Venue: 4051 18Th Ave, Prince George, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Technical Working Group (TWG) MEETING MINUTES

April 13, 2011

DATE: April 13th, 2011 VENUE: 4051 18th Ave, Prince George, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. TIME: 08:30 – 16:20 Prepared by: Lana Ciarniello Tel: (250) 964-8404; E-mail: [email protected]

PRESENT: …………………………… Cory Williamson … TWG Chair; Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations …………………………… Justus Benckhuysen … Rio Tinto Alcan …………………………… Zsolt Sary … Ministry of Natural Resource Operations …………………………… Brian Toth … Lheidli T’enneh/Carrier Sekani Tribal Council …………………………… Mark Potyrala … Department of Fisheries and Oceans …………………………… Christina Ciesielski … Carrier Sekani Tribal Council …………………………… Steve McAdam … BC Ministry of Environment …………………………… Lana Ciarniello … Coordinator Teleconference: …………………………… Jim Powell … Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC

1. Introduction and Review of Agenda (Cory) The group reviewed the agenda. Jim mentioned that he will have to leave the call at 10:30 am for another meeting so we began with the hatchery update (see Item #6).

1-b Federal Election and Funding Cory added an update and discussion regarding the state of our funding applications due to the upcoming Federal Election. The Federal election has thrown a curve ball in the announcement of funding applications and as a result a number of funding decisions will not be made in time for our gravel project. Cory showed a spreadsheet of who was funding what activity of the project and whether that funding had been secured.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 1 of 21 • For monitoring in terms of cash in hand we have $75,000 from DFO for recovery projects which came at year end. • We have $40,000 left over from our 2009 budget and we were going to spend it on hatchery operations; however, we could put this towards different activities. • Jim noted that there are restrictions on the use of the money and it is just for hatchery development. • Cory asked Jim for confirmation that the money was a contribution from RTA in 2009. • Jim said the $1.5 million is a restricted fund and we can not go and use it as we wish. • Cory noted that half the money was MOE money which was restricted and half was RTA and therefore not restricted. If the IRF application comes through that $40,000 would not be spent on hatchery operations this year and could be spent on different things. • Jim noted that there was $78,000 in matched funds from RTA and the province. The money was released at the request of the province to help with the larval project. Money that was not spent from that was returned to the hatchery pot of $1.5 million and therefore it would have to be pulled out again and is restricted to hatchery development. Cory said that that was not his understanding and that he was told differently by Malina. Cory believes that it might be available at this point. We will need to look into this issue further. • Cory noted that we would backfill with successful funding sources that we hope are announced in May or June. This means we have $75,000 for all the monitoring projects and our budget was $250,000 for physical and biological monitoring. • Brian asked if the $40,000 was a back-up for running the hatchery component. Yes. He was told that the funds we are now requesting are from a surplus that was not used in 2009. Cory asked RTA/Justus if those funds (i.e., $40,000) can be used on hatchery operations in case IRF does not come through. Justus noted that use of the funds has been formally approved. • Right now we have in hand $40,000 + $37,500 for monitoring. MOE is comfortable risk managing the $37,500. The hope is that we will get it back from IRF. • The budget of $132,500 under DFO includes $37,500 from last year’s commitment and $95,000 from this year’s funds.

Steve noted that he has chatted with Ted about the conundrum of spanning the fiscal and specifically that our funding is not agreed to in time for project implementation in early spring. Ted suggested that we do not walk in and state that we need $180,000 but rather look at what we require and divide the funding into time segments. Steve has drawn up a plan for risk management: the first step is $37,500 after which Steve thought we needed an additional $100,000 so he divided it into thirds and also laid out the order in which we would pay the funds back. • Steve knows DFO has asked for the $95,000 in this new fiscal and he has lined up a meeting with them to discuss the potential of receiving this funding. Steve asked Brian when the decision for AFSAR and CSTC’s other funding proposals will be announced. Brian noted after the May 2nd election.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 2 of 21 • Brian asked Cory where the CSTC money is coming from that is in the project budget Cory supplied the group. Brian thought the funding was in-kind but Cory noted he thought he only used the cash contributions. Brian said it may be AFS funds and those are also not secured at this time. • Steve asked what risk management CSTC is willing to do regarding their funding. Brian answered that any risk management by CSTC is limited. Brian noted that he would take a commitment that the funds would be available. Steve’s goal is to send off the risk management approach by the end of the week to all of the partners. Steve and Cory will continue to attempt to get funds released for us to use. • The risk is if we go heavy on telemetry and spawn monitoring we might not be able to monitor drift or not to the extent that we did in the past.

2. Gravel Placement Update (Cory) Gravel project activities are moving along and the river is beginning to open. The gravel placement may start in a week because we are still getting cold (-7) temperatures at night. It is also possible that they may start the week we are doing the brood capture work (April 26th). • Mark asked if site preparation was required but Justus told him that the gravel is stored 5-km from the River so stalk piling is not required. • Cory noted that he wants to do some detailed spot sounding at both sites so we have before and after assessments of the River bottom. Cory noted that there was a concern for increased damage to the river’s edge associated with fuelling the crawler at the lower site if they have to move off the barge to fuel. For the lower site they will need to fuel up to two additional times. Their feeling is that there is less risk to fuel on the barge. That letter from the contractors requesting permission to fuel on the barge will go to Mark and Zsolt. • In the proposal they said they would test the rock for acid but Cory does not think it is necessary. Further, they do not want to do it because the rock is provided and cleaned; however, it is in the proposal. Cory noted that there are no significant issues and we are moving forward. • Justus told the group that we had a question from Troy about where we obtained our gravel from. Lana answered the question and has not heard anything further from Troy. The thought was that he wanted to make sure it was locally mined and clean. • Justus/RTA noted they are expecting 104% inflow and reasonably low reservoir levels. RTA has 7 sites that give them real time data on flow facts. The bottom line is that we do not expect anything strange to happen once the gravel is placed. • Mark asked if there is data on ideal velocity for spawning. Cory noted that it is in order of 1 to 1.5 m per sec on the Nechako but Steve noted that we should not trust those data.

3. Planning for Biological and Physical Monitoring (Cory-All) a. Project Budgets for Monitoring: this was discussed under 1-b. Federal Election and Funding. b. Project Implementation (questions, timing, delivery) Cory referred the group to the table in our last meeting minutes (March 14th, page 5). The start of brood capture/tagging would be April 26th. Currently, the Freshwater Fisheries Society is discussing how to mobilize staff. Jim noted that they are tight for staff. The FFSBC is coming to

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 3 of 21 Prince George on April 21st to get the water flowing and the heater assembled at the hatchery. They have to have enough water up there for 3 tanks (2 males and 2 females). • FFSBC April 21st set up 3-4 days • April 26 to May 15th they need people to look after sturgeon and monitor the water temperature to make sure it is okay and the water is flowing. • May 15-20th Jim’s team with Mike Keen is dedicated for a second round of polarization index on those fish to take eggs out of the two females. They want to know if they can get into a lab at UNBC to do the PI. ACTION: Cory to determine whether Jim can get into a lab at UNBC to do the PI. • Jim noted that the people they hire can not violate the SARA permit – they can not have a fish die. Cory stated that on the permit are CTSC, MOE, and natural resource staff. Extra people are required for the following days: • May long weekend (21-23rd). • Note: May 24-28th they have 4 people for spawning (Rod, Derrick and Chris) • Cory and Steve said Marcus may be able to help them out as he is in Prince George, at UNBC and he knows the fish and the project. • Cory suggested Jim send them the list of names he has available otherwise it will delay the process. ACTION: Jim to send Cory the list of names of people that Jim has available to be a caretaker to the sturgeon. • Mark asked if he wants to send the request around the DFO office. Jim asked Mark to forward him the names and contacts. ACTION: Mark to determine if any DFO staff would be caretakers of the sturgeon and then forward the list of names to Jim. Cory asked who would be able to do the transport? Jim said “good question”. They are catching fish April 26th, 27th and 28th. Cory would expect that we will have fish in hand on those days. **Jim said they will have to make sure someone is there to receive them** • The transport trailer will be in the compound. Cory has keys to the blue unit. • Jim needs an inventory of what is available for spawning. Cory will get up to Vanderhoof this or next week. • The trailer has been relicensed and serviced so it is ready to go. • They need oxygen cylinders and they have not yet figured out where to get them. ACTION: Jim to assure someone is present to receive the fish by April 26th. ACTION: Cory to provide Jim with an inventory of what is available for spawning. Wild spawn typically occurs from the end of May to first or second week of June; however, it could be later this year because of the temperatures. There is not a lot of flexibility in FFSBC’s spawning date. The original plan was to have hatchery spawning at the end of wild spawn for a control but we can not do that anymore. That is a change in our original project design. Steve noted that it also creates some risks. • There are only a couple of sturgeon culturists available and they also have to be on the Columbia. So the problem with staff means that we can not separate spawning.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 4 of 21 Justus asked about hiring a dedicated person for a month to monitor the sturgeon. Jim said yes, that would work because they would likely overlap with the other staff which would be good. • Cory noted that there is some experience required for this job – temperature and oxygen regulation. Justus said hiring a dedicated individual seemed easier than getting 3 or 4 volunteer that all need training. Field Work: Cory hopes to be on the river April 26th for 10 days and would like 3 females and 3 males – one of the pairs acts as a back up (4 tanks). • Lana noted that Jim P mentioned two pairs but Cory is mentioning 3 pairs. • He would also like to replace as many tags as possible as they need to replace some of the existing tag types. The goal is to replace as many tags as possible because this will be required with the new tags in the future and starting now will make it easier. • The crews will then take a small break before beginning periodic telemetry and monitoring of river temperatures. As the critical temperature (12-14˚) approaches then we will start the egg mats. i. Biological Monitoring The following tasks were discussed under biological monitoring: Tagging/Telemetry; Wild Spawn Monitoring; Egg Take & Placement; and, Wild & Hatchery Drift. Tasks were not necessarily covered under their specific heading and the conversation often included more than one task, therefore individual subheadings have not been identified. The summarized notes on the whiteboard are located at the end of this section. Determining the Minimum Program Based on Available Funding: The group discussed what the minimum program would look like because of the funding issues. • Steve thought that egg mat monitoring on our gravel sites is the minimum program. We want to see positive detection of eggs at our augmented sites; a negative detection would also be useful because that would mean we have a low expectation of getting anything drifting off at any time – if we do not get eggs we do not expect larval drift. If we do get eggs then it tells us the timing for our drift monitoring. Steve noted that normally they catch some eggs, predict when hatch would happen (predict the high probability period) but if we do not get eggs then we get some uncertainty. • Zsolt asked if the egg placement will occur before spawning. Normally it is around 8 hours after their last injection when they spawn but it can go to 24 hours. • Jim noted that once we get the second PI we will have a lot more information on which fish is going to go first. Steve noted we have a 3 hour window from the time the eggs spawn until they have to be put in the water. Cory noted that it is not as much of a rush as initially thought. Jim sent out some papers on what we can do to make it work. We have to be prepared with the boat and the rest of the equipment (May 24-28th). Steve stated that egg mats not at our augmented sites and telemetry monitoring of adults accessing the spawning zone are two other core components and he is unsure how they fit in to our current situation. • Cory noted that monitoring the base station at Vanderhoof daily = minimum program. • They could do daily downloads of base station by training someone in Vanderhoof at a low cost to monitor.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 5 of 21 • Brian noted that the IRF project was for telemetry work to periodically monitor the river until fish approach and then get more intense with the monitoring as the fish move closer. Steve noted that if this project is successful then we would implement a larger project through the reach. He asked if we have enough data to answer that question. The group noted that as best as possible it would be good to get some of the information. • Brian noted that we should do telemetry within the spawning reach when we are doing egg mats because “we are out on the river anyway.” Steve asked about the plan if we do not have the funding. • Brian’s plan is to structure the $37,500 for certain and he assumes this is not needed within the brood capture ($3,500 for travel is committed but that is all). • Brian noted the dates and intensity for telemetry: we want weekly for the first two weeks of April, and then decrease as funding requires, and then more frequent up to the point when the $75,000 is more or less spent. • Brian was asked if there was a risk of not doing the later pieces. Brian said yes a risk exists but we are likely to get more money later. • Cory noted that his worry is because our critical question is egg and larval survival and he thinks we should reserve some funds so we can monitor drift at 15 days. He likes Brian’s suggestion of running as much of the component as we can but he thinks we should reserve some funds to assure our critical questions may be addressed. • Fish spawned in these areas, and was drift at hatch present or absent, and drift at 15 days (presence, absence). We are trying to show drift is absent at hatch and present at 15 days because we have only shown drift at hatch. Even if fish spawned at this site we do not know if it works unless we get drift at 15 days. • The group agreed that we must carry though with the larval sampling because we are doing egg placement. Based on temperatures we should know that fairly precisely. • Cory suggested that if we have no money we just monitor the placed eggs. Steve says he would hate to be in that position but it is a good base scenario. The group agreed to move forward with Brian’s suggestion but add that we save some funds so we can do larval monitoring for the placed eggs. Zsolt asked if we are placing eggs on both pads? Steve stated that we should set up some decision rules of where we place eggs because if we have eggs detected then we do not want to place hatchery eggs on top of wild eggs. Brian asked if it was their intent to drop eggs from a boat where you can not watch and control or if egg placement is going to be controlled. Cory noted that Ron told him yesterday that they placed larvae on the Columbia last year with an 8-10 inch hose; therefore, we can place by boat and be fairly precise about where they go. We could also fertilize in a bucket and immediately place so we can be precise within the gravel pad. • Justus asked if eggs sank well – yes, they sink but they could drift if we put them on the surface so we want to place them on the bottom. • Steve noted that it would be nice to let the eggs sink down rather than subjecting them to turbulence. Steven also noted that spread is good. Justus worries that there may be too much rigging involved to get the eggs to the bottom; he thought we should let them get there a bit naturally. • We could put an egg mat downstream of our placement location to see if they are drifting out. Steve did not expect so.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 6 of 21 Steve noted that there are three options in terms of monitoring egg fate: (1) impossible; (2) video camera; or (3) direct observation (starts getting expensive). This is further summarized in the summary notes at the end of this section (under C). Steve discussed on shore patrol to gauge fertilization success. Jim would like Steve to elaborate because we do not have permits for this type of activity. Steve and Cory noted that we need to make sure that fertilization was successful and we want to get eggs. We could set up aquariums in an Atco trailer and run city water on top of the fish and determine their fertilization success. These fish would have been sacrificed. Jim noted that we do not have permits for this type of work. • Steve said that we could talk with Martin about measuring fertilization success. The objective would be to be as quantitative as possible so if we know what fertilization success is on the pads then we are able to use those results. • Jim suggested that we conduct such an experiment in the river with a bag and weights and then we do not need to alter the permits. • We can then monitor egg quality fertilization success by in-situ rearing in egg hatching containers/capsules. Brian noted that we are not good at catching larvae and a poor result may not successfully reflect the nature of what we did was a success or not. Brian would like to observe eggs daily (or periodically) to monitor them. Larvae are very hard to catch. Jim exits the meeting (10:28) Based on work in Columbia and other places we are confident that if we put gravel down we will get 15 day olds but we are uncertain about obtaining a reliable number (the quantitative side). We could know in 5 years when they are larger but then we still would not know why. Steve discussed the 2008 experiment that he did here with 1 day old larvae. In this experiment he sampled the gravel and was able to measure a decline in their abundance over time. He could detect in the one site where they were placed directly onto gravel at 15 days old exactly when it should have happened. In the Columbia they did the experiment at a larger scale: one control site and one augmented site with 160,000 larvae: 30,000 on the control site and 95,000 larvae on the augmented site. They did not note anything off the augmented site for 15 days but they caught them when they initiated feeding. They were very successful but the one key is that they had a lot of nets on the water. • Cory noted that this experiment was all based on larvae and not eggs so we do not know the fate exactly. • The two pieces for lake sturgeon eggs: those that survive are hidden and those on the top get eaten. Therefore, survival becomes an issue of location. We need to be careful of site selection and acknowledge our selection. • We should at least have the ability to make it quantitative – it does not have to be maximal effort but we need to use the opportunity. Brian asked if there was intent or thought to put fertilized eggs on non-placed gravel this year as a control. • Steve thought we were not going to do a control because the past years of monitoring are the controls. He noted that in our past years of sampling we have never detected 15 day old larvae. He thought it was a good idea to put fertilized eggs on non-placed gravel but we are examining ways to reduce the budget and this would add to it.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 7 of 21 • Brian noted that if we put a control on the substrates that we think are a problem then we can better compare our results. Steve said in an ideal world this is a good idea but there are two elements: control in other years and we do not have the luxury because controls mean double effort. • Cory thinks it would be worth considering. You may not have to monitor very long because you may put out a couple of nets and find that the eggs are covered in sand and silt in which case you would have your answer. Cory stated that we could do a control in 2 m of water adjacent to the gravel. He thought that it would tie it up nicely and would be good for publishing. • Steve does not think it is as simple as just putting egg mats down. During the break (11:05) Zsolt, Brian and Steve were discussing in-stream egg control (Quest. B, No. 3), drift sampling, and the challenges with examining egg density and how it decreases over time to get a minimum level of egg survival to hatch. To date there is only one other published estimate and it would be very useful for our in-stream gravel questions: how many eggs do we think survived. • Brian asked for clarification. Steve stated that we know how many eggs we put in the river so we want to know how many are projected to make it to the end of the period. They are still going to die at a rate but what is that rate. • Steve stated that there are ~300,000 eggs per female (2 females) with 50% fertilization success equals 300,000 fertilized eggs; egg survival 10-20%; hatchlings 10-20%; 16% hiding phase and that leaves between 3,000-12,000 15 day olds. Note that before the break we were talking about item 4, egg control in water and what that information would provide to us? It provides insurance that something happened. Question B, No. 5: Behaviour at hatch to hiding: Justus asked if they move. The lab paper Steve did for his thesis shows that larvae hatch and have a strong inclination for hiding immediately. If we take inference from the lake sturgeon results then hatch is an interstitial phenomenon (because they die on the surface mainly due to predation). • Zsolt noted that it would be good to think through the steps of what the questions are and how to answer them. This will help us determine what steps we need to get there. Telemetry/Temp, B1: Cory noted that there are different ways of doing egg matting that they have not done before. The group discussed the number of egg mats available: • CSTC has 50 egg mats. Triton borrowed some but they thought they were returned. • The sites are 20 m wide and 200 m long: Steve stated that we want egg mats upstream of the sites for controls. The question is - is wild spawning detected in our gravel site? • Steve noted that the egg mats may need to be dense to detect wild spawn. In order to detect on the actual placed gravel pads themselves you would expect that you are not going to get any egg drift or roll. • Mark asked about the intent and Cory clarified that it was to detect 15 day olds. Steve stated that the intent of the egg placement is to show how it works. • Cory suggested that we could put a long line of 5 cinder blocks in a row. • Steve noted that we may want egg mats too because that is our known technique so maybe not to go exclusively to an alternate method. • Steve thinks we want egg sampling at 10 m intervals.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 8 of 21 • Justus asked if we need more egg mats to cover both areas. This would allow us to compare to last year and detect if they are spawning somewhere other than the pads. Brian says we could easily put out 100 mats but as Cory said there are cheaper ways of sampling eggs. • Zsolt noted that we want to make sure we can check them all in one day. Steve: can we show that sturgeon selected those sites? Our minimum scenario has gravel mats and control mats but does it also imply a lower level in our gravel? • Cory asked what we lose and Steve answered that we lose the comparability between the sites. • CSTC has 40-50 egg mats. Triton has some as well but they may be using them. • Brain noted that paired that would be 25-26 sites which is not a lot and half of what our full program has been in previous years. Basically we would have a few sites in the thelwag and that is it. • Brian thinks we should maintain what has been done in previous years. He suggested we deploy all the egg mats on gravel pads to reasonably be able to detect if we have eggs. One egg mat per 10 m = 20 mats. • Cory noted that in the past we have had 25-26 sites that we monitor but suggested we go with more sites. • Justus stated that the chances of wild sturgeon spawning right above our egg mat is not the question he would focus on because the eggs are likely going to sink into the gravel – he suggested that we have the eggs from the hatchery, we put them on the pads, and the rest he thinks is too much. • Steve disagreed. He noted that if we fail to detect wild spawning when we do drift detection downstream that means we need to drift sample all the time and that is very costly; therefore, he thinks egg sampling is very important to detecting the timing of drift sampling. • Steve suggested a mixed scenario on pads: cinder blocks and mats on gravel pads. He wants presence/absence and is not concerned about distribution on the pads at this point. Jim rejoins the group at 11:39 • Steve noted that we want to have some monitoring of eggs on gravel pads and we also want to monitor the broader area to be consistent with the past and we need to work on how we balance those out. Justus agrees. • Two pairs of egg mats per augmented site would be comparable to previous years. • Steve would like a greater density of mats on the augmented sites. We need to get in touch with the people that have the mats and see how many we can obtain. ACTION: Justus to ask Triton if any egg mats are available and, if so, how many. ACTION: Brian and Christina to determine how many mats are at CSTC. Cory noted that there are two egg mats in the river right now Zsolt asked about the reasonable number of additional blocks that we can put in that could be checked within the same day. Cory noted that you could put out 50 and check every other day. There is no upper limit. • If the goal is distribution/area then we could put out a lot of little ones.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 9 of 21 • Steve mentioned a type of collection that is a long chain with furnace material wrapped around it. • The goal would be to emulate the existing egg mats in order to augment the number. Drift Sampling: For drift sampling the question we want to answer is: presence of larvae at hatch and presence of larvae at 15 days old. There is a wild and hatchery component for both of those. • If we were only doing the hatchery for both of those: Assume working at one site and would want 3 nets down steam of that site for 4 days (4x3 nets = 12 samples; 8 hours to retrieve at 2 people = 16 hours, so 28 hours (12 + 16) for that component) at the hatch period and 6 (6x3 nets = 18; retrieval total 42 hours; set up time of a day times two people) sequential nights at the 15 day. That is 10 days plus the set-up. That adds up to about 86-100 hours of work in total. Steve tends to underestimate. • If we use straight days we end up with 192 hours. Steve noted that we use a spreadsheet of egg detection on this (X) date and use that date to project when we expect our pulses to come. We can vary sample intensity a bit but we know the days we have to be out there on the river sampling. • Who would be doing this work? Steve noted that is one of the wild cards. Cory noted that the proposal is us and CSTC. We were relying heavily on CSTC’s crew and maybe we will bring Marcus in to help. • Cory envisions a core crew that would do the work as scheduled and that would allow the rest of us to come in on semi-volunteer bases if more work needs to be completed. • Steve noted that we can assemble a schedule based on some expectations on when we are going to need people from our predictions. Cory asked: what is the minimum we would want to see with wild sampling in the reduced scenario? If we detect eggs on an egg mat do we monitor that site only? • Justus stated that we know that the natural unmitigated areas do not produce larvae. He is convinced they are not going to hatch so he does not think we should bother looking – is it going to give us more information on the future projects? • Brian does not think it is a priority to monitor for wild hatched larvae on a gravel pad considering we are putting fertilized eggs on the pads. Justus thinks that we should monitor on the mitigated sites but not on the control sites. • Steve noted that if we detect wild spawning on an augmented site he would want to monitor larval drift. • If we have a positive result in terms of the hatchery eggs and they are surviving are we going to say no to augmented sites? If we had the money we would do it but how far do we scale it back in our minimum scenario. • If you augment and you do not get drift at hatch but you do at 15 days that would be success. One of the things Steve has always thought is the need to monitor the wild spawn because we have a lot more eggs released by wild spawn and egg placement is a back-up if the wild stock does not spawn on this site, therefore, we have to do the egg placement. The egg placement is a minimum. If it works there should be a lot more eggs. The hatchery is a minimum set but Steve does not know if it is the minimum we want to monitor.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 10 of 21 • For Justus the experiment is the hatchery eggs. He thinks that since we are doing this experiment and placing this gravel the minimum is the hatchery release and monitoring larvae. The rest is risk. • Steve feels comfortable with Justus’s suggestion if there are no eggs detected in the augmented sites but if we do get eggs detected he thinks it is an experiment for wild fish. • Cory agrees with Steve. Cory asks Justus: what if we get a lot of wild eggs. • Justus thinks we need to stick to the work plan. • Steve noted that if we do not detect wild spawn eggs then our minimum is in place; if we do detect eggs Steve wants at least one detection of the 15 day olds. He suggested that we could identify the best wild egg deposition and monitor that using drift. • Assuming there is a larger wild spawn than hatchery spawn (because we are placing the eggs for hatchery spawn) as a minimum Steve would focus on one sampling event and more if we had the funds. • Cory noted that if we get hundreds of wild spawned larvae that is a pulse and a much stronger answer than just the placed eggs. He stated that it is the level of the response and if survival is low through the hatchery and we only end up with a few 15 day larvae can we define the project as success? Would you do it again based on that result? • Justus thinks that you would because the hatchery and fertility issue would be identified as the problem and the intent that even a few 15 day olds were produced would be a success. • Steve gave an example: if we caught 15, 15-day olds from our experiment and if we also have a wild spawning event and we catch 100 larvae it gives us an indication of wild spawn and puts numbers that are useful to help us identify the scale of things for the future. • Justus sees it as another situation and it is not his focus. Mark asked about the accuracy of determining how many spawning pairs will be utilizing the river? • Cory noted that it is highly dependent upon observation. • Steve stated that the number of radio-tagged individuals is a minimum. If we caught eggs on three different days we would say there were three distinct pairs so that is a minimum. • Jim said that sturgeon can move around and spawn some more but Steve is not sure we have evidence of that. Jim thought this could occur for up to a week. Cory said the telemetry data does not support that – the females come in and tend to leave after spawn. The group broke for lunch at 12:20 – 13:00. The group agreed that the minimum includes egg placement and one wild detection IF wild eggs are detected. If wild eggs are not detected then we can omit that portion of the study design. If we have more money we can do more detections. • Justus stated that if we see a big response we will discuss this again in Sept. • Steve noted that he has been thinking through minimum versus maximum. If our minimum is hatch and one wild is our maximum higher than that? Do we want to do more detections of wild if they are there? • Justus all we have is minimums – if we had 5 fish would we do more?

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 11 of 21 Steve drew a graph: y-axis is the pulse strength and x-axis is the time (spawn to hatch 9 days) red = eggs we placed (egg mat, day drift, night drift) black = eggs we detected (egg mat, day drift, night drift) peaks are spawning events • Steve asked: Do we monitor between the peaks? Justus noted that he would not even if he had more money. • Cory thinks we would try to monitor during a window we think has the highest probability. This would help us if we just missed during our first monitoring because conditions were not right or what have you. • Cory says we do need a maximum and probably one good pulse is enough because more sampling will not add a lot more information. He noted that we could use any extra funds for physical monitoring. • Justus wants us to focus on the experiment. He states that the minimum is no wild drift monitoring; the next level up would be one pulse. He is not clear on why we would want any more than that. • Cory stated that if we did have extra money the intensity of monitoring could increase during that time span (place more nets in the water). • Lana noted that increasing the sample intensity would allow for a more robust presence/absence result. Brian asked if the intent was to put fertilized eggs on both of the gravel pads. He noted that that answer would change the logistic of drift sampling. Scenario 1: we have already detected wild spawning Scenario 2: we have not detected wild spawning • For Scenario 1 Steve says we put eggs elsewhere and not overlapping with the wild sampling. • For Scenario 2 do we assume that there are not any? Either we are putting eggs prior to or on top of wild spawning. The Fisheries society can not move the spawning dates. Justus thinks we could get wild spawn at any time and he is certain we are going to get wild spawn eggs on our pads because they are going to drift down stream to the gravel. Steve says this is a lot of hypothetical and he would not rely on those answers. • Justus thinks we place 50% of the hatchery eggs on each pad. • Steve notes that the risk is now we are monitoring 2 sites for drift off egg placement; however, the eggs are more dispersed which he thinks is probably good. • Justus thought that the risk is that we could get too much clumping if we happen to have a large spawn the next day. • Brian does not think it is a risk. Justus states that if you have too much clumping of eggs you might increase mortality. • Steve noted that if they swim and deposit then there is a release of milt between 3 to 10 m. The group pondered if we will mark the egg placement with a GPS location or coloured rocks. • Steve agrees with Justus that we should place eggs at the 2 sites.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 12 of 21 • Cory thinks we should have some control so he suggested that we leave top third open and therefore if you are monitoring drift you can tell the wild spawn. He agreed that we can assume there is going to be wild eggs but we need to differentiate between the two if possible. He noted that it would be good to have one gravel site as a control in that you do not put eggs on it but the risk is that one site traps more sediment than the other one. • Brian likes the idea of using both pads for placement and spatially separate by leaving the top half as a control for the purpose of monitoring whether or not they were utilized. • Justus asked if they are wide enough to do parallel. No, Cory does not think so but maybe. • Justus notes the flow pattern is quite complex. The up/down stream control is wider than the lateral control. Cory developed the following schematic:

Flow Egg mats Nets Determined to be critical Second rank but important

Mark asked if we want our sampling to control for upstream effects. Steve added: are we answering questions temporally or spatially? How do we separate wild from hatchery is temporal and the drawing above is spatial. • The end sites we get but the middle sites we miss out on. So, his minimum sets are the end nets. • Justus thought that the downstream pad should be placement only because it is only 150 m down (or 300-400 m). • Drift may be detected at pad #2. Steve noted that the time and effort required for the drift sampling has increased now that we have gone to two sites because the earlier calculation was based on 1 site and 3 nets per day. We have now moved to 2 sites with 4 nets per site. Eight nets is one person plus and if that person is busy then we should have two people. • Brian asked how long they can stay out. Steve answered that if we constrict the opening we can leave it out overnight and the efficiency does not go to zero. Steve does not know if this is the same with the new mesh size. Steve, Zsolt Christina and Brian are conformable with placing eggs on the bottom half portion of two sites. • Justus thinks the entire bottom site and bottom half of top site. The rest of the group said there was not enough time to fertilize and complete that large of an area. • Steve noted eggs should not be placed on the bottom part of site because they may drift out. Eggs are negatively buoyant and should drop into cracks but we should not place them at the bottom end due to drift and increased sedimentation. • Steve noted that Northwest Hydrolic in Columbia looked at egg settlement rates and they were on par with a heavy sand particle.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 13 of 21 • Cory is not comfortable but he is not sure why. How to Release Eggs: The group again discussed how eggs were going to be released onto the pads. • Steve and Christina envision a boat with a tube and as you are moving along you are pouring hatchery eggs into the tube and get ~20 m. • Justus gets the length but he also wants to broadcast across the width. Justus thinks just throw them in and let them drop. • Steve, Christina, Brian and Mark want them on the bottom as fast and directly as possible. • Cory thinks that we should disperse them but not from the surface. If we towed sideways and went laterally across the channel it will disperse them and avoids clumping. Steve explained that we will be fertilizing the eggs on the boat and the eggs become sticky in ~5 minutes of fertilization. From spawning to river for fertilization and placement the eggs are viable for 3-6 hours if kept on ovarian fluid and we do not add water. • Justus asked whether helicopter vibration is an issue for eggs. Steve answered that the rule for fertilized eggs are travel within first 24 hours and last hours. For unfertilized Steve does not know. Summary of Discussions: Cory provided the following Summary on the whiteboard: Telemetry:/Temp A) 1. Daily downloads 2. Full telemetry (weekly – daily) B) 3. Eggs mats (gravel min) – Upstream controls – Detected wild spawn (density dependent sampling because good quality habitat) – Grid at 10 m intervals

4. Egg mats (Control) – Minimum gravel and control mats C) Hatchery egg fate: (1) visual (deep blind site) (2) video camera (deep blind site) (3) direct observation (starts getting expensive) – shallow water control (4) Egg Q/fertilization success in sites – benthic sampling – egg sampling – minimum measure

D) Larvae at hatch – wild – hatchery at 15 days – hatchery, 4 nights per session (refer to Steve’s calculations of effort) at 15 days – wild control - Minimum one episode of deposition

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 14 of 21 E) Infilling – space: surface photo georeferenced – temporal: bucket- present divers F) Stability Comments: (1) Plan B: What if fish spawn elsewhere (Justus) (2) Decision rules egg placement location: drift pulse (3) Expect a lot more eggs from wild spawners Brood: 3 females and 3 males Tag replacement Tag mature fish Question A: (1) Site Selection (adults) (2) Egg/Larval (3) Physical Question B: (1) Hatchery egg fate: observe (2) Timing/Fertilization success/Developmental Rates (3) In-stream egg control (surface) (Interstitial) (4) Egg control (no augmentation) (5) Behaviour at hatch to hiding (6) Timing of wild spawn informed by egg mating (7) Patchiness of egg deposition informs site selection (8) Wild Augmentation hatch success

ii. Physical Monitoring Cory noted that Zsolt has been talking with NHC about options regarding samplers and they are still convinced that we can place sediment monitors in up to 6 feet of water. Justus asked if we have temperature loggers for each site. Cory said that we do not yet have temperature loggers. If we want temperature for certain then we should purchase loggers. ACTION: Cory to acquire temperature loggers. 1. Gravel Placement QA Goals for physical monitoring: Zsolt suggests the goals are: (1) To monitor the rate at which the pads will infill and how long they will be effective at spawning areas: and, (2) To monitor the stability of the pads – how long will the gravel stay in place? Steve noted that it would also be good to know how long it takes to infill and where on the site they will infill first.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 15 of 21 • Does it fill in within two weeks? If it does not fill in within 3 weeks is there a difference for our purpose between 3 weeks and 8 months? • We had thought of divers doing some detailed sampling and if that happens then we would also want some egg sampling. Zsolt noted that there is no plan as of yet and the rest is funding related. 2. Sedimentation Cory drew a graph: x = months (April, May, June, July) and y = frequency of flow. He showed a low rise in flow until the end of May/early June at which point the flow increased until it plateaus in July/August and then decreased abruptly. • Justus suggested that we pick a spot and take a picture of the same one square foot every day and anything beyond the experiment is just a question of how long it lasts. • Zsolt stated that we want to know what is happening below the surface and it may not be evident from just photographs because the sediment comes up from the bottom and the eggs may be smothered long before that point. • Cory sees it filling in from the top and then filling up. Most sediment is stopping where it can infiltrate and once that site is filled up then there is a wave of sand moving downstream. Zsolt said you could have a gradual filling which is not detectable from the surface and he would like to find out the pattern of infilling and the rate. • Zsolt has talked with Barry about a few methods and it depends upon the budget. • Zsolt mentioned the bucket test – that is, we fill buckets with the gravel material we are going to use and place the filled bucket before the gravel is put down, place gravel over the bucket, and pull them out at certain time intervals and see how they fill. We either mark the buckets with rope and markers or UTM with a lead so we can pull them up. • Using this method we will not be in the way of the barge. • Steve thinks we will not find the leads if we pour 20 cm of gravel and also we would disturb our site if we pull the bucket through the gravel. A suggestion was that the lead would have a mid-water buoy. • Zsolt noted that there are some details to work out but it is an interesting idea with our low budget. • The group asked if we would take this on ourselves. Zsolt noted that Barry can send people up but it depends on the budget. • Steve asked it we could freeze core? Zsolt will ask Barry. • Justus noted that Van Con may be able to do this quite easily. He suggested that we ask them if the backhoe could place the buckets. Zsolt thought of lowering it from a boat. ACTION: Cory to ask Van Con about whether they could place buckets under the gravel (to examine infilling rate). • Zsolt noted that we would want quite a few buckets because we want to pull them up over time and that would give you a rate of infilling. • Brian noted that it could also be a way of sampling if you are doing it within the timeframe of egg sampling. • Steve noted that we need to try it out first. He suggested a back up is the photos which can be done after the material is in place and then divers.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 16 of 21 Steve used an airlift sampler (i.e., a closed area and you put air into and it sucks up sand. One does not get the big material but you will get the sand). He has also stuck a pole in to see how far it goes down before you hit the bottom. • Brian thinks buckets will work and he has used them before in smaller streams but he thinks it may be hard with the depth of water. • Maybe a plan B would be picking a lower flow area but that is not exactly at the place where we are interested. • Steve suggested putting a spike at the bottom of the bucket to hold it in place and stop it from tipping. Brian suggested a test based on disturbing gravel such as metal rake with a fine mesh and collecting sediment at certain intervals. • Steve thinks Barry will say it is not quantitative enough. • Justus notes that we are not going to get infilling rate from that method. • Steve notes that if that is all we can do then that is a method. • Cory notes a simplified version of an airlift sampler could do the same thing. Justus suggested we place a one square meter of fabric/felt on the bottom and let them bury it. The fabric would have leads so we can find it again. He suggested we lay down 10 and pick one up every few days. It may be easier to handle than buckets and we can get a fraction which is quantitative. The group discussed the Toth- McAdam Sampler: In this sample method we would use compressed air in front of the sampling net. On the net are 3 tines and you push them in ~20 cm until the tines hit something hard and then you turn on the air sampler. Mark exits at 15:00.

4. Community Working Group Outreach Events (Lana) Lana reviewed the end of fiscal NWSRI budget (excluding HSP) with the group: Balance Aug 24th, 2010 $1,907.86 When Lana took over Contingency $1,500.00 Leave in bank for bank fees, etc. Total Available $3,221.15 For outreach material for 2011 season

Funding Awarded but not yet received SOS - RNA $2,500.00 Grant awarded but funds not yet received District of Vanderhoof $5,000.00 Integris Credit Union unknown

Funding Submitted Status Unknown: HSP $27,600

She discussed that the CWG has decided to purchase outreach material for use over the next few years with the $3,221.15. a) Spring Spawning Festival Using $2,500 from RNA and $2,500 from Integris we are proposing to plan a spring spawning festival where the public would be invited to a BBQ at the River, sturgeon activities and videos,

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 17 of 21 and an interpretive walk that ends at the bridge where possibly spawning sturgeon could be spotted. The CWG proposed the last Sunday in May (29th) or the first Sunday in June 4th. • The TWG noted that May 28-29th would be best because we may be able to release the two male sturgeon at the festival. Lana noted that we plan to use a big screen and video and show people how sturgeon spawn. We could also have pictures of the sturgeon under winter ice to effectively show people how sturgeon look and spawn. Then people will take a walk across the river and a guide will point out where sturgeon spawn and try to see one. We will also have a telemetry demonstration booth. First Nations elders will be asked to provide historical knowledge of sturgeon, First Nations dancers will be hired, and we will host a BBQ. • Cory has spawning video from 2004. b) Other CWG Updates (funding, outreach material, events) School District 91 has requested a 1 hour presentation on why we are doing the gravel project to be presented to all 3 schools in Vanderhoof for grades 5, 6 and 7. The presentations are scheduled for the 13th of April. The schools will also attend when the gravel is being placed and have a BBQ at Riverside Park. School Presentations – Harm Reduction and Outreach (Christina & Lana): The school presentations for our Harm Reduction and Outreach Initiatives are funded through NWSRI’s HSP 2010-11 grant and carried out by CSTC and Cora McIntosh. The presentations were targeted towards Grades 4 and 5 elementary school children and Grade 10 high school students that reside primarily within the Nechako watershed. School presentations were designed to increase awareness regarding the decline of the Nechako white sturgeon population, habitat loss, and recovery activities in hopes that these children will grow up to be our future white sturgeon ambassadors and promote stewardship of sturgeon within their communities. Cora gave 12 presentations to a number of schools within the watershed. The number of students ranged from 15-25 per class. Overall the presentations were very well received. Emergency Sturgeon Release Boat Kit (Lana): Lana told the group all of the materials contained within the boat kit, minus the twine which has not arrived yet. The total cost of the kits including taxes and shipping was $3,712.89 or ~$186 per kit. The boat kits will be distributed at the end of July and August by the by-catch monitor. The group asked how people will know how to use all the items in the kit. Lana noted that in this year’s HSP proposal we put in for funds to create a video on how the kit should be used.

5. Kootenay & Columbia Updates (Steve) The Kootenay work is interesting to Steve’s team because they are reengineering the structure of the river and are skipping the gravel placement step. They have been told about our experiment and they know when it is taking place. Steve thinks that it could be helpful to them. • Steve noted that a bit of coordination between the groups would be very helpful. They still have not sorted out if fish used to spawn upstream and are now spawning downstream or if the habitat has changed (our scenario). There work requires coordination between the US and Federal funds. • They had a workshop in March but Steve could not go. They have another workshop in May but Steve can not attend. Workshops are with 25-30 people that discuss in detail the process between the US and Canada.

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 18 of 21 • They are working on spawning habitat preferences and step velocity criteria and composition for the hiding phase. They are conducting biological research.

A) Columbia team The Columbia team debated having a policy subcommittee; however, this did not happen. • They are placing more larvae on a bigger area than what Steve did here in 2008. They had a lot of variability in larval size and the larvae were not optimizing their growth experience.

B) Washington. The state hatchery is now based on the capture of wild larvae. Last year they caught 2,500 feeding larvae. They had 25% survival of feeding larvae. They can catch more feeding larvae and they want their hatchery program entirely based on wild caught breeding larvae. That gets around brood stock selection and picking the spawners. • They are trying to identify larvae quality indicators with fatty acid and composition. The work is being done through UBC. • Once they hit the reservoir their nets do not work because they have no larvae so they do not have juveniles. • Washington State thinks that it is a feeding larva issue. • The Columbia team will be doing larval out-planting where 30 day old larva will be released. • Steve noted that the Nechako is moving ahead with habitat work. The Columbia team did a very successful substrate experiment last year but they can not agree that substrate is a high priority. There are no projects on the ground for this year. Columbia is having a bit of a gap year but there is a lot going on. They are planning to review their basin plan and update it over the next year. • The Washington team were into Virtual Positioning Systems (receivers create grid in area and watch fish in real time). • In the Columbia they detected another spawning location downstream of the power-plant in Algs tailrace and the sturgeon are selecting for it now. Steve noted that it is the fastest flowing area. It was built between 5 and 10 years ago and spawning in that tailrace was first detected last year. • Andrea has measures of genetic diversity for the Columbia and Steve is sending samples of brood stock over the years to see if they are getting good genetic diversity. • Steve just finished a study where he had to look at all these different subpopulations and it may affect eggs or yoke sack abundance. • In the genetic study at UCDavis (Andrea S) used nuclear microsatellites to examine substructure. She did not find sub-structuring in the transboundary reach but she did find evidence of sub-structuring comparing lower, mid and upper Columbia. She is now moving onto the Nechako and Fraser samples. Justus left at 15:30. Before he left he provided an update on the DOV meeting. Justus and Brian F (CWG Chair) presented to the Vanderhoof chamber of Commerce. The presentation focused on who we are and what we are doing. He had 15 minutes of questions on a 15 minute presentation. There was a lot of focus from Henry Klassen on bigger picture items, such as do we need more water, etcetera. Overall, Justus thought it went well.

The group returned back to a brief discussion on physical monitoring:

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 19 of 21 Cory is assuming that Van Con and Avison will be doing some QA of their own but Cory would like us to do some as well to figure out what the bottom profile looks like before and after they place the gravel. This will also allow us to tell them if there are areas that need fixing up. • Steve noted that he forgot to ask Jamie about the use of his sonar. He will phone him and have it sent up if it is back from the shop. ACTION: Steve to phone Jamie about the use of his sonar.

6. WED Application Update (Jim) Jim is still in the application process and it remains at the due diligence stage. The Saik’uz Nation has signed on and sent a support letter and to WED. WED was very happy to receive that letter. Jim has been asked by WED to submit what they are going to do with the land in terms of improvements. Jim noted that modifications to the environment are minimal. The intake of water from the river has to be 30 m from the river but at maximum capacity it is only 10 gal/min. The paper work is complete on the Environmental Review and next the walk through of the land happens as soon as the snow is gone. They look for any thing that could be disturbed but the location is at the top of the boat ramp right by the school (Saint Catherine’s) so it is not anticipated. If they give us money to build then they want the assurance that there are funds to keep it going for at least five years. Jim is meeting today to discuss those funds. Everything else is in place and everyone seems to be very happy. The issue is around the community of Vanderhoof so they have gone with Avison to do the Environmental Consulting work. • Jim asked Brian if First Nations would be interested in being involved and also if any funds could be levered to get First Nations involved. Brian answered that HRDC training funds are available; however, one needs funds to leverage and those funds are matched. • Brian noted that Christina and he met with Saik’uz yesterday and they want to be involved and would like training. • Mark asked if there was a footprint within the riparian zone. Jim said the hatchery itself has almost zero output and there are no riparian issues. • Steve asked about the timeline and Jim noted that if they receive the ok in May the building should be up by September. May is WED’s timelines for decisions. • Brian asked about the proposal and what is being requested from WED. The Fisheries Society contributes $1.5 million ($1.4 million is MOE money; DOV $900,000 for land and development; and WED is being asked for 1.5 million). • Operational funding: WED wants 3-5 years of operational funding in place. Jim estimated operational funding to be ~$350-500,000 per year and would include brood capture and juvenile indexing. If Jim can find $1.5 million in funding we are good for 3 years. This is what Jim is meeting about today with Malena and others.

7. Other a. Review of Action Items List (Lana) The group then reviewed and updated the Action Items list. We noted that since September 2008 we have deferred the following AI - The issue of imprinting to be discussed at the next meeting. Steve discussed the issue of imprinting as it relates to recruitment and the Columbia population: He drew a graph with recruitment on Y-axis; Time on X-axis. Recruitment was high

Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 20 of 21 in the earlier years but sharply fell around 1970 for one group and 1978 for the second group. Fish were recruiting but the demographic differences show that those fish generally stayed in that area over the span of 30 years, that is, they had very high fidelity because they remained in that 8 km area. Steve thought this showed that there is the potential to be very tight. • We have observed fish since the dam has been built and adults may go to other places to spawn but recruits did not. • Steve noted that the Columbia is more of a canyon type system; however, a low gradient system such as the Kootenays does not show this – that is, the pattern may not apply at the Nechako because we do not have a canyon type system. Cory noted that Jessica has completed all of the reports. He noted that the Brood Capture report showed that our population has aged again (increase in mean age). The Juvenile indexing shows a higher number of younger fish <40 years. ACTION: Lana to post the reports on the web site.

The group was asked if there were any further comments or questions: Brian asked if we hire an individual to sit with the fish for the month it will come out of the $40,000. Cory stated that he was under the impression those funds would be used for a babysitter for sturgeon, transporting fish, setting up the tanks, etcetera. b. Next TWG meeting (All) The decision will be made in the next few weeks.

Meeting Adjourned: 16:25 PM

PLEASE SEE BELOW FOR A LIST OF ACTION ITEMS AND NOTE THOSE THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.

SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED ACTION ITEMS:  Jim to send Cory the list of names of people that Jim has available to be a caretaker to the sturgeon.  Mark to determine if any DFO staff would be caretakers of the sturgeon and then forward the list of names to Jim.  Jim to assure someone is present to receive the fish by April 26th.  Cory to provide Jim with an inventory of what is available for spawning.  Cory to determine whether Jim can get into a lab at UNBC to do the PI.  Justus to ask Triton if any egg mats are available and, if so, how many.  Brian and Christina to determine how many mats are at CSTC.  Cory to acquire temperature loggers.  Cory to ask Van Con about whether they could place buckets under the gravel (to examine infilling rate).  Steve to phone Jamie about the use of his sonar.  Lana to post the three completed reports on the web site. Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes (April 13, 2011) Page 21 of 21