DOCSLIB.ORG

US Alaska Salmon Commercial Fisheries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US Alaska Salmon Commercial Fisheries Alaska Responsible Fishery Management Certification 4th Surveillance Report For The US Alaska Salmon Commercial Fisheries Facilitated by Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) Client Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation (AFDF) Assessors: Dr. Ivan Mateo, Lead Assessor Dr. Brian Allee, Assessor Mr. Scott L. Marshall, Assessor Dr. Marc A. Johnson, Assessor Report Code: AK/SAL/0.002.4/2020 Published Date: 20th April 2020 SAI Global 3rd Floor, Block 3, Quayside Business Park, Mill Street, Dundalk, Co. Louth, Ireland. T: + 353 42 932 0912 www.saiglobal.com Foreword The Alaska Responsible Fisheries Management (RFM) Standard Version 1.3 is composed of Conformance Criteria and is based on the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the FAO Guidelines for the Eco- labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries adopted in 2005 and amended/extended in 2009. The Standard also includes full reference to the 2011 FAO Guidelines for the Eco-labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Fisheries which in turn are now supported by a suite of guidelines and support documents published by the UN FAO. Further information on the Alaska RFM program may be found here: http://www.alaskaseafood.org/rfm-certification/certified-fisheries Form 9g Issue 1 August 2018 © SAI Global Limited Copyright 2009 - ABN 67 050 611 642 Page 2 of 97 Table of contents Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of contents ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Assessment Team Details ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 1.1. Recommendation of the Assessment Team ............................................................................................................... 9 2. Fishery Applicant Details ................................................................................................................................................... 10 3. Proposed Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification............................................................................................................ 11 4. Fishery Observations ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.1. Stock status, landings and TAC update .................................................................................................................... 12 4.2. Enforcement update ................................................................................................................................................ 21 4.3. Ecosystem Update .................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.4. Relevant changes to Legislation and Regulations .................................................................................................... 21 4.5. Relevant changes to the Management Regime ....................................................................................................... 21 5. Surveillance Meetings ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 6. Assessment Outcome Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 26 6.1. Fundamental Clauses Summaries ............................................................................................................................ 26 7. Conformity Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 8. Evaluation of Fundamental Clauses .................................................................................................................................. 34 8.1. Section A. The Fisheries Management System ........................................................................................................ 34 8.1.1. Fundamental Clause 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 34 8.1.2. Fundamental Clause 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 37 8.1.3. Fundamental Clause 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 40 8.2. Section B. Science and Stock Assessment Activities................................................................................................. 41 8.2.1. Fundamental Clause 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 41 8.2.2. Fundamental Clause 5 ..................................................................................................................................... 45 8.3. Section C. The Precautionary Approach .................................................................................................................... 50 8.3.1. Fundamental Clause 6 ...................................................................................................................................... 50 8.3.2. Fundamental Clause 7 ..................................................................................................................................... 58 8.4. Section D. Management Measures ......................................................................................................................... 64 8.4.1. Fundamental Clause 8 ..................................................................................................................................... 64 8.4.2. Fundamental Clause 9 ..................................................................................................................................... 69 8.5. Section E. Implementation, Monitoring and Control ............................................................................................... 70 8.5.1. Fundamental Clause 10 ................................................................................................................................... 70 8.5.2. Fundamental Clause 11 ................................................................................................................................... 72 8.6. Section F. Serious Impacts of the Fishery on the Ecosystem ................................................................................... 73 8.6.1. Fundamental Clause 12 ................................................................................................................................... 73 8.6.2. Fundamental Clause 13 ................................................................................................................................... 79 9. Performance specific to agreed corrective action plans ................................................................................................... 86 10. Unclosed, new non-conformances and new corrective action plans ........................................................................... 86 11. Future Surveillance Actions .......................................................................................................................................... 86 12. Client signed acceptance of the action plan ................................................................................................................. 87 13. Recommendation and Determination .......................................................................................................................... 87 14. References .................................................................................................................................................................... 88 15. Appendices ................................................................................................................................................................... 96 15.1. Appendix 1 – Assessment Team Details............................................................................................................... 96 Form 9g Issue 1 August 2018 © SAI Global Limited Copyright 2009 - ABN 67 050 611 642 Page 3 of 97 Glossary ABC Allowable Biological Catch AC Advisory Committee ACC Alaska Administrative Code ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game AFA American Fisheries Act AFDF Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation AFSC
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES and RESPONSIBLE AQUACULTURE: a Guide for USAID Staff and Partners
    SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES AND RESPONSIBLE AQUACULTURE: A Guide for USAID Staff and Partners June 2013 ABOUT THIS GUIDE GOAL This guide provides basic information on how to design programs to reform capture fisheries (also referred to as “wild” fisheries) and aquaculture sectors to ensure sound and effective development, environmental sustainability, economic profitability, and social responsibility. To achieve these objectives, this document focuses on ways to reduce the threats to biodiversity and ecosystem productivity through improved governance and more integrated planning and management practices. In the face of food insecurity, global climate change, and increasing population pressures, it is imperative that development programs help to maintain ecosystem resilience and the multiple goods and services that ecosystems provide. Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem functions are central to maintaining ecosystem integrity, health, and productivity. The intent of the guide is not to suggest that fisheries and aquaculture are interchangeable: these sectors are unique although linked. The world cannot afford to neglect global fisheries and expect aquaculture to fill that void. Global food security will not be achievable without reversing the decline of fisheries, restoring fisheries productivity, and moving towards more environmentally friendly and responsible aquaculture. There is a need for reform in both fisheries and aquaculture to reduce their environmental and social impacts. USAID’s experience has shown that well-designed programs can reform capture fisheries management, reducing threats to biodiversity while leading to increased productivity, incomes, and livelihoods. Agency programs have focused on an ecosystem-based approach to management in conjunction with improved governance, secure tenure and access to resources, and the application of modern management practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Bristol Bay, Alaska
    EPA 910-R-14-001C | January 2014 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska Volume 3 – Appendices E-J Region 10, Seattle, WA www.epa.gov/bristolbay EPA 910-R-14-001C January 2014 AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA VOLUME 3—APPENDICES E-J U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Seattle, WA CONTENTS VOLUME 1 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska VOLUME 2 APPENDIX A: Fishery Resources of the Bristol Bay Region APPENDIX B: Non-Salmon Freshwater Fishes of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages APPENDIX C: Wildlife Resources of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Watersheds, Alaska APPENDIX D: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Characterization of the Indigenous Cultures of the Nushagak and Kvichak Watersheds, Alaska VOLUME 3 APPENDIX E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values APPENDIX F: Biological Characterization: Bristol Bay Marine Estuarine Processes, Fish, and Marine Mammal Assemblages APPENDIX G: Foreseeable Environmental Impact of Potential Road and Pipeline Development on Water Quality and Freshwater Fishery Resources of Bristol Bay, Alaska APPENDIX H: Geologic and Environmental Characteristics of Porphyry Copper Deposits with Emphasis on Potential Future Development in the Bristol Bay Watershed, Alaska APPENDIX I: Conventional Water Quality Mitigation Practices for Mine Design, Construction, Operation, and Closure APPENDIX J: Compensatory Mitigation and Large-Scale Hardrock Mining in the Bristol Bay Watershed AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA VOLUME 3—APPENDICES E-J Appendix E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values John Duffield Chris Neher David Patterson Bioeconomics, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan: Status and Trends
    SNOHOMISH RIVER BASIN SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN STATUS AND TRENDS DECEMBER 2019 CONTENTS Introduction 1 Status Update 3 Snohomish Basin 3 Salmon Plan Overview 7 Implementation Progress 10 Status and Trends 18 Salmon in the Basin 18 Chinook Salmon 19 Coho Salmon 22 Steelhead 24 Bull Trout 26 Chum Salmon 27 Factors Affecting Survival of Salmon Species 29 Basin Trends 32 Salmon Plan Implementation 46 Habitat Restoration Progress 48 Restoration Funding 67 Habitat and Hydrology Protection Observations 70 Monitoring and Adaptive Management 76 Updating the Basin-Wide Vision for Recovery 77 Considerations for a Changing Future 78 Restoration Opportunities and Challenges 82 Integration of Habitat, Harvest, and Hatchery Actions Within the Basin 86 Multi-Objective Planning 88 Updating Our Salmon Plan 90 Credits and Acknowledgments 93 INTRODUCTION Since 1994 — 5 years before the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of Chinook salmon — partner organizations in the Snohomish Basin have been coordinating salmon recovery efforts to improve salmon stock numbers. In 2005, the Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum (Forum) adopted the Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan1 (Salmon Plan), defining a multi-salmon strategy for the Snohomish Basin that emphasizes two ESA-listed species, Chinook salmon and bull trout, and the non-listed coho salmon. These species are used as proxies for other Basin salmon to help prevent future listings. The Salmon Plan, developed by the 41-member Forum, incorporates habitat, harvest, and hatchery management actions to bring the listed wild stocks back to healthy, harvestable levels. 1 Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum, 2005. Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan. Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater As Essential Salmon Habitat in Nushagak and Kvichak River Headwaters: Issues Relative to Mining
    Groundwater as Essential Salmon Habitat In Nushagak and Kvichak River Headwaters: Issues Relative to Mining Dr. Carol Ann Woody and Dr. Brentwood Higman for CSP2 10 July 2011 Groundwater as Essential Salmon Habitat in Nushagak and Kvichak River Headwaters: Issues Relative to Mining Dr. Carol Ann Woody Fisheries Research and Consulting www.fish4thefuture.com Dr. Brentwood Higman Ground Truth Trekking http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/ Abstract Groundwater-fed streams and rivers are among the most important fish habitats in Alaska because groundwater determines extent and volume of ice-free winter habitat. Sockeye, Chinook, and chum salmon preferentially spawn in upwelling groundwater, whereas coho prefer downwelling groundwater regions. Groundwater protects fish embryos from freezing during winter incubation and, after hatching, ice-free groundwater allows salmon to move both down and laterally into the hyporheic zone to absorb yolk sacs. Groundwater provides overwintering juvenile fish, such as rearing coho and Chinook salmon, refuge from ice and predators. Groundwater represents a valuable resource that influences salmon spawning behavior, incubation success, extent of overwintering habitat, and biodiversity, all of which can influence salmon sustainability. Recently, over 2,000 km2 of mine claims were staked in headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak river watersheds, which produce about 40% of all Bristol Bay sockeye salmon (1956-2010). The Pebble prospect, a 10.8 billion ton, low grade, potentially acid generating, copper deposit is located on the watershed divide of these rivers and represents mine claims closest to permitting. To assess groundwater prevalence and its relationship to salmon resources on mine claims, rivers within claims were surveyed for open ice-free water, 11 March 2011; open water was assumed indicative of groundwater upwelling.
    [Show full text]
  • Refashioning Production in Bristol Bay, Alaska by Karen E. Hébert A
    Wild Dreams: Refashioning Production in Bristol Bay, Alaska by Karen E. Hébert A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Anthropology) in the University of Michigan 2008 Doctoral Committee: Professor Fernando Coronil, Chair Associate Professor Arun Agrawal Associate Professor Stuart A. Kirsch Associate Professor Barbra A. Meek © Karen E. Hébert 2008 Acknowledgments At a cocktail party after an academic conference not long ago, I found myself in conversation with another anthropologist who had attended my paper presentation earlier that day. He told me that he had been fascinated to learn that something as “mundane” as salmon could be linked to so many important sociocultural processes. Mundane? My head spun with confusion as I tried to reciprocate chatty pleasantries. How could anyone conceive of salmon as “mundane”? I was so confused by the mere suggestion that any chance of probing his comment further passed me by. As I drifted away from the conversation, it occurred to me that a great many people probably deem salmon as mundane as any other food product, even if they may consider Alaskan salmon fishing a bit more exotic. At that moment, I realized that I was the one who carried with me a particularly pronounced sense of salmon’s significance—one that I shared with, and no doubt learned from, the people with whom I conducted research. The cocktail-party exchange made clear to me how much I had thoroughly adopted some of the very assumptions I had set out simply to study. It also made me smile, because it revealed how successful those I got to know during my fieldwork had been in transforming me from an observer into something more of a participant.
    [Show full text]
  • International Law Enforcement Cooperation in the Fisheries Sector: a Guide for Law Enforcement Practitioners
    International Law Enforcement Cooperation in the Fisheries Sector: A Guide for Law Enforcement Practitioners FOREWORD Fisheries around the world have been suffering increasingly from illegal exploitation, which undermines the sustainability of marine living resources and threatens food security, as well as the economic, social and political stability of coastal states. The illegal exploitation of marine living resources includes not only fisheries crime, but also connected crimes to the fisheries sector, such as corruption, money laundering, fraud, human or drug trafficking. These crimes have been identified by INTERPOL and its partners as transnational in nature and involving organized criminal networks. Given the complexity of these crimes and the fact that they occur across the supply chains of several countries, international police cooperation and coordination between countries and agencies is absolutely essential to effectively tackle such illegal activities. As the world’s largest police organization, INTERPOL’s role is to foster international police cooperation and coordination, as well as to ensure that police around the world have access to the tools and services to effectively tackle these transnational crimes. More specifically, INTERPOL’s Environmental Security Programme (ENS) is dedicated to addressing environmental crime, such as fisheries crimes and associated crimes. Its mission is to assist our member countries in the effective enforcement of national, regional and international environmental law and treaties, creating coherent international law enforcement collaboration and enhancing investigative support of environmental crime cases. It is in this context, that ENS – Global Fisheries Enforcement team identified the need to develop a Guide to assist in the understanding of international law enforcement cooperation in the fisheries sector, especially following several transnational fisheries enforcement cases in which INTERPOL was involved.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Quotas Private Property Solutions to Overfishing
    Beyond Quotas Private Property Solutions to Overfishing ELIZABETH BRUBAKER In March 1996, Glen Clark, the premier of British Columbia, pre- dicted that the Fraser River commercial sockeye fishery would be shut down for the year. “It’s pretty clear from the numbers,” he explained, “that it won’t sustain a commercial fishery” (Cernetig 1996a). The warning followed two nearly disastrous years in Brit- ish Columbia’s salmon fishery. In 1994, several million Fraser Riv- er salmon failed to appear at their spawning grounds. The board reviewing their disappearance concluded that fishermen had come within 12 hours of wiping out the province’s most impor- tant sockeye run. “The resource is now, more than ever before, critically endangered,” it warned. “If something like the 1994 sit- uation happens again, the door to disaster will be wide open” (Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board [FRSPRB] 1995: xii, 12). Academics agreed that a crisis loomed. Biologist Carl Walters cautioned that, in the absence of profound restructuring, the Pa- cific salmon fishery would likely go the way of the Atlantic cod fishery (Walters 1995: 4). The following season again saw salmon shortages. In August 1995, with the returning salmon numbering two-thirds less than pre-season estimates, federal Fisheries Minister Brian Tobin closed the Fraser River sockeye fishery with a grim comment: “As it stands now, we don’t have a fishery. Period. And unless the 151 Fish or Cut Bait! numbers change, we won’t have a fishery in the future” (Damsell 1995). In a news release on November 8, 1995, British Columbia’s fisheries minister, David Zirnhelt, described the year’s salmon returns as “the worst in memory,” noting that harvest volumes had declined 42 percent from recent averages (Valhalla 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound
    Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound Compiled and edited by Scott Redman, Doug Myers, and Dan Averill Puget Sound Action Team From contributions by the editors and Kurt Fresh and Bill Graeber, NOAA Fisheries Delivered to Shared Strategy for Puget Sound for inclusion in their regional salmon recovery plan June 28, 2005 Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon Recovery June 28, 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors and editors acknowledge the considerable contributions and expert advice of Carol MacIlroy of Shared Strategy, Chris Davis and Josh Livni of CommEn Space, members of the Nearshore Policy Group, and others who reviewed earlier drafts. We are indebted to each but accept full responsibility for any errors or mischaracterizations presented in this document. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1: Introduction................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Statements of premise: our basis for regional assessment of nearshore and marine aspects of salmon recovery........................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 The scope and scale of our effort ..............................................................................1-2 1.3 The conceptual basis for our assessment and recovery hypotheses and strategies.....................................................................................................................1-4 1.4 Some general goals/strategies for nearshore and marine aspects
    [Show full text]
  • November 10, 2015 As Residents of the Eagle Vista Subdivision
    November 10, 2015 As residents of the Eagle Vista subdivision between mile 26 and 27, Haines Highway, we are vehemently opposed to the proposed establishment of a heliport in our long-established, quiet residential neighborhood. In fact, we moved from Juneau to this neighborhood specifically to move to a quieter locale, and escape the noise of helicopters and traffic in Juneau. We believe an introduction of such facilities in our established neighborhood violates the longstanding (and successfully litigated) principle of quiet enjoyment of home property. What is more, a strong majority of our neighbors feel the same way. In short, this quiet residential neighborhood was here first. The written covenants for the Eagle Vista subdivision clearly demonstrate the value that this neighborhood has always placed on its extremely quiet rural character. Inserting a heliport in our midst would be both disruptive and incompatible. There is no comparing the occasional noise of a local sawmill to that of a busy heliport operating the bulk of daylight hours during season. The expensive noise study was skewed in its parameters, methodology, and interpretation. There is no way you can mix in A-Stars taking off and landing in sequence in a narrowing, sound-amplifying valley and come up with any manner of relative quiet. We deserve protection from the incursion of helicopters taking off and landing less than a mile from our homes. We obviously moved here because we value that rural peace over convenience. As residents of the Haines Borough, we implore the planning commission to sustain our rights to quiet enjoyment of our property.
    [Show full text]
  • Haines Highway Byway Corridor Partnership Plan
    HAINES HIGHWAY CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP PLAN 1 Prepared For: The Haines Borough, as well as the village of Klukwan, and the many agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens served by the Haines Highway. This document was prepared for local byway planning purposes and as part of the submission materials required for the National Scenic Byway designation under the National Scenic Byway Program of the Federal Highway Administration. Prepared By: Jensen Yorba Lott, Inc. Juneau, Alaska August 2007 With: Whiteman Consulting, Ltd Boulder, Colorado Cover: Haines, Alaska and the snow peaked Takhinska Mountains that rise over 6,000’ above the community 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................5-9 2. BACKGROUND ON Byways....................................11-14 3. INSTRINSIC QUALITY REVIEW..............................15-27 4. ROAD & TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM...................29-45 5. ToURISM & Byway VISITATION...........................47-57 6. INTERPRETATION......................................................59-67 7. PURPOSE, VISION, GOALS & OBJECTIVES.......69-101 8. APPENDIX..................................................................103-105 3 4 INTRODUCTION 1 Chilkat River Valley “Valley of the Eagles” 5 The Haines Highway runs from the community byway. Obtaining national designation for the of Haines, Alaska to the Canadian-U.S. border American portion of the Haines highway should station at Dalton Cache, Alaska. At the half way be seen as the first step in the development of an point the highway passes the Indian Village of international byway. Despite the lack of a byway Klukwan. The total highway distance within Alaska program in Canada this should not prevent the is approximately 44 miles, however the Haines celebration and marketing of the entire Haines Highway continues another 106 miles through Highway as an international byway.
    [Show full text]
  • Salmon Fish Traps in Alaska Steve Colt January 11, 1999 Economic History
    Salmon Fish Traps in Alaska Steve Colt January 11, 1999 Economic History Salmon cannery at Loring, Alaska in 1897. Reproduced from The Salmon and Salmon Fisheries of Alaska by Jefferson F. Moser, 1899 Alaska Fish Traps 1 Salmon Fish Traps in Alaska Abstract Salmon return faithfully to their stream of birth and can be efficiently caught by fixed gear. But since the introduction at the turn of the century of fish traps to the emerging Alaska commercial salmon fishery, most territorial residents fought for their abolition even while admitting to their technical efficiency. The new State of Alaska immediately banned traps in 1959. I estimate the economic rents generated by the Alaska salmon traps as they were actually deployed and find that they saved roughly $ 4 million 1967$ per year, or about 12% of the ex-vessel value of the catch. I also find strong evidence that the fishermen operating from boats earned zero profits throughout the 20th century. Thus the State's ban on fish traps did allow 6,000 additional people to enter the fishery, but did nothing to boost average earnings. 1. Introduction "We Alaskans charge emphatically and can prove that the fish trap is a menace to a continued successful operation of fisheries in Alaska. By this measure you would legalize the destruction of the major industry of Alaska and jeopardize the livelihood of the many resident workers, of the many small businesses; in whole, the entire economic structure of Alaska. For what? The continued exploitation of Alaskan resources by an absentee monopoly that must have a profit far in excess of that of any other business." --RR Warren, a resident Alaska fisherman, testifying before the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Benefits of the Bristol Bay Salmon Industry
    ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE BRISTOL BAY SALMON INDUSTRY PREPARED BY WINK RESEARCH & CONSULTING JULY 2018 PREPARED FOR RESEARCH CONDUCTED FOR This project was commissioned by the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association, Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, and Bristol Bay Native Corporation. These organizations are committed to developing regional salmon resources for the benefit of their respective stakeholders. RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY Wink Research & Consulting, LLC provides economic research and consulting services. Research and study findings contained in this report were conducted by Andy Wink. Mr. Wink has extensive experience researching markets for Bristol Bay seafood products and is an expert on economic benefits provided by the Alaska seafood industry. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary of Terms & Abbreviations ............................................................................................ 4 Chapter 1. Resource Profile............................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 2. Supply Chain & Market Profile ................................................................................... 13 Chapter 3. Value of Resource & Assets .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]