Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2018 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Pike as an Invasive Species | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 12, 2018
10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Mike Chenault
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative David Eastman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: PIKE AS AN INVASIVE SPECIES
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM BROOKOVER, Director
Division of Sport Fish (SF)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation
on Invasive Northern Pike Control in Southcentral Alaska.
KRISTINE DUNKER, Coordinator
Regional Invasive Species Program
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint on Invasive Northern
Pike Control in Southcentral Alaska.
SCOTT KELLY, Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation
on Invasive Northern Pike Control in Southcentral Alaska.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:02:58 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Representatives
Stutes, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Tarr were present at the call to
order. Representatives Neuman and Chenault arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION: Pike as an Invasive Species
PRESENTATION: Pike as an Invasive Species
10:03:46 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
a Presentation: Pike as an Invasive Species by the Department of
Fish and Game.
CHAIR STUTES clarified that two of the documents contained
within the members packets were not provided (audio
difficulties) affiliated with the presentation as follows: six-
page document with the footnote: Source National Habitat
Partnership; and the two-page document with the footnote: Source
Catherine Cassidy and Eric Hubish, 2013. These documents, she
explained, are for a general discussion as well as the committee
and public's review.
10:04:19 AM
CHAIR STUTES advised members that she asked the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game to give a presentation due to concern
within the fishing community over invasive northern pike in
Southcentral Alaska and the devastating effect it has had on all
salmon populations and fishing opportunities. Although the
presentation does not focus on a specific area of concern, she
hoped the committee discussion would focus on the invasive pike
predation in the Susitna drainage on sockeye salmon, which was a
stock of yield concern. It seemed that allowing for more
escapement when the state has not adequately addressed the issue
of invasive pike devouring salmon smolt in rivers and lakes in
the Susitna drainage would not solve any problems. Chinook and
coho salmon in the Susitna drainage area have also been heavily
impacted by pike predation, she said.
10:05:34 AM
CHAIR STUTES emphasized that she would like to secure more
funding or additional resources for ADF&G to fully address the
eradication and suppression of invasive northern pike in that
drainage to restore salmon stocks to a healthy status. The
ADF&G has conducted active netting programs of northern pike in
the Susitna drainage area; however, she offered her belief that
the department could do more with additional support from the
legislature. The ADF&G has provided two very useful documents
covering pike predation on sockeye and effort to suppress
invasive pike. She directed attention to the 55-page document
titled "Shell Lake Sockeye Salmon Progress Report" and to the
one-page document titled "Chelatna Lake Northern Pike
Suppression Project." In the one-page document the department
estimated the elimination of 958 northern pike in the Chelatna
Lake will result in 13,229 more returning sockeye throughout the
7-year life cycle of those pike. She remarked that it was
staggering how removal of invasive northern pike could so
drastically increase the numbers of returning salmon to the
system.
10:08:28 AM
TOM BROOKOVER, Director, Division of Sport Fish (SF), Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, introduced himself and his team.
10:10:21 AM
KRISTINE DUNKER, Coordinator, Regional Invasive Species Program,
Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, began
a PowerPoint on Invasive Northern Pike Control in Southcentral
Alaska. She stated that northern Pike were predatory fish that
thrive in shallow, weedy habitat and are at the top of the food
chain. She related that invasive northern pike can be
significant predators of salmonids or other species that also
use this habitat.
MS. DUNKER stated that northern Pike were opportunistic ambush
predators who eat everything: ducklings, mice, invertebrates,
and even each other. Studies have shown that juvenile salmon
were targeted first if they are available, she said. The
northern pike's feeding strategy was to hide in weedy areas,
wait for prey to swim by, quickly strike and then devour its
prey.
10:12:34 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 4, titled "Walleye and northern Pike:
Boost or Bane to Northwest Fisheries?" Although the pike's
striking behavior makes them a popular sport fish, the negative
impacts have arisen when pike become established in waters where
they are not native sport fish.
MS. DUNKER directed attention to slide 5, titled "Northern Pike
Range," which depicted a map of Alaska showing the range of
northern Pike. She stated that pike were native species
throughout most of Alaska. She directed attention to the shaded
and hashed area that showed the native range and the red area
[primarily in Southcentral Alaska] that showed where invasive
northern pike have been introduced.
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 6, titled "Invasive Species," which
read, in part, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Invasive Species: a species that has been introduced
to an environment where it is non-native, or alien,
and whose introduction causes environmental or
economic damage or harm to human health.
10:13:26 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 7, which showed a photograph of pink
salmon fry in the stomach contents of a northern pike taken from
Alexander Creek. She stated that as a top predator, invasive
pike could potentially eliminate entire populations of salmonids
when they are introduced in important salmonid rearing habitat.
In waters that provide excellent habitat conditions for pike,
such as shallow, weedy, slow-moving water, pike will overlap
rearing sockeye, coho, Chinook, and Rainbow trout that rear in
shallow lakes. She pointed out the predation levels on these
species has typically been very high in some areas of the Mat-
Su, for example, in Alexander Lake and Alexander Creek in the
Susitna River drainage area. Waters that provide more mixed
habitat consisted of drainages with shallow, vegetated sloughs
and swampy areas combined with areas of deep water or fast river
channels. Small fry can avoid predation in areas that do not
provide optimal pike habitat, and pike have a reduced impact on
salmon populations in mixed habitat. She offered a good example
of this as the Deshka River since pike do not really thrive in
areas with deep, glacial, or high flow without much submerged
vegetation. Pike tend to use deeper or high flow steams
primarily as movement corridors, if at all. She said the
predation rate on salmon fry tends to be very low in these
areas, which was true in the East Side of the Susitna River
drainage area and in the Talkeetna Mountains.
10:15:21 AM
MS. DUNKER directed attention to slide 8, "Pike Suppression," to
a map. Invasive northern pike were widely distributed in
Southcentral Alaska from the Northern Cook Inlet Management Area
to the northern Kenai Peninsula. She pointed out that the
drainages depicted in red on the map indicate areas where pike
have been well established and the drainages in yellow were
areas not known to have pike populations; however, these areas
were considered vulnerable because they provide ideal habitat
conditions for pike. She reported that the ADF&G has confirmed
invasive pike in well over 120 individual waterbodies associated
with these drainages.
MS. DUNKER said that in the past decade, the department has been
steadily chipping away at the invasive northern pike problem.
The department has successfully eradicated pike from some lakes
in the Anchorage area, the Kenai Peninsula, and Yakutat using
the fish pesticide rotenone.
10:16:06 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 9, "What is Rotenone?" which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Extract of tropical "bean family" plants
Used by indigenous cultures to collect fish
Used to manage fish in U.S. since 1930s
Easily absorbed through gill membranes
Acts by inhibiting cell respiration
Safe for mammals and birds at fish
management concentrations
Only proven and feasible tool for pike eradication in
Southcentral Alaska
MS. DUNKER identified rotenone as a highly-regulated restricted-
use pesticide for fisheries management. She reviewed the
bullets on slide 9 clarifying that rotenone does not enter
groundwater. She said the division used rotenone in extremely
low concentrations, so it has not been harmful to people near
the treatment areas. The highlighted bullet on slide 9 stated
it was the only proven and feasible tool for pike eradication in
Southcentral Alaska.
10:17:15 AM
MS. DUNKER directed attention to slide 10, "Rotenone Permitting
Process," which read as follows:
Public Scoping Process:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation:
Pesticide Use Permit; and
30-day public commenting period.
NEPA Process: Environmental Assessment/ FONSI:
30-day public commenting period; and
Review and approval done by USFWS.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources: Special Use
Permit
Alaska Department of Fish and Game: Fish Transport
Permits
Alaska Board of Fisheries Approval (AS 16.35.200)
MS. DUNKER explained that the ADF&G must acquire a variety of
permits and approvals prior to any rotenone treatment. It
typically has taken approximately one year to obtain the
necessary permits, she said. She reviewed the bullets on slide
10. She said to date the division's rotenone projects have been
funded through grants. She related that the federal funding
triggers a NEPA Process, which requires the ADF&G to prepare an
environmental assessment document, along with public comment.
The USF&WS has issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
on all the projects thus far, she said.
10:18:18 AM
MS. DUNKER directed attention to slide 11, "Rotenone Treatment
Step by Step," which read, in part, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
- Monitor the physical and biological environment
- Calculate rotenone quantity
- Gillnet pike
- Post signs and stage equipment
- Deploy caged test fish
- Conduct treatment
- Monitor caged test fish
- Deactivation
- Monitor rotenone degradation
- Assess treatment success
- Restore the fishery
MS. DUNKER said that the permitting process requires an
extensive field process, as shown in photographs on slide 11.
Although she would not get into the details on each of the
steps, the point she wanted to make was that significant work
happens in each of these projects, including data collection.
These projects generally take multiple years to complete, she
said.
10:18:37 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 12, "Strategic Planning," which read,
in part, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Prioritization Process
Criteria based on:
Threats to fisheries
Habitat significance
Watershed characterization
Cultural significance
Economic impacts
Feasibility
Pike committee meets every two years to update the
priority list
Prevent Spread
MS. DUNKER indicated that rotenone projects were expensive to
complete but were not considered the right tool for all
waterbodies, especially in areas that were highly
interconnected, such as the Susitna River drainage system.
Along with weighing the feasibility of conducting a successful
rotenone treatment, the ADF&G also uses a process to prioritize
its efforts of invasive pike eradication projects within the
Division of Sport Fish.
MS. DUNKER stated that the ADF&G has tried to target its work in
areas where it will have the most success to contain the problem
and to prevent pike from spreading to other waters.
10:19:17 AM
MS. DUNKER directed attention to slide 13, "Rotenone Projects
2008-2017," listing projects in the Kenai Peninsula and the
Anchorage Area:
Kenai Peninsula
Arc Lake
Scout Lake
Stormy Lake
Union Lake
East Mackey Lake
West Mackey Lake
Derks Lake
Sevena Lake
Loon Lake
Soldotna Creek
Anchorage Area
Cheney Lake
Sand Lake
Otter Lake
10:19:36 AM
MS. DUNKER directed attention to slide 14, "Soldotna Creek,"
which read, in part, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Soldotna Creek Treatment Areas
Area 1
Union Lake, West Mackeys Lake,
East Mackeys Lake, Derks Lake
Treatment Timing: 2014
Sevena Lake, Tree Lake,
Mainstem of Soldotna Creek
Treatment Timing: 2016 and 2017
Native Fish Relocation effort from
Area 2 to Area 1 in 2015
MS. DUNKER offered to briefly highlight the largest and most
expensive project to date: the Soldotna Creek Treatment Areas.
The treatment in Soldotna Creek, a tributary to the Kenai River,
has really been about prevention. Although the Kenai River does
not contain habitat that pike thrives in, the department has
been concerned that pike might temporarily move through the
river to access and establish in other vulnerable Kenai
tributaries such as the Moose River coho where 45 percent of the
Kenai River coho production occurs. This project involved
breaking the Soldotna Creek drainage into two sections and
systematically treating them over the course of four years. The
first section treated in October 2014 did not contain any fish
except invasive pike. Native fish were in the second section,
so a significant part of the project involved rescuing as many
native fish as possible and re-establishing these populations in
the first treatment area.
10:20:44 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 15, "Soldotna Creek Treatments,"
consisting of photographs showing field work. This project was
by far the most complicated series of rotenone treatments
completed and involved applying rotenone in a variety of ways,
including by helicopter, she said. In 2014, the treatment
projects began and were completed last summer. In total the
ADF&G treated just shy of 500 acres of lakes, 150 acres of
wetlands, and 20 miles of Soldotna Creek and its tributaries.
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 16, "Post Treatment Evaluation," to
photographs of field treatments and post-treatment evaluations.
Throughout the entire process, the division has been monitoring
the treated lakes using gillnets or water samples to be certain
the invasive pike have been eradicated. The division has not
yet finalized these evaluations; however, it appeared as though
the treatments have been successful.
10:21:27 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 17, "Native Fish Rescue/Restoration
2018-2017," to photographs of field work, including lake
stocking and electrofishing. She related one satisfying aspect
of the project has been to restore the native fish populations
throughout the Soldotna Creek Drainage lakes. In 2015, the
division conducted field work in areas it had not yet treated,
relocating over 91,000 native fish to assist in the recovery of
the native fish population. This has resulted in sport fishing
in these lakes and some fishermen also reported seeing loons
nesting for the first time in many years.
10:22:13 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 18, "Current Status of Kenai
Peninsula Pike Waters," to a photograph of invasive pike and
maps of the Cook Inlet area. She said that the division was
close to eradicating invasive pike from all Kenai Peninsula
waters in which the division had known and confirmed fish
populations, except for a series of lakes in the Tate Road Lakes
area. She said the division plans on treating those lakes this
fall, noting the division's largest concern has been the
proximity of these lakes to anadromous waters. It would be easy
for the invasive pike to re-seed other waters on the Kenai
Peninsula and the division's goal is to prevent that from
happening, she said.
10:22:59 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 19 to a map of Mat-Su/West Cook
Inlet, Anchorage, and upper Kenai Peninsula areas. She said if
the current eradication treatments are successful and barring
any new invasive pike discoveries on the Kenai Peninsula, this
region could be pike free for the first time in four decades.
She characterized this as a huge milestone for the division.
The next area the division would focus on would be containment,
eradication - where possible - and suppression of invasive pike
in the Mat-Su valley and the west side of Cook Inlet.
10:24:23 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 20, "Alexander Creek Pike
Suppression," with map and graph, which read, in part, as
follows:
Susitna River tributary
Very productive Chinook salmon fishery prior to
2000
Pike in the lake for decades
Discovered in lower river in late 1990s
King numbers crashed
Other systems were thriving
All fisheries now closed
MS. DUNKER, referring to the map on slide 20, said the Susitna
River drainage area presented a very different situation than
the Kenai Peninsula. For one thing, the watershed was the size
of Indiana, so a rotenone application would not provide the
long-term eradication in connected waters because the invasive
pike would eventually find their way back.
MS. DUNKER related the most effective approach would be to
contain the problem and prevent pike from spreading to other
waters since invasive species prevention has been the most
efficient solution. She indicated that effective outreach and
education on this topic was critical and the division hopes wrap
up its educational efforts in the Mat-Su valley soon.
10:24:08 AM
MS. DUNKER said the division will also be conducting surveys to
evaluate the water bodies for early detection of invasive pike
distribution. She said the division will eradicate invasive
pike populations where it is deemed feasible to do so in high
priority areas and would continue to work to suppress invasive
pike populations.
10:24:23 AM
MS. DUNKER said that the division has been actively engaged
since 2011 on treatment in Alexander Creek, a tributary of the
Susitna River. She clarified that this was not an eradication
program because the system was too interconnected for rotenone
treatments to successfully eradicate the invasive pike; however,
the division has been working to reduce the abundance of pike in
this area. Prior to 2000, Alexander Creek was one of the most
productive Chinook salmon producing rivers in Southcentral
Alaska. Directing attention to the red circle around Alexander
Lake on the map insert, she reported that pike were introduced
to Alexander Lake in the 1960s. Directing attention to the red
oval on the map insert on the side, she said it took a few
decades for the invasive pike to disburse to the Alexander River
corridor to establish in the lower river where they were first
discovered in the late 1990s.
MS. DUNKER stated that following the invasive pike being
established in the lower river, Chinook salmon numbers declined
below escapement levels. This came at a time when other nearby
Chinook salmon populations were thriving, which provided strong
correlative evidence to show that the declining numbers in
Alexander Creek were due to invasive pike. The fisheries on
Alexander Creek were now closed as well as the many supportive
businesses in the area. She estimated the economic loss as
being in the multiple millions of dollars.
10:25:46 AM
MS. DUNKER directed attention to slide 21, "Alexander Creek Pike
Suppression," with photos and bullets, which read in part as
follows:
Goal:
Drive down pike abundance to allow increased survival
of juvenile salmonids
Reduce pike in side-channel sloughs with gillnets
During pike spawning
Field crews target ~60 sloughs
Annual effort (>19,000 pike removed since 2011)
Surveys to evaluate juvenile salmonid abundance
Minnow trap surveys
Pike stomach content analysis
MS. DUNKER said that in response to the Chinook salmon low
returns, the division has been implementing its northern pike
Suppression Program to try to increase Chinook salmon
productivity in the system. Each May, during the pike spawning,
the division gillnets about 60 side-channel sloughs in Alexander
Creek until they are no longer catching consistently catching
pike. She reiterated the goal is to drive down pike abundance
to allow the increased chance of survival for juvenile salmonids
rearing in the system. The ADF&G plans on continuing its
efforts annually and to date the division has removed over
19,000 pike through this project and several more thousand in
preliminary work. In addition to netting, the gill crews also
conduct surveys to evaluate juvenile salmonid populations as
well as assessing pike stomach contents throughout the creek
with promising results.
10:26:30 AM
MS. DUNKER directed attention to slide 22, "Alexander Creek Pike
Suppression," consisting of a map and chart of Adult Chinook
Salmon Returns from 1979 through 2015. When the project began
in 2011, the division was only seeing juvenile salmonids in the
lower reaches of Alexander Creek; however, over the past few
years, the division using minnow traps has documented juvenile
salmonids in pike stomachs further and further upstream.
Currently the division has found evidence of juvenile salmonids,
including Chinook, in pike stomachs in all sections of the creek
upstream to Alexander Lake. The division has also seen an
increasing trend in the number of adult Chinook salmon returning
to Alexander Creek. She focused on the arrowed map and noted
the division has had favorable results in some sites and it
would continue its efforts.
10:27:11 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to slide 24,"Susitna Waters with Active
Netting Programs," consisting of a photo of a pike in a net
dated 6/12/2002, which read as follows:
Alexander Creek
Deshka River
Shell Lake
Chelatna Lake
Whiskey Lake
Hewitt Lake
MS. DUNKER reviewed slide 24, noting the division has been
netting the Deshka River every few years to determine pike
populations in the lower sloughs of the river. She reported
that the Division of Commercial Fisheries and the Cook Inlet
Aquaculture Association have also conducted active pike
suppression programs in lakes and lake outlets in the Yentna
River drainage system, including Shell Lake, Chelatna Lake,
Whiskey Lake and Hewitt Lake. These projects have a goal of
increasing survival of out-migrating sockeye smolts. These
projects have also included studies of pike diets and the data
has indicated that pike diets were comprised primarily of
sockeye salmon during the out-migration timeframe. She said the
suppression programs have been trying to mitigate this.
Collectively there have been many organizations working on
invasive pike problems, including ADF&G, the Cook Inlet
Aquaculture Association, the US Geological Survey, the
University of Alaska Fairbanks, the US Fish & Wildlife Service,
and Tanana Tribal Conservation District. However, the agencies
were still learning about the impacts invasive pike have on
salmon populations. She characterized it as a complex problem
and the severity of impact varies by individual lake and river
systems. She said this presentation has demonstrated the extent
of the pike problem in Southcentral Alaska, but pike were likely
just one of the many factors contributing to salmon population
dynamics in the Susitna River and elsewhere.
10:28:37 AM
MS. DUNKER directed attention to slide 24, "Regional Pike
Priorities by Project Scope," to a table listing Eradication
Projects, Suppression Projects, Monitoring Projects, and
Research Projects.
MS. DUNKER said that within the ADF&G Sport Fish Program that
she oversees, the division has prioritized its projects based on
where it expects to find invasive pike or in the case of
prevention, where invasive pike might be a primary factor. As
the Invasive Northern Pike Control Program transitions within
the Division of Sport Fish to the Northern Cook Inlet Management
Area, the division has been looking ahead to other eradication
projects in the Mat-Su region. The division has been actively
seeking funding for the pike eradication in several lakes in the
Cottonwood Creek drainage, and for a rotenone project in the
lower Fire Lake in Eagle River in the near future to remove its
invasive pike population. Both of these projects would aid the
prevention of invasive pike from spreading via Knik Arm into
vulnerable waters.
10:29:20 AM
MS. DUNKER reported that the division would also be conducting
an initial assessment this summer to begin a new invasive pike
suppression program in the Threemile drainage on the west side
of Cook Inlet. She related that the division recently hired a
new invasive species biologist based in Palmer to lead these
efforts, who will first initiate a standardized survey to
clarify the invasive pike distribution in the Mat-Su region and
facilitate planning of future invasive pike control efforts in
the region.
10:29:44 AM
MS. DUNKER turned to the final slide, slide 25, "Thank you,"
with sponsor logos, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Funding and support provided by:
Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund
Kenai Watershed Forum
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge
USFWS Kenai Field Office
USFWS Conservation genetics Lab, Anchorage
Mat-Su Borough
State of Alaska
MS. DUNKER reported, besides salaries of staff who permanently
work on this project, the efforts within the Division of Sport
Fish have cost approximately $3.8 million thus far. She
expressed gratitude for the support of the ADF&G's partners and
funding agencies, in particular, the Alaska Sustainable Salmon
Fund, which has provided grants originating from the US
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). She estimated that it has contributed
approximately $3.4 million in support of the ADF&G's Division of
Sport Fish and Division of Commercial Fisheries efforts as well
as the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association for its pike
suppression efforts.
MS. DUNKER said the division was also very appreciative of the
2011 funding from the legislature for the Alexander Creek
suppression efforts. She said the $135,000 annual appropriation
has funded the entire suppression program.
10:30:46 AM
CHAIR STUTES related her understanding that invasive pike were
clearly a significant predator of sockeye, coho and Chinook
salmon in the Susitna drainage area. She asked whether that was
an accurate statement.
MS. DUNKER answered yes; that the level of impact was
significant in areas where the salmon cannot easily avoid pike,
but impact was not as significant in deeper waters.
CHAIR STUTES asked whether that could be a large contributor to
the stock of yield concern.
10:32:06 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked for further clarification on project funding,
which she understood was related to Dingell-Johnson funding and
was limited to sport fish areas. She asked whether it would be
helpful if the state would provide additional funding for the
eradication efforts in commercial fishing areas.
10:33:10 AM
SCOTT KELLY, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries (DCF),
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), answered that
additional funding would be welcomed and efforts would be taken
in conjunction with Ms. Dunker's program.
CHAIR STUTES said that it appeared that with the huge success on
the Kenai Peninsula that it would be a "win-win" deal.
10:33:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked Ms. Dunker if the smolt found in
pike stomach contents were normal size and strength or if they
were stunted due to the environment.
MS. DUNKER, in response to Representative Neuman's question on
the size of the smolt found in pike stomachs, answered that it
was hard to say. She said that she was unsure if the division
had noticed any substantial change in sizes of the prey. The
division had noticed the size of pike decreasing over time;
however, she could not speak to the size of the fry or salmonid.
10:35:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN queried why rotenone was not being
utilized in Alexander Lake.
MS. DUNKER, in response to Representative Neuman, said that
Alexander Lake was a very complex system. She characterized it
as being like flying over the expanse of the Everglades. She
said the size made it very difficult for rotenone effectiveness
as compared to using the fish pesticide in a closed lake system.
It would be easy for pike to hide since it can detect rotenone
and get into areas where the rotenone might not penetrate well,
she said. She offered her belief that rotenone would help reduce
to invasive pike, but it would not likely eradicate the them.
She thought it would be costly and pike would likely find their
way back into the lake via Alexander Creek. Thus, the entire
system would need to be treated, she said. She stated that all
the work put into the suppression efforts to increase the
salmonid productively would require a large rescue effort or
that population could potentially suffer mortality. She
summarized that such a program would be costly without a high
level of success to eradicate pike.
10:36:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referenced [slide 8], a map of Cook Inlet
and the affected streams shown in red. The only [state] funding
for pike suppression was from capital funding dollars that he
was able to secure, he said. He pointed out the Dingell-Johnson
Act funding comes from sport fishing license fees (audio
difficulty). He pointed out that the Mat-Su region has eight of
12 salmon stocks of concern.
10:37:53 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether the invasive species Elodia
contributed to pike habitat.
MS. DUNKER said that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
oversees Elodia and that studies have not been done to measure
the association; however, Elodia has the capacity to change
habitat and slow down waterflow, which potentially decreases
favorable habitat conditions for salmon fry and increases
habitat conditions for pike spawning areas. She acknowledged it
was not likely a good thing, but the division does not have
quantitative data to really define the relationship at this
time.
10:38:54 AM
MR. KELLY said Ms. Dunker covered it very well and he did not
have anything to add.
10:39:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he was excited to see the
progress the department has made, and he was particularly
interested in eradicating Elodia by "nipping it in the bud." He
referred to [slide 11], which explained the step-by-step process
of rotenone treatment, to the last bullet "restore the fishery."
He indicated his support for this effort but wondered how it
would work if rotenone were to kill all the fish in the
watershed. He assumed salmon smolt would also die.
MS. DUNKER answered that eradication efforts would be specific
to the project area and the treatment taken. She explained that
the department could restore a small closed stock lake with
hatchery fish. Further, the way the rotenone would be applied,
wild salmon living downstream of the treatment area would not be
affected. Typically, the division does what it can to rescue
native fish that are present. She recalled the 2010 Stormy Lake
treatment projects, noting and that lake still had Arctic char
and other species at the time. The division spent the preceding
months trying to move as many native fish as possible, including
holding some in net pens, and collecting egg cases of the brood
stock and raising them in hatcheries to ensure that the genetics
were preserved. After the rotenone had degraded entirely, which
was confirmed by testing, the fish were returned. She said the
Arctic char and other native fish were doing quite well. She
stated that with the Soldotna Creek project one area did not
have fish, but the second area had native fish, so the division
took a year in between to relocate the fish and mitigated it by
neutralizing the rotenone downstream of the treatment area.
10:41:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether ADF&G would be
giving an additional update on Elodia.
CHAIR STUTES answered no, not at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related he has read some of Toby
Schwoerer's work [Senior Research Professional] at ISER
[Institute of Social and Economic Research; University of Alaska
Anchorage] on Elodia that highlighted the enormous costs if
Elodia was not eradicated. He asked if the department could
speak to eradication efforts and for information on funding and
if additional Dingell-Johnson funds could be directed at this
invasive species.
MS. DUNKER offered that this question would best be directed to
the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. She said ADF&G was
not in charge of the Elodia projects although it does assist
with eradication work, including herbicide treatments. The DNR
has been working on the Kenai Peninsula, the Anchorage bowl, and
in Fairbanks. She related her understanding that the funding
has come from a wide array of sources but DNR could provide more
detail.
10:43:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related his understanding that DNR
does not have funding to meaningfully work on the Elodia issue.
He asked whether it has ever been discussed to have ADF&G direct
Dingell-Johnson funding to work jointly with DNR to eradicate
Elodia.
MR. KELLY answered that has not come to his attention. He
deferred to Ms. Dunker and Mr. Brookover.
10:44:57 AM
MR. BROOKOVER acknowledged that DNR has the authority to deal
with invasive aquatic plants in fresh water. The Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has authority over aquatic
invasive fish species. However, the Division of Sport Fish has
an invasive species program headed up by Tammy Davis, who works
with counterparts in DNR. The ADF&G has a MOU [Memorandum of
Understanding] with DNR that addresses coordination of duties.
He recalled that ADF&G has helped DNR on specific eradication
projects. While Dingell-Johnson funds are constrained to
projects that directly benefit anglers, these funds could be
utilized for Elodia eradication since Elodia infestation has
broad impacts, including impacts to sport fishing. A number of
agencies could become involved, he suggested. The Dingell-
Johnson funds could be used where a clear nexus with sport
fisheries occurs, he said. Dingell-Johnson funds are currently
fully allocated and therefore it would require reductions or
cuts to other areas in order to shift funds to Elodia
eradication.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that it was helpful. He
expressed his gratitude for the ADF&G's work on invasive
northern pike, Elodia and D. vex [Didemnum vexillum] problem in
Sitka's harbor.
10:47:51 AM
CHAIR STUTES inquired about Shell Lake sockeye salmon report.
It appeared that in 2007, 80,600 smolt were released yet only
21,000 salmon escaped. She surmised that the invasive pike were
responsible.
MR. KELLY believed that Chair Stutes was referring figure 2 on
slide 5 of the Shell Lake Sockeye Salmon Progress Report.
CHAIR STUTES answered yes.
MR. KELLY agreed that the survival rates for pre-smolt fall
stocking to spring smolt stocking do vary quite a bit; however,
clearly there was a pike nexus. Pike do predate heavily on
salmonids, he said.
10:49:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN relating to the lack of smolt escapement,
and the low numbers of spawning salmon, offered his belief that
the department has tried to hit the mid-range on its escapement
goals to counter the mortality. He related his understanding
that this effort has been supported by the Board of Fisheries.
CHAIR STUTES thanked the presenters for the presentation.
10:50:36 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:50
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Pike Eradication Update provided by ADF&G.pdf |
HFSH 4/12/2018 10:00:00 AM |
|
| Document on Pike Predation of Sockeye in the Susitna Drainage-Independent Source.pdf |
HFSH 4/12/2018 10:00:00 AM |
|
| Pike Predation and Elodea-Independent Source National Fish Habitat Partnership 04.11.18.pdf |
HFSH 4/12/2018 10:00:00 AM |
|
| 2017 Shell Lake Rpt - Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association provided by ADF&G.pdf |
HFSH 4/12/2018 10:00:00 AM |
|
| Chelatna Lake Northern Pike Suppression Project 2017 - Executive Summary-Provided by ADF&G.pdf |
HFSH 4/12/2018 10:00:00 AM |