Geomorphology Charrette
MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2013
DATE:
VENUE:
TIME:
February 28, 2013
Alan & Margaret Eyre Boardroom, Vancouver, BC
08:30 – 16:35
Prepared by: Lana Ciarniello
Tel: (250) 923-8881; E-mail: aklak@telus.net
PRESENT:
Chris Ritchie
Cory Williamson (NWSRI)
Zsolt Sary (NWSRI)
Christina Ciesielski (NWSRI)
Justus Benckhuysen (NWSRI)
Courtney Druce (NWSRI)
Dr. Steve McAdam (NWSRI)
Dr. Lana Ciarniello (NWSRI)
Jamie Stirling
Dr. David Levy
Dr. Brett Eaton
Dr. Mike Church
Dr. Ellen Petticrew
Dave Andrés
Dr. André Zimmermann
Dale P Muir
Mike Miles
Bill Rublee
Clyde Mitchell
Matt Daniels
Dr. Marvin Rosenau
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
Meeting Facilitator, MFLNRO
MFLNRO
MFLNRO
Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
Rio Tinto Alcan
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
BC Ministry of Environment
NWSRI Recovery Coordinator
EBA Engineering
Levy Research Services Ltd
University of BC
University of BC
University of Northern BC
Northwest Hydraulics Consultants
Northwest Hydraulics Consultants/UBC
Northwest Hydraulics Consultants
M. Miles and Associates
Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd.
Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd.
River Design Group (Kootenay recovery
team)
Fraser River Sturgeon, BCIT
Documents:
(1) Background Information for Participants: This document provided information on
the biology of Nechako white sturgeon, the Recovery Plan and excerpts of some
of the major projects previously undertaken.
(2) Nechako River at Vanderhoof Channel Morphology Changes 1928-2006: This
document was prepared by M. Miles and Associates Ltd. and provided a time
series of orthophotos of the Nechako River at Vanderhoof Reach.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 1 of 22
The Workshop Objective: Develop the foundation for a research program to direct
physical habitat studies required to guide sturgeon habitat restoration in the Vanderhoof
Reach of the Nechako River.
Introduction (Chris Ritchie)
Chris Ritchie, MFLNRO, facilitated the charrette. He reviewed the rules of conduct with
the participants and reviewed the agenda. The goal of the workshop is to develop a 5
year habitat restoration program within the Nechako reach. Participants were asked to
focus discussions on the workshop objective.
 The focus is to be on geomorphology and hydrology as it affects the Vanderhoof
reach.
 Introductions of participants were provided in round table format.
Sturgeon Biology and Habitat (Cory Williamson and Steve McAdam)
Cory began by providing a PowerPoint presentation on the biology of the Nechako white
sturgeon. He reviewed the sturgeon life cycle and distribution.







Distribution: Sturgeon in BC are distributed in the Fraser Columbia and Kootenay
watersheds. Within the Fraser watershed SARA listed populations occur in the
Nechako and Upper Fraser (new COSEWIC designations may include the all
white sturgeon upstream of Hells Gate within the same designatable unit).
Spawning habitat: Cory discussed spawning and site selection of sturgeon as
they link to substrate condition and recruitment failure. He reviewed the sturgeon
life cycle from egg to mature sturgeon and showed where the research points to
recruitment failure - eggs becoming encased in sediments and/or lack of hiding
spaces for hiding yolk-sac larvae due to sediment accumulation.
Spawning: Sturgeon are periodic spawners; females spawn every 3 to 10 years
and males ~every 2 years. Spawning occurs on the descending limb of the
hydrograph. Sturgeon offer no direct parental care to their young.
Eggs are thought to be released near the river bottom and not up in the water
column.
Stugeon mature as photo-period increases and as temperature warms in spring.
The current Nechako hydrograph is truncated during the period of spawn
Changes in the hydrograph can drive changes in spawning timing (e.g. discharge
affects water velocity).
Graph: The natural peak in the hydrograph is around June to July. Currently the
altered hydrograph peaks late May into the second week of June and this is
when spawning now occurs.
Before 2003 we had no idea where fish spawned in the river and we thought it
was in the canyons and in the fast flowing water. In 2003 the river was lower and
they could see spawners in Vanderhoof reach. Spawning occurs only in
Vanderhoof annually. General location (reach) does not shift with changes in
discharge.
Cory discussed the sampling techniques, such as D-rings to catch larval drift. Physical
data gathered includes the depth of spawning, surface velocity, and temperature.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 2 of 22






Sturgeon spawn at 10.6 to ~13.5C. If there is low discharge they will spawn
earlier, and in higher discharge they will spawning later (likely a temperature
effect).
If there are spawning locations aside from the Vanderhoof reach the lack of
juvenile sturgeon found during sampling indicates that there is recruitment failure
occurring there as well, however there is no evidence of other locations.
Imprinting may be a critically important mechanism that brings sturgeon back to
their spawning reach. Imprinting likely happens during the early larval stage.
Lake sturgeon are known have high site fidelity to locations within the reaches,
even to the extent of an upper versus a lower area within a site. Site fidelity
could be as fine as ten to a hundred meters.
Spawning locations may be determined by proximate factors: hydraulic
conditions and turbulent flow, high velocity areas (relative), higher depth, but
apparently not substrate condition.
There is a lot of uncertainty about spawning site selection and use in the
Nechako. We planning to install a 3-D acoustic tracking array so we can
determine their 24 hour position within a 1-meter distance, which will aid in
determining individual habitat selection over time and the relation to other factors
(discharge, stage, substrate etc).
Substrate Condition – Effects on Larvae (Steve McAdam, PhD dissertation)
Steve began with a Graph: recruitment index (y-axis) by year (x-axis). The dam was
placed in 1952 but recruitment failure happened in 1967. Recruitment failure coincided
with an influx of fine sediment.
 The Cheslatta avulsions also happened during that period. While initially
considered the cause of the large substrate change subsequent evidence does
not support the avulsion as the main sediment source.
 Most larvae hide interstitially immediately after hatch.
 Failure to hide leads to downstream displacement and increased (high) mortality;
hiding is continuous. This is thought to be the primary cause of recruitment
failure.
 One to 12 day old larvae are in the hiding phase; they emerge at 12 – 14 days;
by 15 days they drift and no longer hide.
 Substrate condition affects larval quality: growth, survival, gut development,
energy availability, and swimming ability.
 Both the availability and quality of interstitial habitat is important: they require
interstitial, not just an eddy behind a rock because that would force a larva to
continually swim. They need a hole to hide within.
 Historical flood condition: thalweg across mid-channel, lower velocity water
present over top of historic gravel bars.
 River 2D model - Recruitment failure appears to be due to decoupling of
spawning from freshet conditions; incubation and rearing habitat is decoupled
now from natural timing of processes.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 3 of 22

We have never caught a drifting feeding larva in the Nechako River.
What do we think about River Restoration?
Steve showed a slide of the Columbia River near Castlegar and the Waneta spawning
site. The spawning locations in both areas are very fixed with the majority of the eggs
caught in the same place each year.
 These kinds of locations have been restored for lake sturgeon by placing
substrate.
 Cory noted that some of these groups are constrained by the dam so they spawn
close to the dam; however, this is not the case in the Nechako.
 In the Nechako the spawning location is located more than 100 km from the dam.
Restoration for the Nechako must consider: adult habitat choice (multiple locations,
imprinting, hydraulics) and substrate quality (egg/yolk sac larvae, interstitial spacing).
 Steve discussed the 2011 gravel placement project conducted at the spawning
grounds in the Vanderhoof reach.
 2,100 m3 of gravel/cobble was added to the river. After placement we had high
flows of ~450 cms and therefore spawn distribution may have been altered.
 300,000 eggs were obtained from wild-caught fish brought to the hatchery. The
eggs were fertilized and placed on the upper gravel pad. However, no (0)
feeding larvae were subsequently captured in 2011.
 1-5 day old larvae were caught in 2012.
 There is a possibility that >3 year old juveniles will be detected in the future, that
is, a lag response to the gravel placement and successful spawning may occur.
Catching juveniles would be considered an indicator of success of the gravel
placement project.
Spawning habitat restoration can restore recruitment based on results for lake sturgeon.
The key challenges to restoration are:
(1) Matching the location of restoration with the location of spawning; and,
(2) Maintaining a suitable substrate quality.
 We do not need the substrate conditions available all year, just for the spawning
window.
 Our goal is good substrate every year but less frequently may also be sufficient.
Mike M. asked about the 2007 results (i.e., flood year) and noted that Steve’s
recruitment graphs ended at 1990 and 2005. He felt that the graphs should be updated
and plotted to recent.
How does changing the flow regime affect predation?
 Steve thinks the vulnerability of the larvae due to lack of hiding spaces is the key
to increase predation, not flow conditions. Predators of sturgeon eggs and larvae
include a wide variety of species: northern pike minnow, sculpins, chinook fry,
etcetera.
Do juvenile sturgeon move out of the main stem into secondary channels?
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 4 of 22


Steve noted that in the Fraser and other places juveniles do indeed use side
channel habitat but we are not getting them to that age yet.
Mike M noted that we may solve one problem but hit a major roadblock
afterwards, such as poor habitat for sturgeon in the side channels. Steve thinks
that we have good evidence of failure is occurring at the yolk sac/larvae stage.
Are there other things we need to consider to solve the entire problem? (Mike M).
 Steve thinks the hiding gravel stage is the biggest issue at the moment.
Marvin asked about the 1967 event and Steve noted that he is confident his error is +/2 or 3 years.
 Do you have a way of quantifying that the quality of the gravel has somehow
declined or become embedded? In the Lower Fraser Marvin thinks that
spawning occurs in channels that are embedded.
 Marvin thinks these fish are adapted to the flood pulse concept. The loss of
floodplain habitat would have occurred in 1952 but we find delayed recruitment
failure. Marvin suggested flows and habitat may have changed in 1969.
The group discussed the 2007 forced spill. There were questions regarding the change
in predation that may be associated with the change in flow regime and how the flood
pulse affected fish. The group decided to delay debating these questions until after the
presentations.
Overview of watershed and Vanderhoof Reach (André Zimmerman)
André provided an overview of the watershed. Overall the Nechako is characterized as
a low gradient system. There are no large glaciers supplying gravel and cobble into the
river downstream of the reservoir. There is a lot of sand and silt in the system.
 The Nechako Plains are heavily used for agriculture and forestry.
 The plains were formed during the post-glacial period when fines were deposited
across landscape.
Mike Miles noted that he has checked the old and new air photos upstream of the dam.
There are big gravel bars pre-regulation. The common perception that there has been
no change in sediment loading is incorrect.
André showed a series of slides following the river downstream of the dam. The
Cheslatta avulsions resulted in about 1 Million m3 sediment being supplied to the
Nechako River.
 In historic floods sediments at the base of the banks would have regularly been
eroded.
 Now people live on the flood plains, so we are in a forever regulated state.
 Under the current regime, there is not a lot of lateral change despite the sediment
that is coming in the river. In general flows cannot move the larger sized
sediments.
It was asked whether the Nautley River flowed backwards. The flows would have to be
very high but it did indeed flow backwards at high flows. There is also evidence that the
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 5 of 22
Nautley River channel has down-cut near its outlet as a response to reduced flows in
the Nechako.
Mike Miles noted some deposits on the Stuart River mouth that he thought were ice jam
effects. He asked Dave about the bars that have formed and those that now have
formed into islands. This area has changed quite substantially even though the
confluence of the Stuart itself has not changed that much. Dave agreed that there could
be an ice and ice jam influence.
André showed a slide of channel changes over the years: years 1928, 1946, 1960 and
2007. There was not a lot of rapid change; however, some changes were evident.
 There are some changes along the Nechako; an example of erosion near Prince
George was shown.
 Modeling showed Cheslatta material would have been deposited in the first 3040 km and this is counter to the 2003 NHC report. Cheslatta material making it
to the 150 km point now seems very unlikely. There is a lot of sand near the
Vanderhoof reach but it is unlikely that it is Cheslatta sand.
André provided a hydrology overview based on the 2007 work.
 This work should be redone for the last few years.
 Mike Miles noted that he was involved in this work. He thinks we could
reconstruct the natural hydrograph by looking at the water elevation changes in
the reservoir and discharges from the reservoir so we can get a better idea of
what the unregulated flows would be. The pre-regulation hydrograph data has
high uncertainty because it is based on only a couple of years of data.
 Graph of flow changes: before the peak flows were very consistent; now we can
see the effects of flow regulation and water release for salmon. Flow regime was
changed in 1980 to include minimum flows for salmon in fall and winter.
 A flow regime above 500 begins to flood peoples’ properties and runs into
political problems.
Summary:
 The hydrograph has changed, including the magnitude and timing of peak flows.
 Channels are becoming narrower.
 Historically there was some sediment production upstream of the dam as
indicated by the gravel bars in the Canyon; however, lakes further upstream
isolated the Nechako from the glaciated headwaters.
 Sediment was also supplied from lateral erosion into the Nechako Plains,
particularly in downstream reaches
 Currently there appears to be a lot of sand moving through the system.
 Source of sand not pinpointed but banks and agricultural are suspected.
 Sediment from agricultural sources should be differentiated from bank erosion
sources using a sediment budget approach.
Dave A asked about the temperature criteria for spawning. Steve noted cold water
freshettes and the timing with the hydrograph.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 6 of 22
Mike Miles: commented on the diversion route between the Skins Lake spillway and the
Nechako River confluence. Once the reservoir filled, water was released through the
Skins Lake spillway structure (located 70 km NW of the dam) into a dry bedrock
controlled depression which led to Skins Lake. Some sections of river channel are
continuing to evolve, as is the shoreline of Murray and Cheslatta Lake. Massive erosion
has occurred, particularly along exposed fine textured sections of the now entrenched
'valley wall' upstream of Cheslatta Lake. The eroded sediments caused both Cheslatta
and Murray Lakes to be very turbid and the water was still turbid when it reached the
confluence with the Nechako River Valley. All coarse sediments would have settled out
in these two long lakes and the suspended must therefore have been very fine, likely
clay sized. The fines would not settle in the lakes. He assumes the fines were clays.
Matt asked about agriculture and pattern of arable land. He has been told there have
been a lot of changes in agricultural activities.
 Hydrologist in Prince George, Pierre Beaudry, has done work on that aspect.
 Report: Dan Hogan did work on the Chilako that would be relevant to this
question.
What is emerging is that we need to know a lot more about the sediment budget.
Break: 10:15-10:30
Vanderhoof Reach (André)
Mike Miles provided a copy of a series of airphotos titled the Nechako River at
Vanderhoof Channel Morphology Changes 1928 – 2006: An Initial Compilation Based
on Readily Available Imagery document to participants. The group examined discharge
by time period for a number of slides.
 We do not have a long profile from Nautley downstream based on anything better
than the TRIM data.
 The photos illustrate that there is a change in the channel pattern but it is not
dramatic.
What does the bed look like? André showed the pictures of the freeze cores from the
substrate investigations in 2011 and 2012.
 There are naturally occurring cobbles at the upper site.
 Placed gravel and cobble at the middle 2 areas-- cobbles were not found at the
lower site.
Summary
 Gravel-sand transition.
 Minimal lateral instabilities: there were some changes but it is not cutting into one
bank.
 Backwater at the Burrard Bridge at high flows.
 Vanderhoof reach does not have typical hydrodynamic conditions.
 Zone of high velocity moves as discharge moves.
 Likely have sand transport during all flows.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 7 of 22
André showed video of the freeze cores and underwater video and camera images so
we could see the variation at a site. Good and bad substrate was shown for the upper
site taken during the 2012 season. The cobbles at the downstream end of the upper
site were very imbricated (stacked).
Steve noted that we need to be thinking of eggs and not just larvae. From an egg
perspective you want to land in a crack and stick in there. From a larval perspective
you can move into a space.
 Steve did an embedded cobble test but did not use gravel for his experiment.
 The eggs that we typically find now are normally covered in sand, indicating that
they were probably drifting downstream from point of deposition.
 André noted that there are a lot of mussels at the three downstream sites . He
pulls mussels up with some freeze cores. He wonders about the influence of
mussels on habitat.
 There are areas of silt drift that are clearly visible.
Can we accurately describe cobble/sand mix for good habitat?
 André showed a slide of where all the video and pictures were taken.
Underwater camera observations
 There is a large variation in substrate condition.
 The upper gravel placement site has some large substrate that appears good for
spawning from the surface.
 There are patches near the bank where the substrate looked clean. Portions of
placed material on outside corner of bends appear to be clear of fines.
Freeze Core Observation
 In 2012 cores were targeted to areas where sand was not visible on the surface,
except for the lower site because there was no area where they did not see sand.
 Upper site: tended to be sand and gravel throughout with some cobbles.
 Middle site (Upstream pad): fine material deposited out of suspension can be
seen in the lower interstitial spaces created by the placed material. We know the
pads are slowly getting filled with silt/fine sand but it implies there are not sheets
of course sand washing over it because if there was it would have filled in.
 Lower site (Downstream pad): Medium course sand moving as bedload appears
on the inside bend of patch (right side d/s), but it does not appear on the outside
of the bends where the cores were collected.
 Lower site: has lots of gravel and sand. Some cores show a distinct colour
horizon suggesting a difference in substrate age. This sites is where the eggs
were rolling by this year and the substrate assessment confirms that the quality
of the substrate is poor.
In general:
 Cobbles at upstream end of reach.
 Gravels at downstream end of reach.
 Sand was visibly moving in sheets during site visit.
Substrate Condition Summary
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 8 of 22

André asked whether salmon could move significant amounts of cobbles.
Redds were seen in the 2012 survey; he asked what effect they might have on
sturgeon spawning substrate? A 40% reduction of fines in the substrate has been
associated with salmon in the literature – should we look at salmon to help clean
gravel?
Mike Miles commented on the historical photos document that he provided to
participants:
 We began by examining the photo from 1928. Mike noted that the reach around
Vanderhoof is not a transport reach, it is a depositional reach. It was a
depositional reach in 1928 and currently remains a depositional reach. It may
transition to a transport reach but currently is a depositional reach.
 The 1946 picture shows it was filled with sediment.
 The participants were asked to slowly flip through the air photos. In doing so it
was evident that the bars are enlarging in size, bars are becoming islands;
secondary channels are becoming lost.
 What you see today is not what you are going to see in 10 to 15 years because
the changes are still ongoing and the lag times are long.
 The vegetation growth and infilling have been ongoing for 60 years.
 Mike asked the biologists if these fish need secondary channels because the
channels that were in this area have substantially diminished and will continue to
do so in the future. The river is becoming smaller and the secondary channels
are diminishing.
 Clyde thought that it may be transitioning from a depositional reach to a transport
reach.
Mike Church noted that right at Vanderhoof there is a braided section and down from
that there are spectacular meanders. He thinks that this has been a transient reach for
a long time to create those meanders.
 The changes may be ongoing for another century or so. He thinks it is one of the
strangest things in all of BC in terms of major morphological feature.
 He suspects it is geologically controlled.
 Matt noted that while the supply of sand may not change, the mode by which it is
transported through the system may change due to changes in hydraulics. In
particular, sediment that use to move as suspended sediment and be deposited
on floodplains may now move as bedload and stay in the channel.
Ellen asked if anyone has done a floodplain core to see if they can pick up the change
from agriculture that was noted to have happened in the 1960’s. The core would
provide insight into the composition before the major agriculture.
What Are the Key Questions We Should Answer?
Chris went around the room and asked each of the participants to identify a key
question that they think needs answering.
Mike Miles noted that the issue of topography needs to be addressed.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 9 of 22
1. Can we use velocity to influence where fish should spawn direct (i.e., if you build it,
will they come and spawn?).
2. What was the impact of the 2007 forced spill? Or the Nautley head cutting?
3. Has the change in flood pulse affected fish?
4. Can salmon be used to clean gravel?
5. What is the influence of mussels on sturgeon habitat?
6. Is it the same amount of sand but behaving differently? (“biogeomorph feedback”).
7. Ellen would like to know the influence of the very fine material - Is it carrying organic
matter? Does it influence the oxygen load? What is the pattern of arable land
development and has it influenced sediment? Can we look at sediment cores to
examine historic period before increase in agriculture?
8. Cory would like to know how we create the transient habitat condition within the
reach that spawners can use, considering the current hydrology (transient because it
only must occur for 3 weeks during spawning). What do we need to understand to
get there?
9. Dave A would like to see reconciliation between the flows and temperature patterns
over the year for pre and post regulation.
10. Mike C would like to know the annual sediment transport regime at Vanderhoof and
the timing of when it moves.
11. Matt agreed with Mike C and added that it is likely that the river is oversized for the
current flow regime.

Can the river geomorphology be adjusted so that it is more favourable?

Steve noted that once we construct altered habitat it has to work at multiple flows
because we do not know the freshet flow in any given year.
12. Mike M thinks the past is the key to predicting the future. He thinks we need to
understand the channel at the watershed scale and examine the entire channel not
just what is happening at the Vanderhoof reach. He would like to examine the
processes at the watershed scale from the Kenny Dam to Prince George.
13. Dave agreed with Mike M. He added that we know conditions change under
different flows so only looking that the Vanderhoof reach may be taking a risk; it is
akin to putting all of the eggs in one basket if we only look at Vanderhoof reach.
14. Brett agreed with both Mikes and Dave. He would like to know the context upon
which this reach exits. The links are not clear and it is not clear what the scales are
so we must understand the spatial and historical structure. This will allow us to
examine the context of the reach in the bigger picture.
15. Zsolt would like to know the trajectory of this reach in short and medium terms (how
the trajectory is changing) and what intervention(s) can influence the hydraulics in
this reach.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 10 of 22
16. Bill would like to know the composition of the matrix: What does the matrix look
like? What is the sediment regime and how does one design it?
17. Clyde noted that the area may be a channel in transition from deposition to
transport and finding the answer to that question would be very important in the
overall planning scheme. It will affect the matrices.
18. Christina would like to know if there is a way to adjust the river geometry. Is there
a way to change the geometry to increase the flow at certain areas without the
overall river flow increasing?
19. Marvin thought there may be an opportunity to conduct a comparative analysis with
the Herrling side channel on the Fraser. At each spawning location they have
successfully caught eggs and larvae. They also have photographs. That side
channel is approximately the same size as the Nechako. He suggested it be used
as a template because it is successful and to compare it with the Nechako.

Steve noted that work is proposed for the Herrling site in 2013. Steve thinks
there are multiple sites.
20. Dave wanted to know if the fish were spawning in the same location historically.
21. André would like to know where the fine gravel and coarse sand is coming from - is
it lateral inputs along the main channel or tributary inputs?
22. Justus noted that all of his questions have been asked.
23. Jamie agreed with André. He added that he would like to know if there is anything
we can do to mitigate the fine sediment input or if it is too massive and mitigation is
not feasible.
24. Courtney: passed.
Second Round of Questioning:
1. Ellen thinks we are covering a lot of scales. She noted that André was previously
developing a method of measuring inter-gravel flows and she thinks that would be
very useful to measure because the current freeze cores are not representative of
the time period we are interested in. She would like to know what kind of flow
environments and conditions are within the interstitial spaces.
2. Mike made Cory think of the maladaptive set of behaviours of fidelity sturgeon have
to these locations. He wonders if at some point we are going to decide to write off
this reach and set up habitat locations in different areas - can we think about other
locations we could set up to make them more successful? We could attempt to
imprint sturgeon on a different location. He noted that it is risky because it takes 40
years to get sturgeon to that stage but it may be worth investigating. Are there sites
that will naturally maintain that habitat without a lot of effort?


Do you bring the habitat to where the fish are or do you bring the fish to the
habitat?
The bed material downstream of Cheslatta falls is good material – maybe we
should put eggs there? Cory noted that we do not have good adult habitat
anywhere near there, so this may not be feasible.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 11 of 22
3. Dave A would like to know what is going on during the tail of the hydrological pulse
within the gravel.
4. Mike C asked whether it is possible to fingerprint the sediment sources within the
space.

Ellen noted that she is interested in doing some fingerprinting work and she may
be able to differentiate some of the materials from agricultural. She mentioned
the work conducted at UNBC by Phil Owens.
5. Matt was interested in the estimates of pre-dam versus present sediment mobility
through the reach and sheer stress.
6. Steve noted that from a planning perspective we have three scales: site specific
manipulation, reach scale manipulation, and channel manipulation to create a selfcleaning channel. That is a large range and we need to identify the decision points
that guide us.

Is one of those unrealistic and therefore we can focus on the other two? Trying to
satisfy all three scales is likely impossible so it would be good to narrow this
down.
7. Mike Miles does not know what he would be asked to design right now. In Fraser
Lake historically there was a captive sturgeon program – they would put a fish hook
and line in sturgeon and tie them to the shore (he discussed the history supplied by
Gordon Hartman who grew up in that area).

Gather and record traditional local and First Nation knowledge about sturgeon
observations, distribution, behaviour, etc. before that information is lost.
Cory was asked about the number of mature sturgeon remaining. He noted 350 to 400
was the current estimate.
8. Dave L thought we should characterize the fish community in the hotspot
(Vanderhoof reach) to get an idea of what is happening and the implications that
may have on sturgeon. He thinks the reach is the place to start. Has there been a
change in predation as a result of changed flow regimes?

The amount of macro-invertebrates is astounding and it is nutrient rich and
eutrophic. Is that for certain the best place we want to recover? It is very
different than a lot of other places.
9. Bill noted that in the past and likely pre-Kenny Dam there were observations of
sturgeon well above the Nautley, therefore, we need to examine a larger scale to
collect that type of information. He thought that would guide us in opportunities to do
some habitat development in some other locations.

Can we find a site that would work up there? This circles back as to whether
there is another location.
10. Brett asked if it would be possible to model the physical factors such as an agent
based model that includes probabilities for predation and uses that information to
determine what good habitat is and to influence the survival of the eggs.

Can we accurately describe what this cobble /sand/fines mix is?
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 12 of 22

Habitat specific life stage survival and including a number of factors that might be
an issue.
11. Christiana agrees with the idea of gathering traditional local and aboriginal
knowledge.
12. Clyde would like to know if we can use flow regimes to modify what is good habitat.
He noted that there has been a lot of discussion around flow modification and would
like to know if we can actually change the flow regimes.
13. Dale and André would like to know if we can use areas in gravel and cobble that do
not have fines and place eggs to determine if we can get 15 day larvae. He thought
that we should not worry about getting adults there but just place the eggs and see
what happens. At the least he thought we should see what this substrate looks like
as a test site. Can we imprint adults to these locations?
14. Jamie asked where the funding for this work is going to come from. If it comes from
DFO how do the sturgeon fit in with their current focus of commercial fisheries?

Courtney noted that there is funding under SARA. This workshop came from
DFO funding. Funding can come from the Federal government. Nechako
sturgeon ranks high as a SARA species across the country. She does not know
what the answer is every year but we can ask.
Are there any other questions?
The group wanted to know if we were going to prioritize these questions. It was noted
that some questions have been said more than once so we are going to reduce the list
and try to focus in on our original/primary question(s).
Mike M noted that if this was a hydro project we would be required to look at the affect
that changes of flows have on a variety of species. He noted that we have never done
that on the Nechako.

Is it a question of describing what is good habitat; biologists would suggest the
range of water velocities, depth, bed materials, size, and then as flow is changed,
available habitat is recalculated (IFIM).

In the bigger picture Mike M is concerned that over 50+ years no one has put
together an integrated story with how the Kenney Dam has affected the river and
its habitat – watershed scale.
Lunch break: 12:15 – 13:10
Chris summarized the above questions into three major categories: Geomorphology
and hydrology questions; Habitat Questions; and, Management Questions. Chris
suggested we think about how relevant these questions are to habitat restoration
research questions. Is it feasible to engineer our way out of these problems? We
decided to largely ignore the management questions.
Management Questions (omitted from focus):
1. Can we artificially modify habitat condition?
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 13 of 22
2. Can we find suitable sturgeon habitat currently unused as a test location for
survival?
3. How to we fund this effort?
4. How do we decide the scale to work at?
5. Conduct traditional and local knowledge studies.
Geomorphology and Hydrology Questions:
1. What is the evolution of channel morphology?
 Is it is in transition?
 How long will the transition persist?
2. What is the transitory substrate condition at high flows?
3. What is the source of fine sediment and has it changed? This includes sediment
budget.
4. How unique is the Vanderhoof Reach?
5. What is the accurate long profile for the river?
6. Can we engineer the river geometry to create long term egg and larvae habitat when
it is needed?
Habitat Questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What is an accurate description of egg/larvae habitat?
What is the description of other habitat (e.g., off channel)?
What is the fish biota in the Vanderhoof reach?
What are the implications to sturgeon survival?
Conduct a life stage survival analysis.
The group then engaged in a discussion regarding the summarized questions.
Clyde clarified that the overall goal is sturgeon recovery and trying to assure that will
happen? Yes. Then, what is it we really need to know for that to happen?
 If you want to do a sediment budget what do you need?
Mike M thought we needed to go back to the historical data and model the changes to
the river.
 Is the Cheslatta sediment load getting stuck at Fort Fraser, is it going to carry on
down to Vanderhoof, etc. It won’t make any sense to build something if it is
going to get filled in.
 How fast is it moving and how is it being deposited?
We need reasonable data on the gradient and the long profile is a good place to start.
Mike C thinks the primary issue is what is going on in the substrate so the purpose of a
hydraulic model would be to confirm how much fine sediment is moving in relation to
hydrographs.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 14 of 22


This means one does not need a long profile but instead should use hydraulic
modeling to estimate processes at different flows.
We need to get a sense of the amount of fine sediment and the timing of
movement.
Marvin asked if we are certain this is a sediment issue with the sturgeon. Do we need to
go through these large geomorphic exercises?

Cory noted that this is conservation biology and these fish are going extinct so
we/NWSRI think the totality of available information is enough to be convinced
this is a substrate problem eggs and yolk-sac larvae, particularly given Steve’s
work on larval quality.

There was a feeling from Marvin and Dave that we should not throw away the
question of the hydrograph. Cory noted that he does not want to focus on that
issue today, but that it is being considered separately.

Brett noted that we do not have the long-term data on sediment movement and
the answer as to how we approach the problem is different based on the history
of the area. If the sediment in the Vanderhoof reach is from the Cheslatta then
we may want to wait until it moves through.

Dave A thinks it is important to understand and focus on what we are seeing at
the Vanderhoof reach right now.

Bill R. what is common with the other rivers where sturgeon spawn is a high level
of turbidity. One solution might be increasing turbidity at certain critical periods to
decrease predation of larvae by other species.
Ellen noted that the nutrient levels and biofilms on the rocks themselves appear to be a
lot higher in the Vanderhoof reach. The sediment and nutrient levels are rich. She
questioned how long it is being retained for? Does this nutrient level affect sediment
movement?
Mike Miles noted that biologists and geomorphologists tend to work on different time
scales. NWSRI wants to know what we can do now to save those fish but he thinks we
need to take the time to look back.
Dave Levy thinks we need to be more adaptive. He thinks we need to refine our
hypotheses and make them clearer.

Steve noted that we continue to do small scale experiments but we keep coming
back to a long-term hydrology and geomorphology question. We do not want to
fail so that is what has led us to hold this charrette.

Mike M noted that we could do a better job with some of our experiments such as
our gravel placement project. He thinks we need to think about unintended
consequences.
There was a general consensus that we need to know the amount of sediment moving
through the reach and its timing and then we can figure out if we need the long profiles.
Mike C noted that we do not know if it is too much sediment, sediment of the wrong
quality, and/or timing of when the fish want to spawn and sediment load.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 15 of 22

He suggested that we send André back with cameras (etc.) to see what happens
at high flows. The current pictures at low flows only show that the sediment has
already settled. This will help to see if it is a matter of timing. From that we will
need to do some field survey but we need to know more about the nature of the
substrate.

Need to determine if flows currently exist that will achieve desired habitat
conditions. Does cooling flows for salmon achieve flushing?

Dave noted that we are uncertain even about what type of sediment we are
talking about
Ellen agreed that we need to know where the material is coming from.

Is a lot of the material we do not know about coming from the tributaries,
Cheslatta or another source(s)? What is the amount and timing? Are there load
data for the tributaries?
Mike C noted that we need suspended and bed load transport measurements.
Therefore, he thinks that it is best to see what the site looks like at high flows.

André thought it would not be too hard to get readings at high flows. However,
he noted that where one does the measurement is only good for that particular
area. He struggles with what the supply starvation limits are.
 Mike M noted that in the restoration world there is passive and active restoration.
Geomorphologists want to do passive restoration, such as to plant trees on
banks and/or conduct flow changes. The fisheries biologists are worried about
the right now and extinction so they want to put the fish in the river now.
 André noted that he is comfortable saying that the coarser material is not
Cheslatta material. He stated that some finer Cheslatta material (few microns in
size) may have come down but he thinks that material has gone past.
We need to understand the local amount and the timing of sediment and particularly
how it relates to the high flow periods.

Dave L noted that he still sees a gap: if we had all of this information how would it
aid us with sturgeon?

Dave A thinks that if we had all of this information we would better understand
those processes and could start designing mitigation methods.

Justus noted that it is important to know if the substrate is going to be a problem
for the next 100 years. He thinks that knowing that now will inform the next 100
years of work. He suggested we focus on both the short and long terms.

Cory noted that we have 10 to 20 years until the current adult population is gone
and then we are in “death valley” as there will be no spawning adults in the river.
Assuming we get a hatchery we will then have a gap until the released fish grow
up to an age where they can breed.
Brett noted that reach 4, which extends from river km 66.7 to 100.4 (where the Nautley
joins), is sand and fine gravel. He would like to know how the system is structured and
how will it change.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 16 of 22
Do we stick with the Vanderhoof reach or given that times are desperate do we look
elsewhere?

Steve thinks we need to keep with the current direction because we do not know
how to get adults to reach 4. We know that sturgeon currently spawn at
Vanderhoof. Right now, we do not want to go beyond the biology that the fish
are telling us. Maybe in the future but not at this critical time.

Brett stated that if Steve’s focus is what we are after then knowing where the
sediment is coming from should not be the immediate question.

Justus noted that our work has a very long turn around period, up to 25 years, to
determine if anything actually worked. Therefore, both have to happen at once.

Steve stated that we can get in season responses that we can label as success
at different life stages: big pulse of 15 day old larvae for example. Justus noted
that he was thinking in terms of generations.
André suggested that we may want to focus solely on the gravel pads and place more
detail in terms of the data we are gathering: how large they are, how deep they are,
where we are putting them, etcetera.

Steve noted that there are further biology studies required, however, the goal is
to ensure that we have the necessary geomorphological information to take any
action that will be required in a few years time.
Modeling: Matt noted that having a good working model will give us the ability to run
some hypothetical scenarios such as putting a lot of sand into the system and
comparing the flow of historic and present regimes. He thinks a model may be the most
straight forward way to investigate those types of questions.

Clyde noted that in regards to the amount and type of sediment it appears we do
not have much information on what is going on in the reach itself; if we are going
to model different scenarios we need more information on what is moving
through the reach. This will allow you to put bounds on what is occurring.

Marvin asked if it would be useful to examine the sediment profile at different
flows and after a good amount of water had passed through? Flow rates of 400
to 600 m3/s is unlikely but 200 m3/s is likely and would require a lot less effort.
Interstitial Spaces: André noted that multilayers of clean gravel did not exist and that
means it has to be winnowing.

Steve says the eggs and larvae are not looking to go deep; they just want to get
under the first rock. He thinks that if we make it too deep they can get lost
(observed in the lab studies).
Flow & Substrate: In the Vanderhoof reach do we have flows that result in the
substrates being cleaned? That question returns us to what is the sediment budget and
how does it move. How can we maintain or create it?

Mike C thinks we need to know if there are any flow where sediments are
evacuated. We have a viable chance if sediments are affected at high flows but if
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 17 of 22
we do not see that then we have a different problem. Then we need to figure out
how the fish were successful there before and why they are not now.
 Do those flows that clean the gravel exists now? Do they occur when needed?
Gravel Project: In the past André has placed the cameras in low flow but the group
generally agreed that cameras need to be placed in freshettes and high flows as well.

Mike M asked if we could use the river2D model to fine tune where André could
place his cameras. Yes.

Ellen asked if the eggs are big enough to be captured on the images. She
thought it would be cheaper to use cameras to see if the eggs are staying in
place. No, they are hard to spot; we could try but they are very hard to spot and
one has to find them in the first place.
Steve stated that there are things on the biological side we still need to ask: how do we
steer fish towards one location and also away from other locations?

Steve asked whether the geomorphologists now know enough to make that
channel.

Mike M asked if they would have the ability to manipulate flows for a week or two.
Justus noted that the flow does change naturally and is not maintained at a
constant state.

Jamie asked if there are any data on ground water sources. No, there are no
obvious signs of ground water sources that would be used by sturgeon, nor is it
thought to be factor in their biology.
Summary:
 There is a way forward and it appears to be focusing on the substrate.
 Some of the existing River2D model could be used.
 We may want to use the photo work to help collect the data to see if those
conditions exist during the time of spawning.
Mike M thinks the issue is likely with the sediments. We need to get the sand that is in
the channel out. In normal conditions the sand would have been flushed out and he
thinks we need to move it out of the channel and get it vegetated. He noted that in the
Colorado River they used flushing flows to try to get the sand out of the channel. We
could try to do the same thing here but we need some data, such as river cross-sections
and have those surveys done well enough so that when we get a flow like 2007 we will
be better informed about the sediment transport regime. Can we get the huge quantity
of sand out of the system?


Justus stated that to flush out the sand the flow may need to be 1,400 m3/sec.
Mike noted that is just at Vanderhoof because the channel is so wide at that spot.
Justus is not sure that is feasible but securing the sediment may be something
they could look at.
Ideally would design a system that is self-scouring.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 18 of 22



Cory noted that we could provide details around what stage we need the
interstitial space to be there for the larvae.
Dave stated that he would need the sediment sizes, what is coming in there, etc.
the camera work is nice but it does not give numbers. They require actual
empirical data. There is some interesting data but it is very sparse and not very
focused.
Data would allow us to determine if we can make more velocity with the same
water flow.
We have a short term solution to manage the reach (i.e., gravel project or reach
manipulation) but is it for two decades or 50 years?
 Mike M stated that we are not treating the cause. There is 1 million cubic meters
of sand above the reach that is going to keep moving down. He thinks adding
gravel is a 100 m2 Band-Aid solution.
 Marvin stated that he does not care if there is a lot of sand above the reach. He is
worried about going into the river with backhoes and messing around with the
channel profile.
 Steve stated that we are not going to manipulate the channel right now because
we want to make sure we have tested what we need and that the results all add
up to this as a solution.
 The channel is moving and evolving; we will be doing some kind of work and we
want to know how our work interacts with the long-term solution of the channel.
 Mike C thinks that we should manipulate substrate first and then manipulate
flows. We should only consider altering the channel as a last resort. Channel
alteration can have significant impacts whether they are real or perceived.
Ellen stated that the urbanization of Vanderhoof is evident from the air photos. She
asked if since ~1960 anything had been added to the water that could change its
condition and be toxic to the eggs. She was thinking about ground water input.
Some summary notes before break:


Evolution of the river channel is key, and that information will influence what we
propose to do at the reach.
There was a difference of opinion as to whether or not the Cheslatta fan is
relevant.
Brett noted that sand transport does not follow River2D models very well and asked if
there are there other models that could be used.
 To model sediment transport with reliability there has to be a lot of data. The
geometry of the channel and gradients need to be known very well. The cost to
collect data would be quite large.
 On a larger scale photos and video could be repeatedly taken from a helicopter
up and down stream. Those data would need to be interpreted in a consistent
manner. This would be a specialized approach (low water, slow flight, etc.).
Break 15:06 – 15:32
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 19 of 22
Justus asked about tipping points and thresholds: From a flow perspective is there
something that would change that trajectory? He noted that he thinks this is something
that could be manipulated - Can flow change the current trajectory that the channel is
evolving along?

Mike C noted that land use and climate change will likely further reduce spring
runoff and produce weaker flows in the spring. He thinks things will continue to
develop similar to how they have been.
The group discussed ice effects. Dave A did not think ice was a factor. Justus thinks ice
was and still remains a dynamic in this area. There was a general consensus that ice is
not currently introducing more sediment into the system or a driver of river
geomorphology.


André thought that if the flow was increased it may increase the amount of ice
and change the pattern.
It was noted that a fire associated with the mountain pine beetle may increase
the sediment loads.
What Are the Primary Geomorphology Questions?
Justus thought the Vanderhoof reach may have been the preferred spawning site
because of the sheer volume of fish using this small site; however, he also thinks that
based on historical estimates of 8,000 fish, there were likely other, suboptimal sites.

The number of sites similar to the reach is very, very small. The number of sites
where fish can pick the hydraulics that they want is very small.
 Ellen asked about areas similar to the reach in the Kootenay and Columbia. Matt
noted that in the Kootenay there is a braided area similar to the reach but the fish
are not using it and it is not clear why.
 Steve noted that the Kootenay is highly diked. The sturgeon estimate in the
Kootenay is 1,000 fish.
There was a brief review of Nechako white sturgeon biology. In the Nechako male fish
spawn approximately every two years. Fish move to Stuart and Fraser Lake to bulk up
on food. Sturgeon have been recorded to move good distances. We have recorded
two fish migrating from downstream of Quesnel that likely spawned in Vanderhoof.
Sign Up For Tasks:
Chris asked if there were tasks that people would be willing to participate in or to take
on.
Mike Miles was interested in properly designing studies that examine channel evolution
at the Vanderhoof scale and the river scale. He was also interested in sediment
transport on both of those sales.
Brett was also interested in the evolution of the channel and sediment transport.
Dave noted that he is an independent and would be willing to review study design. He
indicated that he cannot provide help out on the geomorphology side.
Bill was interested in the behavioural aspects of selection and the substrate matrix. He
was also interested in fish herding and salmon issues.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 20 of 22
Clyde was interested in the sediment input and the engineering of the channel.
Christina and Dave indicated that they would like to work on other aspects that are not
directly related to geomorphology. Christina was interested in documenting ATK for
sturgeon.
Marvin was interested in comparisons between the Fraser and Nechako Rivers.
Specifically he indicated comparisons with Herrling channel, and depth, velocity and
substrate comparisons.
Dale was interested in the hydrology, modeling and channel engineering.
André was interested in the mobility of sediment transport and deposition.
Justus would like a person to examine all of the existing geomorphology reports and
indicated if they are correct and remain relevant today. He would like someone to take
all the past information and identify what we need to know and what we already know.
Courtney indicated that she will continue to seek funding to fund this work.
Ellen was interested in the quantity and quality of material in the interstitial spaces. She
would also like to use fingerprinting methods to try to identify where the sediment
sources are coming from. Water quality issues were of interest to her as well.
Dave was interested in sediment transport, sand load, transport load and identifying the
near bed hydraulic conditions that facilitate the hiding of fish from a physical base.
Mike C was willing to help with any issues he could lend his expertise to.
Matt thought that the location where the fish spawn was important to focus on. He was
interested in sediment transport and the localized mechanics of spawning sites relative
to historic conditions. He would like to determine if flow is something that needs to be
considered in order to improve the situation.
Steve was interested in microhabitat and bringing together physical and biological
interactions to examine questions such as how to steer spawners. He was also
interested in identifying collaborators that could get projects completed.
Cory was interested in using acoustic telemetry for precise fish locations during
spawning. He was also interested in acquiring a better understanding of substrate and
trying some egg experiments with those substrates that are considered good spawning
habitat even if the adults are not finding them.
Wrap Up (Cory and Steve)
As a follow-up to this workshop we are going to produce a small summary document.
Funding: There was a question regarding where the funding would come from to
conduct these projects. It was noted that since Nechako white sturgeon are listed there
are a number of avenues available to seek funding. The recovery strategy for sturgeon
has a schedule of studies and this reach is identified as critical habitat for sturgeon.
Further, we would like to use the information gained at this workshop in the recovery
strategy and that will aid with finding funding. We also would like to collaborate across
rivers (Columbia, Kootenay).
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 21 of 22

Cory mentioned NEEF and Decision 7, Integrated Watershed Research ($1.5
million dollars available on a matching funds bases for research).
 Cory indicated that we will try to start this work in 2013.
Mike M left at 16:00.
Cory thanked the participants for coming and noted that this workshop was funded
through DFO on an application made by Courtney.
Cory informed the participants of the status of the recovery facility in Vanderhoof and
how having a facility will give us the ability to carry out a number of these programs,
particularly those that need stock.
The meeting adjourned at 16:30.
Chris’s White Board Notes
The notes taken by the facilitator during the workshop on the white board are largely
built into the minutes. The list is included in the attached spread sheet.
Geomorphology Charrette Meeting Minutes (February 28, 2013)
Page 22 of 22