Date: March 14, 2011
Venue: Conference Call
TIME: 13:30-14:55
Prepared by: Lana Ciarniello
Tel: (250) 964-8404; E-mail:
PRESENT:
Cory Williamson / ……………………………… / TWG Chair; Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource OperationsJustus 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
Jim Powell / ……………………………… / Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC
Steve McAdam / ……………………………… / BC Ministry of Environment
Lana Ciarniello / ……………………………… / Coordinator
1. Introduction and Review of Agenda (Cory)
Cory, Zsolt and Steve provided an update on the gravel habitat restoration project and where the funds for project implantation are coming from:
• Cory provided an update on the winning bid stating that the bidding process was an open competitive process available to all through BC-Bid.
• Avison Management Services Ltd. bid in conjunction with Van-Con Ltd. won the contract.
• Van-Con will place the gravel and Avison will act as the third-party environmental monitor.
• Van Con and Avison will ensure that the proposed work meets all of the appropriate standards and an Environmental Management Plan is produced and followed.
• The contract is not signed yet but Cory has been told that the document is in transit.
• There was meeting on 22 Feb 2011 to go over contract and to introduce the concept of pilot ice placement.
Zsolt provided an update on what permitting is still required and what is currently in place:
• Water Act approval was obtained in late January.
• At the last meeting (24 Jan 2011) there was a question regarding the wording of the conditions in respect to the gravel resisting movement by flow. Christina Anderson at Water Stewardship said the wording does not actually apply to this project
• We have obtained approval to proceed and there were no major concerns with gravel placement.
Mark noted that he has the draft environmental management plan that Avison submitted. Details of this plan can be further discussed with Mark.
• DFO is on side and transport Canada will be issuing the final permit.
• Transport Canada does not want cables going across the channel and there is a part of the lower site that is going to be difficult to place any other way.
Cory discussed the difficulties with the Ice Placement method:
• He asked the group to recall the map of two sites. For the lower site the upper 100m curves to the south and away from the access which posses some issues for Van Con which were not initially anticipated.
• Cory asked if we could place gravel on the ice (i.e., ice placement method) on that portion as a pilot. We managed to get all the permitting in place to attempt the ice placement method; however, when Van Con did their initial screening of the ice depths in that location they missed an area close to the shore.
• They needed 18-20 inches of ice thickness but in that one spot they only had 10-12 inches and that is not thick enough for the loader.
• Bottom line is that failing any freeze in the next week or so we are not going to be able to attempt any ice placement at current temperatures. Because the temperatures have warmed up they were not able to build up the ice to the required thickness at this location. There could potentially be some more negotiation for placing gravel at that portion of the site.
Another method discussed for the placement of gravel onto the ice included a cable across the river and use of the island:
• The thought was that they would put the crawler on the island in the middle of bird sanctuary and string a cable across, however, transport Canada said no because it is a potential navigation hazard.
• The crawler in itself is the anchor because of the weight. Also, using the crawler the cable may be extended or retracted. Therefore, if they went to use a different type of anchor they would need to place something very heavy in the River.
It is hoped that they will be able to manoeuvre the barge closer than anticipated.
Failing Van Con’s ability to place the entire length of the gravel one option is to go slightly wider with the pad. There is additional width that we can place at these two sites and exhaust the gravel supply as we go downstream while remaining within the bounds of the mapped areas.
• Justus liked the idea of making the pads wider because one might create habitat that is used.
• Steve agrees but wants to make the top end wider than the bottom end. He does not want them to put gravel in areas where the flow seems to be dropping off but rather to keep placing the gravel where the water is flowing fast.
• Steve suggested widening at the top end to increase the ability of the sand trap. There is going to be sand moving downstream along the bottom and we will infill the experimental pads in time so the more sand filling capacity at the top end the more time it will buy the bottom end for infilling.
• Cory stated that they are placing the upper site first so the lower site will be where they exhaust the gravel.
Cory asked whether everyone agreed with the pads being wider at the top. The group was in agreement that this placement strategy made sense.
Mark asked whether or not we have decided if this project is happening once or if there is the possibility to fine tune over the years?
• Zsolt and Steve stated that we do not know because it depends on the results of the project. That is, if the gravel in-fills then placing additional gravel on top likely will not help our efforts. In short, we just do not know what it is going to look like next year.
• If the monitoring looks good then yes doing the entire thing over again is a possibility but we do not want to save any gravel.
• At this point we are in the realm of speculation.
• Cory stated that this project is about confirming some of the biology of sturgeon. If the habitat restoration is durable beyond this season then that is an added bonus but that is not anticipated.
Cory stated that we asked Van Con and Avison for the final environmental management plan for the barge project to be complete by tomorrow (March 15th).
• Mark stated that the sooner the plan is completed the better because he leaves on Thursday morning for two weeks. Cory will pass along the timeline to them and also reiterate the plan is to be in by 15-March.
• Mark will look into a DFO representative in his absence[1].
• Cory asked Mark about a realistic turn around time; Mark answered that it is dependent upon what they produce - it could be as easily as an hour or an entire day.
2. Funds for monitoring (All - Led by Steve)
Steve had a meeting with Ted, Mark and Eric to let them know where our project proposals stand and if we are going to be short of funding.
• Steve also had a very good meeting with Martin (replaced Tola) regarding the projects.
• $78,000 from DFO will be deposited before 31 March with the idea that half would be available to NWSRI.
• $95,000 from DFO is anticipated to be available next year with all of it for Nechako sturgeon. However, they do not know when they will find out about the $95,000.
• Cory stated that $37,000 is going to sturgeon regardless and if necessary they may be willing to risk manage the other funds.
Cory put together a budget that was internal to MOE that details how we conduct a project and how we are short for next fiscal. We will be in the position of risk managing a large project so we want them aware of the situation ahead of time.
Brian told the group that the tribal council submitted two proposals for this project for next year (IRF and AFSR). The IRF funding application was for $82,390, which was allocated to the fish culture.
• The FFSBC funding to spawn brood stock was included in that component as well as the monitoring activities related to the gravel pads (mix of biological and infiltration fill rate monitoring as well as funding for reporting).
• Cory asked whether the spawning was included as a cash matching contribution or actual funds. Brian clarified that spawning does not mean egg collection.
• The Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC provided funds for the transport and spawn of the fish. The budget provided in November was $35,000.
• The available money was from 2009 when we had the request from the deputy. There was some left over funds from that year with a matching contribution from RTA and hatchery capitol. Justus and RTA have agreed to allow us to use ~$40,000 to provide eggs for the project.
• ~$48,000 is largely focused on the biological portion of spawn monitoring and monitoring the gravel pads.
Brian also discussed the AFSR funding
• $36,350 was requested which is largely personnel funding for wages and equipment cost for the monitoring.
• If both IRF and AFSR proposals are funded there will be ~$84,000 for the monitoring portion of this project.
The group discussed whether or not we want to notify IRF that we were successful in obtaining internal funding (RTA) of ~$40,000:
• Cory’s thought was to wait because the ~$40,000 could be used for other Recovery team issues; the RTA funds are flexible.
Canadian Wildlife Federation application was due tomorrow; however, we are not applying because the application has to be submitted through a registered charity. We could apply through a university but we do not have any university projects that currently fit this application. CWF grants range between $10,000 and $25,000.
• The Freshwater Fisheries Society is non-profit (not a registered charity), however, there is a possible link for us to place applications through them because FFSBC has a mechanism through HCTF.
• Brian mentioned that he had submitted a proposal to the research fund for the biochronology work but they were declined about a month ago.
ACTION: Jim to determine if the Freshwater Fisheries Society would be willing to support NWSRI funding applications that need to be submitted through a charity.
Cory told the group that we are short on the physical monitoring side of funds.
• If all the funding applications are successful then it is possible that the DFO money could be used for physical monitoring.
• The group felt that the biological monitoring was essential but the physical side also needs to be covered.
• The group asked RTA/Justus about any additional funding; however, Justus stated that that there is no more money for this year since $85,000 has already been allocated.
The group decided that the best way to proceed was to continue to pursue the DFO funding while also pursuing MOE funding in order to develop a scenario where we risk manage both sources.
• If we get IRF and AFSAR funding those would cover the biological and DFO could cover physical.
• Steve stated that we should keep on DFO for the funds.
• Mark was supposed to have a meeting with Martin this week. He asked that we send him the proposal that was sent to Ted. The proposal should clearly identify the issues and needs of the project.
ACTION: Cory to send Mark the proposal that was sent to Ted so Mark can discuss with Martin.
3. Discussion of monitoring projects and timelines (Cory)
Cory provided a recap of the timing for the next projects which also ties into what funds are available:
Activity / April / May / June / JulyMonitoring / Physical Monitoring
Biological Monitoring Spawn Monitoring est. ~$100,000.00
Tagging
Mature Adults
Late April/Early May
Telemetry
April - mid-June
Spawning
18-May to 15-June
Egg Placement
March/April / Set Up
April/May / Brood Capture
Spawning
Late May (~ a week earlier than Drift Nets)
Egg Mats (spawning)
Egg placement (Late May- Early-June
Drift Nets June to mid-July
(Timing placed on spawn time
~12 days later)
The group noted that we could time the egg take and placement events so they do not overlap.
• To be determined is the physical side; theoretically work on the physical topics could start as soon as the gravel was placed.
The question was asked whether or not the drift monitoring was going out to contract?
• Brian answered that the only funding we have right now is for the biological monitoring; however, once we learn whether or not the grants were successful then we will need to decide how the successful funding will be best allocated.
• Steve noted that we need to think about time and effort when selecting our methods; for example, it is very time consuming to view all the buckets and gather all the net samples – we can place a lot of nets in a relatively short amount of time but we can not count all the samples. We need to be able to count and process all of the samples. In the past we have put out nets and left them all night long but shorter nocturnal sets may be better.