Date: August 24, 2010
Venue: Avison Management Services Ltd, Vanderhoof
TIME: 17:30 to 20:05 pm
Prepared by: Lana Ciarniello
Tel: (250) 964-8404; E-mail:
PRESENT:
Brian Frenkel / ……………………………… / Avison Management Ltd. – CWG ChairJustus Benckhuysen / ……………………………… / Rio Tinto Alcan
Christina Ciesielski / ……………………………… / Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
Henry Klassen / ……………………………… / Nechako Watershed Council
Wayne Salewski / ……………………………… / BC Wildlife Federation
Phil Taylor / ……………………………… / Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Cory Williamson / ……………………………… / Ministry of Environment
June Wood / ……………………………… / BC Nature
Lana Ciarniello / ……………………………… / Coordinator
REGRETS:
Roy Argue / ……………………………… / Department of Fisheries and OceansDennis Bell / ……………………………… / BC Wildlife Federation
Darren Carpenter / ……………………………… / District of Vanderhoof
Tina Chestnut / ……………………………… / Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Bill Douglass / ……………………………… / Sport Fisher representative
Troy Nelson / ……………………………… / Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society
Terry Robert / ……………………………… / Fraser Basin Council
Ken Scheer / ……………………………… / Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC
Andy Soles / ……………………………… / Spruce City Wildlife Association
Jim Webb / ……………………………… / Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
Jocelyn White / ……………………………… / City of Prince George
1. Welcoming remarks & Introductions (Cory)
The new Coordinator, Lana Ciarniello, was introduced to the CWG meeting participants. Introductions of all attendees including summary biographies were provided in round table format.
2. Review of Agenda (Brian)
The agenda was reviewed and approved. The following extra items were added to the agenda: Henry provided an update on the Watershed Council, and future outreach initiatives were discussed.
3. Technical Working Group Update (Cory)
Cory provided 2 handouts to the CWG that outlined the accomplishments and provided updates of the activities of the TWG:
(Handout 1) Summary of Nechako White Sturgeon Spawn Monitoring 2010 (highlights and questions on handout):
Cory stated that the TWG has found it difficult to get projects off the ground this year. The primary problems stem from an overall lack of the necessary funds being committed to recovery and that there is no hatchery in place.
Spawn monitoring: the spawn monitoring project was conducted this year but at a fraction of what was originally intended.
• The handout provided the number of sturgeon captures and radio tags applied between 26 April and 1 May, 2010 (n = 29).
• Sturgeon captures and radio tagging occurred earlier than previous years due to milder spring weather conditions. Sturgeon were already moving upstream when they located them.
• The Catch per unit effort was good:
• A total of 29 WSG were captured, representing 16 new individuals and 13 recaptures.
• Ten radio tags were applied (8/10 mature and going to spawn this year; 2 next year).
• Tagged WSG were assigned a maturity Code (refer to the handout for the number of WSG assigned by maturity code). Approximately 7-8 mature adults that were ready to spawn were tagged.
Telemetry: The monitoring of sturgeon was carried out by the CSTC between 26 April and 22 June, 2010.
• Telemetry was done by boat and that worked well with 54 tags encountered between rKm 91 and 157. They were able to pick up fish and follow them as the seasons progressed.
• They gathered good data on the start of spawning for 2010:
• Spawning generally began around May 10th. This was a little bit early due to the warm spring but the cold snap helped slow processes back to normal.
• Mature males: Reproductively mature males began to move upstream towards staging areas ~10 May. Movements back downstream began ~10 June.
• Mature females: There were only 2 known reproductively mature females and a pattern was not determined; one moved to a staging area between May 1 to 14th, while the other remained downstream.
• Unknown maturity: no set patterns were detected for fish of unknown maturity; some sturgeon followed the mature male pattern while others appeared to remain near overwintering sites (rKm 125, 116, 110).
• Bird Sanctuary: no sturgeon were encountered between 5 to 22 June.
Egg Mats: 25 sites were established between May 16th and June 22nd, 2010, resulting in ~16,456 hours of sampling effort.
• Only 2 eggs were picked up on egg mats; last year there were literally hundreds of eggs captured on the egg mats. The TWG is unsure of reason(s) why so few eggs were captured (e.g., weather, flow) and/or why sturgeon did not spawn on mats (this is a question for the recovery team and the CWG would like to be informed of their answer).
• Both eggs were determined to not be viable and therefore were preserved in ethanol on June 1st.
• Drift netting: Larval drift was monitored again this year around where the eggs were located between 31 May and 6 June, 2010. A total of 78.72 net hours resulted in no drift larva again this year after spawning (i.e., no captures of sturgeon, larvae or eggs).
• Adult sturgeon did not make their way up to Stuart Lake after spawning and this is what leads the TWG to believe that they held their eggs and for some reason appeared to wait to spawn this year.
• Cory stated that they are considering a 3rd site for gravel placement as a result of this year’s data.
Question: It was asked whether or not anyone has caught mature females in September or October that might have been spawned that year but were not spawned out?
Answer: Bill Shepherd caught mature fish in fall but they were mature for next year and they did spawn that following year. Cory answered that they were not able to check that.
(Handout Two) TWG Update
Cory provided a second handout that listed projects that were successful in achieving funding, projects that did not receive funding (unfunded), and projects that the TWG has planned for the fall and winter, 2010-11.
Funded Projects (Completed or in Progress):
Three projects were funded this year: Spawn monitoring (discussed above), Juvenile Indexing and, Upper Fraser Adult Tracking.
• Juvenile indexing was conducted again this year. The objectives of juvenile indexing are to monitor juvenile fitness (i.e., how well they are doing; will they be capable of reproduction in the future) and recruitment (i.e., the survival of juveniles to be added to a population).
• Data gathered include: age to help us understand what helps support juveniles as well as their habitat requirements.
• Upper Fraser Adult Tracking. The purpose of this project is to track sturgeon that may spawn in the Upper Fraser for the purpose of identifying the components required for critical habitat.
Unfunded Projects:
Three projects were not successful in obtaining funding: Habitat Manipulation/Gravel Placement, Conservation of Fish Culture, and Bio-chronology.
• The projects were highly rated by DFO but the funding is not coming through. The Interdepartmental Recovery Fund (IRF) would have supported the majority of the monitoring. The TWG had planned to do a lot more intensive surveys but were limited by funding.
• As of last year DFO and Environment Canada were not allowed to fund their own projects and as a result the TWG did not get funding for those projects last year. This year they found another partner but they still did not get funding, which is possibly due to issues between DFO and Environment Canada. Unlike previous years DFO was not willing to risk manage funding this year.
• The solution presented was that we find our own funding sources elsewhere.
• Discussions:
Wayne suggested that the group question every time an application is turned down – asking, for example, where does the application/project need to be improved, what suggestions does the application agency have for future applications, etcetera.
• Cory does not think that the issue was that the projects were ranked low/not technically sound; he thinks something else is going on.
Henry enquired as to whether the legislation needs to be changed to protect SAR under the Species at Risk Task Force. Henry suggested that we should make a presentation to this group (Bruce Fraser, heads this group).
• We need to state to them that we believe it is important that people like us have public input prior to legislation going to cabinet.
• We need to inform them that funding is difficult to obtain.
Brian: As Chair of the CWG Brian sent a letter outlining the group’s displeasure regarding the lack of resolution and decision making. A response was received from both Ministers.
• Henry and Wayne recommend that we need to keep doing this in order to keep the pressure on them.
Cory further discussed the state of funding and the goals of the recovery team for this fall’s Planned Fall/Winter Projects:
• Coordinator Position: They are currently waiting on some additional funds from DFO support coordinator position. Currently this portion of the funding is unsecured.
• Experimental Habitat Restoration: Preparation of experimental Habitat Restoration for 2011 in 3 potential sites. This project has requirements for permitting and assessment of potential impacts. NHC was contracted to assess the potential impacts and report to the TWG.
• This project will provide us with a better understanding on how best we can achieve our goals for gravel in the river, etcetera.
• Biochronology: The TWG hopes to supply a grant to Jason Barker (UBC Post Doc) for the modelling and biochronology (dating of biological events) project.
• Database: the database is going through a quality assurance review. Jessica from BCCF is assessing the database for mistakes, and looking at ways it can be improved upon.
• Genetics: a professor at UCDavis is interested in the genetics data. Data will be sent to her to answer some questions, such as, how do different fish within the basins relate to each other? Are they sub-structuring their populations?
The discussions then returned to funding:
Cory stated that the hatchery was unfunded this year but there may be a new opportunity for funding for operations for the hatchery in the future. Cory will let the group know as he learns more.
Wayne (Policy and Politics): Wayne asked if it would be advantageous to have someone that is not a government employee as the spokesperson for the TWG?
• Wayne stated Cory may be being “muzzled” due to his position in government. He suggested we discuss whether the chair of the TWG should be a non-governmental employee. It was discussed and decided upon that other members of the TWG would also have similar issues, particularly because not everyone can speak freely about certain issues.
• Regardless, the CWG chair (Brian) gets the facts from the TWG (Cory) and can speak freely.
• The TWG group is not supposed to be political; it is to discuss the facts only and they are able to do that. The solution was to use the CWG as an avenue to voice concerns such as those dealing with political issues. Wayne stated that he is very confident with the TWG supplying the CWG the data they require to collaborate and determine a lobbying position. The information supplied by the TWG is critical to the CWG presenting a broad front to a political decision maker.
• ACTION: Brian to talk with the Mayor and ask for his representation on the CWG.
4. Community Working Group Updates (Brian)
Funding: After the last meeting in March the CWG was out of funding and so they met with the Mayor and Council to discuss the importance of the NWSRI. This meeting resulted in a renewed commitment followed up by a budget process:
• $20,000.00 was set aside for Sturgeon activities to help with meetings, communications materials, outreach materials, etcetera (e.g. food for this meeting)
• Justus asked if the CWG can receive a letter stating that Mayor and Council will support us up to $20,000.
• Brian stated that he has emails from Joe as well as Jerry Carpenter for use of those funds to the Sturgeon project.
• Media opportunity exists in translating that email to the media.
• They also spoke with the Credit Union for the community funding 2500 grant from Integris Advisory Council. These funds may be used for communication and outreach materials, such as assuring sturgeon issues remain in the media.
• They have not yet approached the Regional District (Action).
BC Wildlife Association Annual Convention: Wayne was the person of contact at the BC Wildlife Association’s Annual Convention. He conducted approximately 6-7 interviews and has 2 more scheduled for this week.
• June stated that the resolution did indeed pass at the BC Wildlife Federation and BC Nature Federation.
Press Releases:
• June would like the press releases by the CWG to the media to be more truthful in stating that SARA does not account for providing the funding to recover listed species, such as building a hatchery or for habitat enhancement initiatives and the like.
• Releases should be honest about the fact that CWG is having a hard time obtaining funding and that support is not in place.
• Releases should be clear about why the hatchery is needed. For example, they could state that the gene pool has sunk so low natural recovery of the population is likely not possible.
• Releases should be creative in their wording. A lot of people do not like “hatcheries” so maybe a story could be made where it is instead called a “sturgery”.
• Releases should be clear of the facts; repeat the message in a way that the public can understand.
• There was general agreement that something was needed to inform the public about the urgent state of sturgeon. For example, a clock that counts backwards the minutes until sturgeon are extinct was suggested to be placed in downtown Vancouver.
Other SARA Listed Species and Applying Political Pressure:
• Christina stated that Ottawa, MOE, and DFO have said that they cannot fund a hatchery. They support the project idea but said they cannot help with funding at this time.
• June suggested that since there is an election coming the CWG could make the hatchery, and lack of funding provided by SARA for recovery, an election issue. She suggested using the plight of the sturgeon to focus on the pitfalls in the process of implementing SARA.