday March 31 , 201 4

Nominees Continued

Nuu-Chah-Nulth (Voting Closed): The Nuu-Chah-Nulth make decisions at their Council of Ha’wiih; IMAWG

meet with the Council on May 3rd and the hereditary Chiefs voted in their five following delegates:

Carl Edgar Jr: Ditidaht Counsel lor

Floyd Campbell: Ahousaht Fisheries

Lyle Bil ly: Ehattesaht Fisheries

Andrew Jackson: Tla-o-qui-aht Fisheries

Sidney Sam Sr: Ahousaht Fisheries (ELDER DELEGATE)

Upcoming MeetingsForum on the Conservation and Sustainabil ity of Fraser Salmon

May 7-9, Port Alberni BC

IMAWG Tier 1 and 2 Meetings

Meetings for the 201 4/201 5 fiscal year wil l determined and sent out by early

May after the IMAWG Governance Workshop.

imawg newsletter - april 2014

Documents