Details

Hits: 4507

Closing the Loop

FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA

SALMONID ENHANCEMENT AND HABITAT ADVISORY BOARD (SEHAB)

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Regional Headquarters (RHQ), Vancouver, BC

Feb. 22, 2016, 9:30 – 11:30 am

Participation     SEHAB        Jack Minard, Central Vancouver Island

                                                Cindy Verbeek, Upper Skeena

                                                Brian Smith, North Vancouver to Port Moody

                                                Jan Lemon, North Coast

                                                ZoAnn Morten, Pacific Streamkeepers Federation

                                                Paul Cipywnyk, North Side Fraser River, Burnaby to Mission

DFO RHQ                   Cheryl Webb

                                Adam Silverstien

0900     Opening Remarks: Jack Minard

0905    Opening Remarks: Cheryl Webb

Priority Community Concern 

1. Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP) budget

Current SEP budgets are insufficient to conduct mandated work:

• Operational costs are rising (e.g., wages, fuel, etc.)
• Impacts to Community Advisors’ resources to support community groups (e.g., fish food, mileage, etc).
• CAs must be backfilled and other additional staffing options considered (see #4)

SEHAB ADVISES that the SEP budget be increased, recognizing that the current budget is not able to adequately support the SEP role in the community.

SEHAB REQUESTS that we be informed of what actions are being taken to make this happen and within what timeline.

2. LNG at Skeena

SEHAB ADVISES DFO that Skeena watershed and First Nations Communities, including the volunteers that we represent, are strongly opposed to the proposed LNG plant at Lelu island, Skeena River estuary.

• Independent scientific reports state this is not a good location 

SEHAB requests that this opposition be communicated to the highest levels including the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Prime Minister. 

SEHAB further requests a response from the Minister that can be shared with our volunteer community as soon as possible.

3. Protect what we have

Volunteers are feeling a lack of support for the work they do. 

In light of Fisheries Act changes and changes in regional staffing, regarding habitat issues SEHAB ADVISES that the Ecosystem Branch become proactive in protecting the biological integrity of fish and fish habitat in the following ways;

•  Financial Support: Sufficient financial resources to meet the mandate of SEP
• Policy Support: That the Wild Salmon Policy and Cohen Commission recommendations be implemented.
• Regulatory Support: action from Conservation and Protection, RAR, action on habitat infractions, protecting habitat.
• Infrastructure support for volunteers: CAs, Stewardship Coordinators, attracting and mentoring new volunteers. Many stewardship groups have aging leaders and participants, and face difficulties in organizational continuity

4. Fisheries Enforcement

SEHAB representatives continue to observe a lack of response to reported infractions. This harms salmonid populations and undermines the relationship between the volunteer community and DFO.

SEHAB is seeing fisheries infractions are showing up on the C & P website, but we are not seeing any habitat infractions. Have there been no habitat infractions?

SEHAB ADVISES that DFO:

• Update the fishing regulations portion of the website to reflect current regulations for the public
• Ensure sufficient Fisheries Officer resources are available and active in each area
• Prioritize Fisheries Officer response to infractions reported to the Observe, Record, Report (ORR) hotline
• Reinstate a notification system as per our attached letter to Rebecca Reid
• Create the ability for DFO staff to issue stop-work orders and/or fines on the spot

Example: When infractions on the lower Sunshine Coast are noted by the public, enforcement is at least a ferry ride away and only on work days. Damage cannot be quickly stopped because there are no fisheries officers in this area.

5. Meeting with Minister Tootoo

SEHAB requests assistance in scheduling a meeting with Minister Tootoo.

6. Meeting with National PAR Committee

Because decisions are being made at a national level we request a meeting with the National PAR Committee. This was in a previous Closing the Loop document but has not moved forward.

SEHAB requests that a meeting be organized, and that a timeline be determined and communicated to us before the next SEHAB meeting in June. 

7. Information sharing with SEHAB

SEHAB requests that DFO provide us with all pertinent information on

• Meetings involving salmon enhancement and habitat with senior officials such as agendas and minutes
• Changes in permitting (PAR)
• Copies of presentations about SEP to groups other than SEHAB

We have a seat on the Integrated Fish Management Planning process and would like to be notified of meetings.

Action Items RHQ/SEHAB 09 November 2015

Details

Hits: 3852

SALMONID ENHANCEMENT AND HABITAT ADVISORY BOARD

Reginal Headquarters Meeting Minutes

November 7, 2016

In Attendance: Leandre Vigneault, Cindy Verbeek, Brian Smith, Adam Silverstein, Cheryl Webb

Opening/General remarks

Volunteers are passionately appreciative of the SEP programs they receive. Several have said that without support their programs would cease to exist. As well, support and partnership with DFO add legitimacy to the group when getting established and when applying for funding.

SEHAB Concerns                                               Response from RHQ                       Action Item

Details

Hits: 5923

Summary of SEHAB meeting at FOC Regional Headquarters, Vancouver BC,

Nov. 5, 2012

FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA

SALMON ENHANCEMENT AND HABITAT ADVISORY BOARD

Attending          SEHAB - Jack Minard, Central Vancouver Island

                                           - Paul Cipywynk, North Side Fraser River, Burnaby to Mission

                                           - Lee Hesketh, Central Interior: Boston Bar to 100 Mile House

                                           - Brian Smith, Vancouver

DFO RHQ - Graham Van Der Slagh, Standing in for Alice Cheung,
                   Manager Stewardship and Community Involvement

                                           - Bonnie Antcliffe (Director), Ecosytem Management Branch

                                           - Kaarina McGivney, Manager, SEP

Items brought Forward from November 2, 3, and 4, 2012 Vancouver BC

1. New Executive for 2012 – 2015:

Chair – Jack Minard

Vice-Chair – Jim Shinkewski           Treasurer – ZoAnn Morten

Secretary – Paul Cipywnyk             Membership Chair (in lieu of Past Chair) – Grieg Houlder

2. Information from SEHAB

• SEHAB supports the Cohen recommendations and would like to see them acted upon quickly
• SEHAB communication from community to DFO: Enbridge pipeline is opposed across the board
• Staffing cuts continue to be an enormous concern
• Much discussion and angst about changes to the Fisheries Act and how that effects on-the-ground outcomes

3. Questions to DFO from SEHAB

• Is DFO aware of or involved with Provincal Water Act Modernization process? Can DFO share any status from DFO’s perspective?
• Changes in Habitat Regulations under Fisheries Act:  What advice or information is DFO giving to industry/developers/provinces/other levels of government?
  • What is the process for analyzing and utilizing the Cohen Report? What is the current assessment?
  • Does DFO have a message SEHAB can return to our community regarding pipeline construction and increases in oil freighter traffic in BC Coastal waters?
  • PIP Contracts in a lot of cases are simply for a pair of waders or a digital scale etc. To have to apply for this type of support through MERX is unapproachable by many.

            Questions re MERX

1. Will volunteer groups be required to either register with MERX or have a Business Procurement Number to be eligible to receive PIP-SEP contracts? (If YES, some discussion of the difficulty of that process should occur.)
2. Will CA’s be allowed to assist volunteer groups in their region with the development and costing of proposals, as would normally occur in project planning meetings between groups and their CA?  (If NO, Who within DFO will be assigned to assist groups in the completion of this process which is normally handled by the CA?)
3. How will groups be advised that their application has been received by DFO and whether they are on the list of groups eligible to participate in PIP contracting?
4. Will applications be assessed on an ongoing basis (as received) and will applicants be notified if their application fails to meet the mandatory criteria (set out in the Evaluation Criteria list) so that they can amend applications and address any shortcomings before the February 1st deadline?
5. Who will make the final determination regarding the awarding of contracts in a region, the services to be provided, and the amount of funding to be attached to each project?
6. What provisions will be made for the addition of new volunteer groups that might be formed in the 3-year period during which the list of eligible groups is in effect?
7. What avenues will be available for revision of the group’s proposal after its application/approval, should unforeseen contingencies or additional opportunities arise during the 3-year period?

4. Requests

• Regarding human, salmon and wildlife water use conflicts; we would request that DFO uses whatever power it can to end delays in setting fish conservation flows. For example the Water Use process recently completed by stakeholders on the Capalino and Seymour Rivers. Although there are infrastructure problems holding up delivering agreed upon Capalino flows there is no such hold up with Seymour flows. The hold up to deliver flows required is purely bureaucratic and there is no reason that flows could not be increased to agreed upon levels immediately. DFO ultimately has the authority and can direct flows for conservation and fish survival. Another example is the significant losses of chinook, coho and chum salmon and brown, rainbow and cutthroat trout in the Cowichan River due to a number of landowners wanting “beaches” on their properties and preventing ample storage to stop these losses.
• We are requesting that DFO take as active a role as possible in engaging with the Province to increase and standardize the application of the Riparian Area Regulations. SEHAB sees the RAR as the last real tool to protect habitat. Municipalities and Regional Districts are having to deal with the RAR and many are ill-equipped in resources, knowledge and support.
• We request that stewardship of the resource become a clear and simple objective. A public education campaign that describes that stewardship and protection of the resource and the natural systems that support the resource are far superior to mitigation or regulatory enforcement. This highlights agricultural lands where RAR does not apply and producers are often simply ignorant of BMP’s. A stewardship approach such as the Environmental Farm Planning program has done wonders for educating producers whereas “heavy-handed” enforcement only makes enemies and puts the restoration of the violation on the back burner when in fact, it is the repair that is the priority, not the enforcement action.
• Huge concerns that ecosystem and stock assessment research into “beach wrack harvesting” prior to authorization of any harvest plans may not be required or completed. We request DFO becomes involved to ensure that this job-creation and profitable business is not a harmful disruption to an ecosystem that supports all salmon stocks and at various life stages with extensive areas of foreshore rearing habitat and forage fish habitats. Kelp planting and eelgrass restoration efforts by community have been underway for several years as it was determined that these natural communities (near shore kelp and algal communities) are essential to the health of the resource and are in serious decline.

5. PAR Workshop

            This Workshop has been developed to address unanswered questions and have a single source of information for moving forward with Aquaculture Licencing. The concept is to bring legal counsel, DFO veterinarian and science personnel, Community Advisors, First Nations, Senior DFO Management in decision-making capacities, the National Aquaculture Working Group and SEHAB. Participants will be those whose facilities will require licencing and will have opportunity to be present in person along with a webinar for those who may not be able to attend.

The Aquaculture Licence Committee has applied to two aquaculture oriented         funding opportunities. Both have suggested that SEP is not a commercial    operation and is therefore not eligible. The committee is trying elsewhere but warns time to do this in conjunction with the next SEHAB meeting in order to save money is drawing short. Do you have any suggestions as to where we could apply for some money to put this together?

6. Next Meeting

            February 1, 2 and 3 with a Friday information session on Cohen, Bill C-38 implications and relationship with the WSP

a.   Review of Issues carried forward from November 2, 3 and 4, 2012, Vancouver, BC

Details

Hits: 4294

SEHAB Meeting October 18 - 20, 2013 Summary and Agenda

FOC Regional Headquarters, Vancouver BC,
October 21, 2013   1:00pm – 2:45pm. 

FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA

SALMON ENHANCEMENT AND HABITAT ADVISORY BOARD

Attending      SEHAB   

                                           - Jack Minard, Central East Coast Vancouver Island

                                           - Jim Armstrong, South Side Fraser River

                                           - Brian Smith, Vancouver / Burrard Inlet

                                           - Dianne Sanford, Sunshine Coast

DFO RHQ

                                           - Bonnie Antcliffe Director, Ecosytem Management Branch

                                           - Kaarina McGivney Manager, SEP

                                          - Alice Cheung Manager. Stewardship and Community Involvement

                                          - FPP?  Adam Silverstein.  Rec.Fisheries Cons. Partnerships Program.

0100     Opening Remarks: Jack MInard (Chair for this meeting)  Thank you’s

Mentioned next meeting to be at Adams River, invitation for RHQ to be there and minister

0105    Opening Remarks: Bonnie Antcliffe -  make meetings happen in the morning. Priority given to have morning meeting. No new outstanding items from RHQ, same path. 

Core Funding and Capacity

• Funding issues – Although we do appreciate the availability of another opportunity for funding projects the timeframe for Recreational Fisheries application and spending is poorly timed and is only useful to groups that already have a project “shovel-ready and at least half the money needed to proceed. The Nov 1 deadline is not doable for the majority of groups and having to spend the grant well before fisheries windows open let alone low flows have made in-stream projects possible leaves most groups unable to make this new money work for them.  
• Jack – Difficult to work within timeline.
• Adam – beyond our control, his job to try and smooth out process. Projects funded for this year need to have “shovel in the ground now”.  Nov. 4 – Dec 18 , new form, going live end of this week, window for next year , 6 weeks – April 2014 to March 2015. 
• 50% funded by other partners, amount is all that is necessary.
• By all accounts received the process is onerous and the reporting is difficult.
• If the next 1.5 years goes well, could be long term funding. Unprecedented timelines for DFO  – Bonny – first round “blinders on” get it out, now Adam on board, brings leadership and mgmt.to smooth out process.  Meeting with CA’s south coast starting next week.  Adam Silverstein – This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  contact him for more information.
• If groups are depending on new levels of funding through PSF, the timings to put these two grants together are impossible. We would suggest more thought on supporting collaboration and more “grass roots” opportunity if any further funding opportunities arise from the Federal Government. Performance standards protocols.
• The questions community are asking: “Are we simply trying to get money out the door or are we attempting to do good, effective work on the ground to assist rebuilding recreational fish species’ populations and habitats?” Many comments about seeing that the federal Government appears to be concentrating on money and NOT about the best outcomes. “The importance of a project should not be determined by money but its effectiveness to protect or restore the resource.”  Adam here to assist, smooth process. 

• Rotation and Temporary backfilling of CA positions – For our community the local CA position is a backbone to group’s capacity. Most of the activity undertaken by groups is supported in some way by the CA. It is therefore important that two things occur; one, the CA’s need to have time to mentor and understand the nuances of each group in order to build trust and relationship. And two, every group and School Classroom project benefits from CA involvement. In the case of school projects a CA (DFO have education co-ordinators who do most of this) is a must to assist with eggs, transfers and aquaculture licences. Without a knowledgeable CA, particularly under the PAR requirements, some projects simply fall off the radar, are done without proper supervision or resources or are organized and readied by many volunteers only to not move forward without CA participation and leadership. CA's need to be knowledgeable as to fish culture techniques in order to assist community understand the link between BMP's and fish health, production plans and watershed / fish health.
• Has to go national – from there to regional.  Trying to stabilize, but with downsizing not able to.
• Bonny.  Different dynamic now, succession planning.  6 vacant positions, temporary until long term plans can be made.  Support from CA’s to get better support to the community. Gap in “who to go to” in whole suite of concerns – link between communities and technical support.  Jack and Dianne

• Water Sustainability Act – We are looking forward to analyzing this new legislation and making comment. SEHAB members and constituents have expressed curiosity about DFO’s role in formulating the legislation and if DFO is pleased with the new Act.  Sehab will be making comment.  What is role of DFO?  Old, around 6 years, groundwater is piece being looked at.  Starting back up, meeting needs to be scheduled with the Province.  2009/10 involvement, then wait and see after election.
  
  
• Minister’s Visits – A large piece of SEHAB capacity and responsiveness to our constituent groups are opportunities to have face to face time with the Minister of Fisheries. To facilitate this opportunity we have determined our October 2014 meeting will take place at a location where the Board can experience the Adams River Sockeye run. We are expecting that this predicted large run will attract the Minister and it is likely she will be visiting the Adams during this run as well. If so, we would ask for a short meeting.at that time. Jack – SEHAB has a different role, not special interest.

Reminder to Bonny that we need to meet with minister, we would like to be at par with SFAB. Need face to face time.  Kaarina – is on her radar to put Sehab on meeting list.  Challenging because agendas are built in Ottawa.  Bonny – timing for Adams meeting?  Priority for peak of run, and when people will be there. 

• Further, we ask that whenever the Minister is visiting the West Coast that SEHAB is considered when scheduling the Minister’s time. At certain times there are larger issues that we may wish to discuss with the Minister and would ask your support in facilitating meetings in Ottawa from time to time. 
• Core funding for CEDP and PIP Hatchery Facilities - Without proper resourcing this important enhancement begins to fail. 
  A question from community: “If a facility is closed do the funds that were attributed to that facility return to general accounts or are they used to rebuild capacity in/at other facilities?” SEHAB urges Department to consider this as an important means to improving capacity in facilities that are operating with less that optimal funding. Are we  considering it important to close some facilities as habitat is rebuilt? Safe working conditions for people and fish is important to all and takes proper resources.
• Brian – where does funding go – to SEP, other programs? 
• Kaarina – depends on the situation.  Program is reduced as budget is reduced.  No cutback to program – within existing budget, we can realign funding.  Managing priorities.  Best use of funds – mainly kept within SEP.  More demand than funds.  Looking at addressing greatest priority. 
• Jack – SEHAB can assist with prioritizing allocation of funds.  Like to be involved if possible.  Health and safety issues.  Infrastructure strategy – Alice. PSF – CEDP partnerships for health and safety.

• DFO Spokesperson - We are noticing far more Fisheries and Oceans media presence over the past few months. This is great and assists the public understanding of many issues. We are not yet seeing a concerted effort to let Canadians know how the new Fisheries Act is progressing, what policies and new legislation are falling out of the implementation of the Act and linking these to local issues . 
• Jack – GOODISH, would like to encourage habitat considerations, COHEN and WSP dovetailing.
• We are also still not hearing clear comment about how the WSP, Cohen and the New Fisheries Act are dovetailing.
• Who is in charge?  Implementation questions. Loss of trust – who do we talk to.
• Bonny – meeting in June, expecting to move forward in near future.  No documents for release yet, but hopefully within the next month or so.  “Stay tuned”  Focus on fisheries, risk based.  Devil in the details.
• Adam – last 10 years, lots of changes.  Whole new policy, new legislation, takes time for leadership to build new policy and restaff and implement.  Policy will be replaced, let us know when we know what it is.  Not as strict as it has been in the past.  What really matters for fish, and fish production.
• Having a spokesperson who can answer questions would assist not only community’s capacity by providing a sense of leadership and direction but would assist the Departments capacity to allay fear, distrust and confusion.
• Appreciate Alice’s time to meet with us, but where is the leadership. Do we really care about fish? -Jack.  Bonny – need to put more thought into this.  Nothing to take out to people.  Policy stuff in the works.  CA’s and staff need to                get details to be able to disseminate to public and practicing professionals.  Will get it out as soon as possible once it is available. 
• We re-iterate our desire to have other Branches available for discussion at our SEHAB RHQ meetings. Again this a capacity issue because we can get the latest and most up to date info, direction and thinking that we can then                          comment on with confidence and pass along to community. 

• Federal Consultation Secretariat – Another capacity issue is our place in the “pecking order”. We notice other groups are on the consultation website and calendar they are being mentioned for their contributions. (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/index-eng.html)  There is ample of room in the box with photo / write up for any and all of the consultation processes / players. SEHAB has been reduced to only the two hours we spend with RHQ personnel three times per year. Our weekend meetings do not appear. We, very much want to see a direct link to our minutes posted on the site. It must be said again that SEHAB is one of the only groups that represent the interest of all Canadians because we are not a user group. We work for the betterment of the resource itself not what it provides us with.
• Kaarina – keep minutes short and succinct

            WSP and Habitat Protection

• Fisheries Protection Program – We are looking forward to an update on this.  Not much to report.  Next month?  or so?
• Riparian Area Regulation – We have observed along with many others that the RAR is not working to protect fish and fish habitat. We continue to see accumulating impacts as isolated projects move forward without any overview or planning.                       
• “Professional Reliance” is the term we hear and so much is resting on. However, we are aware that many listed as QEP’s are “signing off” on projects and activities they are not qualified to sign off on. The results are loss of habitat and further degradation. Add to this the reduction in staff and resources to every section of the Department and it adds up to greater accumulating impacts and further losses.  JIM – don’t have to be scientist, biologist, 3 references, you’re it.  RAR not working.  Examples.
• This whole process has added up to a distinct lack of direction and a kind of “guerrilla” action mentality. Wetlands drained, habitat altered and damaged and un-regulated use of water are adding up to further accumulating effects. There are far fewer, if any, people anymore with the authority to curtail an activity either sanctioned or not sanctioned.
• There many examples of “Professional Reliance” not working. 
• Jack – province has pushed to local level, QEP’s are looked to. 
• Adam – not able to give input at this time.  Role of SEHAB and groups we work with to push professional college of biologists  - how does new regulation mesh with RAR?  ie. – Geotechs doing QEP work, not qualified.  FPP should have role to support local groups
• Bonny suggests Ken Ashley, Marvin  be approached
• Habitat Description – SEHAB would like a definitive description of what actually constitutes habitat under the new act. We hear conflicting reports.   Don’t know.
• Consequences – There appears to be little consequence to damaging habitat. We suggest there needs to be a consequence when a system is not working and where we are continually losing habitat from the lack of planning and mitigation. Where is DFO on the issue of inspecting, monitoring and ticketing?  Conditions of authorization are enforceable conditions – how to write them is the challenge.  “Code of practice”.  Authorization is posted at the site.  Tools are there to bring this into practice, consequences are coming. Bonny and Adam. 

Pacific Aquaculture Regulations

• SEP Enhancement  Best Management Practices - We look forward to our continued relationship with department on the refinement of the BMP's guidance documents.  Many of the suggestions of the PAR committee are evidenced in the wording and layout of the BMP's binder. Having documented BMP’s will assist groups in understanding the role they play in the enhancement and health of our salmonid resource. 

• Exploring PAR Committee Effectiveness – Provincial/Federal discussions surrounding steelhead enhancement and the requirement for Aquaculture licencing has brought up a request to participate in some way with this process. We have an excellent, working committee that could be employed to help sort out some of these issues. Community has noted that neither the Province nor the Federal Government wishes to hold these licences. The question from community of course is; “Why not? And, “If not why would we as a non-profit society helping government realize their responsibilities want to hold them?”
  The SEHAB Par Committee would like to schedule regular meetings (number per year and timings to be negotiated) in order to have a regular sounding board that other agencies and initiatives can be directed to as they are scheduled well in advance.
   SEHAB PAR Committee are planning to set up a meeting with stakeholders (DFO, BCMFLRO? (BC Fisheries), Freshwater Society and other currently involved in Steelhead enhancement as soon as possible to determine direction, support and to plan next steps.
• Jack – SEHAB to set up meeting with 5 groups, Province, and DFO in regard to who holds ST license.
• Brian – Province and FWFS will not hold licenses.  Have resources to assist with process, not hold license.  Key issue to Diana Trager is that Nov 1 deadline cannot be met.  What is the liability associated with holding license?  Does it need to be “signed” by an individual?
• Meeting to clarify what has been agreed between participating parties in regard to holding ST licenses, including the Province and DFO is in process of being arranged by Sehab.

 Next Meetings

            The next year’s meetings have been set to facilitate entries into our calendars;
            March 8, 9 and 10 in Vancouver with RHQ meeting on March 11 at 9:00 AM
            June 7, 8, and 9 in Vancouver with RHQ meeting on June 10 at 9:00 AM
            October 18, 19, 20 and 21in Squilax (east of Salmon Arm) Looking to facilitate RHQ
            meeting into the weekend meeting for all our members to be a part of                                                                                                                         

Alice = working level, with PAR , WSP and habitat.  Kudos to DFO on Murray Creek project.
Thanks to Adam to being there, years of habitat experience behind him.

Action Items RHQ/SEHAB Oct, 21 2013

a.   Review of Issues carried forward from November 2, 3 and 4, 2012, Vancouver, BC

Items from Smithers Meeting June 8 – 10, 2012

Details

Hits: 11377

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Salmon Enhancement and Habitat Advisory Board

Closing the Loop SEHAB/RHQ Meeting
Pinnacle at the Pier, North Vancouver

March 9, 2014

Read more: Closing the Loop SEHAB/RHQ Meeting Pinnacle at the Pier, North Vancouver March 9, 2014