JANUARY 10 - DAY ONE: Tier One (AM) Tier Two...

Island Marine Aquatic Working Group (IMAWG)

IMAWG Coordinator Sonora Thompson email: [email protected] cell: 250-202-0037

GROUNDFISH FORUM AGENDA VANCOUVER ISLAND NATIONS AND FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA

DATE: January 10-11, 2018 LOCATION: Hupacasath House of Gathering, Port Alberni BC CHAIR: Carl Edgar Jr. OBJECTIVES:

Discover and understanding of yelloweye conservation and information sharing

between service providers and local communities.

Recommendations for First Nations participation engagement for building new

Management Objectives for groundfish.

Discussion on current science projects for halibut.

JANUARY 10 - DAY ONE: Tier One (AM) Tier Two (PM) 8:30 AM TIER ONE (Coffee and refreshments.)

9:00 AM Welcome Prayer – Host Nation Elder Agenda and Outcomes - Chair Introductions and Meeting Guidelines - Chair

9:15 AM Island Marine Aquatic Technical Working Group Summary - Nicole Frederickson

Science Planning

International Pacific Halibut Commission Survey Expansion

Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation

10:45 AM Break

11:00 AM Island Marine Aquatic Technical Working Group Summary - Nicole Frederickson

Continued Discussions

12:00 PM TIER TWO (Lunch served.)

1:00 PM Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation and Dual Fishing – Adam Keizer and Shane Petersen, DFO

Snapshot of the Yelloweye Rockfish Rebuilding Plan

Current Mortality Rate Estimations of all Fisheries

Dual Fishing Designation: Discovery on Information being Shared by the Service Provider Back to Communities

2:30 PM Break

2:45 PM T Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation and Dual Fishing – Adam Keizer and Shane Petersen, DFO

Continued Discussions

4:00 PM End of Meeting – Followed by Day Two Tier One and Two



JANUARY 11 - DAY TWO: Tier Two (AM) Tier One (PM) 8:30 AM TIER TWO (Coffee and refreshments.)

9:00 AM Welcome Prayer Process and Agenda/Outcomes Review Introductions

9:15 AM Groundfish Fisheries Management Planning Objectives – Adam Keizer and Shane Petersen, DFO

Update on Management Objectives by DFO

Open Discussion on Objectives/Performances/Adjustments

10:45 AM Break

11:00 AM Summarization of Groundfish Forum – Roundtable Discussion’s Lead by Nick Chowdhury and Gerry Kelly

Summary of Outcomes from Discussion

What are IMAWG’s and DFO’s Next Steps Together

12:00 PM TIER ONE (Lunch served.)

IMAWG MEMBERS MEETING (ALL INVITED)

1:00 PM Pacific Salmon Foundation – Partnerships and Projects Salish Sea Project – Isobel Pearsallbn gnbhgnb

Salmon Explorer Program – Tim Sucic and Katrina Connors

2:30 PM Break

2:45 PM Island Marine Aquatic Group Updates – Sonora Thompson Outcomes of the Prawn Action Planning Meeting

Preparation for the Fraser Salmon Forum January 23-25 in Richmond

Preparation for the Salmon Tier Meeting in February

4:00 PM End of Meeting – IMAWG Tier Two Letter to DFO to Follow



MEETING PARTICIPANTS

Name Group/Organization

Sonora Thompson IMAWG

Nicole Frederickson IMAWG

James Nelson Quatsino

David Schmidt Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw

Bernette Laliberte Cowichan Tribes

Andy Webster Ahousaht

Karen Bailey Nuchatlaht

Archie Little Nuchatlaht

Cole Gomez Tseshaht

Randy Frank K’omoks

Cory Frank K’omoks

Flavian Harry Klahoose

Tess Baker Salish Seas Fisheries

D. Darryl Tate Ditidaht

Philip Edgar Ditidaht

Nick Chowdhury IMAWG

Graham Murrell Hupacasath First Nation

Robert Mountain Namgis

Nick Chowdhury Da'naxda'xw

Eric Angel (and staff) Uu-a-thluk Fisheries

Katrina Connors Pacific Salmon Foundation

Tim Sucic Pacific Salmon Foundation

Isobel Pearsall [] Pacific Salmon Foundation

Gerry Kelly DFO/AAA

Adam Keizer DFO/Groundfish Manager

Shane Peterson DFO/Halibut Coordinator

Christie Whelan DFO Science

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The day began with a welcome from Chief Steven, of Hupacasath. Then the agenda was reviewed. Each meeting participant was asked to introduce themselves during which time a concern about the structure of the agenda was raided and a concern about the status of yelloweye was broached. Carl Edgar chaired the meeting. The concern about agenda structure was responded to and in particular, Nick pointed out that meeting report cards are the perfect venue to record concerns about the structure of the agenda as they are used to improve the meeting outcomes. Next, Nicole presented a summary of the IMAT meeting held on January 9, 2018. The key areas she reported on were:



Science Planning and International Pacific Halibut Commission Survey Expansion. Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation was on the agenda but since the two DFO reps that were to present on that at the IMAT meeting were not at the IMAT meeting, this item was not covered by Nicole. Following the lunch break, Adam Keizer and Shane Peterson reported on yelloweye rockfish conservation and dual fishing. This presentation provided a snapshot of the Yelloweye Rockfish rebuilding plans, current mortality rate estimations of all fisheries and dual fishing designation: discovery on information being shared by the service provider back to communities. It continued after the mid-afternoon break with roundtable format discussions. START OF TIER TWO SESSION Adam Keizer, Shane Peterson, and Gerry Kelly, DFO, introduced themselves (INTRODUCTIONS) YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH REBUILDING AND DUAL FISHING There was a PowerPoint presentation included in the meeting information kits. Adam Keizer went through it starting with the outline of the presentation and then on to the rebuilding plans. Adam touched upon the key components of the Precautionary Approach and limit reference points were also broached as it related to how significant harm can occur. He shared the science advice from DFO: one for the inside waters and how it aligns with Groundfish management areas. Inside is area 4B the outside area is everything else. Stock status – inside waters population was the next subject. The next slide was for the outside waters population. There was a bit more uncertainty of the stock being in the critical zone whereas the inside was 95 percent. Yelloweye rebuilding plans were covered in slide 7 and some of the challenges noted in same. Over the past while, DFO has been letting people know the rebuilding plans are there and that measures are in place. The objectives of the rebuilding plan were found in slide 8. The policy guidance dictates what recovery is coming out of the critical zone and it dictates time frames. The challenge management has is that science is not always there to provide guidance. The important thing is there are objectives that the DFO staff is working to achieve.



The current management measures (inside) in place to achieve those management measures were found in slide 9 and read aloud by Adam. He explained the process of permit issuance and informed that once the one tone of bycatch is reached no more permits are issued. Next, the management measures for outside, which are similar to inside but much more dramatic, were shared and can be found on slide 10 of the PowerPoint. The next slide dealt with management measures for recreational but Adam emphasized there is still much more to be done. Slide 12 gives the best estimate for yelloweye rockfish (outside) mortality 2015 to December 2017. 2016 to 2017 was the best CREEL catch coast-wide information. DFO has made some notable advances in trying to improve the recreational catch. FSC value of 11.6 tons is a partial estimate because that is only the mortality associated with dual fishing trips. Outline – Dual Fishing DFO wanted to ensure First Nations are getting the catch that is recorded for that Nation. Sometimes, additional catch is claimed as FSC by a commercial harvester to avoid commercial management measures if they exceed their limit, which would be fine with DFO if the First Nation gets that catch. Dual fishing was described in terms of what it is by Adam, slide 14, and then he talked about how DFO and First Nations might be able to work together. Background: commercial ground fish management was provided. And then Adam shared what DFO is hearing about dual fishing in particular that it is a good opportunity for First Nations. An overview of how dual fishing operates was provided on a step-by-step basis. including what steps must be followed while fishing. At slide 20, it described what the vessel master requirements are. The next slide listed some challenges. Adam wishes to work with First Nations to ensure the FSC catch caught in their name is actually getting to them. He went on to describe some common discrepancies in information or incorrect information that skippers provide to them. Potential roles were spelled out in an unnumbered slide in the PowerPoint but which Adam flagged as a good starting point for discussions with First Nations/IMAWG/technicians. people were asked for ideas on how to ensure harvesters



don’t use dual fishing as a pressure release valve from dealing with management measures. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS Proper management must take place long before a specie is at risk but more often than not, it was pointed out, DFO manages to quota holders rather than to ensure abundance of a species. Cutting back peoples’ access needs to happen. In response, Adam agreed it doesn’t make sense to manage to an emergency. Part of the issue with yelloweye is that they are so long lived and mistakes made starting in the 70s, 80s, and 90s are still being felt. There are guides that direct their staff to not allow a specie getting to those low levels. So now, staff can only go forward and make the right decisions. Dead rockfish have been seen in large areas because people are not allowed to keep it as bycatch and DFO is letting that happen, regarding the hi/low pocket numbers of yelloweye across the coast, it was asked if that relates to where draggers are. Adam believed it was unlikely. In regards to rockfish discards, that happened five or six years ago, from a management perspective in terms of making sure the harvest is not exceeding the limit, that mortality is deducted from the catch. In terms of wasting it, it has been a challenging area. In Alaska, that bycatch is brought to food banks. In Canada, he had heard anecdotally there are issues with inspection agencies and ensuring the fish is safe for consumption. However, this answer was not credible since fish from those same boats are unloaded to buyers and then brought to market so there would be no difference. In the matter of bocaccio mortality, they bring the fish in rather than discard it but because DFO doesn’t want to create an incentive, industry set up an agreement to sell the fish and the revenue is donated to research. How DFO decides where rockfish conservation areas are was answered on site by Adam. DFO has started an evaluation of rock fish conservation areas to determine their value, he advised. Rock fish conservation areas are part of Marine Conservation Areas. At this point, Nick suggested people focus their questions about the presentation and then have a round table afterward like what happened in the prawn meeting because it seemed to give DFO a good starting point. How the plan was developed and how policy guidance is reviewed and updated was questioned. Adam responded on site noting the italicized text in the slide denotes established policy. He then provided quite a detailed explanation. DFO has received



additional resources to develop new rebuilding plans and that could present new opportunities for First Nation input, he suggested. Appendix 9 is the rebuilding plan itself. Re rebuilding plan and opportunity to comment and how to meet the objectives, Adam invited people to share their perspectives. Caution was expressed in terms of what is being written down by DFO such as them wanting to seek First Nation input yet just because it is written down doesn’t mean they take input into consideration. Addressing the foreign fleet which is taking all of the fish and never coming ashore must be done. The point being, if we are going to have true management then everyone must be in the same boat and treated equally and thereby true conservation and true management can be achieved. The issue of size limits for the recreational fishery was raised. An experience of draggers shoveling yelloweye off their boats and not even taking note of how much they threw over and wasted was shared by a Namgis member. His point was that we need to stop those draggers from coming to the inlets because they catch everything. He wanted a recommendation put forward that the draggers stay on the outside because they are decimating the resources. The gaps related to the monitoring part of the dual fishery must be filled in one IMAWG member stressed. A lot of the fish don’t make to some reserves because there is no monitoring in Alert Bay but only in Port Hardy. It is known that some commercial fishers sell their bycatch because one of the buyers of bycatch is a friend on one of the IMAWG members. Tons and tons of fish are not getting to the First Nations communities. In terms of illegal fish sales, Adam agreed that is not acceptable. It is within the Nation’s ability for them to offload at Alert Bay because it is part of the designation certificate, Adam explained. Compliance with that is a separate issue. *Action: re trawlers for Adam. In 2011 trawlers defined an area where they are permitted to fish. Most of the inside waters are closed yet four or five come in each year, Adam to share permitted ground fish trawl area with IMAWG. Adam to follow up and work with Robert Mountain. In regards to closing gaps on having dual fishing and ensuring the fish get to the First Nations it is designated for, a suggestion was made that it be recorded in the log book and verified by the First Nation validators. Another option of a 3-page flip book to be used as well with requisite signatures of those authorized to sign. Adam was not aware of a form that the fish deliverer needs to sign off on and that was the problem. Adam



believes it is imperative for the First Nation to issue the designation certificate and explained why. Shane advised he is in constant contact with the IPHC in regards to the setline expansion areas. All survey information should be publicly available, Adam advised in response to Nicole’s query. Descenders are also called recompression devices and their purpose is to help rockfish bycatch survive they are not yet used in Canada. Where Canada is with descenders was expanded upon by Shane. A sneak peek at the management report identified science gaps and management gaps which were explained by Shane and challenges were outlined. The bottom line is that catch and release doesn’t really work for rock fish, Adam noted. DFO needs to consider all information to see how it can inform management measures in all fisheries and that is where descenders are at. It is IMAWG members’ contention that even if 20 percent of the rock fish caught as bycatch are saved, as in the U.S.A., that is better than none at all. The Offspray is a Russian-owned dragger that routinely shovels over tons of bycatch. It should be mandatory that when they get a license is in a First Nations’ territory they should have a First Nation member on their boat to ensure the bycatch gets to that Nation and to ensure the bycatch is not routinely wasted or being brought back to Russia to feed the crew’s family. Adam explained offences need to be pursued in court and are beyond fines. A suggestion was made that if an offence is made they boat’s license should be suspended for a year. One of the items discussed in the Fisheries Act review is to empower fisheries officers to issue fines which would be a more expedient way of dealing with offences. Shane advised DFO did have an intent to consult on ticketing regulations. People were asked to think about the challenges projected on screen and for which DFO was seeking input and therefore Sonora asked that people consider, from the community’s perspective, what input they would like to share. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON CHALLENGES



Challenges found on page 21 of the presentation were projected on screen. Each meeting participant was asked to consider them and provide input or not. Below are the comments shared by Nation. Hupacasath – no problems. DFO reiterated it wants to ensure that Nations get their fish – complete certificates help with that. It allows DFO to trace chain of custody. K’omoks – need to start working with all First Nation guardian departments to start with and get protocols in place with them. Presently only sockeye offload is monitored and permit duration should be looked at. In terms of completion, if you don’t compete it in full then you don’t get another one until it is completed. in terms of Rockfish, keep it to a non-dual fishery and keep it to FSC only. Then it can be up to the individual Nation. Klahoose – wants to work with fisheries officers Powell River and Campbell river and try to keep on top of commercial harvest. They look after closed areas for harvesters that is their priority. Not too many rockfish in Klahoose territory. FSC is done by Flavian so there is no issue on that. Nuchatlaht – they do a lot but it is not done often. They go by contract if it is done through Hayu. There have been problems with private boats hired to catch home use where they have sold it. That should be more controlled. Everyone needs to bear the brunt of conservation. If people don’t know how to manage then all must pay the price of conservation. Can’t manage on wealth all the time. There needs to be management plans for draggers. Local area First Nations will have to pay for the damage done by them. Nuchatlaht gets a whole pile up front so they will be busy for a while. Nuchatlaht – Oversight and compliance and enforcement. Karen was not aware that a ticketing regime is being reviewed. Partnering for the guardian program is something that could be done. There could be an opportunity to collaborate in the short-term with First Nation guardians. Tess – Salish Seas, Tsleil Waututh, Musqueam, and Sliammon First Nations – they have no ground fish licenses. Sliammon has 5,000 pounds of halibut but nowhere to fish it in their territory. They have no FSC so can’t comment on specific challenges. Yelloweye bycatch limits are a major hindrance to their halibut fishing operation. The fisher has to go farther and farther off shore. Ahousaht – a request was made for DFO reps to go to Ahousaht. Would like to see First Nation guardians get enforcement powers. One of the teachings of the Nuu-chah-nulth



is to share so when a person goes out to fish or hunt they share it, it is not just for personal gain. Cowichan Tribes – AHMS data base – link dual fishing designation certificate with it to make sure all fields get filled in properly, RCAs – every Nation would be different but maybe IMAWG can help draft Best Practices, southern SoG, there is very little halibut out there, 4700 members. Challenge is having to work with other Nations to get that amount but that means having those numbers applied to that Nation’s tiny allocation. Namgis – bycatch issue from trawls is a huge issue. There is no precautionary principle being used. Namgis can’t even catch it for food. Trawls need to stay out of Namgis territory (Area 12). Rockfish conservation areas don’t work because fish cross the boundary a long, long ways from there. Those fish travel 15 miles a day. A long-term sustainable survey must be done to determine if there is any true value to RCA’s. For AFS Agreement, no halibut or clams but they have protocol with other First Nations for it. There are eight First Nations in the Broughton Archipelago and some of them do. The First Nation Guardian Program is the most valuable asset DFO can ever have. the guardian program needs to be enhanced, given more money so more people can be on the ground working. Gwa’sala’ Nakwaxda’xw – DFO doesn’t seem willing to try different things to make the fishery better. Descenders were used an example and how the government is waffling. Even if they save 20 percent of the fish that is 20 percent more fish that will be there next year. Recommendation: pilot project during next ground fish fishing season. DFO management seems focused on commercial fisheries – they almost doubled the tac from what science recommended last year. Communication issues are at the heart of dual fishing challenges. Several of their Nations have been burned by the same fishers and those names need to be shared around. Ditidaht – doesn’t believe dual fishing should not be allowed at all if the commercial harvester isn’t delivering any fish to the Nation. Halibut size caught by recreational users – need to set a limit to the size they take. Enforcement – there are a handful of guardians left in fisheries. More guardians need to be trained in management and conservation of resources. Nakwaxda’xw – AHMS- build in opportunity to incorporate dual fishing licenses. AHMS was developed for free distribution and used originally at A-Tlegay. Need to way to flag fishermen where issues and concerns have been noted so that information can be shared. Boards that manage AFS and PICFI need to have a good relationship with



fishers. Chief and Council need to have better relationship with those boards. Anyone can engage with NIFI on the issue of the Aboriginal Programs Review in particular with regards to Guardians. Need clear direction on where DFO can help First Nations with the Guardian program. IMAWG – Descenders – any improvement is welcomed so the concept of using descenders was supported and DFO was encouraged to support. IMAWG - recommendation on getting feedback – create bilateral engagement documentation – to compose what has been heard to date, to write the questions in a way that can get the information being sought. Might need to go Nation to Nation and ask these questions privately with each Nation and in that way DFO would more than likely get more detailed information than in a setting like this. IMAWG can help with that. Gerry (DFO) – advised he finds this round table process helpful in structuring an approach to the issue as each concern or situation is unique. Some common themes emerge from this format and from there a more focused solution can be achieved. National Indigenous Fisheries Institute (NIFI) – DFO can feed into it. On the Guardian piece, one of the things is defining what role the Nations want them to have. Some are record and report while others are to enforce. First Nations want a complete enforcement monitoring program. The Justice Institute of BC trained Robert Mountain in enforcement. First Nations want enhanced training not just the ORR part of it. Gerry suggested when First Nations feed into the NIFI process that they state clearly what the Guardian Program means to them. He advised it gets very complex when it comes to use of force, etc. He therefore encouraged First Nations to consider how they would keep up with training, physical fitness, etc. Further discussion transpired in terms of the guardian program and how it would be up to each First Nation to determine what level of guardian ship they wanted. A two-tier system that could be used was explained by Karen. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Day Two began with Chief Steven Tatoosh welcoming those present to The Hupacasath House of Gathering and expressed his hope it would be another productive day. Then Carl Edgar, Chair, reviewed the agenda. That was followed by a short DFO presentation



on ground fisheries management planning objectives. For the most part, Adam Keizer presented and from time to time, Shane Petersen interjected. Following was an open discussion on objectives/performance/adjustments. Then there was a morning break. A summarization of the Groundfish Forum was presented by Sonora. A lunch break was called. WELCOME The meeting participants were welcomed by Chief Steven Tatoosh.



AGENDA REVIEW Carl reviewed the agenda and Sonora reminded the meeting participants to complete the report cards at the end of the meeting. GROUNDFISH FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANNING OJBECTIVES Handout: Pacific region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan, Groundfish, IFMP Management Plan – Fishery Objectives The above-noted PowerPoint presentation was provided in hard copy to each meeting participant. Adam provided a short review of same allowing plenty of time for questions and comments. Both long-term and short-term objectives were touched upon. Adam shared some of the steps made to accomplishing those objectives as well. He closed off his presentation by asking the meeting participants what does the resource provide for – some think it might help resolve allocation issues. Adam explained that he hopes to engage this Spring through a couple of session and hear what else DFO can do to engage with First Nations. He asked that comments should be specific, measurable and achievable. what should the objectives be going forward need also be addressed during this session. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS The issue of the herring MSE was raised in terms of what they (Jacklyn Cleary) are doing to create new objectives. It was also noted that conservation as an objective was missing from the presentation. The second objective must be on ensuring section 35 access for First Nations. Asking for First Nation input on assistance in developing further DFO objectives was raised in terms of DFO needing to be able to fund First Nations to do that work. Adam clarified those objectives are for broader specific goals. He flagged the outcomes would be different. DFO can’t just be industry focused in this task and Sonora set out a better way for DFO to implement the workshops so that they are First Nation focused.



Having up-to-date data (collected by all user groups) is imperative, one member asserted. He also supported conservation coming first and made the suggestion that mortality must be clearly defined and controlled to a “T”. DFO was told that CREEL surveys are useless, that First Nations don’t accept the Adjacency Policy (there is no such thing as Adjacency Policy) and informed that that does not reflect the way of the Nuu-chah-nulth and other First Nations, the bottom line must be good, sound management, First Nations must be on the front lines and fully involved, the Access and Allocation Framework is flawed and must be rebuilt. Adam noted DFO is trying to bring the two surveys for CREEL and iREC together. He noted there is a preamble in the IFMP which refers to ensuring a sustainable management of the resource in terms of the made on conservation. he admitted it is not enough and that DFO needs to define what sustainable means to them. . Data – public data is accessed through the data unit in Groundfish science – the only data not public in on commercial catch, Adam informed in response to queries. Risk Assessment Framework – is the Sustainable Fisheries Unit prerogative (Karen Leslie, AFS data GMU – they do not have data. Adam has been working in the department to get access to FSC catch. Hopeful AHMS will come into play. Hopeful they will draft a paragraph or two on the importance of Groundfish to First Nations (TEK). A suggestion was made for the objectives to be broken down into what works, what doesn’t work, what is relevant, what isn’t relevant, etc. Then talk about how to rebuild something new and build objectives that will work better. Christie Whelan – where are ground fish sets – she can check and get back to IMAWG. Gerry commented on some of the discussions that have transpired. He identified this time as an opportunity to make changes whether big or simple. He committed to tighten the loops within the DFO indigenous program heads, then identify gaps and also tighten those up. The different branches within DFO have room to improve their communication, as well, and that can be achieved by simple emails to each other sharing what each is up to. In terms of the comments made in regards to the Adjacency Policy concept, Gerry shared how he has learned different ways to have conversation as an example of how a different conversation (an appreciative enquiry both for DFO and First Nations on operational questions) can be had about it. He did not attempt to resolve the issue. When you develop objectives they are nestled within a goal. In 2008 sustainability had a different meaning which has since been watered down and therefore it was suggested



DFO define it. Conservation was once again promoted. Starting with goals rather than objectives was recommended. SUMMARIZATION OF GROUNDFISH FORUM (Sonora) Two documents were projected on screen during this session. The Summary of Next Steps/Key advice document from the IMAT meeting and a Summary from the Groundfish Forum. Their contents were not duplicated here since the document can be obtained from Sonora/Nicole. Priorities of the discussion topics that arose where read aloud. Some of the key areas identified were: site survey expansion, next steps in relation to same, community feedback, how to access files, IMAWG to provide instructions on to apply to sit on IPHC, breakdown of area 2b catch, executive summary of IPHC meetings, annual IPHC AGM to encourage more First Nations to attend re decision making power, and the list went on (see IMAWG documents for complete list). Additional concerns were provided and included: lodges/guides and the campers in float homes and campers on beaches to the most harm to the resource. Sonora continued reading from the two documents mentioned at the start of this section. Bernette identified the following missing piece of information from the Summary of the Groundfish Forum: IMAWG to help develop best management practices for RCA Through the CSAS process, DFO is quite often asked to identify people of interest. Therefore, Adam suggested IMAWG might be able to help identify anyone interested in participating in the peer review meetings. Sonora agreed they could fan the CSAS information out to First Nations. Christie would like this to go directly through the CSAS office as their list of First Nations for BC is very out of date right now, Christie added. *Action: Christie to invite CSAS people to provide an overview to IMAWG on their peer review process at IMAWG’s request. Comments about First Nation clam gardens were shared by Namgis. The presentation was concluded with the section on recommendations for DFO management measures. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS



The issue of halibut size limits was raised by Archie on behalf of Andy. Gerry made a few closing comments in terms of the work they are trying to do and capture in terms of deliverable. He promoted the progression of working together and how the work done can produce concrete outcomes. Groundfish Priority Discussion Notes Next Steps

Site Survey Expansion (Halibut Stock Assessment) Area 2B BC Coast

Concerns that surveys will conflict with areas of indigenous importance and low abundance.

Use of Fish for Payment: shouldn’t there by payment for communities to help food access.

Priority should be given to hire local Nations to do the surveys, (crew, vessels, biologist, and/or fishermen).

Any survey happening in the territories needs to have “informed consent” by the local communities.

Distribute Electronic Files of 2018 Survey Expansion: 2B for feedback from the local communities. *IMAT can provide assistance in how to access the online “Google” files.

Nations interested in participating as Survey Provider; IMAWG to provide instructions on how to apply (form via application form the Conference Board for commercial operators). Commission chooses participants.

IPHC Breakdown of Catch in Area 2B to Nations IPHC.int.

Executive Summary of the IPHC Meetings for Island Nations by IMAWG.

Encourage all First Nations from the Vancouver Island area to attend the Annual IPHC AGM; this is where indigenous voice can be heard for the international decision-making. IMAWG to send out AGM Invitation out.

A portion of fish captured in the

setline survey should be distributed

to appropriate First Nations.

IMAT to work on creating a

Regulatory Proposal to be presented

to IPHC on this topic.

Recreational Halibut Fishing

Leasing Quota still is zero support.

High success harvest via service providers.

Concerns of monitoring of lodge caught catch and fishers not reporting catch; DFO isn’t providing the adequate services and Lodges in local areas have been requesting Nations to come

Recommend 50% reduction in catch

limits for guides and lodges.

Increase in non-resident licence fees

and reduce non-resident catch

limits by 50%.

Guide and Lodge, with First Nations

service provider, to monitor catch.

Currently DFO does not have the

tools to manage service providers



help in providing monitoring services.

Concerns around campers/fishers and quantity of fish being harvested.

Enforcement presence regarding illegal recreational harvest activities; i.e. multi-lines and “soaking”.

vs. independent fishers. IMAWG

still should express this as a

concern.

Mandatory use of circle hooks for recreational sector fishing halibut.

Minimum size limit; Halibut Commission is looking at removing min size limits (commercial); rationale the mortality of catch and release. Environmental conditions reflecting.

Use of decenders in the sport fishery.

SPR Harvest rates (e.g. science harvest 3.1 and industry voting 7.4) is determined by the votes at the Conference Board; this is significantly influences Canada’s allocation/harvest in a negative way that doesn’t support sustainability.

Science vs politics, need to highlight environmental conditions as a way to respect conservation. The resource cannot maintain the harvest rates.

First Nations will be fishing and managing halibut within their local territories; their fisheries department will manage their resources.

Nations need to report their catch to prove to the IPHC that subsistence use is higher than 3% (Coast-wide US/Canada) so Nations can obtain higher quota of halibut for Section 35.1 fisheries. Canada is at 5% at domestic allocation.

If conservation/ long-term

sustainability is the goal,

recommend harvest level below the

SPR 46 level at IPHC Annual meeting.

Harvest decisions to be based/

directed by the science advice rather

than politics.

Specific guidance to Island Nations of the “importance and significance of harvest control rules” and the voting/conference board influence determining harvest rates. Canada (with DFO) has 50 votes compared to 100 votes at the Conference Board. First Nations attendance has the ability to have impact on the vote in favour Canada. Jim Lane (Chair of Conference Board and Ted Assu Commissioner). 6 (3 Can 3 US) commissioners decide the outcomes of the harvest advice. Jim Lane no 2018, Martin Paish nominated this year.

Canada to provide outcomes and decisions made at the Conference Board to Island Nations. Report of the Annual Meeting (all advice provided and decisions).

Commissioner IPHC, request from DFO/FNFC Commissioner vacancy on the IPHC w/First Nation being priority for position. Position still open; request from DFO to find someone before the annual conference end of January. Adam



will research support for travel for nominated person to attend January AGM.

Science Strategic Planning

Ministerial decision needs to be based on science and conservation; this includes local/technical knowledge.

Determine what conservation means to DFO; what is the “line” that determines full protection of a stock.

Christy Whelan has been mandated by DFO that First Nations access is first priority. May be beneficial to work with Christy Whelan as a “power of influence” with advice to fishery managers. Christy reports to the Regional Director of Science not Fisheries managers.

Science Strategic Planning; how much influence will this have on decisions made by Fisheries Management? Science is only advice; but working collaboratively with Christy Whelan may help pressure managers to use science decision-making models rather than political/economics.

Indigenous Supreme Court decisions and regulatory rules needs to be reference and used as guidance in the documentation.

Funding package for science projects from Christy Whelan. New funding opportunities, Science doesn’t have a list right now, but will create a list of external funding and how to access regarding. Next three months.

Obtain a copy of the 2010

Groundfish Science Strategic Plan

from Christie Whelan (DFO), review,

and provide feedback/input to

Christie.

Develop an engagement strategy on Science Strategic Plan with Christie Whelan.

Supply Christy Whelan on the times lines for the Next Steps (reference Nicole’s presentation).

Political support for science engagement (Christy Whelan as the DFO science delegate) with IMAT.

Request information from Christy Whelan on who the Indigenous Coordinator (PBS) is and how are they going to be involved with Island Nations and their experience with indigenous peoples. Currently position goes to March 31; DFO Science created new position, not sure on the role/responsibility and what science has done in the past. Provide CW recommendations on position is welcomed. Mark Poyrala.

Training/experience is already there within the local indigenous communities; IMAWG to create a list on who has been in trained in what, with the capacity available and projects already working on to see what projects requested by DFO/Nations can be started immediately.

CSAS Process: GMU is asked who might be interested; can flag IMAWG has a communication portal on notifications. Requests to go



through the CSAS office; information at the office is out of date. Timeline driven (short). CSAS Intro to be shared with Island Nation.

Rockfish Conservation

Yelloweye rockfish have been assessed as being in the critical zone.

The Precautionary Approach states that Rebuilding Plans must be created and implemented for species that are assessed as being in the critical zone.

DFO needs to be proactive rather than reactive in its management decisions.

Any spatial data that indicates abundance are associated with locations of trawl fishing? No data to support/deny this.

Challenging regulatory issues to try to deal with bycatch and what is done with it. In other Jurisdictions (Alaska) bycatch is distributed to Food banks, but in Canada we can’t do this because of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Rules and Regulations.

All fisheries are treated “equal” and fall under the same conservation management regime.

Receive feedback on recreational management measures proposed by SFAB in regards to reduced rockfish catch following the March meeting with DFO.

Need to address Rockfish (all species) discards as bycatch mortality (wastage).

First Nations to be involved in the Rebuilding Plans. Q: Is It just for comment or are First Nations part of the development?

Commercial Trawlers not to fish in inside waters- trawlers shouldn’t be fishing in these areas. DFO to provide map of area where trawling is permitted.

IMAT to help develop best management practices for RCA’s; to be vetted via IMAWG. Revisiting the RCA conservation strategy; need the LEK/TEK in moving forward.

Dual Fishing DFO is concerned that commercial fishers are using Dual fishing to collect more than their allotted TAC and that the fish captured under the Dual Fishing certificate are not being delivered to Nations.

Need verification to bands on how much of by-catch is coming to Nation, to ensure they get all FSC catch.

Signature of First Nation monitor who signed off on Dual Fishing offload.

Design Dual Fishing Landings form. There should be duplicate copies of the landings verification form to create accountability ( 1 copy to vessel operator, 1 copy to First Nations, 1 copy to DFO).

Designation Certificates need to have expiration dates to prevent vessel operators from using the same Designation certificate multiple times.



Commercial boats fishing in First Nations traditional territory must have a First Nations observer onboard and a portion of the catch to be distributed to that Nation.

Increased fines and consequences (e.g. revoke commercial licence) for those who exceed commercial bycatch amounts.

IMAWG to provide recommendation/guideline on bilateral engagement on information gathering on Dual Fishing and ensuring FN are getting their catch.

Is Dual Fishing permitted in RCA’s? This might not be a good idea.

Management Objectives

Follow the process similar to herring MSE process. Setting specific management objectives vs specific goals for all groundfish fisheries.

Conservation is #1; then First Nations access and sustainability. Industry is after that. Sound management from the foundation of science that follows the precautionary approach.

Changes need commitment on political support.

Mortality needs to be defined (all reasons/causes/effects).

Solid and current data to support sound management.

First Nations need to be informed and involved within the management and objectives.

Objectives most likely developed under a “different governmental regime”.

Workshops to be T2 as T3 isn’t a collaborative process that works for First Nations; whereas both a strong industry focused and nature of sensitive conversations that require a T2 format.

Utilize historical information that has been collected by IMAT and IMAWG (what has worked and

Host FN workshops via AAROM groups; DFO may needs to provide 5-10K funding to host. Focus on both long term and short term goals.

Guardian involvement within the Creel survey process; IMAWG including the recommendation within the NIFI Discussion Paper.

Define what “sustainable use” means (DFO and First Nations); could be part of the workshops.

Ensure commercial/recreational allocation assignments don’t infringe indigenous rights.

Ensure that DFO AAA and AFS Managers on the Island are connecting (tighten the loop) with the DFO GMU Unit to ensure they are accessing the AFS Catch reports (Word, Excel, AHMS).

First Nations to meet with DFO Bilaterally (Chief/Council/Decision Makers) to change the details within their AFS agreements that reflect the needs, laws and requirements of that local community; discussion regarding allocations, area and timeframes. AAA DFO may need to bring in the other species managers to have a cohesive discussion.

Request that GMU Manager (Regional) and Science (e.g. Christy Whelan) be part of our Governance



what hasn’t) as information to help formulate new objectives.

Overall Management Comments

Area harvest restrictions within the communal licences (not allowed to harvest outside the defined DFO Statistical Area in the licence) have to be removed. Indigenous harvest and management doesn’t have boundaries without laws defined by First Nations.

Understand that any further (collaborative/work) requests done by First Nations needs to be financially supported as the current AFS program is fully subscribed and hasn’t increased since inception.

DFO recognizes that the internal branches within South Coast/Region need to communicate better. South Coast Management team awareness of engagement with First Nation groups beforehand.

Adjacency Policy “concept”: example of a difference conversation…terms of fisheries management within “your” territory what is important to you and what is important to DFO? DFO needs to know the whats and hows on local communities need for their fisheries to run. DFO is starting utilize the feedback from the Tier Two meetings (local needs and concerns) to build on with bilateral conversations.

Workshop to help us better plan and pick priorities for the year.

Participants to go back to

communities and begin collecting

feedback to help draft working in the

IFMP in regards to the value

(spiritual, social, economic, etc.) of

herring to First Nations.



ACTIONS/OUTCOMES:

*Action: Submit a request to IPHC for them to advise IMAWG the actual number of

halibut caught and the actual number of lines used, etc.

*Action: IMAWG biologist to follow up on how far the low oxygen levels go (from

Washington State).

*Action: IMAWG to distribute the information about how to get on the conference

board of IPHC.

*Action: re trawlers for Adam Keizer. In 2011 trawlers defined an area where they are

permitted to fish. Most of the inside waters are closed yet four or five come in each

year, Adam to share permitted ground fish trawl area with IMAWG. Adam to follow up

and work with Robert Mountain.

*Action: Christie Whelan to invite CSAS people to provide an overview to IMAWG on

their peer review process at IMAWG’s request.

*ACTION: IMAWG to work with the PSF regarding the PSF Salmon Explorer

database; first step to create an engagement plan and then forward next steps

to IMAWG Board and Island Nations.

*ACTION: Review the outcomes table with Adam Keizer and Gerry Kelly at the Action

Planning meeting for next steps.

JANUARY 10 - DAY ONE: Tier One (AM) Tier Two...

Documents

Transcript of JANUARY 10 - DAY ONE: Tier One (AM) Tier Two...