SEHAB Roundtable North Coast February 2006
Upper Skeena Roundtable Report - February 17, 18 & 19, 2006
As prepared by Ev Person & G. Wadley (Alternate)
1. Priority Issue: As reported in Ev Person’s Oct. 2005 roundtable report the Chinook issue remains the priority issue from the Northwest. The depressed runs over the past few years have raised alarms with inland fishers with minimal response from FOC staff. Average run strengths to Skeena tributaries have declined dramatically in the past 10 years, in some cases by >60% of average escapements in the 1990’s.  (See attached Table “Chinook Escapements for Upper Skeena Tributary Streams”) This issue has been brought forward to FOC over the past 3 years through stewardship groups and the Sportfish Advisory Board and the response from FOC has been rhetoric. (See attached notes from the Northcoast SFAB meetings at the end of this report)
Skeena stewards have asked for a Chinook index stream from the upper Skeena for at least 5 years and applications for support and funding have been ignored. Currently the only Chinook index stream is the Kalum River, flowing into the lower Skeena, which is not representative of upper Skeena stocks. In past years (1980’s – late 1990’s) CWT Chinook were produced for the upper Skeena from Kispiox (middle Skeena), Fort Babine (upper Skeena) and the Toboggan Creek (upper Bulkley/Morice) Community Involvement Projects. These provided a much needed supplement to depressed stocks and information on harvest by Alaska and Canadian fisheries. Similar to Coho CWT programs from the same facilities, these provided the only relevant information on interceptions and exploitation rates available to FOC prior to and during the coho crisis.
Recent moves by FOC to reduce marking of enhanced fish appears to be a huge step backwards for assessment and is not viewed as positive by local fishers. 
To further articulate our position as an action item……We in the north want an upper Skeena Chinook indicator from at least one of the stocks in jeopardy and we want SEHAB support for this initiative to HEB.
2. Marking and Assessment Priority: Where hatchery fish are being released we want support to continue marking (regardless of who pays for it) and a commitment from FOC to continue to improve monitoring for marks. We feel this is key to better understanding our Skeena stocks for all concerned. FOC locally seems determined to drop marking as a priority even if stewardship groups are willing to pay for it. In some jurisdictions on the coast all released fish must be marked and one would think that consistency would be key to assessment goals over all jurisdictions. Currently FOC recovery and monitoring efforts for marks through the commercial and commercial sport fishery in the north are abysmal and we need this information to determine why our upriver stocks are in decline and who’s catching them.
3. Relevant to the Chinook enhancement and marking issues, the Kispiox SEP was closed by the current CA in 1996 and the Fort Babine SEP facility was taken from the 20 year contractor (Fort Babine Enterprises) and handed off to the Chicago Creek Enhancement Society to operate for the past 3 years. FOC - HEB staff were directly involved in both of
these debacles and recent comments and initiatives by OHEB staff continue to irk First Nations stewards and compromise their efforts to remain involved in stewardship activities. Unsolicited comments from the above groups, as well as Houston representatives suggest there are continuing issues related to FOC’s selective working relationship with stewards in the area. This is nothing new for some of the groups here but should be a cause for concern for HEB officials and FOC regional staff.
4.  Another  major  issue  looming  for  Skeena  Country  is  the  Coalbed  Methane exploration being pushed by the Province of BC.  The following excerpt from the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition outlines the issue.
SHELL OIL DRILLING ON THE SKEENA
~ Submitted by the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition 
Shell Oil has been granted tenure to drill exploratory wells for Coalbed Methane on the Skeena River.  4 wells have been approved by the government without any input from the residents or First Nations.  There is no place in the world where Coalbed Methane and salmon or steelhead have been able to co-exist but the
government and Shell have assured us that our resources will be protected.  Their promises are about as meaningful as the promise the fish farms won’t harm our wild salmon!  The Ministry of Energy and Mines
as well as the Oil and Gas Commission of BC have fewer laws in place than Alberta to protect our wild resources.  Employment seems to be the key reason the government claims to support such mega-projects
in our sacred headwaters but when the 11 other coalbed methane projects in BC get 85% of their employees from Alberta, I tend to question whose employment are we trying to improve?  Less than 1% of the jobs on
a coalbed methane jobsite go to residents of the local communities affected by the development.
In a study conducted last year on the Oil and Gas sites currently operating in Northeastern BC, there were
more than 3000 environmental infractions cited as well as more than 75% of soil or water near the sites contaminated to the point that it is not fit for consumption and in some cases, quite lethal.  If you would
like more information on this, you can visit any of the websites listed below.
www.dogwoodinitiative.org, www.wcel.org, www.cbmwatch.ca
5. A Mega Project proposed for Northern BC with major habitat protection implications.
The Enbridge Gateway Pipeline Project
The Environmental Process Modernization Plan proposed by Fisheries will have to demonstrate a profound ability to deal with the methane exploration AND the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline. This mega project proposes to cross the northern part of the province from Alberta with an oil pipeline to the Port of Kitimat.  The proposed pipeline, along with the Shell gas exploration constitute the two major issues facing Northwest BC and pose a serious environmental risk to upper Fraser, Skeena, Nass, Stikine and the upper Finlay Rivers. The first four of which represent the best remaining salmon rivers on the BC coast.
With little population base in our northern communities the need to review and monitor development plans places an onerous burden on regional stewardship groups. In order to protect environment and habitat through these processes reliance on our agencies and other NGO’s is imperative.  Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada will have to demonstrate a strong commitment early in the process to ensure habitat and water quality are a priority issue. More on Enbridge as the information comes available. (web address for preliminary report – www.endbridge.com/pdf/2005-11-02-gatewaypip.pdf  )
6. SEHAB related issues brought forward are as follows:
• Roundtable issues are a priority to constituents. Written reports can bring issues forward but there needs to be adequate time for discussion of major issues such that actions can be seen to follow from FOC.  There is no assurance that written comments or concerns will be adequately addressed through the process. We need to follow issues through the SEHAB process to see what has been resolved other than new processes.
• In that vein, there has been a myriad of new processes and new directions, reorganization,
obvious
dis-organization
and
little
action
from
FOC.
It
appears
the

issue
of $ to
carryout
the
programs
we
are
concerned
with
remains
one
of the

biggest
stumbling
blocks
and
more
effort
towards
funding
of programs
deemed

priority
by the
public
may
be
required.
What
did
happen
to
the
CEDP
review?
• Conservation and Protection issues related to habitat remains a concern with northern groups as the history of enforcement in our region is fraught with dissension and lack of action. We look for a clear path through the agency to record and report habitat violations and to follow the investigation and resolution or possible prosecution. FOC efforts with the two major projects should be transparent and accessible.
• Efforts are underway to increase communication with more stewardship groups in the area and an updated list will be forwarded within a month .
• If SEHAB is going to be responsible for, or expected to be educating the public about issues such as EPMP, Groundwater contamination, priority roundtable issues and funding sources, FOC will need to consolidate some of the information in concise presentation for dissemination to stewards and NGO’s. Formal presentations for EPMP will probably be required and FOC staff will have to be presenting.
• Ev Person (his 73
rd
birthday this year) has requested a dictionary of acronyms for ease of understanding the flow of e-mails and reports.
Copies of Notes and motions from a recent Northcoast Sportfish Advisory Board     Meeting 
NCCM01-10 – It was moved by Terri O’Neil and seconded by Tom Protheroe that DFO move quickly to provide for (finance and implement) an indicator stock for the upper skeena chinook stocks, and an indicator stock for lower skeena coho stocks.  PASSED UNAIMOUSLY
John McCulloch – Opportunities to establish conservation units for upper Skeena chinook may be possible through the Wild Salmon Policy.
Upper Skeena – Terri O’Neil
There is a growing concern regarding chinook escapements to the Bear/Sustut and Bulkley/Morice systems.  There was a discussion around Skeena sockeye and the restrictions placed on the recreational fishery in-season.  The Babine weir issue was discussed and it was suggested that DFO stock assessment should be invited to the next  meeting.  3 motions were introduced.
Chinook Stock Assessment – Ivan Winther(FOC CK BIO)
All of the normal summertime stocks came in less than we have been experiencing recently.  The Nass was better than the Skeena.  The Bear was very low and the counts were conducted by Dan Wagner so there is no concern with the method.  The Sustut was down to a lesser extent.  Doesn’t believe the Bear is being hit disproportionately in any fishery.
John Brockley – What is the difference between historical escapements and biological  based escapements?
Ivan Winther – The biological based goal is the amount needed to get maximum output.
Terri O’Neil – Why is there no CWT data for the Bulkley.
Ivan Winther – The Cedar and little Bulkley stocks have passed Tyee before the test  fishery starts.  We have looked at the little Bulkley CWT’s but because of run timing they miss most all of the domestic fisheries other than in terminal areas.  They are being harvested in Alaska.
John Brockley – There was a motion passed last spring to establish a tagging program in the upper Skeena.
Ivan Winther – Would have to look into it and would have to do a program of a few systems in the Skeena and also use radio tagging to compare to Kalum data.
Dave Peacock – Would cost 1 million dollars over 2 years.  We will do work for the Wild Salmon Policy but don’t believe will have any new funds.