Upper Columbia United Tribes Report Regional Northern Pike Forum February 17, 2021

Overview The purposes of the February 17, 2021 Upper Columbia United Tribes Regional Northern Pike (N. Pike) Forum were: • Draw attention to the urgent risk that invasive N. Pike pose to our native and endangered fish populations. • Share information regarding the current distribution of Northern Pike, the risk they pose, and what can be done to minimize that risk and prevent their spread. • Highlight policy level opportunities and challenges, and the vital need for a coordinated regional policy response. • Present a Call to Action at the technical and policy levels, and in educating and communicating with your constituencies. Desired outcomes were: • Increased regional awareness regarding the threat posed by N. Pike. • Identify individuals and entities who are willing to participate in planning, coordination and eradication efforts. • Launch next steps. The forum was sponsored by the Washington Invasive Species Council and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. One hundred and twenty-one individuals registered to attend, with between 90 and 116 individuals on the call at any given moment. This report includes: • Session 1 – Technical perspectives: learning about and managing invasive northern pike • Session 2 – Policy perspectives: opportunities, challenges and questions • Session 3 – A call to action • Attachment A – Forum evaluation • Attachment B – Contact information and introductory notes (where provided) for everyone who registered for or attended the forum. • Attachment C – Summary of the responses to the pre-forum survey. A recording of the forum will be available for viewing or download until April 2, 2021: • https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/1RvI228QR-ToRZ32UmGWjSF9ZOI- aElM4i5CFl4VnMGuKINducN42lflBPdxqAwV.FOcadqhqySTmZrLL • Passcode: wAha.Ah4 Technical Perspectives: Learning About and Session 1 Managing Invasive Northern Pike

Laura Robinson, Policy Analyst for Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) presented the following:

• The following UCUT member presentations will share information on suppression and monitoring efforts. • The UCUT are committed to protecting, preserving and enhancing cultural resources for the benefit of all people. • UCUT is actively investing time, energy and resources into the N. Pike issues. • The goal is to protect the resource of Tribes and others in the basin.

• UCUT members include: o Coeur D’Alene Tribe (ID) o Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (WA) o Kalispel Tribe of Indians (WA) Kootenai Tribe of Idaho o Spokane Tribe of Indians (WA)

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 2 Joe Maroney, Director Fisheries and Water Resources with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians shared the following information:

• Historical range of N. Pike and expansion of N. Pike from 1948 through 2020. • In last 60 years N. Pike have dramatically expanded beyond their native range • With expansion of N. Pike has come increased awareness of the risks, especially in the Columbia River Basin and Pacific Northwest.

• In the last 3-4 years there have been multiple meetings, and development of web tools and other resources. • What happens if N. Pike get into anadromous zone. • N. Pike are a priority within UCUT.

• UCUT prioritizes the management and eradication of N. Pike within UCUT territories. • And advocates for similar activities in native and non-native waters.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 3 • Map with geographic location of UCUT Tribes. • Red dots are areas where member Tribes are dealing with N. Pike.

Nick Bean, a fisheries biologist with the Kalispel Tribe shared the following information:

• The Kalispel Tribe is working in the Washington state portion of Pend Oreille River in the NE corner of Washington state. • The Pend Oreille River originates at an outlet in Lake Pend Oreille in N. Idaho, and travels through Washington, terminating just north of the Canadian border as a tributary to the Columbia River.

• The southern portion of Box Canyon reservoir is adjacent to the Kalispel reservation and has the most extensive N. Pike habitat. • The northern section is more riverine with less N. Pike habitat. • Pike habitat includes shallow flooded vegetation that is critical to spawning, rearing, and foraging. • Boundary reservoir is north of Box Canyon. • The Boundary Dam facility is operated by Seattle City Light. • Operations are different from Box Canyon. • Seattle City Light runs power peaking • The Kalispel Tribe’s work focuses on two operations with daily elevation changes of reservoirs. several feet.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 4 • Box Canyon is the largest reservoir. • This operation limits N. Pike habitat in that • It is the southernmost, furthest upstream, system. and largest.

• Completed multiple population estimates, standardized survey work, diet studies, bioenergetic studies to understand the population, scope, and scale of problem. • The Pike population expanded in a matter of a few years from several hundred in Box Canyon to over 10,000. • The Washington State and the Tribe coordinated to address the issue. • Over the last decade they have implemented targeted suppression efforts. • This has included setting numerous gillnets in March and April to target pre-spawn N. Pike in • The Kalispel Tribe and State of Washington their spawning locations (SPIN surveys). first detected N. Pike in the Pend Oreille • Established abundance targets for each River, in box Canyon in 2004 during a warm reservoir i.e., the desired target to get the water survey. population below. • At that time, less than 30 N. Pike were • Reevaluate every year with a spring Pike index captured. netting survey to monitoring pre-suppression • Engaged in an active monitoring effort over populations and current populations. next several years.

• In 2010-2011 pre-suppression had very high abundance of N. Pike. • In surveys seeing 12-13 N. Pike per net on average. • Engaged in active suppression. • In 2012-2015 averaged 1,000 gill nets per year set over 2-3 month period in spring. • Eliminated close to 5,000-6,000 N. Pike per year. • Relative abundance during the survey dropped dramatically from 2011 to 2012. • Subsequently had some very successful year classes, which were targeted. • Box Canyon reservoir is about 89 km long. • Took about 3 years to get the population to an • The black line in the graph is the abundance acceptable level. monitoring survey for the core area. • Reduced effort starting in 2016 from average • The grey bars are the number of N. Pike 1,000 to 300 nets per year during spring removed annually starting in 2012 and suppression efforts. through 2020. • Have been able to maintain population below • Dashed blue line is CPUE target to get Pike CPUE target since 2013. back to early detection numbers.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 5 • Knocked CPUE down to 1 fish per net. • Similar effort in 2018. • Establish 0.5 fish CPUE threshold in this system. • Since 2018, have decreased effort in that system and maintained population well below threshold. • Boundary reservoir has less habitat available. • Between the two reservoirs have caught about 19,000 N. Pike. • Lots of upfront efforts, about 6,000 gillnets in both systems but once you’re over the hump it is possible to keep the population low enough to minimize the impacts. • Current plans are to maintain suppression in • Initially didn’t think N. Pike would establish these key reservoirs. Determine level of effort in this system. needed based on catch rates and SPIN surveys. • But around 2016 found that anglers were • Plan to continue ongoing annual SPIN surveys catching a lot of N. Pike. to maintain low levels of N. Pike. • Conducted SPIN survey in 2016 and started some suppression effort. • In 2017, conducted extensive suppression effort and removed 300 N. Pike.

Jon Firehammer, a fisheries biologist with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe provided the following information on N. Pike suppressing in Lake Coeur d’Alene:

• Lake Coeur d’Alene N. Pike suppression is implemented by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe to support recovery of native freshwater salmonids. • The emphasis of the supression work is on recovering depressed populations of adfluvial Westslope Cutthroat Trout.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 6

• Localized strategy based on assumption that the N. Pike populations residing in the shallow waters around the lake are relatively independent of one another with little movement among populations. • Assume there will be a lack of colonists to repopulate areas we were trying to deplete. • This approach has been supported by the data as being an effective strategy. • Use gillnets deployed in spring and fall when N. Pike are concentrated. • Tribe is primarily responsible for conducting netting efforts. • Map shows two primary watersheds • However, this is a cooperative venture between supporting adfluvial cutthroat populations, Tribe and Idaho Department of Fish and Game Lake Creek and Benewah Creek. (IDFG) since fisheries in Lake Coeur d’Alene are • Rather than attempt lakewide erradication, co-managed by both entities. used localized extraction in shallow bays • The supression effort has removed about 1,370 where there is high potential for spatial N. Pike in Windy Bay from 2015-2020. overlap between different life stages of • About 2,000 pike in Southern end from 2019- migratory Cutthroat and N. Pike. 2020. • Strategy first initiated in Windy Bay in 2015. • The Southern end of Lake Coeur d’Alene has a • Expanded strategy to southern end in 2019. lot more shallow, weedy habitat.

• Windy Bay is a success. • Prior to 2015, the percentage of outmigrating juvenile Cutthroat Trout that survived to return as spawning adults averaged only 1.6%. • Since starting N. Pike removal in 2015, return rates have increased to about 6.5%. • The open circle in the graph is the juvenile cohort that left in 2018. • It only represents fish that have returned within two years after outmigrating. • Many fish require about 3 years to mature. • Expecting additional fish from the 2018 year class coming up this spring to further elevate the overall resturn rate. With higher cutthroat return rates, seeing more fish coming back each year.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 7

• In spring, most fish moved eastward to widely distributed spawning areas.The larger circles represent areas where most of spawners were concentrated. • One area of high concentration was a location about 10 km up the St. Joe River called Hepton Lake. • This was unexpected and presented a challenge because Hepton Lake is outside the localized supression area and can’t be effectively gill netted. • The extent of spawning and nursery habitat in this backwater was greater than the main body • The southern end was more challenging. of the southern end of the Lake. • There’s a much greater expanse of suitable • Hepton Lake is major source of N. Pike pike habitat. production for this part of Lake Coeur d’Alene • Started suppression efforts with a radio • Instead of gillnetting decided to inhibit adult telemetry study to evaluate concentrations pike in the spring from accessing Hepton Lake. of N. Pike seasonally to help focus removal • Developing engineering designs to elevate the strategies. breach in the river levee to disconnect Hepton • Tagged N. Pike in fall 2018. Lake from the St. Joe River. • Found them overwintering primarily in deep • Using a two pronged approach, gill netting in water portions of the suppressions area. spring and fall and also blocking major spawning area.

Holly McLellan, a principle fishieries biologist with the Colville Confederated Tribes shared the following:

• Lake Roosevelt is 241 KM long. • It is the reservoir behind Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. • Fisheries in Lake Roosevelt are co-managed by the Colville Tribes, Spokane Tribe of Indians, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). • Below Grand Coulee Dam is Rufus Woods reservoir, which is created by Chief Joseph Dam on the western side of the Colville Indian Reservation. • Chief Joseph Dam currently blocks the movement upstream of both anadromous and resident fish.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 8

• In 2014, the first N. Pike was observed in the fishery. • In 2015, started seeing increased N. Pike abundance in both fisheries surveys and the fishery. • Captured the first juvenile in 2015, which confirmed we had a reproducing population. • Managers began diverting funds to address data gaps. • We formed a Lake Roosevelt technical team tasked with developing a Lake Roosevelt specific N. Pike suppression and monitoring plan as well as seeking additional funds to • In Lake Roosevelt, the first N. Pike was support the program. captured in 2007 during a standard fishery • In 2017, we had our first year of full survey. suppression, which has been implemented • Between 2008 and 2013 only a few pike annually since. were captured during surveys.

• The WDFW, specifically Chuck Lee and his team, lead this part of the project. • The Colville Tribes leads the eDNA monitoring at 70 sites in the upper Columbia River, and conducts stranding surveys and otolith microchemistry studies. • All agencies participate in active suppression throughout the year. • We use a variety of gear types depending on the time of year including gillnets, setlines, seine nets, fyke nets, and boat electrofishing. • In addition, the Colville Tribes manages a Reward Program that offers $10 per pike head • The Suppression and Monitoring Plan that to anglers. the technical team developed included: • This enlisted the public with helping protect monitoring, research, suppression, and Lake Roosevelt. public outreach. • We prioritized public outreach within the plan. • Prioritized an annual reservoir-wide survey • We felt that is was important to have a to gather information related to abundance, consistent message across all agencies. distribution, age and growth.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 9

• The surveys initially took place only in the upper reaches, shown in the black bars and the lower portion of Lake Roosevelt was added in the fall of 2017. • The mean CPUE has been slowly increasing over time, with a high of 3 fish per net in the upper sections in 2019 with low densities of pike detected in the lower sections of the reservoir. • WDFW has conducted multi-year analysis on these datasets and determined that the fall period is adequate to detect the changes in abundance for the monitoring plan. • Moving forward, this survey will take place in the fall only. • Standardized gillnet surveys have been • The majority of fish captured during these ongoing since the spring of 2015. surveys are ages 0 and 1, represented by the black and red bars on the bottom graph.

• The two red dots in the Kettle River are known spawning locations of pike, as you move upstream, the pike abundance decreases in the Kettle River. • In the lower portions of Lake Roosevelt, there are only a few weak detections which represents what we see in the gill net surveys. • So far no positive detections have occurred in Rufus Woods or below Chief Joseph Dam. • If this trend changes, we will begin diverting more suppression work to the lower portions of the watershed. • The area below Chief Joseph Dam is of great • eDNA is used as an early detection tool to importance to fisheries managers. monitor for the arrival on northern pike into • Our colleagues at Douglas PUD are also new areas. conducing eDNA sampling in this area. • The green dots indicate no pike DNA was • Together we are monitoring these sites once a detected, yellow indicates a weak signal, month all year long. and red is a very strong signal.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 10

• The majority of N. Pike are still found in the upper reaches of the reservoir. • The red dots represent the highest concentrations of pike and are likely key spawning areas. • The black or open circle dots are gill nets that did not capture any pike. • The majority of suppression occurs in the upper reaches, but we expend about 25% of time in the lower reaches to make sure the densities are low and we remove fish that are attempting to expand their range. • Grant PUD funds the work in the lower reaches, • Since 2015, the co-managers of have which is much appreciated. removed over 16,000 N. Pike from Lake Roosevelt.

• In addition to regular suppression work, our technical team wanted to find a way to utilize the regions N. Pike experts and their resources in Lake Roosevelt. • In 2019, we organized a one week intensive gillnetting survey during the peak N. Pike spawning period. • Enlisted the help from the Kalispel Tribe, Chelan PUD, Grant PUD and the National Park Service. • Together we set 475 nets and removed 448 pike during this week. • We had hoped to repeat this in 2020, but COVID prevented that. • We are hoping to plan another multi-agency event for the spring of 2021.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 11 • Since 2017, the Colville Tribes has given out over $30,000 to anglers in the form of VISA gift cards. • We had an increase in participation in 2020, likely due to people having more free time during the pandemic. • We currently have 5 drop off locations for anglers, which are freezers with information and supplies to participate in the program. • Pick up weekly. • Freezer was idea from Jon Firehammer and we’ve modified it to suit our needs.

• Overall the majority of N. Pike are removed with gillnets, the blue bars in this graph. • However, the Reward Program accounts for 20% of the overall removal. • This program is cost effective and engages the public with our project. • We see a lot of value in the publics involvement. • We plan to continue the reward program.

• Since 2015, have seen pockets of N. Pike being stranded on the large mud flats that are exposed during the Lake Roosevelt draw down every spring. • This typically occurs in March when the reservoir reaches around 1260 elevation. • These stranding events can be quite large, on March 4 of last year, staff collected 404 N. Pike in one pool. • The majority of all the stranded fish are non- native fish. • Primarily pike, but also Perch, Carp and Tench. • Because these events are targeting non-native fish and to not appear to be affecting native fish, this might be another way to reduce the N. Pike population in Lake Roosevelt or other

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 12 reservoirs that experience a deep spring draw down.

• Our colleagues in the mid-Columbia are also developing similar signage. • Each agency has their own media outlets, so we provided similar material to these staff who then broadcast it on to their social media and newspapers outlets. • We also developed a handout that showed anglers where we capture the most pike to encourage their participation (also freezer and drop off locations) • Public Outreach can take a lot of time, so we were fortunate to have the help of other agencies that specialize in public outreach. • Ensuring the public is properly informed • Specifically, Justin Bush from the Invasive with the facts and supports our program is Species Council worked hard to develop a key to ensuring its success especially with Northern pike sticker. the local communities. • We provided these stickers to our creel clerks • Our technical team felt very strongly about who handed them out to the angling making sure we had a unified message for community. the public. • This was another way to reach the general • We started by developing similar signs that public who might not be engaged on social are posted at all of the park service and media. tribal boat launches.

• For Lake Roosevelt, plan to continue to implement our program through 2025, at which point we will do a multi-year analysis. • All reports on CB Fish. • Also another layer of people working on flowering Rush in lake Roosevelt and at the mouth of the Okanogan river. • They have been determining where flowering rush pockets are and removing them. • We will continue to seek regional support for our program as well as funding.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 13 Joe Maroney, with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, provided the following summary:

• 2011 - WDFW Fish and Wildlife Commission votes to declassify N. Pike as a game fish and keep on WA prohibited species list 2014 – N. Pike observed in Lake Roosevelt recreational fishery • 2015 – N. Pike on Top 50 list for Washington Invasive Species Council • 2015 – Regional suppression efforts initiated in Lake Coeur d’Alene, ID • 2016 – N. Pike on “Top 100 Worst List” for Oregon Invasive Species Council • 2018 - Pacific NorthWest Economic Region Forum Coordination Meeting • 2019 – N. Pike elevated from Prohibited level 3 to Prohibited level 1 (WAC-220-640-030) • 2019 - NPCC and WISC N. Pike Policy and Outreach Webtool

• 2018 Western Governors Association (WGA) risk assessment survey. • Outreach to all WGA states. What are top 10 worst species – terrestrial and aquatic? • Northern Pike ranked at #7 • 17 states participated. • Not just a WA issue. It’s a lot bigger than that.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 14 Laura Robinson, UCUT shared the following:

• A Tribal Resolution is a formal document in which the Tribal governing body expresses its legislative will in accordance with applicable Tribal law. • In this case, a resolution is a policy mechanism utilized by UCUT to express the consensus positions of its Member Tribes on matters that affect the welfare and rights of UCUT Member Tribes. • The UCUT Northern Pike Resolution states that Northern Pike is an aquatic, non-native, prohibited species that poses a serious threat to the natural resources of the Tribes, and that • As you can see, the UCUT Tribes work to manage this issue, the UCUT Tribes will diligently to suppress current invasive continue to develop consistent management Northern Pike and prevent further spread of and policies throughout the upper Columbia these populations. region. • Given the threat of Northern Pike and the • It goes on to say that adequate funding for this importance of this issue to the Upper work is a high priority and that the UCUT Columbia United Tribes, the UCUT Commission advocates all appropriate agencies Commission passed a resolution in June of to fully fund the prevention, control, and last year. eradication efforts of Northern Pike.

• The UCUT resolution has seen broad support, resulting in letters from the Upper Snake River Tribes, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. • In addition, UCUT received statements of support from: o The Invasive Species Councils of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife o Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board o Chelan Public Utility District

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 15 • Simultaneously, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe passed a resolution in September that amended their Tribal code to classify N. Pike as an invasive, prohibited species within the Coeur d’Alene Tribes’ Reservation, and to make it illegal to have a live N. Pike in your possession on the reservation or any Tribally-managed waters.

• In October, 2020, UCUT brought a resolution on N. Pike to the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, also referred to as ATNI. • ATNI represents 57 Northwest Tribal governments from Oregon, Idaho, Washington, southeast Alaska, Northern California, and Western Montana. • The resolution passed through ATNI with no objections, signaling the importance of this issue.

• That concludes our presentation. • Hopefully you have a better understanding of the technical pieces of this work as well as the progress that has been made, particularly in recent years. • We hope that given the political momentum on this issue and the regional interest, which is evident in the number of participants in today’s forum, that we as a forum can work together to make broader impacts to save natural and cultural resources from these voracious predators.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 16 Questions and Answers

Blaine Parker – When will the Coeur d'Alene Tribe and IDFG start a similar effort on the Q: outfall of the St. Joe Watershed?

Jon Firehammer – I assume they are talking about conducting a suppression efforts in the A: lower part of the St. Joe River where it enters Lake Coeur d’Alene. That work I mentioned in Hepton Lake is to block off those spawning grounds and eliminate that major source of production. It one of the first steps the Tribe is taking to eliminate some of the threat of N. Pike in that section. We are not only concerned about Cutthroat Trout populations, but also migratory and adfluvial Bull Trout that are coming down from the upper St. Joe watershed and using the lake as adult rearing habitat.

Andy Dux – I concur with John. The biggest reason we’ve been supportive of N. Pike Suppression in Lake Coeur d’Alene is that not only do we recognize the benefit to Cutthroat in Benewah Creek, but also the benefits this work may have to migratory Cutthroat and Bull Trout in the St. Joe system. That is important to us.

Steve Parker – Is CPUE increasing due to increasing fish abundance or increasing fishing Q: efficiency, i.e., familiarity with gear and sites?

Holly McLellan – In Lake Roosevelt it is an increase in population, we’re seeing in our other A: surveys in Lake Roosevelt and in the fishery over the last couple years. In 2020, we saw a decrease in the number of N. Pike observed in the fishery as well as some of our other surveys. It is documented in multiple types of surveys.

Nicole Jordan – Do you have suggestions on educating anglers with COVID restrictions? Q:

Holly McLellan – We have a Lake Roosevelt-wide creel survey that happens all year round. All A: three agencies participate. Our protocol for the creel right now is they stay 6-feet apart and they are still engaging with anglers. We’re doing that but we’re not touching any of the fish right now. We are also doing social media (Facebook, etc.) We also use newspaper articles, podcasts, etc.

Blaine Parker – Has the Tribe or WDFW thought about Judas fish in Lake Roosevelt at this Q: point given the size of the system and ability to use radio tagged fish to key in on spawning locations or hot spots where fish are wintering? Could you use that technology to increase catch rates?

Holly McLellan – All three agencies have talked about doing an acoustic tracking study or radio A: telemetry study. We’re limited on funding especially out of the gate in the beginning when there was no funding. We started out just doing what we know how to do. If we had more funding we would do a tracking study. We’re not there yet. The eDNA sampling we do in the spring actually allows us to sample a lot of areas and home in, in the spring to where they’re spawning.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 17 Theresa Thom – Broadly across the region, have known and potential nursery and spawning Q: habitats for N. Pike been mapped, and priorities established for monitoring and/or suppression?

Nick Bean – From the Kalispel perspective, in the Pend Oreille River if you run into less than 2- A: meters of water and off-channel habitat with flooded vegetation you’re going to find N. Pike. They are that effective at finding habitat. Don’t know about Lake Roosevelt, it is probably similar in Lake Coeur d’Alene. We have successfully mapped all that water, but we’ve reduced the number of N. Pike so that they don’t currently hold Pike. When the population peaked they were in every nook and cranny in that reservoir. As far as priorities for monitoring suppression, our priorities have always been to target the densest population areas. We don’t only target the hot spots during spring months. We give those areas a higher level of effort than other areas but we try to target the entire reservoir.

Joe Maroney – About a year ago I gave a presentation on Flowering Rush. A question they asked at the presentation was what were areas N. Pike would inhabit. I got on Google Earth and started drawing polygons around potential areas of concern and those were the areas where there were concerns with Flowering Rush. That leads to another question someone had about the relationship between Flowering Rush and N. Pike. There’s been some really good work up in the Flathead where they’ve documented that Flowering Rush increased N. Pike abundance.

Matt Neufeld – From the perspective of the Canadian side in the Columbia, I’m trying to get Q: a handle on the importance of control efforts on the Pend Oreille since it makes a small loop through Canada. If you think about the Columbia mainstem, we saw a similar trend in what looked like more significant N. Pike abundance and a pretty modest netting program on that Columbia section drove catch rates down pretty quickly. In the Pend Oreille, we don’t understand what’s going on as well. There’s entrainment, the Upper Columbia portion in Canada is seeing poor Pike recruitment, but still we are seeing them there. How important are the control efforts on the Pend Oreille that we’re engaging in for the overall approach on both sides of the border?

Nick Bean – We’ve worked with you in the past on that. I know you have conducted some A: efforts recently in that small section of the Pend Oreille in Canada. The take home is that this is a larger effort and we all need to do what we can to control our part within our waters. We’ve done everything we can to reduce the numbers to where we hope we’re not sending you fish on a regular basis. We’re trying to limit entrainment. Obviously it has already occurred. I do think it is critical. If we can maintain these populations to a very low point as we progress through the system and we can all get the numbers down, we won’t allow them to repopulate and expand again. Holly has done some work on the origins of those fish in that system.

Holly McLellan – I looked at some of the otoliths that were collected below Castlegar Dam from our Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA) partners. You had some fish that stayed up there and never really left. There were about 10% that went upstream from the Pend Oreille and hung out and were captured close to Castlegar. There were also a few fish that hung out up

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 18 there and then went down to the states to the Kettle River. We know we have a lot of regional movement. We do need to continue suppression in the Pend Oreille.

Q: Rick Boatner – Where is the location of the N. Pike data point in Oregon?

Joe Maroney – It is data from 1994. It's only 1 data point and unless ODFW or someone else A: found N. Pike since, I would maybe call it a misidentification. It could be a Grass Pickerel. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/SpecimenViewer.aspx?SpecimenID=40640

Blaine Parker – Holly, that looks like a positive eDNA at or below Chief Joseph dam, please Q: explain.

Holly McLellan – The red is the color we used for Chief Joseph Dam. I should pick a different A: color.

Tom Dresser – The Priest Rapids Project is located approximately 144 river miles below Grand Coulee Dam. We have conducted course level aquatic macrophyte surveys throughout our project area (58 river miles of Mid-Columbia River). We also are using eDNA and other monitoring efforts to monitor for the occurrence on N. Pike. To date, no Pike have been documented.

Stan Gregory – UCUT managers have found that the effectiveness of N. Pike suppression Q: efforts differs substantially in different reservoir morphologies, habitat types, ice conditions, vegetation, etc. Have UCUT and its cooperators considered developing a guidance document for suppression methods and analyses in the upper Columbia?

Holly McLellan – We have not done this, but we have learned that certain techniques work A: better is certain reservoirs.

Robert Massengill – One speaker described upcoming plans to cut off access to a Pike Q: spawning lake with some kind of barrier, could the speaker describe the barrier. Curious if barrier design will stop all water discharge or just fish movement.

Jon Firehammer – The plans for addressing the breach in the St. Joe River levee are to increase A: the height of the breach by bringing in rock to re-build the levee. However, there will be screened pipes incorporated into this structure where water can passively move out of the backwater or even be pumped out. I don't know if that answers your question, but our engineer probably would be able to give you more info.

I didn't present too much on our netting results in the southern end but the telemetry did indicate that pike that moved up the Joe to spawn, actually moved back to the main body of the lake in summer and early fall. So even if we can't get them with our netting in the spring, we can get them with our fall netting. In fact, we have found pike in the southern end to be more concentrated in the fall. Thus, with our netting and the blocking off of Hepton, we are hoping to depress pike in the southern end and eliminate the predation that may be going on in the lower end of the St. Joe River on migratory salmonids. Designs involve reconstructing a

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 19 levee that breached during 100 yr. floods in 1996. The repaired levee will allow flood flows to still access the floodplain at the 2-3 year return interval flood, but also allow water to be drained from the site so that any pike entrained during high flows would become stranded and removed.

Matthew Corsi – Jon Firehammer did a nice job of showing early population responses in Q: conservation target species (cutthroat). Have other regional managers observed positive population responses from fish folks are trying to conserve?

Nick Bean – Within Box Canyon Reservoir, WDFW and the Kalispel Tribe conduct standardized A: warmwater surveys on a rotational cycle every few years. This has allowed us to monitor a large part of the fish assemblage prior to N. Pike invasion, during the peak of suppression efforts, and now where we are with a depleted pike population. The WDFW is currently working on a manuscript that describes these surveys (since 2004) and multiple species responses through that timeframe. This by no means is a survey of native salmonids per se, yet it gives us an idea of how the general native and non-native fishery has responded, both in terms of pressure applied by pike and their respective response to our suppression efforts. Unfortunately, migratory native salmonids are challenging to monitor due to their low relative abundance and lack of connectivity due to impassable dams such as Albeni Falls. I can get you in touch with WDFW staff biologists for more specifics if you are interested.

Stacy Horton – Holly, can you discuss more about how the stranding comes about in March- Q: is this coordinated through the Bureau? BPA? What's the opportunity for use of stranding as a tool?

Holly McLellan – This isn't coordinated, it is just happening due to the regular drawdown A: scenarios. We are watching the key periods and trying to determine what are the key elevations this is occurring at. We are hoping that eventually we will collect enough data to model this event. If this works out, maybe we can work to incorporate this into reservoir operations.

We saw a significant decline in nearly all species except Tench. Native minnows declined to a point where they appear to not be recovering. Interestingly, Largemouth Bass took a substantial hit but seem to be coming back. We are also seeing an uptick in Walleye and Smallmouth Bass, which is likely reflective of what you folks have observed upstream in LPO. The various panfish are very resilient and seem to be gaining ground as well.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 20 Session 2 Policy Perspectives: Opportunities, Challenges, and Questions

Panel Introductions

Justin Bush (Washington Invasive Species Council) I am honored to be part of this forum. I am the executive coordinator of the Washington Invasive Species Council (WISC). The WISC is tasked with policy direction, planning and coordination for combatting invasive species in Washington and preventing the introduction of others that may be harmful. Fisheries and habitat in Columbia River Basin have many problems today. Northern Pike is a problem we can take decisive action on to prevent millions in annual impacts and losses. By working together we can prevent impacts to a significant portion of the Columbia river as well as ensuring that suppressing efforts upstream preserve fisheries in those areas. I want to thank the UCUT for convening this forum. There are many opportunities to work together to overcome these challenges. Cody Desautel (Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation) I am the natural resource director for the Colville Tribes. I oversee all the natural resource programs including Fish and Wildlife so I know that many of the questions that we will answer speak to part of the things we will cover in the introduction but in general the tribe is taken a suppression approach to pike management understanding that eradication would be great but it's probably not a realistic possibility. I'm sure holly probably mentioned a number of the efforts that were taken in a previous presentation that I missed. We have co-management responsibility on the River with the state and Spokane Tribe of Indians and have coordinated with a number of different funding agencies to help in that suppression effort. Thanks a lot Tom Dresser (Grant Public Utility District) Thank you for allowing me to participate on the panel today. My name is Tom Dresser, I am the fish, wildlife, and water quality manager for the public utility district number two in Grant County. Like my title says, I am responsible for implementing the suite of environmental stewardship responsibilities we have related to fish, wildlife, and water quality. The Priest Rapids project, for reference for folks that may not be familiar with where we're located, we're actually in what we refer to as a mid-Columbia River. We own and operate two dams between River miles 397 and 453 so that's about 144 miles downstream of Grand Coulee Dam. As a reference point I also want to want to mention that sitting on this panel today I'm representing the other two PUDs upstream of Grant PUD that is Chelan PUD and Douglas PUD. I think Bill Towey (Chelan PUD) and Andrew Gingerich (Douglas PUD) are also on the Forum today. Collectively between our three entities we operate five hydroelectric facilities between River miles 397 and 545. It is a pretty large chunk of the mid-Columbia. All three PUDs have aquatic invasive species management plans. That is either a requirement of our FERC operating licenses or required for 401 certifications or as part of a settlement agreement. In a broad sense those management plans or monitoring plans include some really key parts that folks have touched on today already, basically monitoring and early detection. We all have various resident fish monitoring programs. We do annual maintenance activities at the project facility so those are all part of what I would refer to as early detection. Holly did a great job of giving a shout out to the PUDs. We do participate in suppression upstream of us through either through direct funding in the case of grant PUD,

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 21 and working with a collective of co-managers which we refer to the Priest Rapids Coordinating Committee. That group represents Tribes, federal, and state entities. Chelan PUD also provides crews to operate on the reservoir. There’s a lot of work on the suppression side, and we do education which has been referenced throughout the presentation so far. We work with local and regional folks from all three PUDs. We are at an active player in the region. Kristine Dunker (Alaska Department of Fish and Game) Hello and thank you for the invitation to be part of this panel. This meeting has been great so far. My name is Christine dunker I'm an invasive species biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game division of sport fish. I head up our invasive N. Pike program in South Central Alaska. I'm based out of our Anchorage regional office. To explain the situation here, N. Pike management in Alaska is quite complex. Pike are native species through most of this state, they occur naturally North and West of the Alaska mountain range. You can roughly think of this as North and West of Denali National Park. South central Alaska, which I'll very generally define for this purpose as South of the Alaska range does not have any native N. Pike populations. Pike were illegally introduced from their native range in Alaska into south central Alaska beginning in the late 1950s. Today they are considered an invasive species because they are very widespread and they have high predation on salmonids. In some cases so much so that it has resulted in extirpation of their populations. In Alaska, the sportfish status of Pike more or less delayed the states response by several decades. But today we are fully immersed in Pike suppression and eradication where possible. I mentioned that we have them very widespread throughout the south central area. We have confirmed them in roughly 150 waters. Our management is pretty adaptive pending local site conditions. Our partner agencies and Fish and Game have several long term suppression projects that are currently ongoing. These primarily involved gillnetting N. Pike. We've also eradicated over 20 different populations piscicide rotenone. Public support for these actions can be pretty variable. Generally most people are supportive of culling Pike to benefit salmon however there is a strong Pike fishing contingent here in Alaska and certainly those folks would rather see Pike managed as a sport resource rather than an invasive species. That's an ongoing challenge. The area where we are working in south central Alaska is spatially very expansive. A lot of it is highly interconnected large wetland landscapes and this limits the feasibility of what we can achieve with eradication using rotenone. We recently determined that Pike are capable of using Cook Inlet and migrating to areas under low salinity conditions. That's opened up a whole new area of questions. We’re trying to figure out how to combat dispersal. Other challenges include funding and permitting for management. That is always are complex here. Funding is limited regardless. Funding for research is even more difficult and there are a lot of unanswered questions and things that we're trying to learn in collaboration with our University partners here. The status of Pike both as a native species in much of Alaska and as an invasive species in south central Alaska is a complicated topic for the public to digest, especially as it pertains to regulations for fishing for Pike, and understanding the states management regimes in the two distinct ranges. Andy Dux (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) I am Andy Dux, the regional fishery manager for IDFG in the Idaho Panhandle region. This is the only region in Idaho where we have northern Pike. We've had northern Pike on the landscape here since the early 1970s when they were illegally introduced. We now have N. Pike throughout the Coeur d’Alene Lake system including the lake itself and adjoining waters. We also have Pike in the Pend Oreille Lake system and adjoining waters. There are also roughly half a dozen lowland lakes within our region with N. Pike.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 22 Since Pike were first introduced we've recognized the species is a threat to it the aquatic systems. Our primary approach to managing Pike over has been to promote angler harvest and minimize the potential for additional illegal introductions. We've engaged in outreach to promote N. Pike harvest, we have unlimited bag limits on N. Pike, and we do not allow fishing tournaments with live ones. We have seen N. Pike become very popular with anglers and we typically receiving angler exploitation rates in the neighborhood of 30 to 40% so it does appear that angler harvest is at least playing a role in helping to keep populations in our region at generally low to moderate density rather than high density. But angling alone certainly hasn't been enough to address the threats of the Pike. Where it's practical and necessary to protect other fisheries we’ve looked at suppression as a management tool. This was mentioned earlier but we're collaborating with Coeur d’Alene Tribe on localized suppression of Pike in two areas. In addition, we're suppressing N. Pike in Lake Pend Oreille as part of our Lake Trout and Walleye suppression programs. We do not at this time specifically target N. Pike with a Pike-specific suppression program, but any fish that we catch in our other suppression efforts are removed from the population. A challenge we faced is we have seen an angling constituency developed for N. Pike. Many of these anglers want us to manage in favor of Pike, as a result we have challenges associated with trying to find the balance between managing against Pike and minimizing threats from Pike. We are also trying to provide sport fishing opportunity and develop angler acceptance for programs that we may need to implement to target Pike suppression. Another challenge we have is that two of the systems where Pike are established are big open systems. These are large water bodies and being able to tackle suppression at that scale is a real challenge both biologically and from a resource availability standpoint. Another challenge is just trying to understand the impact northern Pike are having in these waters is a challenge. Certainly Pike are well recognized as being a predation threat to both native and other desirable non-natives. But trying to really understand in which situations Pike are the limiting factor for these populations relative to other factors is a challenge. Lake Pend Oreille is an example where we have Lake Trout and Walleye which are also non-natives that are even bigger issues in that system the N. Pike. Certainly we have concerns about N. Pike now that we're seeing them become a little more abundant in recent years. But it makes it difficult when you have multiple species that that you're trying to manage against. B.J. Kieffer (Spokane Tribe of Indians) Good morning everybody! Tom, I'll give you a shout out, we appreciate all the help that you have provided to stop these Pike up here in Roosevelt. My name is B.J. Kieffer, I’m the Department of Natural Resources director for the Spokane Tribe. I would like to add to what Laura was talking about on some of the resolutions that were have been passed by the Tribes. In 2012, the Spokane Tribe passed a resolution on non-native invasive species classification where we list Northern Pike. We reclassified those as a nongame invasive. What that allowed us to do, we removed the protections and then exempted some of the things that are required if you catch a fish from our Chapter 17. Basically, it's kill them. We're not even telling Tribal members you have got to take them home; we’re saying just kill them and leave them. One of the things that we heard once we identified that northern Pike were in the system, when we started going around the basin, what we kept hearing is this is a “you” issue not an “us” issue. What’s encouraging about this forum is I think people are starting to take this more seriously. This is an “us” issue, not just a Spokane, Colville, WDFW, or Lake Roosevelt issue. It's a regional issue. The Spokane Tribe's main goal is suppression - eradication and to keep these fish out of that anadromous zone. Currently the Spokane Tribe doesn't have anadromy yet. But we are doing what we can to make sure that these fish don't get into that anadromous zone because it will raise a lot more problems downriver. Appreciate everybody's attendance and I look forward to some of the discussions.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 23 Joe Maroney (Kalispel Tribe of Indians) My name is Joe Moroney, I'm the director of fisheries and water resources for the Kalispel Tribe. The Kalispel Tribe has been dealing with N. Pike for the past 17 years. Since they showed up in 2004, we've been advocating about the seriousness of this issue. It’s been well over a decade from the time when Pike showed up, to when we first started doing suppression activities. We began full blown suppression activities in 2012. We saw a fishery within the Pend Oreille River between Box Canyon and Albani Falls dam (a 55 miles long reach) literally flip flop in a span of three years, and that was all directly due to northern Pike. They ate everything. Particularly if you have soft fins and if you're shiny, you go first. That's one of the messages that I've been conveying to folks for the last 10 plus years. That's why I'm so concerned about these things, and everybody should be, about them getting into your water body. It's not just a matter of if, it's a matter of when they will get in your waters. I'm excited to see this effort with this forum take place. When we first started these suppression efforts there is nobody in the lower 48 that was really doing it. There were some folks within Colorado. Luckily we reached out to our friends up in Alaska with Dave and also Kristine. They helped us with what do you know, what are you doing, how are you doing it, and what works. We adapted from there and I think we've been able to zero in on effective suppression efforts. The results of what the Kalispel Tribe has been doing is showing that it can be done. I think that one of the biggest messages. Angelo Vitale (Coeur d’Alene Tribe) It's good to be with all of you today. I am the fisheries manager for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe. I think we've heard some great presentations this morning and I wanted to acknowledge how complex the management landscape is for N. Pike. There are all these biological as well as political, policy, social, and cultural dimensions, to their management. We certainly are challenged with dealing with all of those sort of complexities in the Coeur d’Alene Lake system. As Andy Dux eluded, the Pike here have been well established following their illegal introduction over 40 years ago. That, in and of itself is a layer of complexity that requires tackling the challenges from a lot of different directions. At the Coeur d’Alene Tribe we regulate tribal member as well as non-tribal angling within the exterior boundaries of the reservation. Our regulations and management policy have been quite consistent over the years. Beginning in 2001, Pike have not been classified as a game fish in tribal waters, and unlike a lot of the other introduced non-native species that are present, that means that there are no provisions in the tribal code for wasting Pike. For example, it was a very common practice for tribal members to just catch Pike and leave him on the bank and that's perfectly fine and good from our perspective. In addition, because of that classification there were no limitations on the usage of different gear types to catch Pike. Although I don't know that there's a great many anglers that take advantage of catching Pike with these other methods. More recently, you heard in other presentations, we've just amended our are regulations to classify Pike as a prohibited invasive species, and also to make it in fraction to be in possession of a live Pike. We know that there are catch and release fishery's going on and that's still allowable within tribal waters. But what we want to emphasize with our most recent regulation update is that we want to discourage transport and moving these fish around the system. That's been significant challenge over the years starting with the 1970s introduction of these fish. The other things that we are focused on the social cultural aspects of management we tried to tackle that in a number of forums as well. We've hosted an angler reward program for three years that was being conducted simultaneous with the Windy Bay Pike suppression effort that Jon Firehammer described earlier. This reward program preceded the expansion of our suppression work down to the southern end of the Lake. Also, we conducted an angler survey in 2017 that was very instructive in describing angler interests in management and their support of management

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 24 programs. If we have time later on I'd be happy to get into some of the details of those efforts. That's kind of the management landscape that we're juggling. Questions and Answers

Moderator – From your perspective, what challenges prevent development of a Q: comprehensive regional plan for managing N. Pike? How could those challenges be overcome? Tom Dresser – From my perspective I think one of the one of the challenges we have is just A: the multiple jurisdictions we have do inhibit the free sharing of information, or the development of a comprehensive plan. I can speak to Grant PUDs specific requirements. We ultimately, as well as the other two PUDs ultimately answer to FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). They really drive a lot of the things that we do and basically hold our feet to the fire. That does create some silos and does make it difficult to work across multiple jurisdictions and boundaries. That does inhibit. One way we do get through that is in forums like this. We do have requirements to coordinate and collaborate with local and regional stakeholders, which we do. But that's an area that tends to get overlooked. I can speak for Grant PUD and myself, we really focusing on our particular project area and our specific requirements. That's what we're really held to. Justin Bush – I think that a comprehensive plan for the Columbia River Basin is critical. If you look at the geographic Pike footprint in the basin, there are so many organizations that have jurisdiction over a small component. There needs to be a holistic look at the issue and a strategy for where to implement suppression programs knowing they can't be implemented everywhere. Where will we be putting those pinch points in place. As well as teeing up what a rapid response looks like on the fringes of that infestation. Over the past five years the WSIC made a lot of progress in partnership with tribal governments and state agencies, teeing up emergency measures and rapid response to a detection in the anadromous zone. Joe Maroney mentioned Pike are now classified as a prohibited level one species across the state. From my perspective the stand in the hourglass is really running out and it's just a matter of time before there is a detection whether through the eDNA or a body in the Columbia River below Chief Joseph Dam. Without a comprehensive plan I see this going one of two ways, one the incident will be considered an environmental emergency and unified response team between different jurisdictions will work together to take swift and decisive emergency measures for the goal of eradication of that pioneering population. Or, two the occurrence will be poorly communicated with agencies and partners, with little or no rapid assessment or response, leading ultimately to probably a long-term and likely underfunded suppression program for the goal of suppression. Speaking to that I think we've got one opportunity to work together to light the fuse and protect anadromous zones specifically, and that is going to require a comprehensive approach. Kristine Dunker – We're actually in the process of developing an interagency invasive N. Pike plan for south central Alaska right now. We have a large Pike committee that's made up of various organizations from state, federal, NGO, University, and tribal organizations. They are all together in this committee as part of our Alaska invasive species partnership. We started this effort late last fall, early winter, and we put together a subcommittee to work on this management plan. We developed an outline that everybody agreed to. We divided it up into smaller teams to focus in on subject areas. We hope to have the plan function as a “how to”

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 25 manual for everything Pike in south central Alaska when it's completed. It's loosely following the invasive species curve in terms of its design. There are going to be chapters on prevention, rapid response, containment, and management within those S.O.P.s to trying to standardize suppression efforts. How to standardize kind of outreach messaging, how to standardize all these various pieces that we as a committee agree upon. It's in the works right now, there are challenges to it, but I think in the end a management plan like this is going to be huge in terms of alignment across agencies. I think it's a great idea. I’ve got this Alaskan effort ongoing, but I would be happy to help as well in any regard with the plan being developed for your area. Cody Desautel – When we look at the difficulty in sharing information across different organizations, that difficulty exists from a funding standpoint too. We don't have an adequate, consistent funding source identified, so we have a hit and miss approach. When we have funding available, we can coordinate that work and find creative ways to move funding across different agencies. But that doesn't happen consistently and I think there's going to be a lack of engagement or commitment until that happens. Andy Dux – We're certainly open to coming to the table and having some conversations about what this might involve. Just recognize some of the challenges that we're going to be faced with. I think we would really need much better understanding of why the plan is needed, and what specifically the objectives of a plan like this would be. We have a statewide fish management plan that really guides our management. A comprehensive plan developed through this group would need to be consistent with our state management plan. The plan we're talking about here, the scope of that plan is important, depending on the scope that will determine if we need to go through a public involvement process. Would need to get Commission approval from the IDFG Commission? It doesn't mean we can't get there, but those are things that that really are going to influence any kind of involvement we would have. I think it just require a lot more detail in terms of what we're really shooting for here.

Moderator – Some of you have angler constituencies for N. Pike which also may pose some Q: challenges for addressing invasive Pike. What thoughts do you have about how that influences efforts to develop a comprehensive plan to manage N. Pike? What can be done to help? Andy Dux – Certainly the angler piece of has to be considered in any kind of management A: action that potentially would be addressing N. Pike. Particularly things like suppression northern Pike. Those types of programs have to have public acceptance to get them off the ground. Coeur d’Alene Lake is an example where, as Angelo mentioned, an angler opinion survey that was done. By and large there was pretty good support for doing N. Pike suppression work. As we ask some of those questions that's really important, but at the same time you may also have groups of anglers who are going to be very motivated to not see those types of things get done and are very vocal about it. It doesn't take many of those folks to potentially prevent acceptance and even halt these types of programs. We saw those things happen in the early days of the Lake Trout suppression on Lake Pend Oreille. We have large-scale support for that work, yet we had a relatively small group of people who were very vocal, got the year of a legislator, and ultimately that led to us having to shut down our program for a period of time. Those are all things that definitely are going to have to be addressed even in places where we have pretty large support for doing these types of things.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 26 Angelo Vitale – One of the things that was useful for us was to commission the angler survey to better understand not just the Pike angler constituency in our system, but the broader angling constituencies that we are trying to work with. It was very enlightening to see in a random survey of license holders that the angling public ranked five species in Coeur d’Alene Lake as most important for provision of a productive fishery – Pike was a distant sixth in that long list of species. As Andy indicated you know we have we perhaps have a small constituency of interested Pike anglers but overwhelmingly the angling public is supportive of native fisheries and suppression efforts. Another specific example from our angler survey we found that 68% of anglers that were surveyed approved of the localized suppression efforts that we were conducting and windy Bay that John referred. Moreover more than two anglers approved of expansion of those kind of efforts for every one angler that said they disapproved of expansion of suppression. It's important to understand the constituents and I think there are some things that may be hidden in in you know when you have a discussion just with one individual or one of those constituencies out there. Joe Maroney – That was one of the struggles that we had early on when I first came into the Pend Oreille. You have an area that was really kind of starved for a fishery, there weren’t a lot of fishing opportunities for boats. Then N. Pike came on the scene and then the fishery exploded with a small group of folks. It was like Angelo and Andy were talking about, they were very vocal. Then when both the state and the tribe determined that Pike were a problem and not an opportunity, that was when we did our outreach and education. We had you know several public meetings. I won't kid you they weren't you know fun meetings! When you have angry people that are wondering why are you getting rid of northern Pike when there hasn't been a fishery in the Pend Oreille for quite a few years. You have to start telling that story of what the risks are of doing nothing. The risk is, you know we have two FERC licenses and you have millions and millions of dollars being spent. We have fish passage that's happened on Box Canyon. Fish passage on Albany Falls and Boundary dams. I mean literally hundreds of millions of dollars that's geared towards native fish. Then the second part of that is our concern about these things getting down into the anadromous zone. If the Kalispel Tribe had not begun suppression efforts in 2010 and just let it go for the first few years, you would see a much worse problem in Lake Roosevelt than what they have right now. Talking to anglers you let them know they're part of the solution, they're not the problem. You can convey that message to them, let them know there is a risk of doing nothing. B.J. Kieffer – Justin and Cody tied into this little bit, the funding issues, the crisis mode. I look at this and I think okay, if quagga and zebras ended up on Grand Coulee Dam, there would be millions of dollars thrown at that to stop that invasive species. I don't like the regional management concept. When you start talking management that's when you want to try and keep him there and harvest them. I'd rather use the term regional eradication program. The problem is the funding currently that the Spokane's and Colville’s and WDFW are getting, it's for specific items to try and take care or address the problem in Lake Roosevelt. Without any additional funding it would be tough for me to redirect our fisheries funding to start doing an eradication program here when that money is all tide up for actually on the ground work. I just feel there are some agencies whose heads are in the sand because they don't have to deal with the problem until that problem becomes their problem. Once these fish get in the anadromous zone is when you will see the millions of dollars thrown at these fish. They are not there yet, so it's not an issue for people downriver. I'll start with this story and then I'll stop. Joe Maroney is talking about Kalispel Tribe, so back when they first started they said ‘hey, we’ve got a problem’. Deane Osterman, their DNR director, hit me up and said, ‘hey we

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 27 found N. Pike, you guys need to be aware of this.’ I said that's your problem not mine. They'll never take hold in Lake Roosevelt with the ramping up and down and the drawdown during the spring. Low and behold they show up here. So we’re telling people downriver that you better pay attention… [note B.J.’s internet went down, when he was able to return, he finished up]… so I just want to give everybody up a heads up downriver from me. If we don't put a concerted effort to keep them above Chief Joe and Grand Coulee dams, it will be your problem soon. Tom Dresser – B.J. really hit on the core issue. It really doesn't become “our problem” collectively until it shows up in Grant PUDs backyard or someone else’s backyard. I probably didn't articulate it really well but, how does this group continue to push hard to get the political folks to take notice because they probably won't take notice until it actually starts occurring in the anadromous zone. From Grant PUDs perspective, and I'm assuming the other PUDs, we've spent millions and millions of dollars, good dollars, to get to a condition that we refer to as ‘no net impact,’ so that we're fully mitigating for the impacts of our project operations in the form of hatchery compensation, tributary funding, and multi-million dollar capital and operational changes at our facilities. I didn't do a very good job of stressing our concern that Pike are going be here. I think Justin said it well, it's not if – it's when. It's coming. Want to definitely emphasize that from Grant PUDs perspective. We do support a comprehensive plan. I think one of the comments that I think B.J. was making, there's several players that need to be at the table. There's more than one vector at least for our project area, as it relates to Pike coming downstream. There hundreds of miles of irrigation return systems that feed back into the Columbia downstream, within our project area and downstream of our project area, that that I'm concerned about. I suspect that is how Pike are going to make it into our project area, through one of those vectors. Charles Lee (Audience Member) – Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk. I'm a fish biologist with WDFW. I've worked with Justin a little bit as far as messaging for our agency and our stance on N. Pike. I appreciate Joe Maroney and the Kalispel Tribe doing the legwork and the coordination we've done with them in the past, and the Lake Roosevelt co-managers as well. We've done a lot of coordination to address northern Pike in FDR. But really the Kalispel Tribe did a lot of the legwork initially to address the issue, and to address the public outreach, which made it a lot easier for the co-managers begin and to get more support for our efforts to remove and suppress N. Pike. Holly did a really good job of summarizing the data, what we're doing, and the approach that we've taken on Lake Roosevelt. It has been a challenging road from the beginning because of the lack of funding. We've done everything we can to coordinate and get things going. We've tried a lot of different things to find success. I think recently we're starting to see some success and then Covid hit and set us back a little bit this last year as far as suppression efforts. But with the coordination that we're doing on like Roosevelt, it seems that we have a common message that we are putting out to the public. That messaging is that N. Pike pose a threat to fish populations in Lake Roosevelt and downstream from the dam. That message was initiated by the Kalispel Tribe upstream, and now we're having the same discussions about Lake Spokane on the Spokane River, which is downstream of Lake Coeur d’Alene where we have an established N. Pike population. We're beginning to address that area too. Last year was our first efforts at Lake Spokane. We put the majority of our efforts in the spring of last year in Lake Spokane. It was closer our warehouse and with Covid travel restrictions it just made more sense to put our efforts there. The WDFW had challenges as far as funding goes and securing funds to contribute to

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 28 suppression efforts on Lake Roosevelt and surrounding areas. We've done what we can WDFW is now put forward a pretty substantial amount of funding for this year. Our intentions are to put a substantial amount of suppression efforts on Lake Roosevelt as well as Lake Spokane again this year. Plan to continue spreading that message again that N. Pike are a problem, not an opportunity. Hopefully we'll start seeing with the pressure we're putting on those populations, that the abundances decline. Still it's taking a lot of coordination and a lot of effort to coordinate our efforts across agencies with a similar message for public outreach and to see success. Just want to thank you for putting this together. I think getting all of us together so that we can share those ideas, and get our efforts coordinated.

David Graybill – How can I help with public outreach? Q: Holly McLellan – This already happens, but we need more public outreach about all the A: competing management challenges in the basin. We also need the public to understand that funding is finite, and each issue (like Pike) that doesn't get dealt with quickly will become a long term competitor for that limited pot of funding. Justin Bush – This is something I was thinking about when I was hearing Holly McLellan speak about the great outreach that they're doing, as well as addressing some of the questions in the Chat from the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. How can we amplify messaging? Maybe that's an outcome, Alison, if you'd be willing to compile emails. If participants who would like to join like a communications list. Maybe we could connect all of our organization’s communication staff together and make some kind of interagency communication team. There's a lot of great outreach happening, but it's relatively uncoordinated. If it's just a matter of us zapping communication folks an email asking to share something, I think folks would be happy to do it. If Alison would be willing to step up and wrangle that I would love that.

Session 3 Call to Action

The meeting moderator invited the forum participants to respond to a series of interactive questions. Question 1: In your view, what is most important? • Policy leadership and coordination • Technical Innovation and Information sharing • Education and outreach • Policy and technical • Technical and education • All of the above

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 29

Question 2: What needs to happen at the policy level (to address the risks posed by N. Pike)? Why? Coordinated, consistent response • It needs to be coordinated and consistent across jurisdictions. • Coordination and common language between all management agencies • Close coordination to improve efficiency and standardize language. • Needs to have a coordinated approach to get best results out of resources • A coordinated response from all entities involved. • Coordination to implement a monitoring and removal program for the entire Columbia River Basin. • Without coordination between all managers you won’t get buy in or funding international coordination • Everyone needs to sit at the table together and have honest and frank conversations about obstacles and then work together to compromise/overcome them. This will help with consistent regulations and messaging and funding. • Coordinated approach and consensus on priorities regarding fisheries • Fish don't care about borders. Coordinated and consistent management approached across states. • Coordination between all entities across the basin • Coordinated effort with similar goals • Focused Coordinated approach • Coordination • Coordination Funding • Get Northern Pike added to the Safe guarding the west legislature, this will give us access to more federal funding.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 30 • Political/Agency/Organization buy in. So there’s a focused approach and funding commitment • Funding and coordination of removal programs and monitoring. • Co-managers need to seek their own funding • BPA and NPCC need to establish funding for management monitoring and research • Realize it's all our problem and fund it • Funding commitment to monitoring and removal. • Organize and fund a combined approach. • Legislative Support- Money • BPA Support- Money • Regional commitment of funding • Funding support where needed • Funding agencies need to acknowledge this as a priority and fund management monitoring and research. • Prioritize funding and coordinated message • Prioritize funding • Prioritize funding • Guaranteed annual funding • A commitment to funding • Secure consistent funding • Funding certainty • Funding support • Funding support • Funding commitment • Funding • Funding • Funding Policy • Consistency with policies regarding Northern Pike, so that they may be eradicated • Consistency in policy across agencies • Consistent policy across all states and jurisdictions • The managers in the PNW states need to implement consistent policies across the states. • A broadly accepted policy that opens opportunity for funding, action, and coordination to address the expansion of Northern Pike. Without this we are all doing our own thing and funding is not adequate to address even the current distribution. • Coordination across IS and conservation policy and programs • Consistency of policy among agencies. Without this, agencies treat AIS differently. • Meaningful leadership from some coordinated, central entity. political pressure needed for that. • List out the barriers to developing consistent policy across agencies and a plan to solve them. Suppression, removal, eradication • Coordination of removal programs and monitoring. • Concurrence with making N. Pike a priority for suppression and funding. • Policy related to punishment of transporting invasive species already exists, and if it is not enforced, it is not useful. However, policy that mandates suppression or funding for will help make gains against expansion of Northern Pike

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 31 Protect anadromous zone • Stop pike from reaching anadromous zone • A consensus that Northern Pike pose a serious threat to resident native fish populations and anadromous fish. • Continued piecemeal approaches will not stem the tide of N. Pike towards salmon habitat. • Good communication & consistent policy across agencies Public education, communication • Try and get the general public to understand the impact that NP could have on native fish. • Increase the value put on native fish species • Outreach-Long-term Support • Continued communication • State agencies need to have better coordination and management of their constituents • Having a good educational strategy with lawmakers that unites the needs of all regions Recognize N. Pike are a problem • Consistency of policy across states. Not all states feel pike are a problem. • Consistency in classification of pike as prohibited species across regional jurisdictions to help regional action implementation • All states and tribes need to classify N. Pike as prohibited species, which would remove any protection. • Consistent definition of the invasive species threat, and strategic use of resources • Add Northern Pike to AIS species list like zebra mussels. This will open up funding options. • Lack of concern until pike are in local watershed Research • Support for research to better understand whether pike impacts will be localized or global, and where suppression will and won't be effective for reaching management goals. • Funding for research as well as suppression and eradication Variety pack • Don't forget about Canada • Identify who is responsible for the mitigation of invasive species. • Form committees to spearhead various technical elements of the policies • Ignorance and short term political views. Paradigm shift to thinking long term • Agreement on when there is an emergency and actions that will be taken for initial response

Question 3: What is the VERY NEXT thing to do at the policy level?

Regional strategy, rapid response • Regional resolution among agencies, tribes and other jurisdictions • Prioritize northern pike management (prevention, monitoring, eradication) for funding across agencies - tribal, state, federal • Discuss a regional response strategy to downstream spread and initial actions • Regional response strategy

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 32 • More regional engagement, and quit thinking it’s just a local issue • Agreements for rapid response between agencies • Regional response coordination and strategy • Proactive strategies for areas not yet effected and eradication plan. • A consensus amongst the States, Tribes, Federal agencies, and private organizations on initiating the development of a regional plan. • Bring together the policy and decision makers to develop a regional response strategy. Leadership and policy level coordination • Identify lead agency • Determine who needs to lead this • Engage national policy makers - this is an issue throughout areas of North America and needs broader support. • Communication from the political realm to the funding community on the importance of eradication. • Convening policy folks to chart a path forward. • Ensure that all parties that have management responsibility on the Columbia engage in this process. Even if they aren't traditionally fish managers. • Align goals across agencies, be realistic • Increased funding is nice, but without consistent management across the Columbia basin, each state will only do what is important for them. • Policy to get downstream partners on board N. Pike classification, existential threat to anadromous fish and other native fish • Pike are a top level threat, this is an eradication program • Need a common goal of saving and anadromous fish • View of NP as sport or game fish. Education on invasive species and their impacts to native species and ecosystems. • Consistent classification at the regional level • Make it a regional focus Funding • Commitment from agencies and committed funding • Federal cost share program • Fund work to suppress northern pike • Provide more funding for on the ground work • Secure continuous funding • Secure funding • Secure funding and outreach • Increase funding! • Funding Education, outreach, messaging • Interagency communication and agreement on the problem. • Coordinated messaging to the public across all jurisdictions on the risks. • Educate policy reps.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 33 Variety pack • N. Pike summit for funding coordination and commitments from states, tribes, and PUDs. • Coordination focused effort • Implement required monitoring programs from stakeholders

Question 4: What might prevent policy progress? How could that be overcome?

What might prevent policy progress How to overcome obstacles Public perception and pressure Education and outreach Funding. Better education. Historic lack of coordination and leadership Work at the federal level to overcome local and state jurisdictions Already full workloads and other priorities. Dedicate a position/person to the pike issue Funding availability. Public education Overcome by prioritizing this over other actions currently in place. Lack of support by funding agencies and ISRP Additional forums such as this to keep topic front and center. Everyone not agreeing that this is a problem. Outreach and education Limited resources need to be applied elsewhere Lack of leadership and common objectives/goals. Identify leading agency and set develop framework to meet agreed upon objectives/goals The many different groups and their own internal requirements. Lack of organization Provincialism. Outreach and coordination. If policy makers are not on board, then we will not Outreach and education to the public as well as see the policy changes that we need. targeted towards policy makers may help. But you have to find the spin that will hook people. Lack of understanding of the ecological problem. Uniformity of messaging on long-term effects of continued expansion of pike on other species and ecosystems. Conflicting jurisdictions and structures among Bring in top level agency staff into the discussions agencies. Individual interests and or able to step outside Pressure from constituents which may be counter your entities policy requirements to priorities

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 34 What might prevent policy progress How to overcome obstacles No specific entity responsible for suppression. Overcome with education and accountability Misunderstanding and mishandling of information A coordinated approach and agreed-to objectives - both between agencies and to the public will help here. Lack of identifying who takes the lead to organize such an effort. Lack of engagement from key jurisdictions. Target key players and begin education with them. Lack of leadership and common goals and Identify leadership, coordination objectives Lack of leadership Federal agency ignorance of the issue Education, workshops, etc. Regional conveners such as NW Council or PSMFV Determine long term convener not taking action. Renegade anglers who don't get and want their Education to create peer pressure own way It's apparent that there are different objectives Continued dialog and coordination within the attendees, and there needs to recognition of that Lack of funding A dedicated funding source, where costs are shared across all managers. A lack of engagement will likely exist until managers are forced to participate, even if that is limited to funding. Too many organizations doing different things. Bring everyone together in these kinds of meetings to develop consistent approaches and management standards. Lack of education on the problem. Limited resources. Competing interests. Pike angler interest groups can undermine policy So need to develop coordinated strategies to progress overcome this cultural momentum. Schizophrenic fisheries management. Promoting (or tolerating) non-native fish in one area, but not in others. If you don't deal with the source, funding and control efforts elsewhere (downstream) may be relatively futile. Lack of key stakeholders. Feds typically get a free pass Public pushback from entrenched constituencies. Expand outreach opportunities.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 35 What might prevent policy progress How to overcome obstacles Not an "emergency" in some areas yet. Rally voices across many perspectives to support the issue State agencies/legislators need more backbone Distribution and abundance data against independent minded pike lovers Continued data about most successful suppression efforts

Question 5: What technical information would be most valuable to you? Distribution, abundance, and potential habitats • Changes in distribution/numbers • Distribution • Complete assessment of current distribution and potential habitats • Understanding current distribution • Current location of Pike in system. • Real time data on pike locations • Location and density of pike • What tools are available in the ""tool box"" to eradicate and/or suppress NP. • What works and what doesn't in various waterbodies. • Potential habitat maps downstream • Current distribution, optimal spawning and rearing habitat description • Methods to positively identify spawning locations in difficult to sample areas. • GIS layer of current distribution and eDNA survey sites • Better understanding of distribution, rate of spread and progress of suppression • Abundance of invasive populations and where they are coming from. • Age demographics to gauge success of suppression efforts. Also information associated with population migrations to predict future movement. • The type of information on location of pike that Joe provided Early detection, biology and ecology of N. Pike • Training on early detection monitoring • Biology and ecology of NP (lessons learned) for detection, prevention and eradication. • Well done identification help. • Tagged and tracked pike to better understand up/downstream movements • Training and workshops for monitoring and early detection monitoring Eradication or control, methods/protocols, successes, and failures • Methods applied that have been successful. Methods that have been attempted but failed. • Detailed information on what has worked and what do not work • Best way to kill pike with the least amount of money and time spent • Eradication/control methods, costs, effectiveness. • The relationship between predation rates of focus species and pike CPUE. Are there target pike densities that allow other species objectives to be achieved. • Standards for eDNA collection, SPIN survey protocol

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 36 • Where efforts are already happening and how we can help and support • Standardized equipment and methods • What techniques work? What more can be done? • Suppression method SOP, equipment list, estimated costs. • Standards for determining how much pike suppression is needed to be effective. • Harvest methods Risk and impacts (economic, damage/losses to fisheries) • Economic and ecological impact information on damages to upstream fisheries • Economic impact study or report • A robust evaluation of pike risk relative to other limiting factors for conservation fish of interest. • Potential consumption rates on juvenile salmon. • Research aimed at better understanding the impacts of pike in various waters so that management can be more pragmatic and strategic • Need an economic analysis to illustrate potential regional impacts if they make it to anadromous waters Costs (suppression, eradication, education) • Detailed suppression costs • Available cost effective measures that could be reasonably implemented with lack of funds and staffing. • Show data in reports or technical memo that show what are the most cost effective methods of removal or suppression. Information hub/data sharing • Single location for information and data • Having a data sharing forum is most valuable, that includes spawning and nursery habitat, where monitoring is occurring (or not occurring), and where active suppression is happening. • A centralized database to house all NP information. • A good database of pike locations • Management options in similar waterbodies Communication and education • A list of shared messaging. • More publications in the academic literature on what has been accomplished with pike suppression. • Cross-boundary info sharing

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 37 Question 6: Pick the top two formats that would best support learning about technical challenges and opportunities.

Question 7: What other suggestions do you have to learn about and build regional technical capacity to manage invasive Northern Pike? Build on this Forum • Follow up discussions to build on this gathering. • Basinwide N. Pike technical work group. Meet quarterly to share information and case studies. • Setting clear objectives for control efforts. • Build on already existing and successful partnerships and develop a strategic plan to manage n. pike • More opportunities like this. Aimed at developing technical, information and outreach, and policy groups. Transboundary • Bring Canada into the conversation • Transboundary - make it an international conversation • Transboundary information sharing Funding • Funding for early detection monitoring and training on protocols • Get BPA onboard Information sharing, education, and publication • Pike symposium focused on technical presentations about effective tools and strategies • Sharing lessons learned

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 38 • Central location that houses technical information • Talking with other States (e.g. Alaska, Colorado) has been helpful. • Presentations from managers that have successfully implemented pike management or removal plans. • A peer reviewed journal article reviewing population dynamics, responses to management, and impacts on other species • A repository of resources and experts along with those battling NP. • Outreach and Education focused on the "Not in My Backyard" mentality and that this, like zebra mussels, is everyone's problem. • Regional webpage Field activities • On the water field work experience Eradication • Advertise Contract opportunities allowing opportunities for regional fishermen • A management team of experienced workers with technical equipment able to move to and treat new areas • Recurring cross agency efforts on a schedule And more… • Use N. Pike to develop a regional-wide directive to control all other invasive species that impact native fish, especially threatened and endangered populations. • BPA and NPCC put out an RFP

Question 8: What three words would you use to describe Northern Pike?

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 39 Question 9: Rate the following statements (strongly agree to strongly disagree).

Question 10: What communication or education tools or activities should be developed? Communication plan • A strategic communications plan is needed. Good examples already exist in the Asian carp arena, for specific user groups, and activities such as detection, suppression, etc. • Identify the desired outcome prior to developing any other outreach tool • So many organizations involved - hard to be consistent. Messaging • Must be focused and straightforward, no maybe’s • Template messaging tools relevant for distribution to different audiences • Urgency needs to be communicated. • Don't Let It Loose messaging • Pike bad • No angling for pike. It just encourages future movements. • Conversation needs to focus more on pragmatic and strategic solutions instead messaging that indicates pike need to be eradicated everywhere. This isn't practical and will reduce public support for suppressing pike where it is most needed. • Tone should be serious, dire. Educate on the benefits to native populations and the detrimental impacts NP can have on them. For anglers, bring it back to how their fishing will be impacted. • Permanent threat to native fisheries, permanent funding drain for generations to come • Restoration/native species conservation • Messaging that helps public recognize their role in the problem/solution.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 40 • Long term impact messaging. • Identify them as a problem, not opportunity in any sportfishing guidelines. • The consequences to the millions if not billions of dollars spent on native fish conservation • How can or will Northern Pike impact you • Impacts on native species and anadromous fish • Uniform messaging by all agencies • Consistency. • Consistent messaging • Cohesive messaging among all entities. • Shared messaging. Campaigns and public outreach activities • Campaign similar to Clean Drain and Dry • Maybe a state wide derby? • Public outreach within angler forums online and open houses given by trusted authorities. • Awareness campaigns. • Round tables open to interested public • Target fisher groups, especially those from the native range of this fish and let them know that their fav fish is not native in the Columbia • General Public outreach • Public outreach Networking • A network of interagency coms staff for amplifying and sharing posts and messages • Policy reps and anglers change- need a core team of experts to provide unified messaging and recommended actions • angler forums • Curate network that can develop and share information from different perspectives, storytelling • Find social champions - fishing show hosts, fishing derby hosts, and get them on board - have them sponsor the message • Outdoor shows. Educational materials, tools • Fact sheets • Stickers that WISC has is good. • A better sticker • Signs at boat launches • Regional signs • Coverage of this issue in mainstream angler media venues • Youth education in-classroom • More Story Maps (like Washington's) • Good. concise presentation material designed for outreach events (County fairs, outdoor shows, etc.). • Branded soda cozies • I second, Branded Soda Cozies • A list of talking points and informational bullets that describe the science behind this issue.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 41 • A pamphlet or similar that an angler would receive when obtaining a fishing license, more interaction with the public • On the fun side - angler education on how to cook pike - I hear a lot “I don’t know what to do with it” - could be in person or videos • Congressional information papers/documents • Signage that is simple and recognizable - not just "another mandate" Web-based tools • Web tool such as NPCC NP webtool is good. • Comprehensive regional webpage • Websites. • Consistent information on easily accessible websites. • Information on agency websites • Online forum groups Websites kept updated • Web Page • Webpage • Online content Social media • Taking more advantage of social media • Strong social media plan • Post to Facebook groups focused on fishing • Facebook Groups • Facebook Group • Facebook groups • Use social media • Social media presence • Social media campaign • Social media platforms • Social media kits • Social media • Social Media • Social media • Social media Print, radio, video • Public Service Announcements re pike problems • Public service announcements • YouTube videos (professionally produced) • Public outreach to anglers (articles in fishing regulations and other sources • YouTube video of what they can do • Short informal video updates from experts that can be shared • A snappy video PSA • Radio. • Local Papers

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 42 • More public outreach not just on the issue from fisheries mgrs. to audiences who they already have, but from agency leadership showing their commitment to the issue to the general public. literally more news outreach to pressure the leaders Analysis • Economic impact • Rigorous science that objectively assesses impacts, management actions, and responses by conservation targets. Grab bag • Encouraging anglers to consider their home waters, without salmonid stocks that support rec opportunities • Funding and keeping ideas fresh/updated. • Lack of dedicated staff. • Falling into the "fake news" category or getting caught up in a crusade that makes people not trust it. • Try and stay out of the "fake news" trap somehow • There are so many regional issues/concerns we all get numb to them all • Region is always chasing the new shiny object • Always an ask for more funding. General public gets tired of it. • Time commitment

Question 11: What are the primary education and/or communication opportunities or challenges? Policy leadership and coordination • Lots of organizations now care—coordinate and leverage staff and support • It sounds like many organizations are doing work in this. We need a way to coordinate together. Maybe a place we can track data and reference it in all of our communications? Funding and capacity • Funding • Funding • No internal capacity. • Lack of funding Messaging • For natural resource agencies/entities to develop messaging that finds a balance between managing the threat posed by pike and doing it in a manner that will be acceptable to the public and is doable with available resources. • Lack of harmonized messages • Lack of consistent messages • Too many messages • Effective messaging designed for specific audiences • The educational component needed to convey the message to lay people • Misinterpretation of information, inconsistent messaging

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 43 • A challenge is to get people involved or educated on the threat. • Consistent and clear messaging • Getting the invasive message across in an angling community that recognizes the "Prize" as a big catch! • Getting your message to stand out amidst all the others • Outstanding photographs of full stomachs or tails sticking out of mouths • Better pictures/ video of unaltered pike • Lack of consistent, strategic communication internally within agencies, and externally to partners and the public Outreach and connecting with target audience • Reaching anglers • Reaching underserved audiences/communities • Reaching the fisherman that matter • Making contact with an angler who wants to talk to a uniformed federal employee • Finding a platform that reaches the constituents we are targeting in the broadest way possible. • Distribution of message to broad user groups • Understanding the diverse audiences that need to be reached and ensuring that the desired outcome is identified prior to initiating any education is completed • Reaching all audiences effectively. Recognizing the issue, understanding the issue • Just flat out acceptance that there is an issue • Convincing the public why they should care. Letting them know what they can do. • Lack of awareness about the issue. Competing with other more well-known invasive species. • Audience understanding of the issues at many levels and differing interest in issue • Much effort has been made to make the public aware of invasive species issues, should capitalize on it. • Engaging with all the diverse audiences that need to be reached • Challenge is that people/agencies think it isn't their problem or the ecological disaster won't happen to them. • An understanding of the complexities, and numerous interests present in the Columbia basin. Many competing uses for the river, and understanding how those are interrelated and influence Pike management • The east side/ west side issue in Washington. This is not an "east side" problem as an anadromous problem is a state wide problem. Hard to get the west side attn but need to keep trying. Negativity, distrust, disinterest, and misinformation • Getting through to naysayers and the bucket biologists • Will people believe the facts ? • Some anglers can become very angry. Need to know how to deal with this. • Distrust in the government, cohesive messaging can work against you with some people...no room for discussion • Disinterest and intransigence. Opportunities - forums like this. Fear of more regulation or policy/control

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 44 • Challenges-people do not (or don’t want to) understand how destructive pike are • IS outreach is constantly one catastrophic thing after another. Pandemic related • Currently COVID-19 has prevented a lot of presentations to public and civic groups, school groups, etc... • Well, covid hasn't helped. Funding and coordinated effort. • Misinformation Other challenges • Messaging should be backed up by legislation - which is enforced • Production expertise. • Technology awareness • As was already noted, eliminating the fishery for non-native fish, like pike, can be just as difficult as removing the fish itself. • Education/communication is a specialized field - it's hard for those that are doing management to fit it in to their workload. Needs dedicated support. • Time to focus on outreach while conducting technical projects • Rapid media turnover, keeping the message front and center, what is the impact to me (someone not interested in the subject), instant gratification nature.

Question 12: What are you willing to do to help address the risk posed by Northern Pike?

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 45 Question 13: What else are you willing to do? Management plan • Assist with management plan • Develop a detailed rapid response plan • Information sharing, education • Share info on my YouTube channel • Hosting workshops and trainings • Support additional coordination forums • Email lists, education sub groups • Share info on Facebook and Instagram • Educational group as well. Put info into our outreach events. • Help with outreach, produce another video such as the suppression video we produced with Justin Bush • I am willing to help share similar information from other work groups, such as the work coordinated on a national level for Asian carp! • Advocate internally with lower river interests • Social media posts to target groups • Share info on Facebook and Instagram • Public service announcements • Would be interested to review resources as to technical literature to view it to help transition to education and outreach Activities • Derbies • Commit additional staff where capacity is needed. • Learn to catch pike better • Eat as many pike as possible

Information resources, links, offers of assistance Nicole Jordan • We have a YouTube channel and will have a website with Upper Columbia resources. • Feel free to send resources you'd like to share in/with the Upper Columbia region my way. We will have a webpage going live soon that we can share resources through. [email protected] Amy Duncan • Happy to connect with anyone regarding Canadian Columbia river and Pend d'Oreille River suppression efforts. Amy Duncan, ONA, [email protected] Justin Bush • If you'd like stickers send an email to [email protected] • Pike tool: https://pike.nwcouncil.org/

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 46 • Western Governors' Association report: https://westgov.org/news/article/wgas-top-50-invasive- species-in-the-west-offers-first-regional-report • We should create a shared regional FLICKR account with photos available for outreach, etc. with appropriate credits • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 'all hands on deck' suppression event video • State of Salmon in Watersheds (https://stateofsalmon.wa.gov/) How Invasive Species Impact Salmon Story Map (https://wa- rco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=82845d44d6ee4e84813b160aee2ae123 • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPAeKf1Chgc&list=PLjYJiZuq3RP- bASv07nJc99KOzsjWkLHn&index=13 • There is a nexus between flowering rush and northern pike -- US Army Corps of Engineers could brief the group on their new cost-share program • Happy to write letters of support, comment, or testify for anyone Theresa Thom It seems like the flowering rush management plan for the Columbia River Basin might be a good tool, in the creation of a basin-focused management plan for northern pike. https://columbiabasincwma.org/flowering-rush-management-plan/ Kevin McAbee • I also would be happy to share stories from the upper Colorado River basin northern pike management as part of future conversations. Kevin McAbee, Upper Colorado River Nonnative Fish Coordinator. [email protected] Mike Hensler • Track and report

Question 14: Are you willing to participate on the policy workgroup, technical workgroup, or education and communication workgroup? If yes, identify which workgroup(s). Policy Workgroup Technical Workgroup Education & Communication • Brent Nichols • Tim Counihan • Jalene Littlejohn • Joe Maroney • Nick Bean • Alexis Haifley • Cody Desautel • Kellie Carim • Rachel Blomker • Laura Robinson • Lizbeth Seebacher • Lizbeth Seebacher • Stacy Horton • Daniel Garrett • Jennifer Poirier • Zach Penney • Theresa Thom • Laura Robinson • Justin Bush* • Laura Robinson • Sue Davies • Jeffery Allen • Amy Duncan • Cassie Hagemann • Bret Nine • Holly McLellan • Nicole Jordan • Tom Iverson • Jon Firehammer • Leah Elwell • Tom Dresser • Tamara Knudson • Justin Bush* • Kristine Dunker*** • Bret Nine • Matthew DeBerard ** • Bill Towey • Matthew DeBerard ** • Andrew Gingerich • Eric Winther • Tom Iverson • Khaylish Fraser

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 47 Policy Workgroup Technical Workgroup Education & Communication • Kendall Farley**** • Kristine Dunker*** • Kristine Dunker*** • Blaine PARKER • Andy Miller • Bill Towey • Rick Boatner • Blaine PARKER • Eric Winther • • Chris Mott Brian Heise • Crystal Lawrence • Damian Walter • Andy Dux • Suzanne Adrain-Vincent • Matt Corsi • Rick Boatner

* Other (hosting trainings and workshops). ** Wherever greatest need is. *** I would be interested in the management plan work as well. **** Policy work group that includes communication and outreach with leaders .

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 48 Attachment A: Forum Evaluation

Is there something you would like to tell us about your experience today, or suggestions to enhance future workshops or forums? • I thought this forum was very well done. • Great experience love the Mentimeter bit! • Facilitators always help :) • It was fine... you may want to send this type of question after the workshop • The workshop was done very smoothly. The use of Menti was fantastic. Excellent job! • Nicely done. Using Mentimeter worked well for a large group. Thank you. • Very informative. • The mix of engagement was nice - presentations, buttons, visuals, opportunity to talk (or not).

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 49 • Good call on the interactive portion. • Look forward to meeting in person next time • Well done. Hard to conduct meetings online but this was very organized. • Well done. • I think the survey questions were really good and asking people to really include themselves in the solution set this apart from past forum meetings • Thank you UCUT for stepping up and leading this. We need this. • This went really well.....particularly with the Mentimeter • It seems like many topics discussed today are not new to folks. Future forums should target new information or specific problems/hurdles to progress on this issue. • I thought the forum was a great experience and very informative. • When is our next meeting? Having a virtual meeting allowed many more people in the "room" so thank you for including a wide audience to participate today! • Nice job with the forum and excellent facilitator. • Have an in-person meeting as soon as it’s allowed • Looking forward to working groups to dig into ideas. • More information on what we can do- what's needed? What are the next steps to manage this predator? Mentimeter is a fun and engaging tool - love to see what others are thinking. • A lot of very good info was shared today, it was well done - thanks! • Look forward to beers afterwards when we have in-person meetings • breakout sessions may be helpful to allow more pointed conversation about specific topics in smaller groups • Longer or more focused panel discussion. Otherwise absolutely great meeting! • Critical evaluation of ecological risk of pike evaluation as well as whether turning the "NOP dial" will get you where you want to be from a conservation standpoint. • Great information, well run • New information and action steps • I like this interactive anonymity. Mentimeter is a decent tool for getting feedback. And I don't work for the software developer. • What about experiences and perspectives from other states in the west? It was # 7 in a western survey • Next steps is KEY • Thanks UCUT’s for keeping focus on this issue. It’s needed to keep this issue out front of the region. With your successes to date, it easy for folks to believe it’s under control • Virtual attendance to in-person meetings can allow more attendance • Hopefully we can start working on the data sharing component of our working group soon so we can see spatially where there are monitoring gaps or additional data needs, or data redundancy. • allowing people to real time share their ideas non verbally I think elicited more involvement. in other words Mentimeter was great! • At some point, this conversation will have to also look at other invasive species that are also popular with anglers. • Summary to include contact info of the guest and panelist

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 50 Attachment B: Contact Information and Introductory Notes First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Suzanne Adrain- [email protected] Christina BC Christina Lake Stewardship Coordinator. Interested in what is Vincent Lake Stewardship Society happening in Pike mgmt. to the south of us, as we are connected to the Kettle River System and are worried they will make their way to our lake.

Jeffery Allen [email protected] ID Northwest Power and Conservation Council

Craig Barfoot [email protected] Polson MT Confederated Salish and Fisheries Biologist Kootenai Tribes

Charles Barr [email protected] Clackamas OR Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Nick Bean [email protected] Kalispel Tribe of Indians Addressing Northern Pike invasion for over a decade.

Martina Beck [email protected] Victoria BC BC Ministry of Invasive Fauna Unit Head Environment and Climate Change Strategy

Cassidy Bender [email protected] Missoula MT MT Department of Commission Coordinator. Interested in Northern Natural Resources & Pike because I work specifically for an AIS Conservation- Upper commission. Columbia Conservation Commission

Rachel Blomker [email protected] Hoodsport WA Washington Department Communications Manager of Fish and Wildlife

Rick Boatner [email protected] Salem OR Oregon Dept. of Fish & Invasive Species, Wildlife Integrity Supervisor. Wildlife Preventing them from getting into Oregon and if they do arrive how to deal with them

Stephen Bollens [email protected] Vancouver WA Washington State Director and Professor. Impacts of Aquatic University Invasive Species First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Matt Boyer [email protected] MT Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Parker Bradley [email protected] Palmer AK Alaska Dept. Fish and Fishery Biologist Game Kennith Brown Walla Walla WA U.S. Army Corps of I'm working on a public and government Engineers awareness campaign regarding Flowering Rush near the Hydroelectric Dams which is a major spawning location for Northern Pike.

Stas Burgiel [email protected]

Brianna Burley [email protected] Golden BC Columbia Basin Trust Manager, Environment. As the Environment Manager for the Trust I want to learn as much as I can about this issue

Justin Bush [email protected] WA One of the top invasive species in Washington. Promoting prevention and management.

Kellie Carim [email protected] Missoula MT U.S. Forest Service Aquatic Research Biologist. USFS National Genomics Center. Interest in eDNA monitoring of pike distributions and identifying source populations leading to expansion.

Kye Carpenter [email protected] Burbank WA US Army Corps of NRS. I fish the Columbia and the Snake every Engineers weekend for walleyes for the last 7 years. I have been fishing Walleye’s tournaments off and on for the last 20 years.

Mike Clement [email protected] WA Grant PUD Main interest is general direct and indirect effects of established NP within the region.

Marcie Clement [email protected] Wenatchee WA Chelan PUD Water Resources Program Manager

Matthew Corsi [email protected] Coeur D ID Idaho Department of Principal Fishery Research Biologist. We're Alene Fish and Game beginning a monitoring program for a growing population of NOP in Lake Pend Oreille. I'm interested in regional pike management perspectives and observations on NOP population dynamics in other waters.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 52 First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Tim Counihan [email protected] Cook WA USGS Research Fish Biologist. Western Fisheries Research Center.

Sue Davies [email protected] Revelstoke BC Columbia Shuswap Aquatic Coordinator Invasive Species Society

Sue Davies rhooper@columbiashuswapinvasiv

es.org

Tammy Davis tammy[email protected] AK

Catherine de Rivera [email protected] Portland OR Portland State University Professor Portland State University (& Oregon Invasive Species Council, & WRP). Generally interested in aquatic invasives and how to better manage. Unfortunately I will be in and out of the meeting as I have others I have to be at double scheduled due to the shutdowns last few days. Matthew DeBerard [email protected] US Army Corps of

.mil Engineers

Cody Desautel [email protected] Colville Confederated Tribes

Nate Dietrich [email protected] Ephrata WA Grant County PUD Biologist. Looking to educate myself on NP

Tom Dresser [email protected] Grant County PUD

Andy Dunau [email protected] Spokane WA Lake Roosevelt Forum Executive Director

Amy Duncan [email protected] Nelson BC Okanagan Nation Biologist. Leading Northern Pike suppression in Alliance the Canadian Pend d'Oreille and Columbia River

Kristine Dunker [email protected] Alaska Dept. Fish and I am involved with invasive pike management in Game south central Alaska.

Andy Dux [email protected] Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Leah Elwell [email protected] Invasive Species Action Engaging with regional partners to protect PNW Network. natural resources.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 53 First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Jarred Erickson jarred.Erickson.cbc@colvilletribes.

com

Les Evarts [email protected] Polson MT Confederated Salish and Fisheries Manager Kootenai Tribes

Kendall Farley [email protected] Northwest Power and Invasive species and outreach because we need Conservation Council more people to understand the importance of this issue basin wide/region wide

Jon Firehammer [email protected] Coeur d'Alene Tribe

Calvin Fisher [email protected] Spokane WA Spokane Tribal Fisheries Fisheries Biologist 1

Ryan Fortier [email protected] WA Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Dan Foster [email protected] Coulee Dam WA Lake Roosevelt National Superintendent. Management of natural Recreation Area ecosystems and minimizing/eliminating exotic species is a mandate.

Gavin Fox [email protected] Castlegar BC

Khaylish Fraser [email protected] BC Central Kootenay Central Kootenay Invasive Species Society in Invasive Species Society southeast B.C. Interest is that pike are present in our organization's operational area.

Mark Fritsch [email protected] Portland OR Northwest Power and Conservation Council

Daniel Garrett [email protected] Greenacres WA Washington Department Warmwater Fisheries Biologist. Improve my of Fish and Wildlife understanding of the overall effort, thank you.

Andrew Gingerich [email protected] East WA Douglas PUD Oversee the implementation of the PUD's Wenatchee Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan.

Cecilia Gobin [email protected] Olympia WA Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Joanne Grady [email protected] Lakewood CO U.S. Fish & Wildlife Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator Service

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 54 First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

David Graybill [email protected] LEAVENWOR WA FISHINGMAGICIAN.COM interested in public outreach TH

Stan Gregory [email protected] Corvallis OR ISAB - Chair I want to learn more about the recent actions to better understand the distribution and abundance of pike and the actions to control them.

Cassandra Hagemann [email protected] Kettle Falls WA National Park Service Aquatic Invasive Species Biologist. Pike effects on ecosystem, native species, and recreation.

Alexis Haifley [email protected] Olympia WA Washington Invasive Washington Invasive Species Council, Education Species Council and Outreach Coordinator. Interest: cohesive messaging

Ryan Harnish [email protected] Richland WA Pacific Northwest Current distribution and threat to anadromous National Laboratory salmonids

John Harrison [email protected] OR Northwest Power and Conservation Council

Shane Harvey [email protected] Chattaroy WA Kalispel Tribe of Indians Fisheries Biologist

Eric Hegerat [email protected] Penticton BC BC Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Biologist . Pike detection in the Kettle River and potential spread to the Okanagan River system.

Brian Heise [email protected] Kamloops BC Thompson Rivers Thompson Rivers University. Pike ecological University impacts and distribution (research).

Steve Hemstrom [email protected] Wenatchee WA Chelan County PUD Senior Fisheries Biologist

Mike Hensler [email protected] Kalispell MT Montana Fish, Wildlife Region One Fisheries Program Manager and Parks (Northwest Montana). Robyn Hooper rhooper@columbiashuswapinvasiv Revelstoke BC Columbia Shuswap Executive Director

es.org Invasive Species Society

Stacy Horton [email protected] Spokane WA Northwest Power and Policy Analyst/Biologist. Policy issues around N. Conservation Council Pike

Susan Ireland [email protected] Bonners ID Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Fish and Wildlife Dept Director Ferry

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 55 First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Tom Iverson [email protected] Portland OR Yakama Nation Regional Coordinator. Regional coordination, understanding scale of problem to share with downstream interest groups

Cody Jacobson [email protected] Palmer AK State of Alaska Fish and Fishery Biologist. Further my knowledge of the Game species and invasive control measures.

Hemene James [email protected] Coeur d'Alene Tribe Chris Jeffrey [email protected]. Clarkston WA US Army Corps of Wildlife Biologist. Learn more about the

mil Engineers migration of Northern Pike

Nicole Jordan [email protected] Wenatchee WA UCSRB Communication Specialist with Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. Our region is dangerously close to the N. Pike and we are actively engaging in a campaign this season to raise awareness and share resources.

Alex Kain [email protected] Spokane WA Spokane Tribe Limnologist. Threat to reintroduction of salmon above Grand Coulee

Kevin Kappenman [email protected] Bozeman MT US Fish and Wildlife Researcher at the Bozeman Montana Fish Service Technology Center. I am currently working on developing barriers to prevent Pike invasion. We (our team includes University of Alaska at Fairbanks/USGS and, USFWS-BFTC) are currently studying Pike leaping and swimming ability at the BFTC laboratory

B.J. Kieffer [email protected] Spokane Tribe of Indians

Chris King [email protected] BC Golder Assoc. Want to further knowledge of effective management techniques, and I'm an Avid Angler and concerned about native species.

Andrew Klassen [email protected] Kamloops BC BC Fish and Wildlife Senior Fish Biologist. Worried about Pike moving Branch - FLNRO into our area of the province

Tamara Knudson [email protected] Spokane WA Spokane Tribal Fisheries Project Manager

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 56 First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Joseph Kozfkay [email protected] Nampa ID Idaho Department of State Resident Fisheries Manager. Northern Pike Fish and Game are both a popular game fish with our anglers and cause conflict for some native species. I am here to represent the department's desire to balance these demands.

Chas Kyger [email protected] East WA Douglas County PUD Aquatic Resource Biologist Wenatchee

Crystal Lawrence [email protected] Nelson BC Wood Canada Ltd. Aquatic Biologist. Interest in pike in the Columbia watershed, currently reviewing NP status in upper Kettle River/Christina Lake.

Charles Lee [email protected] WA WDFW Northern Pike pose an imminent threat to native fish populations in the Northwest.

Jalene Littlejohn [email protected] OR Oregon Invasive Species Council

Vaughn Lodge [email protected] Airway WA Spokane Tribal Fisheries Technician 1 Heights

Ryan Lothrop [email protected] Olympia WA WDFW Columbia River fishery manager, so I have concerns to potential impacts to salmonids and other fishes.

Joseph Maroney [email protected] Usk WA Kalispel Tribe of Indians Director of Fisheries and Water Resources

Art Martin [email protected] Clackamas OR Oregon Department of Columbia River Coordination Section Manager Fish and Wildlife

Robert Massengill [email protected] Soldotna AK AK Dept. of Fish and Fishery biologist Game

Kent Mayer [email protected] Spokane WA WA Dept. Fish & Wildlife Warmwater Fish Biologist. Working on Pike in Valley BCR and FDR.

Kevin McAbee [email protected] Lakewood CO US Fish and Wildlife Nonnative Fish Coordinator Service

Chad McCrea [email protected] Spokane WA Spokane tribe DNR Wildlife Program manager

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 57 First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Holly McLellan [email protected] Colville Confederated Tribes

Tom McMahon [email protected] Bozeman MT Montana State Professor of Fisheries University

Erik Merrill [email protected] Portland OR NPCC - ISAB/ISRP

DR Michel [email protected] Spokane WA Upper Columbia United Executive Director. Potential impacts to salmon Tribes reintroduction above Grand Coulee.

Andy Miller [email protected] Spokane WA Spokane Tribal Fisheries Fisheries Biologist

Chris Mott [email protected] WA Grant County PUD Interested in preventing the spread into anadromous waters

Hedin Nelson- [email protected] Castlegar BC Castlegar and District Chorney Wildlife Association

Matt Neufeld [email protected] Nelson BC BC Gov - FLRNO Fish and Aquatic Habitat Section Head

Reilly Newman [email protected] Cottage OR Coast Fork Willamette Projects Manager Grove Watershed Council

Brent Nichols [email protected] WA Spokane Tribe of Indians Fisheries Director. Impact to our mitigation and resident fishery

Bret Nine [email protected] Spokane WA Colville Confederated Resident Fish Senior Manager Tribes

Patty O'Toole [email protected] Portland OR Northwest Power and Fish and Wildlife Director Conservation Council

Jason Olson [email protected] Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Randy Osborne [email protected] Spokane WA Washington Department District 2 Fish Biologist. I manage fisheries in of Fish and Wildlife Spokane, Lincoln, and Whitman counties (Washington), and pike are threatening not only the native species in my district but also the hatchery-supplemented recreational fisheries as well.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 58 First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Mark Paluch [email protected] Cheney WA Eastern Washington Research Associate University

Blaine Parker [email protected] OR Columbia River Inter- Because we collectively must keep NP from the Tribal Fish Commission current anadromous waters of the Columbia River Basin.

Steve Parker [email protected] Zillah WA Private Retired. Concerned about the potential for recruitment of pike to downriver salmon production areas and fisheries.

Zach Penney [email protected] Portland OR Columbia River Inter- Northern Pike have become an ecological Tribal Fish Commission wildfire that will be difficult extinguish. The region (Columbia Basin) needs to improve our coordination and efforts on the restoration of native fish species with the management, expansion, and promotion of non-native fish species.

S Phillips [email protected] PSMFC

Allen Pleus [email protected] Olympia WA WDFW AIS Unit Manager

Jennifer Poirier [email protected] Vancouver WA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Biologist. Want to learn more about Service current distribution of N. Pike

Martyne Reesman [email protected] SALEM OR Oregon Dept of Fish & Sr Fish & Wildlife Technician. Worried about Wildlife introduction/migration into the lower Columbia River

Eric Roberts [email protected] Helena MT Montana Dept of Fisheries Management Bureau Chief Fish, Wildlife & Parks

Laura Robinson [email protected] Upper Columbia United Tribes

Jesse Schultz [email protected] Olympia WA Washington Department Environmental Specialist 4. To prevent of Fish and Wildlife distribution and control infested populations.

DJ Sebastian [email protected] Wellpinit WA Spokane Tribe of Indians Fisheries Biologist I. Pike suppression in Lake Roosevelt

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 59 First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Lizbeth Seebacher [email protected] WA WA State Dept. of Ecology

John Sirois [email protected] WA Upper Columbia United Committee Coordinator. Very concerned about Tribes the future impacts of N. Pike on salmon and other native fish species in our home territory!

Danielle Smart [email protected] Kimberley BC East Kootenay Invasive Field Operations Coordinator. Interest: to gain Species Council further knowledge and understanding of impacts and distribution of Northern Pike.

Chad Smith [email protected] Portland OR City of Portland Fisheries Biologist

Al Solonsky [email protected] WA Seattle City Light

Laura Sprague [email protected] Orofino ID USFWS Fish Biologist. USFWS State AIS Coordinator in Idaho. I am a fish health specialist that has worked with wild fish surveys. I am familiar with NOP translocations in Lake CDA and their impacts on native CUT populations that the CDA Tribe is protecting.

Alison Squier [email protected] Boise ID Ziji Creative Resources Facilitator / Coordinator Inc.

Joe Stensgar [email protected] Gig harbor WA Airfresh seafoods Owner. Interested in the commercial opportunities (contracts) to assist in eliminating N. Pike, using traps, longline, Fish Wheel. 253- 223-8078

Erin Stoddard [email protected] Burnaby BC BC Hydro Senior Environmental Coordinator. Issues lead for aquatic invasive species

Theresa Thom [email protected] Portland OR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Regional Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator. Service My personal interest in Northern Pike is related to my job as the regional aquatic invasive species coordinator for the Pacific Northwest Region.

Bill Towey [email protected] Wenatchee WA Chelan PUD Fisheries Scientist. Interest: pike impacts to the Columbia River Basin.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 60 First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Angelo Vitale [email protected] Coeur d'Alene Tribe

Damian Walter [email protected] Walla Walla WA U.S. Army Corps of District Wildlife biologist. Concerned with Engineers Northern Pike and its ecological impacts on salmon and aquatic system, their usage of Flowering rush and other aquatic vegetation for breeding, etc. This species along with Flowering Rush in our McNary reservoir present an extreme impact concern on salmon passage and their habitat; so I am trying to learn and stay aware.

Krista Watts [email protected] Castlegar BC Columbia Power Environment Lead Corporation

Karl Weist [email protected] Aiken NW Power and Fish and Wildlife Policy Analyst. Is it inevitable Conservation Council that N. Pike will get into the anadromous zone?

Tara White [email protected] Penticton BC Government of BC Fish & Senior Fisheries Biologist, Okanagan Region Wildlife Branch, Okanagan Region

Stuart Willis [email protected] Hagerman Columbia River Inter- Fish Geneticist. Mitigating impacts of northern Tribal Fish Commission pike on migratory fishes of the Columbia (salmon, sturgeon, lamprey)

Eric Winther [email protected] WA WDFW WDFW Project Manager. N. Pike coordinator.

Ben Wishnek [email protected] USFWS I am in the first year of a position working with invasive species in southcentral Alaska and wanting to learn more about pike in the Northwest

Andy Wizik [email protected] Kenai AK Cook Inlet Aquaculture in Kenai Alaska. I work on several pike suppression projects in the region and am interested in what is going on in your region.

Shay Wolvert [email protected] Inchelium WA Colville Confederated Fisheries Biologist. I work on CCT's Non Native Tribes Fish removal and AIS projects.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 61 First Name Last Name Email City State or Organization Title & Interest Province

Nicholas Wong [email protected] Vancouver BC Invasive Species Council Research and Projects Coordinator. Interested in of BC. hearing what is being done in terms of management. Gather some outreach ideas.

Nicholas Zurfluh [email protected] Boise ID Idaho State Department Section Manager- Invasive Species. State AIS of Agriculture coordinator.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 62 Attachment C – Northern Pike Pre-Forum Survey Responses As of January 27, 2021 (49 total responses) 1. Are invasive N. Pike a concern in your region? If so, what are currently the biggest challenges you face in managing invasive N. Pike?

Yes, they are a problem… • Risks to anadromous salmon and other ESA fish o Two things: The intrusion of Northern Pike will devastate the salmonid population if they are allowed to invade. and BPA seems not to be willing to commit financial resources to prevent this catastrophe. o Yes. The biggest challenge we will have to face is NP direct and indirect impacts to ESA listed salmonids, non-listed salmonids, and the potential to alter native and non-native fish communities. o Yes. Coexist in the river with endangered and threatened species. Removal is costly and risky. o Yes. How to stop the spread into lower section of the Columbia River where anadromous and ESA listed fish are. o Yes, N. Pike are the greatest looming threat to anadromous fish restoration and enhancement in the Columbia River basin. Lack of secure funding to begin annual presence/absence surveys downstream of Priest Rapids Dam. o Yes, on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska we are interested in learning more about the species' tolerance to salt water to determine how imminent the threat of invasion is from infested watersheds across Cook Inlet. o Yes, N. Pike are a concern in the Upper Columbia. The proximity of the current population of Pike to the "anadromous zone" is alarming. The biggest challenges are: maintaining the level of effort to keep them from establishing below CJD, current COVID restrictions on field work, lack of comprehensive Columbia River Basin funding and lack of management actions by the states of Montana and Idaho. • Risks to native populations o Invasive Pike are indeed a problem. Challenges to consider are wide ranging. Population monitoring, removal efforts, impacts on native populations, and how the populations may expand in the face of climate change. Suppression efforts in such a diverse ecosystem in a large river is a difficult undertaking and I would question its effectiveness long term. o Yes. Preventing Pike establishment in Christina Lake and mitigating impacts on Kettle River stocks. o Yes, northern pike are a concern in our region. The biggest challenges we face are feasible control mechanisms to protect indigenous freshwater fish stocks. N. Pike are present in US waters immediately downstream of the Canada/US border. There are no/few barriers preventing access into Canadian drainages such as the Okanagan and Kettle River systems. o Yes, species spread throughout the lake. o Yes. Minimizing population-level impacts to native fishes and non-native sport fishes that we manage for as a result of N. Pike predation. Also, addressing social challenges associated with N. Pike (i.e., some anglers want N. Pike fisheries). o Huge concern and challenges. Are we doing enough? How do we fund the needed effort? Can we direct more resources to fight N. Pike, and maintain current and future mitigation efforts? How to protect native fish, provide fisheries, and engage the public? o As a provincial organization we recognize pike as a concern. I think that the biggest challenge and concern is understanding where N. Pike is invasive in the province and where it is actually native. • Detection, dispersal, barriers, and eradication o Yes. We need a consistent program till eradication. o Yes N. Pike a very significant concern. The biggest challenge is detection and capture. o Yes, Pike are a concern in my region and in regions where I do conservation work (e.g. Northwest and Rocky Mountains). I am a researcher and have worked on projects and ideas that focus on the potential to develop selective barriers that might be used to inhibit or exclude Pike from entering a river or stream. Barriers have proven to be an effective mechanism for managing invasive species like Pike but are detrimental in that they also limit the migration of native species. My work has focused on the challenge of how to exclude Pike while potentially allowing native species habitat connectivity. o Yes, N. Pike are a concern. In my opinion, the biggest challenges include strategic, consistent, and standard monitoring for presence/absence of N. Pike, consistent funding for control actions, and lack of coordination of various agencies and partners to address N. Pike as an invasive species at a regional scale. o Yes. Stopping their spread by fishermen and via natural pathways. o Yes, I think the biggest issue is trying to contain natural dispersal and growth of the invasive population in large open systems. o Yes. Pike can freely travel into the Canadian portion of the Columbia River from the United States, and through entrainment from the Pend Oreille River at Waneta Dam. o Yes they are a concern. Right now the challenge is whether or not they are in our project waters and how to mitigate for them when they arrive. o Yes. Spread, population, and recruitment control. o Yes. Containment in coordination with limited staff and equipment resources. o Yes, live in Castlegar and work for ONA so very involved with trying to manage population. Concern about upstream passage at Brilliant Dam (Kootenay River--future fish ladder when salmon return) and Hugh Keenleyside Dam (Arrow Lakes/Columbia River--active lock for boat passage) and movement into those systems. o Down-drainage expansions. • Funding, coordination, planning, and consistent management o Yes, BPA Funding.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 64 o Yes. Coordination and support with/from upstream entities (i.e., States). Earmarked long- term funding (e.g., BPA, Federal). o Yes, management/suppression of invasive NP are priority of WDFW in eastern Washington. The biggest challenges to this point have been funding to support removal efforts. o Yes. Coordination and planning. o Yes, Northern Pike are a huge concern throughout the Columbia Basin and in areas outside of the Columbia Basin where they are not native. One of the biggest challenges is consistent management in dealing with this non-native invasive fish. • Conflicting management priorities local or regional o Yes, they are an ecological wildfire. The biggest challenge is conflicting non-native sportfish management guidelines and eliminating the sources of these non-natives. o Yes. Biggest challenges include highly interconnected and extensive waterways, limited resources for control, limited resources for research, public opposition by Pike anglers. o Yes. Capture efforts are conducted; however, significant Pike sources outside of the region pose an ongoing issue of population replenishment, in both downstream and upstream directions. o Yes. We are on the lower CR, so what happens upstream determines what measures we take and what policy we support and craft. o Mixed management issues (federal, state, tribal) related to identified roles in Rufus Woods Reservoir below Grand Coulee Dam. • Community, stakeholders, education o Yes. Lack of interest/restoration community knowledge in the threats they could cause to current extensive salmon recovery efforts. o Yes. Working with stakeholders that withhold information. Not yet, but… • The concern (for the lower Columbia River) is keeping them out so they don't have major impacts on salmonids and the food web. • Not yet in our region but potential to move upstream along the Columbia. We are watching the situation in the lower reaches of the river. • Yes. N. Pike have not been detected as yet in the Columbia River in reaches below Grand Coulee Dam, but could be at some time in the future. • We are located in Christina Lake BC are connected to the Kettle River system by Christina Creek. We have had an occurrence of Pike in our lake, but they have not been seen in any numbers. We are concerned that if they get established in our lake they will impact our native species such as kokanee. • Not yet. • Yes, luckily we don’t have them yet. Not a problem…

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 65 • Not currently a concern - Canada upper Columbia region. • No. Not applicable… • Not applicable to me. I'm not a fisheries manager.

2. What information or forum discussions would best advance the management of invasive N. Pike in your region?

Distribution and movement information… • Distribution, movement, likelihood of E. lucius in the Snake River. • Current eDNA confirmed distribution. Current efforts to remove and population strength in sample/removal locations. • Population status and distribution updates. Potential control or feasible eradication methods for Rivers and large lakes. Discussions regarding partnership approaches. • BMPs, distributions and where the invasion front is, whom is the best organization/individual to report to. • We are interested to learn from others about early detection of Pike and potential for management if they do move into this area. Case studies, strategies, technologies, techniques… • Strategies to extirpate, including river flow management, trapping and other lethal means. We know that nuclease gene technologies producing sterile males could cause a population crash, but that application will require a large, expensive focused effort. • Suppression effectiveness, population monitoring projects (PIT tagging, mark recapture, etc), risks to other species, projected growth of pike populations, a realistic conversation of their removal potential. • Information about effective means of controlling pike, number of pike removed, age classes of fish that are removed. • Barrier, eradication, and suppression method feasibility and effectiveness. • Eradication program updates. • Prevention strategies. • Removal studies - what worked, what didn't. • Best accepted removal methods in river sections that contain ESA Listed species - salmon, steelhead, and bull trout; 2) Detailed summary of N. Pike life history, and biological and habitat requirements for all life stages - egg through adult spawning. • As prevention and EDRR are the goals for LCR, really I think we here need to think about removing flowering rush (interaction with invasive habitat modifying plants) and learning what the incentives are for keeping Pike in up-watershed areas (Idaho, Montana). What are the barriers for eradication upstream?

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 66 • As a researcher I am most interested in science needs surrounding invasive Pike and how I might assist government agencies, NGOs, and tribes in answering questions related of preventing and controlling invasive Pike. • Case studies of eradication. • I think we need to think about how we can nurture, coordinate and support new technologies that may lead to novel control tools. • Control techniques on recently established populations. • New tools or technologies to be considered for Pike eradication. • Discussing what the most effective methods are to capture Northern Pike in Rivers, and where and when to focus future efforts? • N. Pike removal programs and their success. • Species specific fish passage. Understanding barriers to movement (temp, DO, salinity). • I'd be interested to hear of any new suppression techniques being used. Management of Pike using water level manipulation? Winter behaviors / movements of Northern Pike. Aversion techniques (sound / light etc.) • Specific information on the control efforts in lake Roosevelt; specifically I am hearing that non- target species fishery concerns are limiting the amount and type of control efforts currently being used on Lake Roosevelt. If so, why and what can be done to expand the length and breadth of control efforts in Lake Roosevelt. Additionally, data on the amount, type, and extent of N. Pike monitoring downstream of Lake Roosevelt that is currently being done by WDFW, UCUT tribes, and the PUD's. Simply put, is it statistically sufficient to detect the presence of N. Pike that may exist downstream of Grand Coulee Dam. Finally, we need a greater level of transparency of current efforts and for downstream co-managers to review and comment on those efforts. • Sharing results of regional management actions directed at N. Pike and research/monitoring results describing status/population dynamics of N. Pike in the region. In addition, information on where N. Pike are causing the most problems and where they are causing fewer problems. • Tactics for population control (i.e., timing, location, effectiveness, cost, partnering, etc.). • Any new advancements or findings in capture or removal techniques. • Cross-border collaboration on control efforts (capture, euthanasia). • What more can we do? Would it be worth trying commercial netting equipment and fishermen? What have we learned that helps inform our next steps? • How effective are suppression operations? Is Idaho still moving large Pike for anglers in Lake PDO? • I am interested in this forum to get an understanding of the Pike issue to the south of us so that we can better understand the risk to our lake and what management techniques are available to us should they become established here. Our first step is to understand if they are in our lake in any numbers as there have at this point only been occasional sightings. • I'd say discuss NP in any arena where it is relevant. Communication, coordination, collaboration, and funding…

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 67 • How we can push the funding problem with BPA. • How to raise peer-to-peer awareness within the restoration community (let alone policymakers and the public) of the threats N. Pike could have in the PNW. • Sharing of information and collaboration. • Collaboration on research. • At this time, given Kootenai doesn’t have confirmed presence, any discussion and information from those that are dealing with this issue will be helpful if Pike establish. • Discussions on collaborative management actions, funding opportunities, detection/action information sharing. • It would be useful to have shared data showing where agencies are conducting monitoring for Northern Pike to prioritize gaps in sampling --- (see https://www.westernais.org/monitoring). Also, understanding what monitoring techniques are most useful in the various habitats with the fastest results for actionable information (eDNA vs. netting). Having clear coordination on Northern Pike management in basins, such as the Columbia River Basin, would be helpful as well - - specifically understanding who is removing northern Pike, or who could remove Pike if they are detected in a new location? Multiple agency press releases to the public about efforts to remove Pike might also be helpful (coordinated communication). • Clearly defined roles and working group responsibilities Policy and management… • Engaging resistant entities in their collaboration and support (stakeholders across region including current/potential distribution of Northern Pike). • Aligning non-native fish management perspectives/guidelines with respect to native fish restoration goals. Review and revise non-native fish management rules and regulations in areas connected to the Columbia River. • How to encourage fishing of Pike. • A forum discussion related to extirpation of all NP in the PNW should include re-evaluation of management in regions where NP are considered a sportfish and the potential to modify those management strategies to reflect the potential impacts of NP in a more global context within the PNW. • What is being done throughout the region to "manage" NP both in the US (Idaho, Montana, Washington) and in Canadian waters? Are suppression/removal efforts part of the plan? Describe successes of management plans. • Anadromous zone intervention and planning. • Discussions on the potential development of a comprehensive Columbia River Basin N. Pike eradication plan (to include measures, coordinated actions, regulatory management and funding). • Consensus from the state of Washington, Oregon, and tribal co-managers on what constitutes a northern Pike environmental emergency. Also, discussion of a bi-state response plan, in collaboration with co-managers. • Regional planning and control efforts to date.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 68

3. What outcomes would make this forum most valuable to you?

General information on distribution, risks, state of knowledge… • Just hearing an update about the fight against pike. • Case studies and recommendations on the above priorities. • Understanding current state of population in various areas of the basin. Impacts to the other fish populations. Strategies for management. • Pike distribution and abundance combined with extent of negative effects. Extent and effectiveness of actions. • Framing and understanding the most probable level of threat of downstream movement and how many individuals and years it would take for Pike to produce an effective population size in the Columbia River below Chief Joseph Dam. • Eradication of newer populations that could spread (and ideally of all the potential feeder populations). Increased ed & outreach to the sports fishing community that helps them understand the ecological, social, and economic problems with northern pike; Determining what they might need to feel good about removing N. Pike. • Awareness that Pike are an immediate threat to our regional fisheries and inaction will only exacerbate the problem. • Information sharing. • Having a better understanding of N. Pike status/population dynamics throughout the region, along with updates on recent management/research efforts. Basically, sharing information across state lines and management entities. • Just knowing who the groups are that are dealing with this issue and hearing about their programs will be a very helpful start for us, especially if there is anything going on that is in our immediate area. Because we are at the very edge of what could be an issue, I am still in the 'gathering info and contacts' stage. • Hearing more about the management challenges others are facing and how they are going about confronting the challenges. Technical strategies and resource sharing… • Central website and/or data repository to share information. • Resource links. • Take away strategies that can be immediately implemented. • Any research/management efforts of control or prevent introduction would be helpful. • Updates on any new control methods/tools on the horizon. • Learning the effectiveness of the management practices currently in place, and learning what future mitigation measures might improve the effectiveness.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 69 • Greater understanding of current control efforts, ability to work directly with managers controlling N. Pike, and what steps downstream co-managers need to be taking NOW to prevent colonization and establishment of N. Pike downstream of Priest Rapids Dam. • Steps to proceed forward in managing NP as an invasive species. Coordination, collaborative action plan… • Some solid actions for ISCBC or make connections to collaborate or work with in the future. • A clear plan on next steps to either remove pike or effectively manage their continued presence • Sharing of contact information and data between agencies. Increased communication and a plan with timelines moving forward. • Continued conversations and collaboration on management. • Development of a collaborative action plan so groups can work together and track efforts. • Establishing a northern Pike working group to coordinate monitoring and control efforts, and to work on a strategic management plan / response plan for northern Pike. Coordination including both the US and Canada (especially British Columbia) would be helpful. It would also be helpful to have an update on the status of the invasion of northern Pike in the pacific northwest - especially in the Columbia River Basin, and highlight any information gaps or barriers for implementing more effective northern Pike suppression actions. • Connecting with others who have experience in Pike detection and management. • Partnering for action and public awareness that this is a real threat. • Clear agreement on next steps and committed entities. Policy and management engagement, policy level coordination, and funding… • Organized effort to reach broader restoration network, including posts to established listservs and overall information awareness campaign. • To understand the vision for the region in dealing with this invasive species. • Demonstration of regional support of, and financial pathways to, the detection, prevention, and removal of Northern Pike throughout the broader Columbia basin. • An alignment among sovereigns toward controlling Northern Pike and improving enforcement to reduce/eliminate illegal introductions. Forest fires eventually burn themselves out or can be controlled. The invasion of a non-native fish, especially in a large river system, cannot be easily undone. There needs to be serious consequences for these actions. • Will Idaho and Montana participate? Is the control and or removal likely to be a useful long-term approach to management? Do we have novel ways of targeted control or removal? Will BPA fund a bigger effort? • I am interested in learning about agency perspectives and policy plans and actions. Also specifically interested in science/research needs of participants. • Attendance by Idaho Fish and Game policy/lawmakers who have the ability to modify their sportfishing regulations to reflect the concerns of the regional salmon/fish managers. • Just an overall knowledge of what other agencies are doing to monitor and stop the spread of N. Pike.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 70 • Continued collaboration following the forum. • Prioritized list of research needs with list of organizations that can contribute to it. • What is / isn't working for other groups managing Pike Increased data sharing / relationship building across the border. • Define clear leadership direction and from whom on the problem. • Funding, Methods, and Results discussion. • Better regional prioritization and coordination. • Knowledge of secured funding sources leading to long-term , concrete control effort plans. • Identification of funding commitment from the Bureau of Reclamation to work on this issue in Lake Roosevelt and from the ACOE for Rufus Woods. Can we clearly identify next steps, and how and who to help us move forward? Is it time to bring this issue to DC? • A coordinated US/Canada approach to the issue. • Understanding who is taking the lead on N. Pike in the CR basin. • Agreements on roles between different agencies. • The regional policy statement that northern Pike is a problem and not an opportunity is very powerful. Beyond that, there is very little regional consensus.

4. Is there something else you would like to share with the forum planners that would make this event especially worthwhile?

Misc. • I shared this forum with the 4-County CWMA technical committee and others, but there was no link to register. • Learning opportunity for me. • I'd like to understand the potential for Pike to traverse the upper dams on the Columbia (Hugh Keenlyside, Revelstoke, Mica). • I hear WDFW may have a response plan (draft?) for the anadromous fish zones. Funding, costs… • Coordinating the funding effort. • To help provide context and perspective, it would be helpful if someone (BPA?) could provide a rough estimate of what the region contributes to salmon recovery, and how those estimates would be adjusted to account for the direct and in-direct effects of NP. Thank you… • Nope...great job! They types of forums are what keep fisheries managers and stakeholders together and focused on a goal • Nothing but thank you for putting this together and including CLSS in this - it is very appreciated. • No, thank you.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 71 • No but thank you. • Thank you! Keep it up. • Thanks for organizing this event and the invitation. Need for action, continued effort, follow-up • Thank you so much for your efforts in organizing a forum! It would be helpful to have follow-up date(s) already scheduled after the Feb. 17 date so we don't lose momentum for working together! • The tools are available to address the invasion of Northern Pike. We need to collaboratively engage in minimizing future expansion and address populations where they now exist. This cannot be fully realized without State, Federal, and Tribal consensus and stable access to funding for those willing and able to engage in the issue. • Control and enforcement efforts need to be adequately funded, but also should not reduce (take away funding) from other efforts already working towards native fish restoration/preservation. New sources of funding likely need to be found outside of the normal BPA sources. • N. Pike are now widespread throughout the region. They exist at varying population densities and their level of impact also varies. While it would be ideal to address negative impacts everywhere they exist, this is unrealistic for a variety of reasons. It may be worth discussing factors to consider when trying to prioritize management actions/allocation of resources. • Well documented meeting notes to facilitate agreed upon next steps.

UCUT February 17, 2021 Regional Northern Pike Forum Report 72