Review of the Chilcotin Watershed's Anadromous Stock's Statuses

Upper Fraser Fisheries

Conservation Alliance

Review of the Chilcotin Watershed’s Anadromous Stock’s Statuses

Brian Toth, R.P.Bio., MBA and Michelle Tung, B.Sc., MA Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance 1041 Whenum Road Prince George, B.C.

Prepared for the New Prosperity Mine Federal Review Panel July, 2013

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 3 2 Chilcotin Watershed Salmon Stocks – Management Overview...... 4 2.1 Management Process ...... 4 2.2 Status-Trends and Management Objectives ...... 5 2.3 Status-Health of Chilcotin Salmon Stocks ...... 7 3 Sockeye ...... 8 3.1 Chilko Sockeye ...... 8 3.2 Taseko Sockeye ...... 12 3.3 Chilcotin Sockeye Summary ...... 15 4 Chinook ...... 15 5 Coho ...... 18 6 Steelhead ...... 23 7 Critical information gaps ...... 25 7.1.1 Sockeye ...... 25 7.1.2 Coho ...... 26 7.1.3 Chinook ...... 26 8 Salmon Status-Health Summary ...... 26 9 Importance of Biodiversity & Conservation ...... 27 10 Conclusions ...... 28 11 References Cited ...... 30

1 INTRODUCTION

The Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance (UFFCA) The UFFCA is a not-for-profit society, that is geographically based and run by a First Nations board of directors. The UFFCA’s eligible membership includes all First Nations possessing a community within the salmon bearing portion of the upper Fraser watershed. The organization is mandated to advance fisheries and aquatic-related interests of First Nations in the Upper Fraser Watershed. Core funding is provided by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) for the purposes of assisting DFO in meeting their substantive Consultative obligation regarding salmon management. The UFFCA facilitates the information exchange component of this obligation. The UFFCA is a technically focused organization that aims to build First Nations capacity for effective engagement in Consultation processes and co- management arrangements, and coordinates and facilitates watershed-level forums related to fish/fisheries, and populates a range of fisheries management processes. The technical expertise of the UFFCA is in the management of the Fraser’s anadromous fish (policy, stock assessment, management framework) and its inter-relation with First Nation interests.

Purpose and Approach The status1 of the anadromous fish resources of the Chilcotin watershed were reviewed utilizing the most recent information (largely DFO and BC MoE/FLNRO) through which the status of stocks or Conservation Units (CUs) have been assessed, and/or the relevant policy frameworks within which they’re managed. The purpose of this report is to summarize the available information regarding the status of the Chilcotin’s anadromous stocks for the purposes of characterizing their level of vulnerability/resilience to potential negative impacts.

Summary of Key Findings The review indicates that the chinook, coho and steelhead populations within the Chilcotin are all managed as “Conservation Concerns” within DFO’s management framework (i.e. generally inferring that they are either not targeted in any fisheries and they are managed to an incidental by-catch maximum, or they are managed to allow very limited directed fisheries). Chilcotin sockeye (3 biodiversity units, or Conservation Units (CUs) including Chilko-S, Chilko-ES and Taseko) are presently managed within aggregates or management units of other Fraser sockeye CUs. The Chilko-S is the large stock that supports much of the Tsilhqot’in sockeye harvest, and a substantive component of the overall catch of Fraser sockeye. The Chilko-S CU’s status is green zone (healthy) based on abundance. The Taseko’s status is deemed to be provisional and “red zone2”, and the Chilko-ES CU is data deficient and its status has not been assessed.

The available and inferred information relating to the status of the Chilcotin’s anadromous resources indicates that:

1 Referring to the ranking or categorization of the “health” of a species, sub-species or population inferred through criteria such as abundance. For salmon, Canada has adopted the Wild Salmon Policy which stipulates that Conservation Units (significant units of biodiversity) will be monitored and assessed against spawner abundance benchmarks and distribution. 2 A Conservation Unit in the Red zone is undesirable because of the risk of extirpation, and the loss of ecological benefits and salmon production. The presence of a CU in the Red zone will initiate an immediate consideration of ways to protect the fish, increase their abundance, and reduce the potential risk of loss. Biological considerations will be the primary drivers for the management of CUs with Red status (DFO 2005). 3

 The Chilko-S sockeye CU is currently “healthy” (green zone), but has been trending to red in recent years. This CU presently supports extensive harvesting across all fishery sectors, and is arguably the most important sockeye CU in the Fraser watershed, based on contribution to catch;  The Chilko-ES sockeye CU’s status has not been assessed due to data issues;  The Taseko sockeye CU is provisionally red zone, and the stock has ‘0’ tolerance for further declines;  The Chilcotin steelhead are managed to escape 80% of returning adults with 90% certainty – they are impacted by fisheries targeting co-migrating salmon species, and these fisheries are curtailed annually because of concern for maximizing escapements of Chilcotin Steelhead; and  Interior Fraser coho, which includes Chilcotin coho, are COSEWIC designated as Endangered, and are managed to an exploitation maximum of 3%, for the purposes of allowing some directed fisheries for co-migrating stocks, and these fisheries are curtailed annually because of concern for maximizing escapements of Interior Fraser coho, including Chilcotin coho.

In some instances, the existing management framework within which Fraser sockeye are managed does not recognize or respond to the status of individual sockeye CUs, such as in the case of the Taseko CU, and the existing framework therefore inherently poses a risk to the stock’s viability and vulnerability. Further, in some instances the sockeye escapement monitoring framework is not designed to produce adequate data to assess and track CU status.

Given the poor status of the Taseko sockeye, and the Chilcotin’s coho, chinook and steelhead stocks, it is apparent that adding any additional potential negative consequence to the productivity or survivability of these stocks is incongruent with DFO’s management strategy, the Wild Salmon Policy, and the Precautionary Principle.

2 CHILCOTIN WATERSHED SALMON STOCKS – MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW

Salmon stocks that support the Tsilhqot'in Nation fisheries within the Chilcotin watershed include sockeye stocks that return to the Chilko and Taseko rivers, and chinook and coho stocks that return to the Chilko, Taseko and upper (Little) Chilcotin rivers.

The annual abundances of returning adults are monitored by Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO’s) Stock Assessment Division, in some cases with the assistance of the Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG) fisheries program staff. These late summer and fall programs are conducted utilizing a variety of standardized methodologies including mark-recapture surveys, boat, aerial and ground-based counts, and automated (DIDSON) methods. A spring monitoring program is conducted on Chilko Lake for the purposes of observing the abundance and characteristics of sockeye smolts leaving the lake.

2.1 MANAGEMENT PROCESS These adult and juvenile monitoring programs support DFO’s salmon management framework (for each species – chinook, coho and sockeye) by contributing to a long term record of spawner abundance and 4

subsequent adult returns, and a mechanism through which an annual “forecast” of returning abundance can be generated for the purposes of planning fisheries and escapement objectives (particularly for sockeye, to an extent for chinook, and presently, to a limited extent for coho – i.e. all species are managed through differing frameworks of criteria, thresholds and objectives – explained below).

The annual monitoring programs also provide the means through which the health and status of individual stocks can be assessed and documented.

2.2 STATUS-TRENDS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Salmon are managed by DFO with protection and conservation of fisheries resources as key components of their fisheries management objectives, in order to achieve the sustainability of the resource – their stated goal (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/index-eng.htm).

A key aspect of any natural resource management framework and process is monitoring information and how that information is utilized and interpreted relative to status-health of the resource and the resource’s components – to achieve the desired outcomes (sustainability, biodiversity, economic objectives, etc.).

The process and criteria through which the health or status of individual Pacific salmon stocks in Canada have been assessed has varied over time, and more recently the mechanisms, criteria and thresholds through which an individual stock or population and its status would be defined have been outlined within Canada’s Wild Salmon Policy (WSP – adopted June 2005) http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/species-especes/salmon-saumon/wsp-pss/index-eng.htm .

In addition to identifying the means through which the status-health of stocks will be assessed, the WSP also identifies a new set of goals, objectives and strategies that will guide DFO in managing wild salmon resources.

DFO has been working for a number of years to both develop the tools necessary to inform their management approach according to the WSP, and adapt their existing management framework to reflect the guiding principles of the WSP.

(Extracted from Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document and Science Advisory Report in preparation) - Grant, S.C.H. & G. Pestal. 2012 (DRAFT). Integrated Biological Status Assessments Under the Wild Salmon Policy Using Standardized Metrics and Expert Judgement: Fraser River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) Case Studies. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/nnn. x + xx p.

The goal of the Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) is ‘to restore and maintain healthy salmon populations and their habitats for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of Canada in perpetuity’ (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2005). In order to achieve this goal, the WSP outlines a number of strategies, including Strategy 1 (Standardized Monitoring of Wild Salmon Statuses), which is the subject of this SAR. Action Steps for Strategy 1 include (1) identification of CUs, (2) development of criteria to assess CUs and identification of benchmarks to represent biological status, and (3) monitoring and assessment of CU status.

Work on these action steps has progressed since the WSP was published in 2005, with the following peer-reviewed milestones:

 methodology for the identification of Pacific salmon CUs (Holtby and Ciruna 2007);  methodology for the assessment of Pacific Salmon biological status under the WSP (Holt et al. 2009);  technical background for WSP status assessments (Holt 2009; Holt & Bradford 2011);  uncertainty in WSP status for Fraser River Sockeye salmon CUs (Grant et al. 2011);

Four classes of indicators have been recommended to evaluate WSP status of wild Pacific salmon: abundance, trends in abundance, distribution and fishing mortality (Holt et al. 2009). Within each class of indicator one or more metrics can be used for status assessments, and for each metric a lower benchmark and upper benchmark delineate, respectively, the Red to Amber and Amber to Green status zones. These biological benchmarks are specifically used for status assessments, and are not prescriptive for specific management actions.

Since CU status evaluations can include more than one metric, it is possible that different metrics could each indicate a different WSP status zone from Red (poor status) to Green (healthy status). For example, the WSP recent trends in abundance metric could suggest a CU’s status is poor, while conversely, the long-term trend metric could indicate the same CU’s status is healthy. In cases particularly where metric information is contradictory, provision of this metric-specific status information alone does not provide complete or useful scientific advice to fisheries management. Instead, a final step that synthesizes all metric and status-related information into a final integrated status for each CU, and provides expert commentary on this information, is necessary as inputs into subsequent WSP Strategy 4 (Integrated Strategic Planning) to prioritize assessment activities and management actions.

For Pacific Salmon CUs, WSP biological status integration methods have not previously been developed. Therefore, in the absence of existing WSP-specific status integration approaches, a CSAS workshop: “Guidelines for Aggregating Status Indicators and Their Application to 24 Conservation Units of Fraser River Sockeye” was conducted to achieve this goal. This SAR summarizes the results from this recent CSAS workshop.

The “fundamental” components that are required to assess and apply status-health at the appropriate level of biodiversity for Pacific Salmon species (as per the WSP) are now largely in place for sockeye and coho (chinook being finalized). It is also now evident where the monitoring and management frameworks/ process are incongruent with the WSP-approach.

Understanding the current status-health of the Chilcotin watershed’s salmon stocks and how they are considered within the management framework and process is fundamental to the matter of the Tsilhqot'in salmon fisheries, and the sustainability of their interests and use of the resource.

2.3 STATUS-HEALTH OF CHILCOTIN SALMON STOCKS For the purposes of understanding the status-health of the individual salmon stocks that support the Tsilhqot'in’s salmon fisheries (as well as other downstream fisheries), the most recent information regarding the status-health of each of the relevant stocks was reviewed.

Several key matters that relate to interpreting this information include the manner in which biodiversity is quantified and considered (Conservation Unit or CU in the case of Wild Salmon) and Guiding Principles that inform DFO’s approach, including the Precautionary Approach.

The initial steps in protecting biological diversity require the identification of the diversity and then taking inventory of the units of diversity that require conservation. For the purposes of characterizing the diversity in Pacific salmon, Holtby and Ciruna (2007) utilized three major axes: ecology, life history, and molecular genetics, and then compartmentalized that diversity into Conservation Units (CUs) – the unit of measure specified by the WSP. Their determinations of appropriate units of diversity (CUs or conservation units) reconcile how the Chilcotin salmon stocks are categorized within the status assessment work and overall management framework and process.

The management framework through which each CU (or aggregates of CUs) is currently managed is extracted from the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) and other guiding technical documents – as outlined below. The IFMP is compiled annually for the purposes of considering newly developed monitoring information and stock status-health and trends, and outlining management objectives and planning fisheries. Management performance of previous IFMPs relative to objectives is also considered.

Within its Fisheries Renewal framework to support the sustainable management of fisheries resources, Canada (DFO) has adopted a set of Guiding Principles that it incorporates into its management processes. This includes the Precautionary Principle – for “guiding” a Precautionary Approach (PA):

The precautionary principle recognizes that in the absence of scientific certainty, conservation measures can and should be taken when there is knowledge of a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the environment and/or resources using best available information.

In resource management, the PA is, in general, about being cautious when scientific information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate and not using the absence of adequate scientific information as a reason to postpone or fail to take action to avoid serious harm to the resource.

The United Nations Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFA), which came into force in 2001, commits Canada to use the PA in managing straddling stocks as well as, in effect, domestic stocks…

In June 2005, DFO adopted the Wild Salmon Policy for Pacific salmon, which incorporates a precautionary approach to decision-making (for wild Pacific salmon)…

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/index-eng.htm

DFO’s salmon management framework and process is in the process of adapting and evolving towards a format that incorporates and can achieve the WSP directives, while coping with ongoing challenges.

3 SOCKEYE

Sockeye that migrate into the Chilcotin watershed originate from two different areas (nursery lakes) – the Chilko River/Lake and Taseko Lake.

3.1 CHILKO SOCKEYE Chilko Lake sockeye are comprised of sub-populations that express differences in their life history and behaviour, including timing and spawning habitat selection. A portion of the run arrives early (relative to the rest of the fish that migrate to Chilko Lake), holds at the outlet (north end) of the lake, and then migrates into the lake to spawn on shoals at the top (south end) of the lake and in tributaries to the lake. These are known as south-lake fish.

The majority of Chilko sockeye migrate to and spawn within the Chilko River within several kilometres of the lake’s outlet

Chilko sockeye return to the Fraser River (marine-approach area) in late July and August, a timing through which DFO categorizes them as a component of their Summer management unit.

From Grant et al (2009)

Chilko Lake is a large oligotrophic lake far from any significant human development in the Fraser River watershed. The south end of the lake is surrounded by glaciated mountains, and the northern portion extends onto the edge of the interior plateau of BC. Due to its glacial influence, this lake has historically experienced cooler temperatures. Several glacially turbid rivers enter the southern half of the lake, causing water clarity to decrease from north to south during the summer months. The lake’s orientation and proximity to the Coast Mountains result in frequent strong southerly winds. As a result, the lake has a cool epilimnion and an unstable thermal regime.

Amongst populations with similar run timing that spawn upstream of Hells Gate, Chilko Sockeye were the least impacted by the 1913 Hells Gate landslide, despite the fact that Chilko Sockeye migration has almost double the grade (twice as steep) of any other Fraser River CUs. The limited impact of the Hells Gate landslide on Chilko Sockeye, relative to other Sockeye CUs, is hypothesized to be linked to their greater energy reserves and their ability to therefore withstand delays in migration (Roos 1991). In recent studies, Chilko Sockeye (relative to other similar timed Fraser Sockeye CUs) have been identified as superoptimal migrants, having greater stride lengths, higher ground speed per tail beat, and lower energy usage than would be predicted (Hinch and Rand 2000). Chilko Sockeye are more torpedo shaped than other Sockeye CUs, which would enhance water flow over the body and decrease drag. As a result, Chilko Sockeye have migration advantages over other similar timed Fraser Sockeye CUs.

Chilko Lake was fertilized in 1988, and again during 1990-1993. Bradford et al. (2000) reported that the size of smolts increased during these periods of fertilization. They also found a positive correlation between the larger smolt body sizes and smolt-to-adult (marine) survival. Fertilization also appeared to have increased abundance on the weaker 1989 cycle, and improved survival during the early 1990’s, when productivity for most other CUs decreased (Appendix 3, Chilko-ES & Chilko-S, Figures 1 a-f) (Bradford et al. 2000). Limnological surveys, conducted in 2009, in response to recent increases in smolt production, found that the photosynthetic rate had increased to rates similar to those seen during fertilization (D. Selbie, DFO, pers. comm.). In addition to fertilization, a small artificial side channel was operated from 1988 to 2004 on Chilko River, to enhance the productive capacity of Chilko; although spawning habitat did not appear to be limiting to Sockeye at that time. Post-2004 this channel was decommissioned, and, therefore, became inaccessible to Chilko Sockeye.

Sockeye populations that rear in Chilko Lake include those with a propensity to spawn in the Chilko River, South End of Chilko Lake, North End of Chilko Lake and (formerly) Chilko River Channel (Grant et al 2011). Holtby and Ciruna (2007) segmented the Chilko sockeye into two CUs Chilko-ES (all lake shore and lake tributary spawners) and Chilko-S (Chilko River and northend/outlet spawners – upstream migrating fry)

An assessment of the status-health of the Chilko sockeye has been recently completed via several methodologies and findings are summarized within Grant et al (2011) and Grant and Pestal (2012).

The Chilko-ES and Chilko-S CUs are combined for the purposes of status assessments primarily due to the inability to fully disaggregate enumeration data specific to the two CUs from the available dataset Grant et al (2011) and Grant and Pestal (2012).

Chilko River (including the North End-outlet of Chilko Lake) comprises 98% of the total abundance in years when the South End (of the lake) spawners and channel were estimated separately (Grant et al 2011).

The ratio of the recent generation geometric mean to the long-term geometric mean for Chilko-ES and Chilko-S EFS (ratio: 1.22) is greater than the upper benchmark for this metric (ratio: 0.75) (Green status) (Table 5; Appendix 2, Chilko-ES & Chilko-S, Figure 2 c). In recent years (last three generations), Chilko-ES & Chilko-S EFS has decreased, following a period of above average EFS (see previous paragraph). The slope of this recent trend (-79% change in abundance) is steeper than the lower benchmark for this metric (-25% change in abundance)(Red status), and there is a 100% probability that this recent trend is below the lower benchmark (Grant et al 2011).

Assessments were completed using abundance metrics and abundance trends, and for the combined Chilko ES/S CUs the probabilities of stock status-health are good, with the exception of the recent trend, noting the Chilko stocks are declining from a period of high abundance/productivity.

Pg. 113 (Grant et al 2011)

Pg. 116 (Grant et al 2011)

Grant and Pestal (2012) summarize similar findings regarding the Chilko stocks.

there were a number of CUs (such as Chilko-S and others), where the short-term trend metric indicated a Red status, when all other metrics indicated an Amber or Green status, as these CUs were returning to average (relatively high) abundance following periods of exceptional production in the 1990’s. In these latter cases, trends were flagged as something important to monitor, but when integrated with other metrics and escapement trend information, these poor short-term trend statuses did not drive the integrated status designations.

The integrated status of Chilko-ES was designated data deficient, as this CU does not have independent abundance data from the larger Chilko-S CU. Since the Chilko-ES CU contributes less than 10% to the total Chilko-ES/Chilko-S aggregate abundance, the aggregate status was assumed to represent the larger Chilko-S component within recent status assessment efforts (Grant and Pestal 2012).

Case 5: Chilko-S (Green)

(Management stock name: Chilko; Run-Timing Group: Summer)

Background: this CU is amongst the least impacted by the Hells Gate landslide of upper Fraser Sockeye populations; this lake was fertilized in 1988 and 1990-1993; although this CU is unique (different run timing and spawning locations in the Chilko watershed) to the Chilko-ES CU, the data for this CU currently has not been disaggregated from the smaller Chilko-ES CU; since the Chilko-ES abundance comprises less than 10% of the combined Chilko-S & Chilko-ES aggregate, status information for the aggregate is assumed to represent this larger Chilko-S CU;

Integrated Status

R A 10

Group-Specific Integrated Status Results

Groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 G G g g G G Status Commentary

 the Green integrated status was driven by consistently Green relative-abundance metric statuses across all benchmark probability levels and model forms; high data quality was noted for this CU;  the short-term trend metric (Red status) did not weigh heavily in status determination, since current abundance indicated by both relative-abundance metric status and absolute abundance, was respectively, Green in status and high (no abundances on the time series below 5,000 spawners); further, this CU is returning to average, following a previous period of high abundance; in very recent years, abundance is increasing; in very recent years, both abundance and productivity have increased;  this CU’s integrated Green status was flagged as provisional, given the potential for this Green status to decreases to a poorer WSP status zone (Amber or Red) in the short-term, if these recent productivity (recruits/spawner) and abundance trends persist; a few recent years of below replacement productivity, although this could be linked to high spawner abundance (density-dependence);  the Red short-term metric status does raise the importance of assessment frequency, since if this decreasing abundance trend persists, then status on other metrics could change (to Amber or Red WSP status zones); Points of Discussion

 Workshop participants debated whether status evaluation should reflect only the current status, or anticipate future status based on current trends. Most participants agreed that this CU is currently in the green status zone, but short-term trend raises a flag to track it closely. Some participants argued for an amber designation to emphasize the worrisome trend.

Case 6: Chilko-ES (Data Deficient)

(Management stock name: Chilko; Run-Timing Group: Summer)

Background: although this CU is unique (different run timing and spawning locations in the Chilko watershed) to the Chilko-S CU, the data for this CU currently has not been disaggregated from the larger Chilko-S CU; the Chilko-ES abundance comprises less than 10% of the combined Chilko-S & Chilko-ES aggregate;

Integrated Status

Group-Specific Integrated Status Results

Groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 DD DD DD DD DD DD Status Commentary

 integrated status could not be evaluated for this CU given there are no independent data available for this CU, separate from the Chilko-S/Chilko-ES aggregate which is comprised of ~90% of the Chilko-S CU (see Notes below);  participants recommended that an escapement index and proxy exploitation rate for this Chilko-ES CU be developed to provide information for subsequent status evaluations; Points of Discussion

 discussion about meaning of “data deficient” in this context, given that some survey data is available and a time series or index of abundance could be constructed; once data is extracted for this CU specifically, this CU may in fact have higher data quality than many other Pacific Salmon CUs;

3.2 TASEKO SOCKEYE Holtby and Ciruna (2007) classified Taseko – ES as an individual Conservation Unit (CU)

From Grant et al (2011)

Sites: The only population to rear in Taseko Lake is the population that also spawns in Taseko Lake (Appendix 1).

History: Taseko Lake is a glacially influenced lake that has, as a result, poor fish visibility. Carcass counts are expanded based on survey effort, using methods established from studies historically conducted on Taseko Lake. Estimates are likely biased low given limitations in the number of carcasses that reach the lake surface after becoming moribund (Patterson et al. 2007b). Lake counts can be further compromised on survey days with heavy rain or winds that decrease the visibility of carcasses on the lake surface.

Escapement Time Series: This site has been assessed since 1949, however there are considerable gaps in the time series (Appendices 1 & 2). Gaps were filled using the cycle- line average methods (Appendices 2 & 5).

Productivity: Productivity and survival could not be estimated for this CU as there are no associated recruitment data available for this CU.

Abundance: Abundance benchmarks could not be estimated for this CU as there are no associated recruitment data or spawning capacity data available for this CU.

Trends in Abundance: The Taseko Lake Sockeye population is small in abundance (average EFS: 1,300) (Appendix 3, Taseko-ES, Figure 1 b). This population has decreased in abundance from a peak period of 2,900 EFS (1950-1964) to an average of 376 EFS (1990- 2009). This CU has not exhibited cyclic dominance, and throughout the time series spawner success has remained high (~93%)(Appendix 3, Taseko-ES, Figure 1 b).

For all calculations, the time series of this CU was limited to include only surveyed years. There are considerable gaps in the middle of the time series that cannot be gap filled; therefore, only the early time series (1950-1968) and the recent period (1993-2009) were used. The ratio of the recent generation geometric mean to the long-term geometric mean for Taseko-ES EFS (ratio: 0.32) falls below the lower benchmark (ratio: 0.5) for this metric (Red status) (Table 5; Appendix 2, Taseko-ES, Figure 2 c). In recent years (last three generations), Taseko-ES has further decreased following a period of below average EFS (see previous paragraph). The slope of this recent trend (-76% change in abundance) is steeper than the lower benchmark for this metric (-25% change in abundance)(Red status), and there is a 97% probability that this recent trend is below the lower benchmark (Table 5; Appendix 3, Taseko-ES, Figures 2 a & b). The average size of this CU is small (average ETS: 2,300).

Grant et al (2011) did not assess Taseko based on abundance metrics due to gaps within the data series, but found this CU to be below their biological benchmark (i.e. within the “red zone”) based on both long term and recent trends.

Table 5 – pg. 116

Grant and Pestal (2012) summarize similar conclusions regarding the Taseko sockeye’s status, with a focus on the deficiency of the data available.

Case 10: Taseko-ES (Red)

(Management stock name: Miscellaneous Early Summer; Run-Timing Group: Early Summer)

Background: this CU resides in a glacially influenced lake; escapement estimates are based on visual survey estimates of carcasses in a lake, expanded based on survey effort, and, therefore, are likely biased low and represent and index of spawning abundance only;

Integrated Status

R (provisional status, given data provide an index of escapement only)

Group-Specific Integrated Status Results

Groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 R R R R R Note: one out of the six groups did not complete a status evaluation for this CU;

Status Commentary

 the Red integrated status was driven by consistently Red status for all trends in abundance metrics (short-term and long-term trends); this CU does not have recruitment data, therefore, relative-abundance metric statuses could not be estimated; since abundance data for this CU are an index only, recent absolute abundances could not be compared to COSEWIC Criteria D1.  the integrated status for this CU was flagged as provisional, because data quality is rated fair; escapement data (which are an index of escapement only) require further evaluation; Points of Discussion

 initially, due to an omission in the data summaries, it was not clear to participants that the Taseko-ES escapement time series represented indices only (as opposed to absolute abundance); as a result, early discussions centered on designating this CU Red in status given its absolute abundance triggers COSEWIC listing based on its criteria D1 on small populations; however, during plenary when the escapement data for this CU were identified to participants as indices only, participants concluded that since absolute abundance data are not available for this CU, this CU could not be evaluated against COSEWIC criteria D1;  the participating assessment biologist who manages the Taseko escapement program indicated that the short-term trend metric status is valid because escapement has been assessed using consistent methods over time, but that escapements represent indices of abundance only (rather than absolute abundance);  given the escapement data are indices of abundance only, there was debate regarding whether the current data rating of ‘fair’ should be downgraded to ‘poor’;  some participants argued that the escapement index time series should place this CU in a data deficient status category; others argued that the limited data available should still provide the ability to assess status;  it was recommended that escapement data (which are an index of escapement only) require further evaluation to determine the reliability of the index, given lake visual surveys of carcasses are known to produce poor estimates of escapement;

Much of the discussion outlined above would appear to focus on the quality of the data available rather than the trend, which is somewhat troubling considering Canada’s Precautionary Principle. The Taseko stock can be considered to be below their biological benchmark (red zone) and should be considered within management frameworks (and Species at Risk-SAR frameworks) as such, until adequate data is collected that substantiates otherwise.

3.3 CHILCOTIN SOCKEYE SUMMARY The Chilcotin watershed’s three CUs of sockeye consist of the Taseko sockeye and two CUs in that utilize Chilko Lake for rearing. The status-health of the Chilko-ES CU is not presently assessable due to data collection methodologies. The status-health of the Chilko-S CU, which makes up 90%+ of the Chilko run, is assessed as strong (green zone) but recent trends indicate declining status-health and ongoing trends are recommended for close observation. The status-health of the Taseko sockeye is poor (red zone) and is designated as provisional based on data deficiencies.

The Tsilhqot'in Nation sockeye fishery within the Chilcotin watershed is nearly solely reliant on the continued strength of the Chilko-S CU at present.

4 CHINOOK

Holtby and Ciruna (2007) classified all of the Chilcotin watershed chinook as a component of the MFR Summer CU, although they recognized a MFR Spring CU with earlier migration and spawn-timing, delineating those CUs as the Summer type typified as spawning downstream of lake outlets (Chilko and Taseko main stem) and the Spring type as spawning in headwater streams (upper Chilcotin River and Elkin Creek).

DFO’s management framework identifies the upper Chilcotin River chinook as a component of the MFR spring CU, the Chilko River chinook as a component of the MFR summer CU (DFO 2011).

Fraser chinook management has undergone substantial change in the last 20 years, and is continuing to change rapidly in response to the WSP and the status of various stocks of Fraser chinook (The Southern BC Chinook Strategic Planning Initiative). MFR Spring and Summer CUs of chinook (all Chilcotin watershed chinook) are managed within the same framework and both CUs are managed as “stocks of concern” within DFO’s Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (DFO 2013).

The management framework is described as follows (DFO 2013):

The Southern BC Chinook Strategic Planning Initiative has recently been initiated

5. OBJECTIVES

5.1. Fishery Management Objectives for Stocks of Concern

5.1.4. Fraser Spring 52 and Summer 52 chinook

The objective for Fraser Spring and Summer (age 52) chinook is to conserve these populations consistent with the management zones outlined below.

Note: For 2013, the breakpoints between the management zones outlined below have been changed. The new breakpoints are at 45,000 and 85,000 chinook returning to the Fraser River. In 2012, these breakpoints were at 30,000 and 60,000. The management actions proposed within each zone have not been changed. The rationale for the breakpoints and the changes to the breakpoints are provided below3.

Table 5-1. Spring 52 and Summer 52 Fraser Chinook Management Zone Approach

Zone Predicted Return to the Actions Fraser River Greater than 85,000 Rationale: Manage to meet First Nations directed fisheries. expected spawner abundance of Directed recreational and commercial 3 at least 60,000. fisheries consistent with Allocation Populations rebuilding towards policy. maximum sustained yield (MSY) levels. Limited directed fisheries. 45,000 to 85,000 First Nations directed fisheries Rationale: Manage to meet subject to abundance. expected spawner abundance of By-catch retention/ limited directed 2 at least 30,000. Fraser recreational fisheries may be Caution required to avoid initiated. population declines. Populations Management actions to reduce by- well below MSY levels. catch or incidental harvest in commercial fisheries. Below or equal to 45,000 Directed fisheries minimized. Rationale: Expected spawner By-catch retention /limited directed abundance will likely be 30,000 First Nations fisheries. or less. Non-retention/closed recreational 1 Significant conservation and commercial chinook fisheries in concerns. Very high risk of the Fraser River and tributaries extremely low spawning Management actions to reduce by- populations. catch or incidental harvest in other

3A post-season review of the 2012 Fraser River Spring and Summer 52 chinook management zone breakpoints of 30K and 60K highlighted a need to make changes in 2013 for the following reasons: The previous breakpoints did not align with the expected number of spawners identified for each of the zones and did not account for in-river harvest. The average in-river harvest rate from 2000 to 2006 was 22% based on the Fraser River Run reconstruction model. The Albion catch data from 2012 indicated the lower run size reference point (30,000) was below the historical range of data used in Albion CPUE vs. terminal return to the Fraser regression leading to uncertainty in the predictability of the model. There is a 17% uncertainty in the regression equation used to generate the run size. For 2013, this has been incorporated into the breakpoints so the Albion estimate can be compared directly to the reference points. The Southern BC Chinook Strategic Planning Initiative will likely inform future management approaches for Fraser river Spring and Summer 52 chinook.

recreational and commercial fisheries.

In the 2013 Salmon Outlook, Spring 52 and Summer 52 chinook stocks have been classified as stocks of concern given poor survival rates and declines in spawning escapements compared to the parental generation in recent years. The parental brood year (2008) escapement for these stocks was approximately 32,000 spawners.

Given the poor pre-season outlook, the Department is planning to begin the season with management actions based on returns being less than 45,000 (zone 1). The Department will use the relationship between the cumulative Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) of chinook caught in the Albion test fishery from May 5th through June 15th to provide an in-season estimate of returns of Spring 52 and Summer 52 chinook to the mouth of the Fraser River. Updates of the predicted return for informational purposes are tentatively planned for May 21st and June 3rd, with a final in-season update by June 17th. The management zone may be updated based on this in-season assessment.

Management actions for zone 1 have been identified in five primary areas: Northern (Area F) and West Coast of Vancouver Island (Area G) commercial troll fisheries; Juan de Fuca (Victoria area) and Fraser River recreational fisheries; and Fraser River First Nation food, social and ceremonial fisheries. Specific management actions are identified separately for First Nations (Appendix 5, Section 5.2.9), recreational (Appendix 6, Section 6.2.3) and commercial fisheries (Appendix 7, Section 7.16.5).

Rationale for Escapement Objectives for Fraser Spring and Summer 52 Chinook

While PST escapement targets and exploitation rate targets have not been formally identified for Fraser Spring and Summer 52 chinook, biological factors were nonetheless a principal consideration in establishing the breakpoints between the management zones:

 Zone 3: Populations rebuilding towards maximum sustained yield (MSY) levels. (>85,000 terminal return; expected spawner abundance of at least 60,000)

Preliminary analysis of the number of spawners required to utilize the productive capacity of the habitat to produce maximum sustained harvests (SMSY) for these populations is approximately 138,000 spawners (including ~80,000 Spring 52 and ~57,000 Summer 52). The number of spawners at 40% of SMSY, a metric suggested as a lower abundance benchmark, is 55,000 spawners. The original PST base period doubling goal is approximately 60,000 spawners. In 15 of the past 35 years spawner abundances greater than 60,000 were observed; the highest spawner abundance recorded for these populations was 92,000 in 2003.

 Zone 2: Caution required to avoid population declines. Populations well below MSY levels. (45,001 to 85,000 terminal return; expected spawner abundance of at least 30,000) 17

The average escapement of Fraser Spring and Summer 52 chinook during the 1979-1982 base period was about 30,000 spawners; a level at which substantial management actions were taken to rebuild populations. This number of spawners is half of the value of 40% SMSY increasing the likelihood of extremely low spawner abundance in CUs; only 6 of the past 35 years had spawner abundances less than 30,000

 Zone 1: Significant conservation concerns. Very high risk of extremely low spawning populations. (<45,000 terminal returns; Expected spawner abundance will likely be 30,000 or less)

The average escapement of Spring and Summer (age 52) Fraser chinook during the 1979- 1982 base period was about 30,000 spawners; a level at which substantial management actions were taken to rebuild populations. This number of spawners is half of the value of 40% SMSY increasing the likelihood of extremely low spawner abundance in CUs; only 6 of the past 35 years had spawner abundances less than 30,000.

Chilcotin Chinook Summary

Chilcotin watershed chinook occur in the Taseko watershed, the upper Chilcotin River and the Chilko River. They are all stocks of concern and being managed based on returning abundance to minimize exploitation to achieve base-escapement objectives. In 2013 these stocks were managed within Zone 1 based on declining escapement trends and in-season abundance indices.

5 COHO

Coho within the Chilcotin watershed are known from spawning records in two primary areas; the Chilko River and upper Chilcotin River. They are known to occur within the Taseko watershed but are not enumerated. These coho are considered a component of the CU MFR (Middle Fraser River) (#6) (Holtby and Curina 2007). They are commonly referred to as Interior Fraser Coho – specifying their spawning and natal habitats as occurring upstream of Hells Gate.

The Interior Fraser River coho salmon is designated as Endangered by COSEWIC and was considered for addition to Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA).

From COSEWIC - http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=716&StartRow=151&boxStatus=All&boxTax onomic=All&location=1&change=All&board=All&commonName=&scienceName=&returnFlag=0&Page= 16

Reason for Designation: A nationally significant population that has experienced declines in excess of 60% in number of individuals due to changes in freshwater and marine habitats, and to overexploitation. COSEWIC was concerned that reductions in fishing pressure may be insufficient or not maintained, that marine survivorship may not improve, that habitat loss or deterioration in the watershed continues, and that use of hatcheries threatens recovery. COSEWIC concluded that there is a serious risk of extinction of Interior Fraser coho. 18

Status History: Designated Endangered in May 2002.

Several fishery management measures have been in place since 1998, including:

 Various commercial, recreational and First Nations fishery closures and restrictions in the Fraser River and approach areas;  selective seine fisheries are the only fisheries permitted in the Strait of Juan de Fuca; and  closure of commercial salmon troll and gillnet fisheries off the west coast of Vancouver Island and Strait of Juan de Fuca during periods of and in areas of Interior Fraser River coho salmon abundance.

In June 2005, DFO adopted the Wild Salmon Policy which identifies Interior Fraser River coho salmon as a unique “conservation unit” that needs protection.

These measures are modified annually to reflect ongoing changes in the species’ status.

DFO will continue to build on the present signs of recovery for the Interior Fraser River coho by setting clear goals for each fishery based on the principles of the Wild Salmon Policy.

DFO has developed a draft recovery strategy in collaboration with Aboriginal groups, provincial governments, industry and stakeholders http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species- especes/species-especes/salmon-coho-saumon-eng.htm.

Given their status-health and classification, they are managed as a stock of concern, within a framework unique to the CU.

From the 2013/14 IFMP – Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 2013 DRAFT. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan; Salmon Southern B.C. (June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014).

7.4. ABM Coho Decision Guidelines

7.4.1 Background

Coho fisheries in southern B.C. are managed under the umbrella of the PST, with domestic considerations for stocks of concern, allocation between sectors of the fishery, and application of selective fishing practices. Note that the coho provisions negotiated in 2002 have been incorporated in the new PST.

PST Coho Abundance Based Management Framework

The basis for managing fisheries impacting wild coho originating from southern B.C., Washington State, and Oregon is set out in the PST. This abundance based management system was adopted in 2002 and will define harvests of Southern coho through 2018. The ABM plan constrains total fishery exploitation of key stock management units, including Strait of Georgia mainland, Strait of Georgia Vancouver Island, lower Fraser, and Interior Fraser. Other Canadian management units of domestic importance include the WCVI, Johnstone Strait - Mainland Inlets and the Central Coast. In the United States, the 19

management units relevant to the agreement include the Skagit River, the Stilliguamish, the Snohomish, Hood Canal, tributaries to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Quillayute, the Hoh, Queets, and Grays Harbour. For each of these management units, annual limits of fishing mortality will be established based on the level of abundance and the health of the wild stocks. The text of the agreement and formulae for sharing between the two countries can be found on the PSC website at: www.psc.org/Index.htm.

Under the principles of coho ABM management, as stocks become less abundant, more stringent fishery management actions will be implemented. As stocks become more abundant, increased fishing opportunities will be considered.

7.4.2. Constraints

Within the PST coho management framework, Canadian domestic policy will further define fishing opportunities. Domestic conservation concerns may limit total fishing mortality to a level less than stipulated in the PST coho ABM. For example, if abundance is "critically" low, such as the case with Interior Fraser River coho in recent years, domestic fisheries may be limited below the lowest allowable exploitation identified by the coho ABM agreement. Allowable catch is determined according to the priorities set out in the Allocation Policy for Pacific Salmon. Selective fishing practices are also taken into account when developing fishing opportunities.

7.4.3. Decision Guidelines

Management of salmon fisheries in southern B.C. will be shaped to accommodate the status level of coho within management units defined by the PST. Table 7-9 summarizes the general fishery management approaches by fishery sector associated with each status level (critically low, low, moderate and abundant).

Table 7-9: Southern BC coho mixed-stock fishery guidelines

Coho Abundance / Status Level (3 levels within PSC Coho ABM and 4 levels in domestic Canadian management) PSC STATUS LOW MODERATE ABUNDANT DOMESTIC Critically Low Low Moderate Abundant Objective: No Objective: Fisheries Objective: Normal Objective: Extensive directed fisheries uncertain and likely fisheries are fisheries are likely. and avoidance. small. probable. First Nations FSC Non-directed Opportunities will Regular FSC Regular FSC Fisheries fisheries and range from limited fisheries. fisheries. avoidance, very directed fisheries to limited by-catches regular FSC permitted. fisheries. Recreational Severe restrictions A combination of Up to normal limits, Normal limits. Fisheries in approach areas, SHMF and limited marked and un- non-retention and retention fisheries marked. avoidance through are possible, time and area depending upon

closures. SHMF may time and area under be considered. consideration.

Commercial - Net Severe restrictions Generally non- Generally non- Some non-retention Fisheries including time and retention and retention and and increased area closures, non- selective fishing selective fishing potential for by- retention and practices. Potential practices. Potential catch retention for avoidance. Selective for limited by-catch for limited by-catch gill nets and seines. fishing practices are retention for gill retention for gill required. nets. nets. Commercial - Troll Severe restrictions Generally non- Limited by-catch Targeted fisheries Fisheries including time and retention and retention possible. are likely. area closures, non- selective fishing Potential for small retention and practices. Potential target catch avoidance. Selective for limited by-catch fisheries. fishing practices are retention. required.

Under "low" status, the United States is limited to 10% exploitation on coho originating from the Interior Fraser management unit. Canadian fisheries will be managed to limit total fishing mortality to a maximum of 3% for the Interior Fraser management unit, a level which recognizes the continued low status of this stock aggregate. The 3% limit on exploitation will result in management actions that limit encounters of wild coho in southern B.C. fisheries where Interior Fraser River coho are prevalent, that is, in waters south of Cape Caution. Non-retention of wild coho will generally be in effect except First Nations FSC fisheries, where retention as a by-catch during fisheries for other species may be permitted, depending on the time and area of the fishery. First Nations FSC fishing opportunities will also be considered in specific terminal systems where escapement levels as determined by counting fences are an accurate reflection of total abundance. Selective fishing practices will be required in all commercial and recreational fisheries. There may be wild coho retention in terminal locations with identified surpluses. The level of compliance to selective fishing standards will be monitored. Poor selective fishing practices during periods of high prevalence of Interior Fraser River coho stocks may result in reduced fishing opportunities. In addition, avoidance of coho will be required during periods of high prevalence of Interior Fraser River coho.

Coho fishing mortality will be determined pre-season from estimated encounters, fishing effort levels, best estimate of the proportion of Interior Fraser River stocks within the total encounters, and an average release mortality rate. A post-season review will be conducted to confirm the estimated Interior Fraser impact.

The Department is planning to review the status of Interior Fraser River coho; this work will need to be completed before the Department considers requests for additional access to wild coho and/or hatchery marked coho when levels of abundance are high.

7.4.4. Issues

Directed coho fisheries will be constrained when there is evidence of co-migrating stocks of concern. Table 7-10 summarizes management actions that will be taken to limit impacts on salmon stocks of concern encountered in coho fisheries.

Table 7-10: Management actions in coho fisheries to limit impacts on stocks of concern

Stock of Concern Stock Outlook for First Nation (FN) Recreational Commercial (constraint) 2013 Fishery Fishery Fishery Strait of Georgia - 2013 Outlook is - Time and area - Time and area - No directed Coho (including low closures closures commercial coho lower Fraser) fisheries (or coho - Returns are - Harvest levels - Gear restrictions retention) in expected to be outlined in (i.e. barbless areas where Strait similar to last communal hooks) of Georgia coho year well below licences are found. desired levels. - Catch limits - Measures will - Significant vary by area and - Measures will restrictions on associated vary by area and commercial impacts on associated fisheries directed individual stocks. impacts on at other salmon individual stocks. stocks in areas See Appendix 6 where Georgia St section 6.3. coho are found. Interior Fraser - Critically low - Time and area - Time and area - No directed River coho - 2013 Outlook is closures closures commercial coho Stock of concern. fisheries (or coho - Harvest levels - Gear restrictions retention) in -Returns are outlined in (i.e. barbless areas where expected to be communal hooks) Interior Fraser well below licences River coho are desired levels. - Constraints on found. - Measures will coho by-catch vary by area and - Significant associated - Measures will restrictions on impacts on vary by area and commercial individual stocks. associated fisheries directed impacts on at other salmon individual stocks. stocks in areas See Appendix 6 where Interior section 6.3. Fraser River coho are found.

The ABM approach will be to substantially reduce coho exploitation below historic levels, and may result in some terminal surpluses. Terminal selective fishery opportunities and 22

by-catch retention may be considered in-season in locations in which coho surpluses are identified.

Interior Fraser River steelhead and Interior Fraser River coho prospects continue to be poor…

(Appendix 4: Post Season Review 2012) 4.1.2 Interior Fraser River, Lower Fraser and Strait of Georgia coho The objective for Interior Fraser River coho (including Thompson River coho) is to limit the Canadian exploitation rate to 3% (not including terminal harvest on systems experiencing strong escapements).

5. OBJECTIVES

5.1. Fishery Management Objectives for Stocks of Concern

5.1.5. Interior Fraser River Coho, Lower Fraser Coho and Strait of Georgia Coho

The objective for Interior Fraser River coho (including Thompson River coho) is to limit the Canadian exploitation rate to 3% (not including terminal harvest on systems experiencing strong escapements).

Conservation measures with the objective of reducing harvest related impacts to Interior Fraser River coho were first implemented in 1998. Since then, the conservation objective has been clarified to limit the exploitation rate in Canada to 3% or less.

Chilcotin Coho Summary

Coho within the Chilcotin watershed are enumerated in the Chilko River and upper Chilcotin River, and known to occur in the Taseko watershed (but adults are neither formally documented nor enumerated there). The Chilcotin coho are a component of the Interior Fraser coho CU and are designated as Endangered by COSEWIC and managed as a stock of concern subject to a 3% exploitation limit, which is largely allocated as by-catch in fisheries targeting other species. Tsilhqot'in harvesting has been and continues to be constrained.

6 STEELHEAD

The Chilcotin watershed also supports a stock of steelhead. They are known to largely spawn within the Chilko River, upper Chilcotin and Taseko/Elkin systems. Unlike other salmon, steelhead are provincially managed, but as a function of their anadromous life history and their co-migration alongside salmon in their marine-approach and in-river routes, they are essentially managed within DFO’s management framework (until they reach the Chilcotin River).

The Tsilhqot'in Nation has directed fisheries for steelhead in the fall and spring (Pers. Comm. R. Billyboy).

The Chilcotin stock is managed with the Thompson River stock (similar timing to and up the Fraser River) and are collectively termed Interior Fraser Steelhead. They are severely depressed (see figure) from historical levels and are managed for the achievement of the abundance reference point of 1250 spawners (Thomson 850 Chilcotin 400) and the annual opening of catch and release sport fisheries for these stocks is assessed through the an index of the by-capture of steelhead in the Albion chum test fishery (in the lower Fraser River) (BC MoE).

The objective for Interior Fraser River Steelhead provided by the B.C. Ministry of the Environment is to protect 80% of the run with a 90% certainty in Fraser River commercial gill net fisheries (the primary commercial fisheries by- capturing the stocks). This objective does not apply to selective commercial fisheries (those using gear types other than gill nets) or fisheries conducted terminally on single stocks. In addition, other commercial south coast fisheries are to release to the water with the least possible harm all steelhead caught incidentally in fisheries targeting other species (IFMP 2013).

DFO’s IFMP specifically considers Interior Fraser Steelhead.

From 2013/14 IFMP – Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 2013 DRAFT. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan; Salmon Southern B.C. (June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014).

5.1.9. Interior Fraser River Steelhead

The objective for Interior Fraser River steelhead is to minimize the impact of Canadian fisheries and to increase spawner abundance.

Based on the management framework developed by the province and endorsed by DFO, the limit reference point (LRP) for minimum spawning escapements identified for the Thompson and Chilcotin River steelhead groups is 1250 fish. Monitoring of stock abundance will continue.

There are ongoing discussions between DFO and the Province about potential fisheries for harvesting Fraser River chum consistent with the Interior Fraser River steelhead management objective. Selective commercial fisheries will be considered consistent with Policy for Selective Fishing in Canada’s Pacific Fisheries. In addition, other commercial south coast fisheries are to release to the water with the least possible harm all steelhead caught incidentally in fisheries targeting other species.

For Fraser River commercial gill net fisheries, the strategy is to protect 80% of the Interior Fraser River steelhead run with a 90% certainty. The Department is currently reviewing this strategy with the Province.

Chilcotin Steelhead Summary

Chilcotin steelhead are managed as a stock of concern within DFO’s management framework, and are severely depressed relative to historical levels. Their current levels of abundance impose severe constraints on Tsilhqot'in use and interests.

7 CRITICAL INFORMATION GAPS

The following have been identified as critical information gaps based on the assessment of the current information available outlining the status-health of the Chilcotin salmon stocks, and considering the current management-approach (framework and process) these stocks are subject to.

7.1.1 Sockeye Monitoring programs for sockeye have been largely designed to inform DFO’s long-term management framework, which has lacked a stock or CU-specific status-health focus until recently. A ramification of the past and ongoing approach has placed an emphasis on directing resources towards monitoring the larger more productive sockeye stocks.

A result is the inability to disaggregate data relating to the two Chilko CUs (Chilko-ES and Chilko-S). The two share a common nursery lake but possess substantially different life histories, and slightly different return-migration timing. Given the disparity in the sizes of these CUs (90-98% of escapement attributed to Chilko-S) and exploitation rates on the Chilko and Summer sockeye aggregate, in the interest of maintaining the available bio-diversity, mechanisms to adequately annually assess and maintain data for the Chilko-ES CU should be ensured.

Further, Taseko sockeye have been “provisionally assessed” as a “red zone” CU, but also deemed data deficient. This situation places this stock at a “heightened level of risk”; given that it is not recognized as a “stock of concern” within DFO’s management framework, and as such, is subjected to inappropriate exploitation rates (directed on co-migrating healthy stocks). A priority research matter for sockeye within the Chilcotin watershed is to determine and implement an effective annual escapement- enumeration program for this stock.

The existing Fraser sockeye management framework causes DFO to manage contrary to the intentions of the WSP and the Precautionary Principle, in relation to the provisional status of the Taseko stock, putting the viability of the stock at risk. Further, in some instances, the framework through which escapements of sockeye stocks are annually monitored does not support the data needs of the WSP objectives related to CU management, as demonstrated in the case of both the Chilko-ES and Taseko sockeye CUs.

At present, there is reason to believe that there is considerable threat to the viability of the Taseko sockeye CU, given the stock’s status and the incongruence in the management and monitoring regimes.

Any activity that would induce additional risk or negative effects would be would be contrary to the current management framework and its objectives.

7.1.2 Coho Coho stocks in the Chilcotin are a component of the Endangered (as assessed by COSEWIC) Interior Fraser (IFC) CU – causation related to long-term over exploitation and diminished productivity. They are managed (within the IFC aggregate) as a stock of concern within DFO’s management framework, which sets a maximum exploitation rate of 3% and an abundance based escapement target across the CU’s distribution.

Information regarding coho within the Taseko system is presently poorly developed and no annual monitoring program exists. Completion of adequate surveys to determine the use and distribution of coho within this system is a high priority for coho within the Chilcotin.

Given the CUs Endangered status, and the potential for the population to be present in the Taseko watershed, the Precautionary Principle would suggest that in the absence of complete information, any activity that could pose risk or negative effects would be unwise.

7.1.3 Chinook Chinook within the Chilcotin are classified as a component of “Stocks of Concern” and specifically managed to attain minimum spawner rebuilding targets due to long-term over exploitation and diminished productivity.

Management mechanisms for the CU components of chinook within the Chilcotin watershed are still evolving (i.e. DFO continues to adapt its chinook management framework relative to the status of the populations and WSP prerogatives). Maintaining and enhancing mechanisms through which the status- health of these stocks is monitored is extremely important. Efforts are already underway to implement a coded wire tagging program that would establish the Chilko chinook stock as an Indicator Stock under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. This would be an important step in effectively managing the chinook CUs that are presently “Stocks of Concern”.

Weaknesses regarding population monitoring primarily relate to in the Taseko system where water clarity hampers aerial estimation of main stem spawners. Opportunities to develop viable methods, including utilizing automated technologies to enumerate annual escapements should be employed. Such an initiative would tie-in to the recommendations regarding sockeye above.

Given the status and trend of Chilcotin watershed chinook, any activities posing a potential threat to their productive capacity would be contrary to the current management framework and its objectives.

8 SALMON STATUS-HEALTH SUMMARY

The Chilcotin watershed’s three CUs of sockeye consist of the Taseko sockeye and two CUs in that utilize Chilko Lake for rearing. The status-health of the Chilko-ES CU is not presently assessable due to data collection methodologies. The status-health of the Chilko-S CU, which makes up 90%+ of the Chilko run, is assessed as strong (green zone) but recent trends indicate declining status-health and ongoing trends

are recommended for close observation. The status-health of the Taseko sockeye is poor (red zone) and is designated as provisional and data deficient.

Population trend Status Management Escapement data designation deficiencies Sockeye- ES CU Unknown Unknown na Yes Sockeye-S CU Strong abundance Green na No / Declining trend Sockeye Taseko Diminished and Red na Yes declining (Provisional) Chinook Diminished and Conservation Yes (primarily na declining Concern Taseko) Coho Conservation Yes (primarily Diminished Endangered Concern Taseko) Steelhead Diminished and Conservation Na No declining Concern

9 IMPORTANCE OF BIODIVERSITY & CONSERVATION

As described above, the chosen “unit of biodiversity” identified through the WSP is termed the Conservation Unit. The WSP outlines a substantial rationale for adequately inventorying and defining biodiversity for the purposes of protecting it.

There is no more practical example of a rationale for protecting the biodiversity of Fraser sockeye than the phenomenon observed recently with the Harrison riffle-type sockeye, a sockeye stock in the Harrison River possessing a unique life history. These sockeye have flourished over the same time period that virtually all other Fraser sockeye have declined, including other Harrison stocks. Regardless of causation, their success is attributable to their unique life history. Similar uniqueness is reflected in the two Chilko CUs and the rationale and need to ensure the ability exists to independently assess and manage for the two stocks is essential, and a similar case can be made for protecting the Taseko sockeye stock from any further declines. 27

These objectives were reflected in the findings of the recent Cohen Commission (of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River) http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/NewsReleases/FinalReportReleased.php.

Cohen emphasized that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) should fully implement and fund both the 2005 Wild Salmon Policy and the1986 Habitat Policy. “DFO should develop and publish a detailed implementation plan as set out in the Wild Salmon Policy and, without further delay, honour its commitment to implementation,” he noted. “The goals of the Habitat Policy and its No Net Loss principle are sound and should be retained.”

The Commissioner also commented on recent amendments to the environmental assessment process and the Fisheries Act. “I find the thrust of some of these amendments to be troubling,” said Commissioner Cohen. “Many experts have emphasized the importance of protecting fish habitat, promoting biodiversity and adopting ecosystem- based management practices. However, the recent amendments to the Fisheries Act appear to be taking DFO in a very different direction.”

Maintaining the biodiversity of anadromous stocks within the Chilcotin watershed is critical to sustaining the watershed’s fish productivity and its resilience in the face of ongoing environmental change.

10 CONCLUSIONS

The Chilcotin watershed possesses a substantial diversity of anadromous fish resources. Understanding the statuses of these stocks and the existing management framework within which they’re managed provides insight into both their resiliency and vulnerability. The following is evident from the information reviewed:

 The Chilko-S sockeye CU has been assessed as being healthy (green zone) according to Wild Salmon Policy criteria. The stock supports the quantum of Tsilhqot’in sockeye harvesting, as well as a significant component of all Fraser sockeye harvests.  The status of the Chilko-ES sockeye CU is not presently assessable due to monitoring data issues.  The Taseko sockeye CU status is presently poor or “red zone”, although qualified as provisional due to monitoring data shortcomings. The viability and resilience of the stock are both at risk due to the existing management framework, which at present fails to recognize and adequately respond to its status.  The Chilcotin coho are a component of Interior Fraser coho and are designated as Endangered by COSEWIC, and managed to a 3% exploitation maximum.  The Chilcotin chinook are diminished and declining and are managed as a Stock of Concern within a zoned management approach created by DFO. All fisheries, including Fraser First Nation fisheries, have been curtailed in an effort to induce population rebuilding, which has been unsuccessful to date.

 The Chilcotin Steelhead are diminished and declining in abundance, and managed as a Conservation Concern within a framework that “caps” by-capture levels for the purposes of maximizing adult-spawner escapement. Rebuilding efforts have been unsuccessful to date.

Given the status of the Chilcotin watershed’s coho, chinook and Steelhead stocks – all of which are diminished in abundance and managed as Conservation Concerns - and the challenges to their viability, sustainability and ability to rebuild that is inherent within their existing management regimes, coupled with increasingly unpredictable productivity/environmental factors, there is ample rationale to ensure they are not subjected to any additional risks or potential negative effects.

Similarly, given the provisional red zone status of the Taseko sockeye (based on abundance and trends), and the risks to the stock’s viability posed by the existing management framework, any additional negative influence on the stock’s productivity/survivability would be imprudent – relative to the interest of the stock’s viability and the maintenance of biodiversity.

11 REFERENCES CITED

Billyboy, R. 2013. Tsilhqot’in National Government Fisheries Department, Personal Communication.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2005. Canada's Policy for Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver, BC. 34 pp. http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/species- especes/salmon-saumon/wsp-pss/docs/wsp-pss-eng.pdf

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2011. Information Document to Assist Development of Fraser Chinook Management Plan.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).2012 (DRAFT). Expert-Elicited Scientific Advice on Fraser River Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) Integrated Biological Status under the Wild Salmon Policy. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/###.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 2013 DRAFT. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan; Salmon Southern B.C. (June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014).

Grant, S.C.H. & G. Pestal. 2012 (DRAFT). Integrated Biological Status Assessments Under the Wild Salmon Policy Using Standardized Metrics and Expert Judgement: Fraser River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) Case Studies. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/nnn. x + xx p.

Grant, S.C.H., MacDonald, B.L., Cone, T.E., Holt, C.A., Cass, A., Porszt, E.J., Hume, J.M.B. & Pon, L.B. 2011. Evaluation of uncertainty in Fraser Sockeye WSP Status using abundance and trends in abundance metrics. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc 2011/087. viii + 183 pp. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas- sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2011/2011_087-eng.html

Holt, C.A. 2009. Evaluation of benchmarks for Conservation Units in Canada's Wild Salmon Policy: technical documentation. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2009/059. xii + 50 pp. http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2009/2009_059-eng.htm

Holt, C.A. & Bradford, M.J. 2011. Evaluating Benchmarks of Population Status for Pacific Salmon. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 31:2, 363-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2011.578525

Holt, C.A., Cass, A., Holtby, B., & Riddell, B. 2009. Indicators of status and benchmarks for Conservation Units in Canada's Wild Salmon Policy. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2009/058. vii + 74 pp. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2009/2009_058-eng.htm

Holtby, L.B. & Ciruna, K.A. 2007. Conservation Units for Pacific Salmon under the Wild Salmon Policy. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2007/070. viii + 350 pp. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas- sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2007/2007_070-eng.htm

Nowotony, C. 2012. Tsilqot’in Nation Community Fisheries Profile. Tsilhqot’in National Government.

Nicklin, P. 2013. Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance: 2013 Pilot Salmon Food, Social & Ceremonial Salmon Harvest Plan. 30

Upper Fraser Fisheries

Conservation Alliance

Implications of Chilcotin Watershed Anadromous Stock Status; Tsilhqot’in Interest and Use

Brian Toth, R.P.Bio., MBA and Michelle Tung, B.Sc., MA Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance 1041 Whenum Road Prince George, B.C.

Prepared for the New Prosperity Mine Federal Review Panel

July, 2013

Introduction Communities of the Tsilhqot'in Nation harvest salmon from the Fraser River mainstem and the Chilcotin River and its tributary streams. The majority of harvesting is conducted in the Chilcotin River watershed and the primary species harvested is sockeye, although all anadromous species support unique fisheries and cultural practices (Pers. Comm. R. Billyboy, 2013). The Tsilhqot'in Nation Government (TNG) operates a fisheries program that is responsible for monitoring the annual salmon harvesting activities of the Nation’s members.

The Chilcotin fishery and the resources that support the fishery have been identified as a fundamental priority to protect. Ensuring the sustainability of the fishery requires that stock vulnerability and risk are appropriately considered.

This report summarizes the current status-health of the Chilcotin watershed’s anadromous resources and the existing management frameworks through which they are managed. It further discusses the implications and risks for Tsilhqot'in interests in salmon and steelhead.

Salmon Status-Health Summary Understanding the status-health of the salmon resources supporting Tsilhqot'in’s interests/use and how they are managed, is key to ensuring the viability and sustainability of the fishery and related cultural practices. The following was ascertained from the review of available information compiled regarding Chilcotin salmon stocks, which was completed as a portion of the review of the Chilcotin Watershed’s Anadromous Stock’s Statuses (Toth and Tung, 2013).

The Chilcotin watershed has three Conservation Units (CUs) of sockeye: the Taseko sockeye and two CUs that utilize Chilko Lake for rearing. The status-health of the Chilko-ES CU is not presently assessable due to limitations of the past and existing data collection methodologies. The status-health of the Chilko-S CU, which makes up 90%+ of the Chilko run, is assessed as healthy-strong (green zone) but recent trends indicate declining status-health and ongoing trends are recommended for close observation. The status-health of the Taseko sockeye is poor (provisionally red zone) and is designated as data deficient.1

Chilcotin watershed Chinook occur in the Taseko watershed, the upper Chilcotin River and the Chilko River. They are all Stocks of Concern with DFO’s management framework and being managed based on returning abundance to minimize exploitation to achieve base-escapement objectives.

1 For more information on anadromous stock status, see Toth and Tung, 2013.

2 largely allocated as by-catch in fisheries targeting other species. Tsilhqot'in harvesting opportunities have been and continue to be constrained.

Tsilhqot'in Nation Interest/Use and Salmon Status Based on;

1. The current status-health designation and management framework/process through which each anadromous stock within the Chilcotin watershed is managed, and, 2. Tsilhqot'in Nation’s interests/use of the resources, the following information is evident.

The Tsilhqot'in Nation’s sockeye salmon fishery is largely reliant upon the Chilko stocks of sockeye to meet its harvest-quantum needs. The minor contributor to those stocks (CU – Chilko ES) is presently deemed data deficient, and its status-health cannot be assessed. It contributes an estimated 2-10% of the combined abundance of the two Chilko stocks. The majority-contributor to abundance (CU – Chilko S) is deemed to be in the “green zone” or of positive status-health based on the period of record of abundance metrics, but was noted to have experienced rapidly declining abundance/productivity in the recent-term. This should be of substantial concern and should be closely monitored considering the apparent Fraser watershed-wide upstream to downstream trend in diminished status-health for sockeye.

Tsilhqot'in Nation’s sockeye fishery on the mainstem of the Fraser River is dependent on both Chilko stocks (for those fisheries occurring downstream of the Chilcotin confluence) and stocks originating from spawning/natal habitats within the Quesnel, Nechako and upper Fraser watersheds. All of these stocks have been assessed as either red or amber (severely diminished and/or diminished or declining status- health).

The in-Chilcotin fishery’s reliance on the Chilko stock imposes a greater degree of risk for failure should the Chilko stock’s short-term negative trends continue, or should the stock be subject to diminished returns in any particular year, from any cause, including directed harvest in downstream fisheries. The fishery is largely undertaken by traditional dipnet and harvest success is abundance driven (inferring that diminished abundances based on increasing downstream harvests would have a negative effect on success). Further, the lack of other available options (Fraser mainstem stocks originating upstream of the Chilcotin) further heightens the risk to the fishery’s viability and sustainability to any event affecting the Chilko’s returning abundance or status-health.

Tsilhqot'in Nation fisheries for coho, chinook and steelhead are all presently constrained by the abundance and/or status - health of these stocks. These fisheries each support unique cultural practices.

Under the present conditions, some Tsilhqot'in Nation salmon fisheries in the Chilcotin watershed have the potential to incidentally harvest stocks that are of poor status-health, perpetuated by effects from outside the Chilcotin region. The Tsilhqot'in interests/use of salmon is fundamentally important to the maintenance of the culture. Harvesting salmon from populations that are at or below thresholds that suggest that they cannot viably sustain exploitation, or from stocks which it is not prudent to harvest from for the purposes of maintaining some level of resiliency, is incongruent with the Tsilhqot'in belief system and threatens the long-term sustainability of the resource for cultural and sustenance purposes.

Even without any additional negative effects on the Chilcotin watershed’s anadromous resources, Tsilhqot'in interests in those stocks are at considerable risk and are being compromised in a manner inconsistent with Tsilhqot'in values and beliefs relating to resource management.

Downstream Fisheries and Risk As depicted in the figure-map below, the Chilko-S stock is one of the only Fraser sockeye stocks originating upstream of Hope, for which the status-health is presently assessed as green or positive. The stocks within the Thompson watershed that are assessed as green are highly cyclical (i.e. Adams), and the Chilko-S CU therefore comprises an increasingly substantial portion of the abundance that supports fisheries occurring downstream of the Chilcotin River confluence. Any risk to the Chilko-S CUs status- health has far reaching consequences.

As a result, any risk to the Chilko-S CU’s status-health has far reaching consequences.

Figures 1-2 present the proportions of overall Fraser sockeye catch (commercial, recreational and First Nation) from 1990-2010 that the Chilko sockeye contributed, with and without the Late Sockeye-MU (Adams etc.) contribution to those catches. The Late Sockeye MU is highly cyclical – as can be seen). Figures 3-4 present the proportion that Chilko sockeye have contributed to Fraser River First Nations catches for the period 1990-2010, with and without the Late Sockeye-MU contribution to those catches.

The trend that has been evident since the early 2000s indicates an increasing contribution of the Chilko sockeye within all sockeye catches, with the exception of 1-in-4 large Late-run MU dominant years. When just Early-run MU and Summer-MU sockeye and First Nation catches are considered, Chilko sockeye are increasingly contributing upwards of 50% of the catch of Fraser sockeye. This scenario holds inherent risk to the Tsilhqot’in interests in several manners;

 The increasing reliance/harvest of downstream fisheries on Chilko sockeye will result in reduced abundances escaping upstream to the Tsilhqot'in fisheries,  Increased harvest pressure on Chilko-S CU will result in increasing harvest-pressure on the Chilko-ES CU, which is relatively small and presently of unknown/un-assessable status-health, and,  The risk that the Chilko-S CU will continue its recent and pronounced short-term declining trend.

(DFO 2012 – DRAFT) Figure. Map of the spawning distribution (darkened black lines) of Fraser River Sockeye CUs in south-western British Columbia with integrated statuses indicated for each CU (see previous Table 3).

60.0%

50.0% Chilko Proportion of Total Fraser Sox Catch

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 1990 1992 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

Figure 1. The proportion Chilko sockeye contributed to the total Fraser sockeye catch from 1990 to 2010.

70.00% 60.00% Chilko Proportion of Total Fraser Sox Catch (Late Sox Removed) 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00%

0.00%

1991 1992 1993 1994 1999 2000 2001 2002 2006 2007 2008 2009 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 2003 2004 2005 2010

Figure 2. The proportion Chilko sockeye contributed to the total Fraser sockeye catch, with Late-MU sockeye catch removed, for the period 1990-2010.

Chilko FRFN Catch Proportion of Total FRFN 50.0% Catch Sox Catch 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

0.0%

1990 1991 1992 2001 2002 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 3. The proportion Chilko sockeye (caught in Fraser First Nations catches) contributed to the total Fraser River First Nation sockeye catch for the period 1990-2010.

Chilko FRFN Catch Proportion of Total FRFN Catch 60.0% Sox Catch (Late Sox Removed) 50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

1990 1992 1995 2000 2005 2010 1991 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 4. The proportion Chilko sockeye (caught in Fraser First Nations catches) contributed to the total Fraser River First Nation sockeye catch, with Late-MU sockeye catches removed, for the period 1990-2010.

Summary; Status, Effects (Cumulative) on Tsilhqot'in Salmon Fisheries The status-health of the salmon stocks that support the Tsilhqot'in Nation’s fisheries are generally poor, with the sole exception of the Chilko sockeye stocks (Chilko-S CU “green zone”; Chilko-ES CU unknown). These impacts are largely perpetuated by impacts occurring outside of the “Chilcotin region”. They are cumulative with any impacts that occur (or may occur) within the region.

The following can be summarized regarding the Tsilhqot'in Nation’s fisheries and the resources that are required to support those fisheries:

1. Rights-based fisheries for some stocks of sockeye, Chinook, coho and steelhead are already constrained, and/or below levels that can sustain harvesting for food, social and ceremonial purposes. a. Taseko sockeye have been most recently assessed as being below their biological benchmark (red zone status according to WSP criteria);2 b. Coho stocks within the Chilcotin watershed are a component of the Interior Fraser Coho CU and are COSEWIC assessed as Endangered; c. Chinook are managed as a stock of concern and are managed to achieve minimum escapement objectives (attempting/facilitating rebuilding); d. A similar (to chinook and coho) scenario exists for steelhead; e. Taseko and Chilko-ES sockeye CUs are data deficient, and not presently actively managed for any particular rebuilding or sustainability objective within the existing management framework, which manages aggregates of sockeye MUs rather than individuals CUs 2. Sockeye needs are largely, singularly reliant on the Chilko sockeye (Chilko-S) stock’s strength and options to meet those needs through non-Chilcotin salmon stocks (other Fraser stocks) are severely diminished, imparting considerable risk on the viability of the fishery (should the Chilko-S CU suffer constrained abundance in any given year, or on an ongoing basis). 3. Existing management scenarios, at times, fail to reflect or support Tsilhqot'in cultural practices and belief systems in respect of their traditional fisheries (due to the management framework and processes’ failure to sustain the resource at levels adequate to support Tsilhqot'in interest/use). 4. Given Chilcotin watershed salmon status-health and trends, and Tsilhqot'in Nation population growth, it can be assumed there will be a growing reliance on freshwater-resident species into the future (to meet the fisheries needs of the growing Tsilhqot'in Nation population). a. The viability of some resident stocks is closely linked to the viability of anadromous stocks. 5. Any activity or project that diminishes the productivity of resident fisheries habitats and resources, or poses a risk to the productive potential of anadromous resources, has potentially negative consequences on Tsilhqot'in Nation’s fisheries.

2 This assessment is currently deemed “provisional” because of inadequate monitoring data quality.

6. Given its present status and the lack of reliable data and/or an existing means of gathering the required data and tracking/confirming its status, any further activity that poses a negative effect on or risk to Taseko sockeye would be imprudent and contrary to DFO’s Precautionary Principle. 7. The Chilko-S sockeye CUs strength, relative to most other interior Fraser sockeye CUs, means that its maintained annual abundance has become a fundamentally important contributor to downstream fisheries. This perpetuates further risk to the Tsilhqot'in Interest.

References Cited Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).2012 (DRAFT). Expert-Elicited Scientific Advice on Fraser River Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) Integrated Biological Status under the Wild Salmon Policy. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/###.

Toth, B. & Tung, M. 2013. Review of the Salmon Chilcotin Watershed’s Anadromous Stock’s Statuses for the Chilcotin Watershed. Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance. Prepared for the New Prosperity Mine Federal Review Panel, July, 2013