Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 124
02/16/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association/adf&g - 2006 Susitna Sockeye Salmon Project[s] | |
| 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
February 16, 2007
8:40 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Lindsey Holmes
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: COOK INLET AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION/ADF&G - 2006
SUSITNA SOCKEYE SALMON PROJECT[S]
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
TRENT DODSON, Fisheries Scientist
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the CIAA component
of the affiliated projects, and responded to questions.
GARY FANDREI, Executive Director
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to association questions
regarding the 2006 Susitna Sockeye Salmon Project[s].
DOUG EGGERS, Fisheries Scientist
Region I, Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the ADF&G component of the
affiliated projects, and responded to questions.
JIM HASBROUCK, Fisheries Scientist
Region II, Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to departmental questions
regarding the 2006 Susitna Sockeye Salmon Project[s].
BOB CLARK, Fisheries Scientist
Region II, Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to departmental questions
regarding the 2006 Susitna Sockeye Salmon Project[s].
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:40:07 AM. Representatives
Johnson and Edgmon were present at the call to order.
Representative Wilson arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW: COOK INLET AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION/ADF&G - 2006
SUSITNA SOCKEYE SALMON PROJECT[S]
8:40:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
an overview of the 2006 Susitna Sockeye Salmon Project[s].
8:41:40 AM
TRENT DODSON, Fisheries Scientist, Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association (CIAA), provided a brief history of the projects,
developed in 2005 to conduct investigative work on various lakes
in the Susitna River watershed system. Proposals generated by
the CIAA, and proposals that were under development at the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), were integrated in a
memorandum of understanding (MOU), for a collaborative effort to
complete two, three year affiliated projects. The first is a
three part project titled "Evaluation of Sockeye Salmon
Production from Lakes in the Susitna River Watershed." Part one
requires the CIAA to collect limnology samples from each of
seven study lakes. The 2006 sample collection is currently
being completed by ADF&G to evaluate whether limnological
conditions in the lakes have changed since the 1980's and
1990's. In response to Chair Seaton, he agreed to provide the
data evaluation report to the committee.
8:44:00 AM
MR. DODSON described second part of the watershed production
project, being handled by ADF&G: Conduct hydro acoustic surveys
of the lakes to establish estimates of the population size, and
mean body size, of juvenile sockeye salmon, and other juvenile
fish, rearing in each lake in the fall, and estimate the age
composition of the juvenile sockeye salmon population. This
encompasses fish that have hatched the previous spring, as well
as some age one, and age two, sockeye salmon from prior hatches.
The CIAA assists with the project's third part, which is to
evaluate whether survivals from potential egg deposition to fall
fry, and from fall fry to smolt, are lower in these seven
rearing lakes compared to other sockeye salmon stocks. The CIAA
is charged with conducting weir enumeration on the adult sockeye
salmon, as well as smolt counts in the lakes; gathered data is
evaluated by ADF&G.
8:45:42 AM
MR. DODSON presented the second collaborative project, titled
"Susitna River Sockeye Salmon Escapement Abundance." The field
work on this project began in July, 2006. The CIAA established
weir operations to estimate the age, sex, and length composition
of the population of adult sockeye salmon migrating upstream of
Flat Horn [Susitna River local], at Chelatna, Hewitt, Shell,
Judd, Byers, Stephan, and Larson Lakes. The department has
already analyzed this data.
8:46:51 AM
MR. DODSON provided two slides [pages 3 and 4 of the committee
handout], to illustrate the general watershed areas, and the
specific sites, used in the study. He reported that ADF&G
operated fish wheel tagging stations in three Susitna River
locations: four at the Flat Horn local, two on Yentna River,
and three at the Sunshine Station local. The fish were caught,
marked with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, and
released or re-released, when recaptured. The CIAA operated
weirs at Byers, Chelatna, Hewitt, Judd, Larson, and Shell Lakes.
Timely access was not gained, to allow a 2006 survey at Stephan
Lake, however the access permits are expected to be in place for
the 2007 season. Hence, data for 2006 was reported from six
weirs: four lakes on the Yentna system, and two on the Susitna
system.
8:50:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked what the funding source was for the
fish wheel operation.
MR. DODSON deferred.
8:50:36 AM
MR. DODSON said that Chelatna Lake is the largest lake in the
system that the CIAA is monitoring. He projected a slide [page
5], which provided the analysis for the species tagged; just
over 13,000 sockeye salmon, and reported that 81 of the PIT tags
were recovered. In addition 130 age and genetic samples were
collected.
8:52:13 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested a description of the PIT tagging system.
MR. DODSON described how a glass transmitter tag, the size of a
grain of rice, is imbedded in the cheek of the fish via an
injection device similar to a syringe. As the fish pass between
the receiver antennas, at the weir site, the encoded number on
the tag is transmitted to a receiver and recorded for the data
base. The transmitter can also be "read" utilizing a hand held
wand, which resembles a small tennis racket, or a large
rectangular device that is integrated into the weir where the
fish swim through. In response to a question, he explained that
a radio tracking tag is larger, with an antennae that is
inserted into the esophagus of the fish. Detection of this type
of tag is accomplished in a different manner, utilizing remote
antennae receivers or equipped aircraft. The radio tag is
particularly helpful for detecting the final spawning locations
of individual fish.
CHAIR SEATON reiterated the two tagging processes, clarifying
the differences.
8:54:26 AM
MR. DODSON continued, stating that the CIAA had no means to tag
the fish, only to read the tags. In order for a PIT tag to be
read, the fish must pass within two feet of a receiver antennae.
Asked for clarity, he explained that detection scanning
techniques varied between weirs. Chelatna, Larson, and Judd
Lakes used weir integrated devices, and at Hewitt, Shell, and
Byers a hand wand was employed. In further discussion, with
Chair Seaton, he explained that the integrated antennae allowed
scanning of 100 percent of the fish, but when using the hand
wand, at Shell Lake, only 1 PIT tag was detected among the
70,000 returning fish. He added that at Shell Lake 14,000 fish
returned in one day, rendering the wand method ineffective. It
is expected that an integrated device will be available from
ADF&G for future use at this lake.
8:56:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the weirs were of similar construction, at
each site.
MR. DODSON explained that the weirs were similar in length, 60-
70 feet, but the designs varied to allow boat traffic where
necessary. To further questions, he stated that the antennae
would be visible in the slide of Larson Lake [page 10], and
responded that the Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe construction is
commonly used to allow motorized traffic to pass.
MR. DODSON provided a series of six slides, presenting each of
the weir sites individually. Each slide provided specific site
information, including: lake specifications, enumeration and
recovery totals, and a photograph of each site. He began with
the weir at Chelatna Lake [page 5], and pointed out that the
workers were not prepared for the unexpected flood conditions
that occurred. Prevention methods and weir design adjustments
will be implemented for subsequent seasons. Hewitt Lake [page
6] required a manual gate to be installed for boat traffic.
This lake is a popular northern pike fishing local, and he
opined that the northern pike may effect the sockeye salmon
population. He reported that he observed northern pike
migrating through the weir along with the salmon. A hand held
scanner was used at this site, and three PIT tags were detected
in the 2,500 sockeye salmon that were monitored. At Shell Lake
[page 7], nearly 70,000 sockeye salmon returned; a surprisingly
high enumeration for this lake. He reiterated that, due to the
use of the hand held scanning device, not every fish was
scanned, accounting for the recovery of only 1 PIT tag.
9:01:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN pointed out that Shell Lake is known to
support a population of northern pike. He asked that, assuming
the northern pike consume the salmonids fry, why would the
sockeye salmon return be at the reportedly high level.
MR. DODSON responded that he cannot account for this
discrepancy, and added that he did not observe any of the
reported northern pike. Next year's sockeye fry and smolt
counts may help to unravel this mystery.
CHAIR SEATON offered that the Division of Sport Fish may be able
to provide the committee with an estimate of the northern pike
population, to satisfy Representative Neuman's question.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN elaborated that northern pike have been
blamed for reduction of salmon smolt, in some areas, but the
CIAA data on Shell Lake does not support that theory.
MR. DODSON opined that the returns would be greater if northern
pike predation was not occurring.
9:03:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON remembered that previous Shell Lake escapements
were lower than the 2006 count, but the enumeration method did
not employ a weir.
MR. DODSON agreed, and stated that stream and aerial surveys
were previously used. One year [unstated], an estimated return
of 45,000 sockeye salmon was recorded, up from an average of
5,000.
9:03:34 AM
MR. DODSON introduced the slide for Judd Lake [page 8], which
yielded 40,000 sockeye salmon, and had 51 PIT tags detected. He
explained that all of the weirs were dismantled early in the
season, due to the college intern work force needing to return
for school. Henceforth, alternative man power will be used, or
interns whose schedules provide more flexibility. Either way,
he said the weirs will be manned into September, as the project
continues. At some sites, the weirs were pulled within days of
when the fish were tagged at the fish wheels; minimizing the
possibility for detection.
9:04:49 AM
MR. DODSON continued with Byers Lake [page 9], one of the
northern most lakes. Approximately 3,000 sockeye salmon were
enumerated, of the 5,000 estimated by ADF&G to return, and no
PIT tags were recovered. The weir was located near a state park
foot bridge, and hikers occasionally opened the weir gates
unwittingly. The weir will henceforth be located out of sight
of the foot bridge. Although the weir was erected mid-July, the
salmon return did not begin until mid-August. The timing
information gained will be used to ensure that the next two
years will be more productive.
9:05:57 AM
MR. DODSON presented the final lake surveyed, Larson Lake [page
10], reporting that 56,000 sockeye salmon were enumerated, and
approximately 700 PIT tags, and one radio tag, were recovered.
The slide provided a photograph of the integrated tag detector.
In response to Chair Seaton, he stated that the fish did not
accumulate behind the weir, despite the device, but passed
through it in a timely manner. He described a beaver dam, below
Shell Lake, which had detained the fish, and once broken-down,
accounted for the mass of 14,000 fish in one day, passing the
weir.
9:08:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired whether information on beaver dams
effecting these salmon runs is available.
MR. DODSON deferred.
9:08:20 AM
MR. DODSON explained the "Summary" slide [page 11], with a brief
analysis of the available data. It provided the enumeration
totals, tags recoveries, and age data, by location. Chelatna,
he pointed out, has a population with a "0" freshwater rearing
component; hatching and exiting the lake in the same year,
returning after 3 years in saltwater. The 92,051 Yentna total,
represents the ADF&G sonar count, contrasting with the CIAA
count of 120,000. There are many other lakes in the system, but
responding to Chair Seaton, he said these were identified by
ADF&G for data collection.
9:10:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for further clarification on the
age data percentages.
MR. DODSON explained the reading of the Chelatna age samples:
11% 0.3 indicates smolt that migrate out of the lake with zero
years of freshwater development, and return after three years of
salt water maturation; 38% 1.2 indicates smolt that migrate out
of the lake after one year of freshwater development, and return
after two years of saltwater maturation.
CHAIR SEATON referred to the diversity in the percentages and
asked what would account for the differences between the lakes.
MR. DODSON responded that, although some of the lakes are only 4
miles apart, there are many contributing factors including
genetic trends and the size the smolt have attained prior to
entering saltwater. He agreed with Chair Seaton that factors
could also include lake depth and size, water quality, and
available feed.
9:12:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted the lack of chum salmon in the
statistical counts, and stressed the importance of this species.
MR. DODSON attributed this to timing. The weir work was
completed prior to the chum and coho salmon migration.
CHAIR SEATON suggested that ADF&G may be able to clarify the
timing of species migration.
9:14:27 AM
MR. DODSON presented the final slide [page 12], which identified
the Susitna Project Budget and Funding. He explained the three
year time frame for the budget expenses; totaling $746,893. The
funding sources were: CIAA - $40,000, Southeast Sustainable
Salmon Fund - $210,000, State of Alaska $200,000; totaling
$450,000. The request to the state was for an allocation of
$500,000. The remaining $300,000 could be allocated, over the
next two years, to complete the project.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN explained that the $500,000, directed to
the CIAA, is part of a $1,000,000 grant, secured by the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley legislators for this three year study.
This grant also includes $500,000 for a "Fisherman's
Satisfaction Survey."
9:17:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that this study helps to address the Cook
Inlet issue of managing the Susitna River drainage. It has long
been a concern that the drainage is not producing salmon, and
issues have arisen when in-season management called for closure
of the commercial fishery. The study thus far, indicates a lack
of accuracy regarding ADF&G fish count estimates, and generates
questions regarding the statistics the department uses to manage
this fishery.
9:19:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN interjected that the Yentna is a large,
murky river, possibly effecting the accuracy of the ADF&G
counts. Additionally, he provided previous count totals, and
the commercial fleets catch activity to suggest a direct
correlation.
CHAIR SEATON stipulated that the counts reported in the overview
clearly indicate a significant difference in totals. However,
he opined that it would be premature to draw definite
conclusions. A better understanding should result when three
years of data have been collected and analyzed.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that this is the purpose of the
study. He offered that this study will not only enumerate the
fish population, but also encompasses genetic studies, scale
studies, and a compilation of ten years of previous data.
9:21:42 AM
GARY FANDREI, Executive Director, Cook Inlet Aquaculture
Association (CIAA), relayed that the CIAA request for $500,000
was "above and beyond" the $1,000,000, requested and received by
ADF&G. The CIAA was allocated $200,000, leaving the agency with
a $300,000 shortfall, to complete the three year study.
CHAIR SEATON stressed the importance of the CIAA aspect of this
study. He opined that the escapement and limnological studies,
on each of these lakes, are necessary components for formulating
a comprehensive and effective management plan. Observing that
the automatic sensors [integrated detectors] appear to be the
most effective means to detect the tags, he asked what the
additional expense would be to have these at each site.
MR. FANDREI agreed that the automatic sensor is a key piece of
equipment, particularly when a large number of fish are present.
It would be ideal to have one of these sensors on each weir,
however, at a set up cost of $3,500 each, it is out of the
CIAA's budget realm.
CHAIR SEATON clarified the need to implement four additional
integrated tag detectors, and stated that it would be "penny
wise and pound foolish" not to investment in this essential
equipment.
9:27:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired what the "life" expectancy is
for these devices, and whether there are units available from
other state projects.
MR. FANDREI responded that the antennas are a sturdy piece of
equipment, certainly viable for longer than the life of the lake
study. Further, he stated that equipment availability inquiries
have been made to ADF&G.
9:28:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what is involved in setting up the
detection devices, and whether the labor and logistical costs
are prohibitive.
MR. FANDREI explained that crews of three to five workers
construct the weir, and, primarily for safety reasons, a two
person team mans it throughout the season.
9:29:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested information on the budget
percentages regarding the equipment and salaries.
MR. FANDREI agreed to forward the information to the committee.
He stated that the initial budget outlays are for equipment
setup. Once established, the budget primarily covers salaries,
non-durable supplies, and remote site logistical costs including
flight contracts.
9:30:14 AM
DOUG EGGERS, Fisheries Scientist, Region I, Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
said that he is not directly involved with this project, however
he is familiar with the departments operational plans, and
related activities from the 2006 season.
BOB CLARK, Fisheries Scientist, Region II, Division of Sport
Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, (ADF&G), identified
himself to the committee, and offered to respond to questions.
JIM HASBROUCK, Fisheries Scientist, Region II, Division of Sport
Fish, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), identified
himself to the committee, and offered to respond to questions.
9:31:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested that the ADF&G biologists comment on the
collaborative effort, involved in the project, as well as the
different equipment and data collection methods utilized.
9:32:09 AM
MR. EGGERS relayed that the mark [tag] and capture methods are
an effective means to obtain useful escapement statistics on the
fish populations of large, complex watersheds. The same methods
are used throughout the state. He explained the logistical
relationship between the department's three tagging locations,
and how the fish tagged at Flat Horn are recaptured at Sunshine
[Station] and Yentna. This "built in" redundancy factor is used
to establish population escapement estimates between the three
marking areas. The upstream, CIAA weirs provide additional,
important, management data. During the 2006 season, tag
recovery data was minimal, due to the premature dismantling of
the weirs, but, as previously reported, future plans will remedy
this shortcoming. The preliminary data, he confirmed, indicates
a larger escapement than ADF&G had previously been able to
assess utilizing sonar. The final data analysis is still
undergoing stratification, however.
9:35:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON addressed the Shell Lake return estimate of
[69,000], with [one] tag recovered, and asked how a population
analysis can be compiled on this type of sampling.
MR. EGGERS ascertained that the Larson and Chelatna Lake weir
sites enumerated a large escapement, and recovered a usable
percentage of tags. He predicted that those data will provide
confident estimates. As the capability for tag detection is
improved, a full sampling from each weir site will afford a
better analysis. Responding to a question, he described again
the tagging and detection process. He added that the tag signal
is emitted constantly. In locations where a small weir is used,
a hand wand is more effective. The large run at Shell Lake was
not anticipated, and the hand wand was inadequate. Further, he
stated that the weir integrated device provides 100 percent
detection.
9:39:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON queried what information is provided by a
tag.
MR. EGGERS responded that each tag holds specific information on
an individual fish including: length, other biological
characteristics, and where it was tagged. On request of Chair
Seaton, he described the differences of radio, floy, and PIT
tags. He explained how the range of the radio tag allows it to
be detected by a remote riverside tower, or receiver equipped
aircraft. The disadvantages are the cost, approximately $200
each, and the heavy battery, which may influence the behavior of
the fish. The tag is injected into the stomach cavity, with the
antennae extending from the fishes mouth. The battery is
designed to outlast the final stage of the life of the fish. He
explained that the PIT tags are the size of a grain of rice,
have a smaller battery, are injected into the body or cheek
cavity, are less intrusive to the behavior of the fish, require
less handling during insertion, and the recovery process is
easier and faster. Finally, Mr. Eggers described the floy tag
as being similar to a piece of spaghetti, pinned through the
fish's dorsal fin. The floy is a visually detected tag. Once
the streamer on the tag is sighted, a technician must handle the
fish to read the floy tag and record the data. These tags are
not used in this type of passive enumeration project.
9:43:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired about the reuse possibilities of
the expensive radio tags. Further, he suggested that an
entrepreneur might create a cottage industry of locating and
returning the tags, if the department offered a reward.
MR. EGGERS said that whenever the tags are recovered, or turned
in by fishermen, the battery is replaced and the tag reused. A
reward system has not been established, however. In response to
an inquiry he reiterated the unique fish data contained on each
tag.
9:46:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON established that the weirs at Larson, Chelatna, and
Judd Lakes each had integrated detection devices, high return
counts, and significant tag recoveries. This contrasted with
Hewitt, Shell, and Byers Lakes, where the tag recoveries were
minimal to none, and the fish count, save for Shell Lake, was
also low. He asked how the variability of the sample and tag
recovery is being handled for analysis purposes.
MR. EGGERS reiterated that the timing for dismantling some of
the weirs was premature, and acknowledged the tag detection
problems that occurred. He deferred to Mr. Dodson for follow-up
questions.
9:47:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON queried how the timing to man the weirs
was determined.
MR. DODSON restated how the student intern schedules played a
key role in the 2006 season, and how other arrangements are
being made for the subsequent seasons.
9:49:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the sockeye salmon migrate to
these lakes on different schedules.
MR. EGGERS responded that run timing does vary. Also, time must
be allowed for the fish to migrate from the tagging site to the
weirs.
9:49:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the coordination effort
between the downstream tagging, and the weir enumeration, and
asked if there was appropriate collusion to foster success of
the tag recovery effort.
MR. EGGERS assured the committee that the goal is to tag a
representative proportion of fish in the run with the
expectation that the tag recovery will allow an appropriate
sampling and adequate data for analysis. The tagging occurs
seven days a week, 24 hours a day, during the migration, to
accomplish this task.
9:51:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that the ADF&G effort is
adequate and the CIAA aspect needs further refinement to provide
the follow-up data for analysis.
MR. EGGERS commented that the population marking proportions are
monitored, and the biases are accounted for, in the final
analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that he would like to further
understand the accuracy of the data being processed, and he
asked if there appears to be a correlation of fish returning to
specific lakes in the system.
MR. EGGERS stated that the purpose for using the radio telemetry
devices, is to answer that question. These radio tags will
provide information on the distribution of fish throughout the
Susitna system.
9:53:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that it is his understanding, from the
initial study proposal, that a statistical confidence would be
attained by tracking 500 radio tags. The number has been
adjusted to 100, or one fifth of the scientific design, and he
asked if that will effect the significance of the statistics.
9:53:44 AM
MR. HASBROUCK stated that he did not recall a plan to deploy 500
radio tags in one year, but rather over the course of the study.
He opined that this will allow adequate spawning distribution
information on the areas sockeye salmon.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether each weir should have an automatic
antenna.
MR. EGGERS stressed the importance of scanning each fish, and
granted that an integrated device provides that opportunity.
CHAIR SEATON inquired if ADF&G has the ability to provide the
needed devices, and whether $3,500 is the actual cost.
MR. DODSON relayed that $2,500 is the cost for the antenna and
an additional $1,000 is for the solar panel that provides the
remote power supply.
9:56:06 AM
MR. HASBROUCK, said that the department does not have surplus
PIT tag detectors, but he opined that the purchase of four
additional devices would be "doable."
CHAIR SEATON emphasized that the committee is in agreement for
the CIAA to be supplied with four additional integrated
detection devices. He stipulated that the department will be
prepared to account to this committee, should the devices not be
made available. He went on to ask what proportion of the total
Susitna watershed system is being surveyed by the study of these
seven lakes.
MR. CLARK relayed that the radio telemetry aspect of the three
year study is designed to answer that question. To Chair
Seaton's follow-up he said that, when Stephan Lake becomes part
of the survey, the major sockeye salmon producing lakes, of the
Susitna watershed, will be covered by the study.
9:59:22 AM
MR. FANDREI reported how past studies have estimated that these
seven lakes contribute 80-85 percent of the sockeye salmon
population produced in the Susitna River system. Trinity Lake
and the adjoining Movie Lake have been documented to have
occasional substantial sockeye salmon runs, as well. The CIAA
workers observe these runs, when they are conducting beaver dam
patrol and fish are backed up behind the dams, en route to these
lakes.
10:00:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON emphasized the need to purchase the
relatively inexpensive equipment; integrated detection devices.
He stressed the need for this equipment to insure critical,
usable data.
CHAIR SEATON noted that the [weir enumeration] work, being
undertaken by the CIAA, has not been fully funded by the state.
ADF&G is not doing the weir work. Fish and game have been
allocated money for the tagging aspect, but the tag recovery has
a $300,000 shortfall.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked where that appropriation "lives."
MR. FANDREI responded that the funds received have come from a
specific legislative grant, directly to the aquaculture
association, from the Department of Commerce, Community, &
Economic Development.
CHAIR SEATON opined that funding $1,000,000 to tag the fish and
not providing funds to recover the tags, is counter productive.
10:03:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked about the Susitna watershed beaver dam
issues.
MR. FANDREI explained that the CIAA has run a program to
regularly survey areas that are susceptible to beaver dams.
This has been a chronic problem for a number of years, and with
the last three or four dry seasons it has proven critical. The
agency workers will locate and "notch" a dam, but within 24
hours the beavers complete repairs. The last two years, he
reported, there have been significant mortalities of fish
downstream of these dams, due to the low water and high
temperature conditions.
CHAIR SEATON suggested that the beaver dam issue may need to be
reviewed by ADF&G, and operational procedures developed to help
remedy the situation.
10:06:25 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:06
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|