here to read by fre77224

VIEWS: 39 PAGES: 53

									               Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
               Invasive Carp Control Workshop
                        Meeting Notes
                               March 23-25, 2010
                               Community Center
                                Burns, Oregon


                                                Day 1 Tuesday March 23, 2010
Attendance: 64 participants

Welcome: Tim Bodeen, Linda Beck, Chad Karges

Roles: Chad Karges – Overall Meeting Facilitator
       Jess Wenick – Timer
       Carla Burnside – AV/IT
       Carey Goss – Food/Beverages/Outreach
       Sharon Selvaggio & Claudia Rector – Note Takers
       Tim Bodeen & Linda Beck – Meeting Organizers

(Note: Unless otherwise designated, the term “Lake” refers to Malheur Lake.)

Historical Perspective of Malheur Invasion and Control Attempts
Gary Ivey, International Crane Foundation, former Biologist for Malheur:


Background:
• Carp, native to Eurasia, were imported to Europe by Marco Polo in 1253. Romans spread them throughout their empire, held carp
 festivals then the Catholic church.
 • Carp were introduced to North America in the 1920’s and distributed throughout the country in 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s by the US
  Fish Commission. Carp are located on all continents except Antarctica now.
 • By 1981, 70% of the refuges were reporting a carp problem.

Malheur:
  • Malheur tried removal efforts using Rotenone approximately every 10 years.
  • In 1955 they used aerial spray on the Lake and upper Blitzen River. However, they didn’t treat the Silvies River so the carp
   restocked themselves. In the 80’s, they tried to remove carp from the display pond near the HQ. They even tried dynamite. Finally
   they pumped the pond dry and removed all the carp. There was an incredible biomass of fish. The carp are so productive, they
   dominate the system.
  • Duck productivity crashed after the introduction of carp then increased a little after each control effort. Early market hunting
   removed wagonloads of birds from the Narrows.
  • Why are carp a problem? Competition for food with the birds: their diet is 75% diptera larvae, 23% plants; mallards eat 72%
   invertebrates, 25% vegetation. Also, their manner of feeding on the bottom.
  • In 1978, after the Rotenone treatment, sago pondweed was thick and productive, water quality improved and numbers were up for
   canvasbacks, tundra swans, mallards, invertebrates and native fish.
  • Malheur is the largest lake system west of the Rockies.
  • Malheur water is fresher near the Silvies River.
 • In times of high water, water spreads and moves west across the Narrows to Mud Lake, then to Harney. With lower water
    regimes, Harney is a hyper-saline lake, or dries up to become a playa, as it is now.
 • In 1980, 1983, 1984, with high water levels, carp spread widely. The 40,000 acre lake spread to cover 171,000 surface acres.
    Carp, bullhead, crappie and bass populations exploded. Bird and native fish populations also expanded. Harney Lake is usually
    too saline for carp and associated piscivorous birds but with the flooding there were 127 K common mergansers, grebes and egrets
    observed.
• In 1986, flooding peaked.
• In 1988, a period of drought began. Lake levels dropped.
• In 1991 & 92, carp in Harney Lake disappeared. Bald Eagles and other fish eating birds ate the dead fish and then disappeared.
• A couple of years after carp die off, widgeon grass appeared and ducks came: 500,000 redheads, gadwalls, wigeons and coots.
• In 1996, wigeon grass died. Birds came to eat the tui chub; then they were gone.
• Ruddy ducks came to eat brine shrimp; then they were gone. Now only snowy plovers are there and their population continues to
    grow.
• If carp not there, many other spp take advantage.
• As carp grow and get too big to handle, eared grebes, western grebes drop out early then cormorants, pelicans drop out later.
• System – years when carp have good survival, high spawning, get cohorts, - what has failed in the past is that we haven’t


                                                                 2
    addressed on the basin scale.
•   Late 80s – 18 pairs trumpeters on lake. Were winter fed on display pond -77 birds counted in 93. carp wiped out their winter
    habitat. Swan pop dropped to 19 in 88. moved to s part of refuge where more vulnerable
•   Meanwhile, carp have returned after every Rotenone treatment but very few other fish are present.
•   In 1996, after the 1992 Malheur Rotenone treatment, the fish biologist used gill nets to sample fish. They found large tui chub and
    large carp. Apparently a good year had produced a large cohort of fish.

Assessment:
Need to look at carp on a basin scale, including the Silvies River, not just on the refuge.

Q: When you used Rotenone, did you leave the dead fish to rot?
A: In the past, yes. There was no demand for the fish. They smelled for a week or two.
Q: (Dan) Where was the American White Pelican colony?
A: They moved around but were usually on the NE side of the Lake mostly at Cole Island dike. (However, they move around a bit.)
That would be a good place for an island.
Q: You have good records of birds and ducks for the refuge. Do you have records of fish?
A: No, only anecdotal records of trapping at the dams. We should have. Also of salinity levels.
Q: (John) What percent of carp are killed with Rotenone? Do fish survive or are there new fish coming in?
A: The kill is 99% effective. When they drew the Lake down, there were few left. But some do burrow down into winter refugia 3 ft
underground so they could have been there. Unquestionably, most fish were restocked from the Silvies breeding adults.
Q: Did you kill many fish of other species?
A: Yes, but very few since there were few others present. The lakes were overwhelmed with carp since there was such a high
population level. There were survivors up in the rivers and in the springs. There were few native fish in the lower drainages.
Q: (Rick) Could you do wetland surveys of water quality and vegetation and estimate carp populations from that?
A: We could do plant surveys and use them with an index for carp to estimate populations.

Biology of Invasive Carp
Dr. Clay Pierce, Iowa State University COp Unit:

Background:
• Cyprinus carpio is a minnow with very high genetic variability and different appearances. Most wild fish are fully scaled; while
  fancier breeds have varied appearances like Koi, mirrored (partially scaled)and leather carp(essentially scales). They are related to
  goldfish and Prussian carp.


                                                                     3
• Carp are native to Eurasia from the Black, Aral and Caspian Sea drainages. They might have been found east to Siberia and China
  or west to the Danube.
• Carp were introduced to North America in 1831 when 5 or 6 dozen fish were stocked in a pond in New York. Some escaped in a
  flood.
• In 1872, scaled carp were shipped from Germany to the Sonoma Valley in California. These were probably the source of most fish
  in western US.
• In 1877, the best known introduction occurred. The US Fish Commission decided they were a desirable fish and imported scaled
  and mirror carp from Germany to Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, DC. Fish were shipped by the railroad carload around the
  US to stock by the 100’s in lakes and ponds.
• Today, carp are found throughout the US.

Life History:
    • Carp spawn in May and June (in northern US) in shallow (< 2 ft) water with vegetative cover and water temps from 17-25º C
       or 53-75ºF. Groups of several males pursue each female, splashing in shallows. They are very visible. Eggs are small,
       attached to vegetation. Fecundity is very high, several million eggs for a large female, half a million for a 5-8# female, so
       productivity is high. Eggs hatch in 4-12 days, depending on water temp.
    • Young of year are secretive and rarely seen. Young are 56 mm long when hatched; settle to the bottom or onto vegetation.
       They may drift in the river. At 8 mm, they swim freely to feed but keep close to cover. They grow to 4”9” their first year and
       can burrow for cover when frightened or to avoid danger.
    • Adults are very visible. Males mature in 2 years, females in 3 (or as young as 1 and 2 years if the population is growing.)
       Mature males are about 12”, females 17”. Their life span is about 20 years in the wild, 47 in captivity so they can easily
       outlast bad years.
    • Diet: Juveniles eat zooplankton. Subadults eat benthic macroinvertebrates. Adults are omnivorous, feeding on
       macroinvertebrates, plants and detritus. They have a protrusible mouth that works like a vacuum cleaner, penetrating 5-6” into
       the bottom sediments to suck up sediments, harvest food, and release sediment into the water column. They uproot plants and
       leave pock marks in the bottom sediments and turbid water to shade out pant growth.
    • Growth Rates are rapid especially in the first 23 years, and particularly the 2nd year. Growth rates level off by 56 years. All
       growth depends on environmental conditions so it can be hard to predict. Big fish can be over 20#. Typically fish weigh 8-
       10#. The record is 82# (S. Africa), 74# for US.
    • Environmental tolerance: Carp shows a wide range for lethal tolerance: temps of 2-36ºC (unusual for fish), <2ppm DO (can
       gulp surface air to breath, live out of water for extended periods), low water clarity and high turbidity, high algae
       concentrations.
    • For habitat they prefer vegetation but can tolerate a variously degraded environment with/out vegetation.


                                                                  4
   •   Characteristics of a successful invasive species:
          o previous success
          o wide environmental tolerance
          o high genetic variability
          o early sexual maturity
          o rapid growth
          o high reproductive capacity
          o broad diet
          o gregarious
          o good disperser
          o commensal with human activity

   •   Carp is the poster child for invasive species.

Q: (Bruce) What gives a good spawning year?
A: 1) High water giving a large flooded terrestrial area of new vegetation for spawning since they have destroyed the aquatic
vegetation. 2) Extreme hypoxia.
Q: What are the greatest risks to carp?
A: Spring Viremia which can cause a 95-98% mortality. Australians are studying the disease but there is probably high resistance in
North America since there are annual outbreaks. Closest infection that Linda knows of happened in MN (outbreaks happen every
year) Also, Koi herpes virus.
Q : What caused the big difference in carp growth rates in Clear Lake IA in your slide.
A: May have been a density-dependent effect, food availability. Temperature influences growth rate in many spp but that probably
wasn’t the case for that study. Land use in that area 90% agricultural in catchment.
Q: What causes different growth rates at Malheur?
A: Fish populations grew faster in the 50’s. Fish arrived in the area in the 20’s, were present in the 50’s but not abundant and habitat
and food were probably better than the present. Crowding and competition are major factors.


Refuge Water Delivery System Management
Jess Wenick, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge




                                                                    5
   •   Malheur is an artificial water system, diverted by dams from the Blitzen River operated by the refuge maintenance crew.
   •   Blitzen River has 6 dams and a flow through system with water returning to the river at the bottom of each field. At one point,
       water is even piped across the river. Flow through is important for carp since they can travel up outflow.
   •   Dams have limited carp control capabilities with screens to catch carp.
   •   Some dams have historical significance to consider in their management.
   •   Dunn Dam largely dysfunctional now, structural integrity lacking.
   •   Double O has an independent system irrigated by springs. It was dried for 2 years, has just been refilled.
   •   As water ponds up and sub-irrigation occurs, ecotomes develop. Thus if you dry up a pond, you are influencing potentially
       thousands of acres influenced by that pond.

Q: (Jason) Now that water levels are low, is this a good time to target carp before flooding?
A: Yes, the acreage under water is small.
Q: Are water control structures screened so as we dry up one pond, will new water be carp free? A:We are working on this, slowly.
Not all wetlands have screens. Boca Lake is the one wetland that has a spring that can’t be drawn down easily. We started rerouting
how we ran water through – had some success. Because carp can burrow, only leaving things dry for a few months may not eliminate.
Another way is to put wetlands on a cycle – leave things dry for a year. Try to put in infrastructure to slow down their ability to
reinvade wetlands).


Water Resources
Chad Karges and Linda Beck, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

• Water Rights: In Oregon to maintain a water right, need a defined point of origin. Rights are very complex. In 1999, refuge filed 2
  applications. Before, the refuge had an agricultural right which was attached to the land. In 1999, they filed to transfer right to
  wildlife use. Application is not yet finalized but will be. Refuge will be able to use the water in the winter. There may be water
  available in February if it rains in the Steens. The refuge needs to be able to use water whenever it comes.
• The refuge has developed a settlement agreement to cooperative on water management with the community of Diamond in any
  given year depending on the volume of water.
• Opportunities to control carp movement thru fish passage and screening – currently investing in 2MM fish screens at POD.
  Challenge is where water re-enters the river from drains. Still pretty much unimpeded access for carp.
• Utah State University geomorphology assessment of Blitzen River from Page Springs Dam to Krumbo Reservoir bridge is funded
  by the RO Water Resource Division. The river is highly channelized and requests have been received at the Refuge to restore
  some of its sinuousness.


                                                                  6
   •    Dan Craver is providing contemporary satellite images and lake level studies for monitoring. He can do low level satellite
        images for water depth and hole maps. There is data from 1938 to the present. 1984 peak – 171,000 acres. 1994, the Lake
        shrunk. September 1992, Lake was 1110 acres, a 10 fold decrease from 1984. December 2009 the Lake rising. The point is
        there is much fluctuation in Lake size. We can use images to predict Lake size, based on snow pack in the Steens.
Q: What is pH of water?
A: Varies between 7 and 9
Comment: (Bill) Lake was completely dry in 30’s.
Q: (John) If Lake was down to 1100 acres in 1992, was there a population explosion in 1993?
A: Since they Rotenoned that year, there was a duck population explosion.
(Carla: In the early 90’s, an evapotranspiration study showed that in August, with temperatures over 90ºF and wind at 5 mph, the Lake
could lose 1” of water depth per day.
Q: You treated the Lake in 92 when there was a small acreage. Was it successful?
A: (Gary Ivey) Yes it was but only briefly. Fish came back from the Silvies.
Q: During typical years, when is the highest water?
A: June peak, August at lowest. Every foot the lake comes up, flood about 10,000 acres. Silvies probably only reaches lake in 4/10
years because of diversions. Majority comes from Blitzen River.
Q: What is the size of the Lake?
A: One foot of water gives 10,000 acres. There are dramatic changes each year.
Q: Is the Silvies an important source of water for the Lake?
A: In 3e- 4 years out of ten, only when it is a very wet year. Otherwise the water from the Silvies is used for agriculture. Majority of
the water comes from Blitzen River.
Q: What were the carp like in the 92 kill?
A: Average size was 10#. Carp were many and large.
Q: Does drought have benefits for vegetation?
A: For other management objectives, drying out the Lake does have some benefits.
Q: What about wildlife nesting? Spring migrant resting? Haying and grazing?
A: Many objectives are impacted.
Q: Is drying up a pond a benefit to habitat?
A: Managing the refuge means balancing objectives to meet 10 year goals.
Q: Is it fair to say that the value of Blitzen valley takes on more importance b/c of lake condition?
A: Separate values; don’t trade off one for another. Blitzen has relative importance to waterfowl production – yes, but not important
for fish eating birds.




                                                                   7
Workshop Goals Identified by Refuge
  1. Identify existing and needed information.
  2. Develop strategies to acquire funding and resources.
  3. Build relationships and partnerships.

Brainstorm of Workshop Goals from Participants
Begin building a foundation for Carp management by
   •   Identify existing and needed information
   •   Develop strategies to acquire necessary funding and resources
   •   Build relationships and partners
   •   Identify tools for carp management and consider cost/benefit of each tool
   •   Consider within context of other refuge management objectives
   •   What is the objective for carp management – is it elimination, is it control, is it everywhere or just certain areas?
   •   Identify alternatives – is the objective control or is it something different
   •   Look at recovery of biodiversity and water clarity – usually that‘s accomplishable w/ a 75% reduction. Recommendations on tools need to
       be based on management goals for the refuge clearly and tradeoffs need to be clearly understood.
   •   Work collaboratively through the basin, not just refuge and Malheur Lake.
   •   Figure out what drives the carp population first, then figure out strategy later. EG water draw downs may not be beneficial.

Other comments:
   •   We achieved 75% control in Blitzen Valley and it was pretty good – never got there in the Lake or Double O.
   •   We were criticized at Biological Review that we had not given enough focus to Malheur Lake. We need to meet purposes of refuge,
       congressional mandate.


For the Birds: Restoring Habitat for Migratory Birds and Island Nesting Colonial Waterbirds at Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge
Dr. Dan Roby and Dr. Sue Haig
“The Importance of Malheur to Birds”

• American White Pelicans have the largest wingspan of any bird in Oregon. In 1988, 2,000 pairs nested in the Refuge. Now none
  do.



                                                                     8
• With low water levels, there are no islands far enough from shore so no suitable nesting habitat. Predation, especially by coyotes,
  was devastating.
• Clear Lake NWR had 3,000 pairs. Island now has land bridges so no pelicans nested this year.
• Closest colony is in Warner Valley where a few dozen birds nest.
• Why would pelicans help carp problem? They eat large quantities of carp in shallow water. They are the only colonial nesting
  bird that regularly eat adult carp. They don’t dive so they can feed in shallow water.
• They are strong feeders and commute long distances to feed but could eat more if they lived here.
• Tags from adult fish are found regularly in pelican colonies.
• Upper Klamath Lake has no carp. Why?
• Corps of Engineers has restored Crump Lake Island, Warner Valley, OR. Caspian terns and DC cormorants have come, pelicans
  are checking it out. They are confident they will nest. Also some ½ acre islands, some floating. Used decoys and tapes.
• New birds in Upper Klamath Lake on constructed 2 acre island in Tule Lake.
• East Sand Island Caspian tern colony needed to be moved since eating juvenile salmon.
• Can use similar techniques to attract pelicans.

Q: Any assessments on predatory impact of colonies on carp?
A: No. We could do a back of the envelope calculation, but much depends on size of carp, whether the birds are breeding or not, or if
they’re nesting on the site as opposed to some distance.
Q: What is the current situation given how far they will go to forage?
A: They are foraging on Malheur lake, there has always been use from pelicans nesting elsewhere. Guy named Smith studied in the
early 80s – a lot depends though on size class of carp.
Q: Do we know what the potential carp consumption of a colony of 3000 pairs of pelicans would consume?
A: It depends on size of carp, if birds are breeding, how close they are to the food.
Q: What is the current story at Malheur? Are pelicans coming to feed?
A: Flying surveys show that, even if no birds are breeding, there are hundreds of pelicans feeding here, herding and eating carp. Gary
observed high use of the area by migrant pelicans. Great Basin study showed that if the fish were too big, they wouldn’t come.

About the Fishes: Natives, Research and Results
Linda Beck, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

• The refuge reports at least 10 species of fish: 7 natives, 3 nonnatives. Redband trout is a species of concern. Population sizes,
  distributions, and densities are unknown.
• An estimated 7.2 million pounds of carp in the refuge.


                                                                  9
•   Some funding is available for carp control
•   $12K for attractants repellants and exclusions
•   $22K for fish passage and screening
•   $10K for screening
•   $6K for this conference
•   $5K carp outreach and education
•   Report on last year’s activities.
•   Carp health below Sod House dam is poor; fish are at their maximum concentrations. At Double 0 they are healthy.

Integrated Pest management Schemes for Common Carp
Dr. Peter Sorenson, University of Minnesota

Background:
• Carp Biology: Fish are resilient, have a specialized feeding apparatus, rely strongly on pheromones in turbid water, and are
  intelligent.
• Life History: Females fecund, producing up to 3 million eggs. Adults spawn in shallows, finding each other with pheromones.
  Eggs and larvae are unstudied. We don’t know the biology of their most important life stages. Mortality is unstudied. How many
  young survive to adulthood is unknown.
• Feeding: Carp eat anything on the bottom causing turbidity and uprooted plants. They act as nutrient pumps and cycler releasing N
  and phosphorus into the water.
• Carp exclosures lead to dramatic clearing of water.
• Could continue carp removals but don’t know how many there are, what the biomass is. To continue control without this
  information would perpetuate years of unsustainable control with hit and miss results.
• In a few places, removal has worked but only with small lakes not large open systems like Malheur.
• Model management on sea lamprey, a successful control program in a large lake system.

Integrated Control: A systematic approach which targets biological attributes of an unwanted species to bring it under control in
an ecologically and economically sustainable manner.
• Target biological attribute of species for control in ecologically and economically sustainable manner. But, you need to know
   species well to develop an effective program. It takes time and money.
• Minnesota program: Asked why are there so many carp? So many eggs? But not the same high levels everywhere. They studied
   population dynamics (immigration, emigration, mortality, recruitment). They had tried mortality schemes (Rotenone) but


                                                                10
    populations recovered. Also immigration schemes (barriers). We needed to look at immigration and recruitment. We looked at
    biomass, extent of damage, age structure and movement to develop a model for a target.
•   Recruitment: sporadic and controllable. Carp spawned every year but often unsuccessfully. Old fish dominated, tying to winter
    kill years.
•   Population must be driven by recruitment.
•   To control population: remove 90% of adult fish with Judas fish, bar remaining adults from recruitment environment and aerate
    marsh in the winter to prevent hypoxia.
•   The result was increased plant cover, no recruitment and no immigration.
•   Affordable, sustainable IPM is possible: control recruitment, remove adults, monitor and model, suppress movement.
•   We don’t know if we have more than one population here – keep that in mind.
•   We don’t know key things about population dynamics here for carp– immigration, recruitment, emigration, mortality.
•   If focus only on mortality – (eg w/ rotenone or netting), we’re ignoring the other aspects of population dynamics.
•   Two models on pop dynamics (Bax and Thresher 2009), Brown shows same thing.
•   Stats, dynamics, history all show that simple removal doesn’t work.
•   Treat carp by:
•   Remove critical numbers of adults, suppress recruitment and/or spawning, suppress immigration.
•   Showed study in MN (see Bajer and Sorenson; Biological Invasions 2009)– determined that recruitment history is sporadic and
    controllable! Large gaps in age structure pointed to common reproductive failure in many years. No recruitment in years w/
•   (does unstable spawning habitat trigger explosive and sporadic recruitment? Flooding and draining fields may exactly favor carp
    recruitment!!!!
•   Look at book Carp Control in Australia – has most of these techniques described.

Q: In this system, was there limited spawning habitat?
A: No, plenty. The whole Lake. Any place they were safe from predators.
Q: Are native fish suppressing carp?
A: Yes, people are thrilled.

Effects of a Rapidly Increasing Population of Common Carp on Vegetative Cover and Waterfowl in a Recently Restored
Midwestern Shallow Lake
Dr. Przemyslaw Bajer, University of Minnesota

    •   Key question is – at what biomass do common carp impact vegetation and waterfowl in a shallow lake? Also, how rapidly are



                                                                  11
       such densities attained?

Background
   • In Illinois, Hopper and Hennepin lakes were established as wetlands for waterfowl use. Carp commonly reached biomasses of
       300-500 kg/ha. Their activities caused algae bloom, uprooted and shaded out aquatic plants and a nutrient pump. Linear
       relationship shown between carp biomass and percent of vegetation remaining (Crivelli 1983 and Robel 1961) but these were
       done in exclosures – not larger natural lakes.
• The first record of carp damage in Wisconsin was in Neosho Lake in 1929. In this small lake they reported there was “not a plant,
  not a single plant”. Carp were visibly abundant so they decided to drain the lake. They harvested 6,000 carp, very few other
  species.
• In other lakes in the area, they reported there had been many native species but had no pre-carp data. They reported the bottoms of
  the lakes were covered with pits from the carp.
• In 1960’s, studies done with barriers to quantify the vegetation with and without carp. The major impact from carp was reported at
  400-500 kg/ha.
• Removal studies improved habitat but they recorded no numbers for biomass removed to show improvement. It depends on the
  lake’s carrying capacity. Don’t know how quickly the system will recover.
• Therefore they chose to study Hennepin and Hopper lakes to determine these numbers.
• Shallow, 1000 acre lakes, historically important for waterfowl. They were drained in 1910 for agriculture and restored in 2001 for
  waterfowl.
• In 2004, the lakes were “successfully” treated with Rotenone. By 2005, conditions had deteriorated again. Carp had returned from
  the irrigation canals.
• In 2006, fish were prominent.
• In 2007, asked for help.

    Carp population assessment:
       1. Mark and recapture, 4 seine loads.
       2. Release fish, give 1 week to disperse.
       3. Harvest 5 seine loads to get population estimate.
       4. Collect 150 fish to age with ear bones to determine age structure, recruitment events, growth rates.

    Determine biomass.
•   Back calculate using mortality estimates (12%) and growth.
•   Vegetation and waterfowl surveys (% cover and species).


                                                                  12
•   Mark and recapture in 2007 data: estimated population of 76,000.
•   Aging: few aged 5&6, lots 2&4.
•   Estimated 250 kg/ha in 2007, up from 0 in 2001.
•   From 2005-2007 increased from 25 to 250 kg/ha.
•   Mirror graph for vegetation and waterfowl surveys. Both crashed in 2006-07 when carp at 100 kg/ha.
•   Define 100 kg/ha as threshold for shallow lake. Apparently lower levels are not damaging.

    Duck species:
    In 2004, dabbling and diving ducks present
    In 2007, all diving ducks gone, most dabblers still present

    •   Good graph showing relationship between carp biomass, vegetation, and waterfowl – threshold about 100 kg/ha. At about <50
        kg/ha not so damaging… Diving ducks were especially impacted by high carp biomass.

    Assessment:
       1. 100 kg/ha is threshold for damage
       2. At 250 kg/ha, damage is severe
       3. At 300-350 kg/ha damage is extremely high
       4. Population increased from 30-255 kg/ha in 2 years
          after carp control, vegetation came back rapidly
          only species of bird that increased was the white pelican

Carp and Water Quality Research, Midwest Case Study
Mike Colvin, Iowa State University

Background:
Clear Lake is a recreational lake for boating and sport fishing for 5 species generating $3 million per year in revenue. Over the past
years, quality of fishing and other recreation have fallen. It’s shallow with high phosphorus load and carp infestation.

Treatment to clean water:
      1. Reforestation and agricultural retirement
      2. Storm drains
      3. Adjacent marsh established


                                                                   13
      4. Boat wake controls
      5. Wind breaks
   But carp resuspended sediments and nutrients in water column.

   Carp suppression:
   1. Established barrier along Ventura Marsh, source for young juvenile fish to keep out spawning adults. Young fish can return to
      lake. Also pumped marsh, drew down to cause winter kill.
   2. Commercial carp harvest. We used tagged fish to find high aggregations. We removed 300,000 kg fish per year. DNR
      subsidized at $.10 per pound. Now zebra mussels are present.

   Analysis:
   1. Effect of invasive species on Clear Lake, what happens to water quality and fish, opposing objectives of clear water (for boats
   and tourism) versus sport fishing productivity complex food web
   2. Carp have mostly negative impact, very little positive

   Management Implications:
   1. Document negative impacts of carp and zebra mussels on recreation and sport fishing maintain carp reductions
   2. Carp are important in structure of trophic levels

   Q: How large is Clear Lake?
   A: 1400 ha, 3500 acres.
   Q: Does winter kill in marsh help or hurt carp?
   A: Actually it suppresses carp.
   (Clay: This marsh deeds nutrients to the lake. Winter kill reduces the delivery of nutrients.)

Utah Lake Carp Control
Mile Mills, June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program

Reference USFWS EA

Background:
• 10 years of work but a long way to go
• Utah Lake is in north central Utah, south of SLC, large lake, 96,000 acres


                                                                  14
•   Shallow lake, 6 foot deep with a 14 foot pit
•   Lake is eutrophic, highly prolific and dominated by algae
•   Natural habitat for June Sucker which is endangered
•   Carp are the dominant fish, making up 90% of the biomass. There are few native or sport fish. They have destroyed the vegetation
    which is the habitat for suckers.

June Sucker Recovery Program:
• began in 2001
• 2001-2002, studied all nonnative species (walleye, white bass, and common carp). Determined carp had the greatest potential for
   sucker habitat destruction.
• 2004-5, did population estimate and feasibility study
• 2005, studied carp uses and marketability
• 2006, studied carp tissue contaminants
• 2007-9, carp removal and disposal studies
• 2009, NEPA compliance process

Results:
   Carp population estimated at 7.5 million 2+ year old adult fish (95% confidence level), average weight was 5.8#

Control possibilities:
• remove 5 million pounds per year (120 days at 41,000/day) with commercial fishing
• reduce population 75% in 6 years, 90% in 7 years
• continue a low level harvest to maintain reduced population
• stock recruitment model: 8% harvest per year to keep ahead of reproduction

Potential uses:
   Protein, products (human, animal feed, fishmeal or oil, fertilizer, compost, bait, biodiesel)

Marketing:
• Only human uses are valuable enough to be cost effective but are expensive to set up since there is no infrastructure in place.
   Also, production so high it would be hard to market.
• Since supply is variable, business did not want to invest in facilities.


                                                                   15
•   Carp was tested and found high in PCP’s so Utah state government advised against eating too much carp. Actually first fish ever
    to be tested, maybe all fish in Utah are high in PCB’s. This was very bad press.
•   Still looking for a marketable product.

Implementation:
   1. 2 large removals in 18 months removed 1.8 million pounds of carp.
   2. For NEPA compliance, they now have support of anglers (resisted at first) and in January EA finding showed no significant
      impact.
   3. They have received a $1 million matching grant to start.

Challenges:
   1. Diminishing returns as fish returned. They need to be more efficient in their removal.
   2. They are still looking for a way to maintain reduced carp population with commercial fishery.
   3. They need to address recruitment. They tagged fish and know the spawning sites but need to address them.
   4. They need to address other drivers in the system. Controlling carp alone will not solve their problems.
   5. They need to address nutrient loading and lake level fluctuations.

    Q: How did you remove carp?
    A: Boat and deep seines.
    Q: You need to find special publics to market carp.
    A: Americans don’t eat them.
    Q: Why were there years with recruitment failure?
    A; Probably due to the water level. Adults couldn’t reach the vegetation.
    Q: What about suckers? How can you seine carp without impacting them?
    A: There are too few to be impacted. They have not recorded any recruitment yet.
    Q: What is the recruitment habitat?
    A: It is on the east side in the emergent vegetation.

Invasive Fish Control, Thinking Out of the Box
Dr. Jackson Gross, USGS, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center
Innovative Conservation Technology for Protection and Establishment of Endangered and Native Fishes

Background:


                                                                 16
His work has been with salmonids, especially trout. Lately, he has worked with Team Carp, for the Great Lakes Ecosystem,
developing ideas for invasive fish problem solving.

Innovative Conservation technology:
• Current methods target adult fish.
• Toxicology objectives: target specific life stages, critical periods of susceptibility, dose response.
• Use of seismic technology to divert and eradicate: use of air gun technology at ever larger levels. Mortality is not immediate and is
     most effective with young fish at close range. May have ability to disrupt embryos and larvae.
• Seismic units could be used as barriers, for diversion or for herding. Lasers are also available. 230 decibel is possible.

Integrated Suppression Management:
• Physical: electrical, suction or water jet, seismic, nets, covers, light radiation.
• Biological: genetic, pheromones, dietary modulation
• Chemical: CO2 gas diffuser

Technologies to Reduce Adult Carp Abundance
Dr. Peter Sorenson, University of Minnesota
New Strategies and Techniques to Control Invasive Species

Review familiar strategies:
• In 50’s, quickly learned with sea lamprey’s that removing adults is not enough.
• Australians held a similar workshop in 1996 on controlling carp.
• Control technologies: manipulation through genetics and disease, targeting strategy, IPM.
• Adult removal doesn’t work – they use male sterilization, toxicants, pheromones.
• Referenced book/manual to look at.
• List in powerpoint of passive, active, and manipulative techniques – generated in Australia

Manipulation:
  • Center for Carp, Murray: daughterless carp. Genetic manipulation with aromalase stopped estrogen production and biases
     population to males. Genetic technologies conference in June in Minneapolis.
• 80% physical removal for 50 years gives only a small overall population reduction.
• 5% replacement with “daughterless” carp in 15% will lead to extinction.



                                                                     17
•   $1 million for research
•   Have produced the first “daughterless” carp
•   No legal approval yet
•   Difficult to insert genetic material into animals, experimental use is 5 years away. Need hatcheries to develop and then to stock in
    the wild.
•   Several decades until available.
•   Australia is ready. They have a 40 year carp plan.

Virus:
• Koi Herpes virus for carp stock is being reengineered. There are no plans yet to release a herpes virus for fish but it is being
   studied.
• Similar to myxomytosis for rabbits in Australia which knocked down the population. Rabbits have developed some immunity but
   a new virus is ready to be released to hit them again.

Targeted Removal:
• In Tasmania, 15 years ago carp were released in 2 lakes with endangered native species. They shut down the lakes to isolate them.
   They began 2 years of massive trapping using Judas Fish radio collared males. They tracked continuously and netted and killed
   carp every time they congregated. After 10 years they will put up barriers to restrict movement in and out as well as barriers
   around spawning areas. They could not use Rotenone because of the endangered fish. Lake Sorel has been fished out. There are
   perhaps 30 females left. Their goal is extinction.
• They are following a dedicated, science based, targeted strategy.

Pheremonal Attractants:
• Pheromones (P’s) are important for carp for spawning. If you block their noses, they can’t recognize each other and can’t breed.
   P’s can be used to suppress recruitment.
   • Honing in on induced release of prostaglandins – pheromone released when female signals to male she has ovulated. They
       need to breed within 12 hours. Put Implanted female into traps - attracts males to cluster around traps (won’t go in) They are
       too smart. – attracts fish from at least 50 m away.
   • P’s seem like a good strategy for lakes like Lake Susan where the levels are already reduced but not for high population levels.

IPM:
   • Suppress recruitment



                                                                   18
   •   Carp Sim model – can simulate winterkill events and numbers and densities in lakes
   •   Remove key number of fish using Judas fish (a technique developed for Galapagos Island goats).
   •   Mark 10% of fish and release. Map with GPS.
   •   Find winter population concentrations. Carefully surround with nets. You may catch 78% in one afternoon. Populations
       disperse in the summer to spawn and are harder to find. Let them do the work.
   •   Experiment with sonic or acoustic barriers to stop movement.

Assessment:
   No silver bullet, P’s coming, Judas fish very useful, new barriers, genetics and IPM coming.

   Comment: (Jim D): Winter populations will return after chasing and disturbance. You need to be patient and stick with them.

Carp Control through Commercial Fishing
Mike Mills, Sucker Recovery Implementation Program

   Background:
   • Utah Lake is 96,000 acres
   • Target catch is 75% of the population, 5 million pounds per year.
   • Feasibility for fishing is one day in three, 120 days per year.
   • There has been commercial fishing for decades, since the 1920’s. They harvested cutthroat fish first then carp. In the best
      fishing year they, they caught 3 million pounds of carp. Usually, they caught 25,000 pounds.

   Challenges:
   • Funding (DNR gave $500 K in 2008 for feasibility study).
   • Need to convince funders that removal of fish is possible.
   • They advertised an RFP in 2008 and received 8 responses. They offered money as a subsidy but they didn’t have enough.
     Businesses couldn’t afford to develop infrastructure for production of carp products such as biodiesel.
   • So they changed goals. They estimated it cost $.20 per pound to remove fish. The new goal was to remove 2.5 million pounds
     of fish with an established local commercial fishing company. They used boat and beach seines up to 400 yards long. It was
     very labor intensive. They are good fishermen but were overwhelmed by the volume of fish and needed to mechanize.
   • When the lake froze (as it does 1 year in 3) they found it a good time to fish. They found fish concentrations and could get
     60,000 pounds in a haul.



                                                                 19
   •   October ‘08 to April ‘09 they hauled 1.5 million pounds, averaging 21,000 pounds per day.
   •   They had very little by-catch.
   •   September ‘09 to January ’10 they hauled 1.2 million pounds in the open water, 20,000 pounds per day. They used the profits
       to get bigger boats and better mechanization.

   Advantages and Challenges:
   1. Need to employ observers to watch for suckers and collect carp information
   2. Need to minimize impact on ecosystem and find efficient offloading
   3. Weather
   4. Public (fishermen asked for subsidy for everyone, worried about the impact on other species)

   Q: What did you do with fish?
   A: Tilled them into the fields, gave (or sold??) to mink farms (the highest demand), fish meal, compost.
   Q: How did you find aggregations?
   A: Commercial fishermen already knew them. The same was true in Iowa but the Minnesota group found the concentrations
   moved around. However, fishermen were happy to get 50%. We want more so we need to be more targeted. Also, they had some
   radio tagged fish. They were able to watch how carp detected nets. They seem to be very sensitive to sounds. We need to
   develop better techniques for catching carp.

Fish Wheels and New Technologies
George Wells, Industrial Power Systems

   •   Their design for a fish wheel is based on traditional fish wheels used in Alaska for subsistence fishing.
   •   The unit is a solar driven portable fish wheel, loaded on a 40 foot trailer, with outriggers for stability, a 10 foot extension over
       the water for collection and a water reservoir on the opposite side for balance.
   •   Fish can be herded or attracted (with light, pheromones, aeration) to the wheel and then scooped up at 500 pounds per scoop.
   •   Target fish can be selected with “aquamesh” of different grids and then color scanners coded to distinguish the color of target
       fish from trout or other native fish. Fish would pass through an 8” tube with a scanner monitoring through a window (which
       would have to be cleaned periodically);.
   •   A gate would make it possible for targeted fish to be collected and by-catch released.
   •   An alarm would go off if problems developed. It could call a phone number (such as Orrit at Page Springs).
   •   A generator would provide backup power.
   •   A water pump would be attached to clean the unit.


                                                                    20
Q: What would you collect fish in?
A; A trailer or grinder.
Q: What would this cost?
A: It is economical, completely automated, and would run 50,000 hours without needing service. Since it is mobile, it could be shared
by several operations. For this it is a bargain at $250,000.

(Linda – Industrial Power donated 250 hours at no charge for research and development to produce this design).

Q: How deep can the collector go?
A; 10 feet. Most waters here are 2-5 feet deep.
Q: How would the color recognition sort the fish?
A: In a chute.

Carp Control: Conventional and Opportunistic Planning: Two Case Studies on Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Rick Vetter, US Forest Service, formerly, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Blitzen and Malheur Lake:
    • When they tried to control carp, they would lose all control when the Silvies River flooded. For example, during floods in the
       80’s, everything was under water, even dikes and structures, houses were flooded.
    • In 1992, drought set in with back to back dry events. The Lake was down to 1100 acres. They tried carp control projects
       while carp were exposed by low water. They tried to treat remaining populations, especially in the display pond by the HQ.
       They tried dynamite but it didn’t work. They used gill nets after drawing water down; then sprayed with Rotenone. They also
       sprayed Rotenone on the Blitzen River to 5 miles above French Glen. All other fish were gone. Only carp remained. They
       killed 100,000 fish in 24 hours. What could go wrong? It smelled terrible and flies were awful for 2 months.
    • But, they were not successful. There might have been only 25 fish left; they just couldn’t get them all.
    • So, opportunistic treatment worked well for reducing the number of fish but they came back.

Double O:
   • Flood years open Mud Lake to Harney Lake.
   • Fish survive in the springs.
   • In the 1950’s, area was bulldozed to control flooding, allowing carp to enter.
   • Private landowners remember introducing some carp in the 1950’s. Refuge needs to partner with landowners and work


                                                                 21
       cooperatively with all neighbors.
   •   Need to step back and get the comprehensive plan in place.
   •   Carp could be eliminated in Double O.
   •   They tried carp barriers which worked for a while but needed maintenance and adjustments. They used a $25,000 screen but
       the water backed up when algae filled it.
   •   They tried feeders which might have worked except they used dog food for bait which the carp didn’t like.
   •   They tried shocking which successfully killed all carp but then some new fish jumped in.
   •   After treatment, refuge needs to monitor results for 5 or 10 years to be sure of results.
   •   Spotted frogs could return to the Double O areas so they need to be careful of future treatments.
   •   All mechanical technologies have failings.
   •   Need to target spring.

Q: After 1992 treatment, how quickly did vegetation return?
A: There was record precipitation that winter so there was good plant growth. There were 2 great years for plants. After that, it was
downhill.

Electrical Barriers and Fish Sweeper
Carl Burger and Jeff Smith, Smith Root Inc.

Background: Worked for 31 years with FWS in Alaska and Maine.

Existing Technology:
   • Electrofishing, sampling – proven technology for large harvests
   • Fish counting
   • Various barriers such as sea lamprey barrier which repels fish back downstream
   • Barriers for marine mammal guidance: Columbia River for sea lions and Florida for manatees
   • In Minnesota, carp barriers have been in operation for 15 years on some lakes.
   • In Chicago, a carp barrier has constant boat traffic moving over a 10HZ electric field. It blocks adult carp movement and
       possibly juveniles as well. So far, no carp have been recorded across the barrier.
   • No barriers are 100% sure
   • Chemical harvest: Rotenone (indiscriminate, bad public perception)
   • Dewatering: difficult, disruptive, indiscriminate, and inhumane


                                                                  22
   •   Population reduction: harvest (labor intensive); biocontrol (predators, pathogens); and habitat modification (barriers).
   •   Winterkill (if it freezes)

Emerging Technology:
  • Strategic boat electrofishing with conveyor collection system
  • Fish sweeper design: Electric arrays create feed funneling fish into a collection system. Boats can sweep back and forth across
     lake. System can sort good fish to hold from bad fish to collect for use as fertilizer, landfill, or oil.
  • Sweepers use proven technology and are safe, nonlethal, with minimal environmental impact

Q: What about using a sweeper in shallow water?
A: Sweeper could be used in 6” of water or could be used to herd animals rather than collect them. They could be pushed below a
barrier and then the barrier closed.

Carp Barriers and Dikes
Rick Roy, Bureau of Land Management

Background:
   • He is a wetlands ecologist who came to area in 1999 to work with redband trout and water issues after an attempt to list the
      fish in 1997. Their studies emphasized use of screens. Dams and screens have been effective in blocking trout. Would they
      work with carp?

Recommendations:
   • Rotenone and dynamite just give a few years of benefit. What would be a sustainable technique?
   • The refuge needs to clean the area and then prevent any returns.
   • Some small areas such as Boca and Knox ponds should be re-plumbed.
   • Irrigation systems should be refined. Also drains.
   • Put in tide gates for drains.
   • Look for opportunities to keep carp out of wetlands. Hewitt wetland: 25 people treated 6 times, how soon did the fish return?
     With a new barrier, maybe it is good to go.
   • Maintenance and operation are issues.
   • Drawdown water in the winter?
   • Try to make investments last longer. Won’t have a system they can walk away from but one that can give a better return on
     investment.


                                                                   23
   •   Narrows project: got it 70% right then had to go back and refine. It turned out to be a grebe trap. Grebe came to eat the small
       fish caught and were caught themselves.
   •   Refuge needs to have a program, not just opportunistic efforts.

Comments: Why are there no carp in Klamath NWR Lake System? Are other non-natives there? Why not?
What is prioritization – Malheur Lake or Double O? Or basin?


Wrap Up for Tuesday:
  1. Goals set out: Understand carp population.
  2. Assess possible strategies to address population.
  3. Define carp objectives.
  4. Seek strategies to acquire resources and funding.

   Others?
  1. Find concentration areas
  2. Study connectivity of populations - reproduction and biomass
  3. Identify major biomasses.
  4. Better understanding of carp.
  5. Need to quantify problem not just get a general sense of problem which might be wrong to target a solution.
  6. Figure out how to define success What do you want? Identify concentrations? IPM? Barriers? Treatment? Removal of adults?
      Control reproduction? Need feedback
  7. Get more information –broader scale, longer term approach. There is a shortage of good information on carp. Refuge needs to
      step back and get better information.
  8. Direct removal: biocontrol, nonselective removal, indirect control with habitat manipulation or natural predators, combined.
  9. We need better idea of how carp really using our system and if not working on recruitment, we won’t be successful.
  10. Need increased predation such as pelicans.
  11. Need a sustainable program that is resilient to drops in funding
  12. Connectivity issue is very important – one population or multiple?
  13. Recruitment is vital to ensure sustainability
  14. Need a program, someone needs to be in charge
  15. Refuge needs to get off the refuge and deal w/ issue on the Silvies It is important to understand connectivity, how are carp using
      the refuge, how does the system fit together, how can you manage the watershed, not just the refuge.


                                                                  24
  16. Keep communicating w/ others and work together to achieve goal.
  17. Be strategic and do monitoring to avoid backfires.
  18. Bird problem can’t be fixed until you fix the carp. Carp control must become a central part of water management, not a side issue.
  19. How far is refuge willing to deviate from current management strategies to get at long-term goals? It will be curious to see how
      far the refuge will deviate from its management, what they will sacrifice in the short term to solve this problem.
  20. What is the priority for the program, Double O or the Lake?


Sharon Selvaggio short summary of Comprehensive Conservation Plan

                                               Day 2 - Invasive Carp Control Workshop
                                                      Wednesday March 24, 2010

Strategy Concerns Recap, Chad Karges

   1. Find concentration areas.
   2. Study basic biology, be holistic on carp (male, female, habitat, spawning).
   3. Confusion about priorities: Lake versus Double O.
   4. Need more information about what refuge is trying to achieve and long term goals.
   5. How carp are really using the system: age structure, recruitment.
   6. Sustainable program.
   7. Needs to be a program with individual leadership.
   8. Huge outreach; get off the refuge and deal with carp in the rest of the basin.
   9. Must fix carp problem to fix bird problem. This is a water management issue.
   10. Need management flexibility to reach long term goals.
   11. Connectivity with populations.
   12. Reproduction and biomass.
   13. Quantify problem; approach systematically.
   14. How do we define success? Need integrated carp management program.
   15. Strategies: direct removal, bio-control, nonselective, indirect (habitat manipulation), combined approach.
   16. Bio-predation (pelicans).
   17. Connectivity: is this one or several populations? How does it all tie together?
   18. Recruitment.



                                                                  25
    19. Communicate openly; work together.
    20. Control strategies closely; link to monitoring.

    Revised Objectives/Questions:
    1. What do we need to understand about carp population?
    2. Strategies to address populations.
    3. Short term objectives (low hanging fruit)
    4. Strategies to acquire resources.

    Parallel tracks: Blitzen and Double O now. At the same time, address strategies and information needs for Lake and watershed.

Information Gaps, Research Needs, Approaches
Jason Dunham: Moderator

    Major Carp Control Strategies Table
Strategy:           Example:               Advantages:         Disadvantages:        Results:
Direct Removal      Nets, fish wheel,      Locally effective   Not selective long    Temporary
                    fishing                for short term      term for large fish
Bio-Control         Diseases, genetic      Species specific,   Uncertain dangers     ???
                    modification           inexpensive,
                                           short term
Nonselective        Rotenone               Local               Kills amphibians,     Local
Removal             Dry out Lake                               other wildlife
                    antimycin
Indirect            Habitat manipulation   Avoids              See conflict          Limited
                    Natural enemies        limitation,
                                           benefits good
                                           species
Combined IPM        Life stage, time       Time and                                  Higher
                    specific               location specific

(What’s missing (add to table)– electroshocking, bubbling barriers, other barriers, stopping recruitment, interrupting spawning
    (pheromone or chemical use)
Strategies used in other locations may or may not work at Malheur - boat ramps not viable since water levels not stable, approx



                                                                          26
    40,000 acres <18” in October (now), etc.


    Carp Info Needs and Linkage to Management Decisions:
Issue:            Method:                                         Action:
Juvenile          Telemetry to intensively track adults           Locate key spawning areas to target for
recruitment       Sample for eggs, larvae, juveniles              isolation, modification or eradication
Immigration       Telemetry to id areas as critical movement      Locate key areas and movement corridors
                  corridors, habitat use and selection            and locations more likely to be used relative
                                                                  to availability
Adult survival    Telemetry to locate refugia, winter,            Target key areas for control, understand
                  recruitment year factors, age and growth        limiting factors and factors influencing
                  studies                                         recruitment
Ecosystem         Whole system manipulation yields unexpected     Develop alternatives robust to undesirable
Impacts           consequences, surprises                         consequences
Natural Enemies   Predators, consequences, pathogens, parasites   Natural enemy control
History           Document past control efforts, information      Avoid carp groundhog day, map out a
                  needs                                           program

    •   What’s missing – total population or biomass assessment (abundance); age structure; and if different in diff areas can deduce
        likely separate populations. PB
    • Comment that need to address adults (while undertaking studies?) since adults do most of the damage. May not want to wait
        for all information to be gathered before embarking on adult removal. Addressing impact is important even if it doesn’t
        address key mechanisms of invasion. Remember impact on water quality etc. Is it feasible here? Might be different here
        because it is not a “boating” lake, access is more difficult. How can you locate concentrations of fish and treat? CP
    • Make habitat more suitable for native fish (are they natural enemies of carp?) CP
    Telemetry work key element in developing targeted control. Develop biomass targeted objective, use tagged Judas fish, watch age
    classes as they move through system – find the unique locations for each life history stage and attack then at any unique choke
    point.
    • Lake is 40,000 acres, depth 18”. Could you herd fish and trap? Use the Marsh Master to load and transport to shore? Could
        collect at Sod House Dam. LB
    • Need a balance between controlling invasion and impact. Treat impact as well as longterm treatment of invasion. JD
    • Are you saying we can’t afford to wait? SS
    • Need to begin treatment while gathering information. Start with low tech, labor intensive collection, if possible, in Malheur.
        CP


                                                                          27
•   Telemetry on age classes. Watch them through the system. Find targets. Attack at choke points. Minimize impact on the
    refuge. Will give efficiency and minimum cost. Find a practical technique. Do in 3 years. Opportunity here. Sustainable;
    free the refuge for bird use. Don’t just attack one life stage, attack all, any opportunity. Figure out attack points and use
    appropriate techniques. JD
•   Consider creating a refugia, a deep hole on Malheur Lake (if there are none) to “herd” fish and attack in high numbers. RV
•   Remember water cycle and use to advantage – when lake is smaller can do more effective adult removal. BR
•   Opportunity: now is a good time since water is low. Treat 4,000 acres rather than 40,000. Can we jump? Can we predict
    water levels?
•   Look at Malheur Lake as the last piece. It’s really the Silvies River and Malheur Lake. Satellite populations on the outside
    expanding, out in individual drainages. Look in Silvies Creek drainage and Double-O. Break the refuge up into achievable
    pieces, prioritize. Easiest place is Double-0. RR
•   I disagree. What is the best bang for my buck ecologically? Sustainable program with ecological benefit where I want to put
    my money. TB
•   In the past we had pretty good control of carp in the Blitzen Valley, via drawdown, shocking etc. Where the refuge is not
    achieving objectives is in Malheur Lake. Where payoff is will be working there. So if you want to get a lot more birds, need to
    focus on the big fish in the lake. Get Lake to target, maybe 30kg/ha. Treat Blitzen and Double O with intensive control.
    Telemetry is time dependent, dynamic. Telemetry study was done in 70s or early 80s, but lake changes so much from year to
    year that telemetry study may not be helpful. Carp like outflows such as Blitzen. In winter they like warm water. Could use
    warm water to attract and trap them. Focus is that we really need to work on the Silvies – keep fish from getting back in the
    river, trapping adults. When lake is high, Sodhouse Spring runs about 30-40 cfs, and temperature is __. Carp want to be in
    warm water in the outflow. If can create warm water sources, will attract carp. Maybe use gas/propane to superheat and pull
    carp in. GI
•   I think we could eliminate carp from Double-O. RV
•   In MN five years ago, we proposed 3-year study, w/ objective of understanding carp populations and you want all methods to
    dovetail: telemetry, mark and recapture, spawning. Can look at them all, by designing a good study, look at recruits, adults at
    same time. Test removal techniques. Watch fish: winter time aggregation, shallow cold water? Only observations will tell
    true patterns.A lot of things we thought were wrong. EG in winter we thought they wanted warm, deep water. But we found
    exactly the opposite when we actually started collecting the data. Once you have some information, then design the plan and
    go for it. Can merge management and science in 3-4 years. PB
•   You have assumptions; you need to test them. JD
•   Look at presence/absence on Klamath – suggests a limiting factor that we don’t know about – maybe we can use to our
    advantage. BT
•   Need to look at system-wide stuff. Like building a house, not putting on roof if not. In our research things changed drastically


                                                               28
       from year to year – carp behavior changed w/ water levels. Telemetry studies need to consider and train managers to use this
       information for long-term basis. This is a 50-year plan, not a 5-year plan. In Australia, once they blocked preferred areas, they
       found another spot, another spot, till eventually they were spawning on the nets they put out to block them. So before you put
       money into infrastructure, do basic research. AD
   •   Are you meeting your minimum requirements for the birds? If so, then so be it. Is doing nothing OK? But if you feel the
       need to produce more birds, need to figure out how much more. What are objectives? Control, suppress, eradicate? I say:
       Zero tolerance for carp JG
   •   It’s all important right now – really need to look basin wide. Minicontrol won’t work Partners, Silvies River. Ticking time
       bomb. Best efforts if scattered can be undone almost immediately. Eradication not realistic probably. Build base to
       understand system to help us effectively decide how to address the problem. Understand what we’re buying – articulate
       values. RW
   •   Judas fish, radio telemetry – both give consistent tool to follow dynamics of landscape, even when conditions (eg water level)
       changes. Assists in both research and management. Chokepoints allow most efficient use of limited resources. Drive fish
       population down to a lower impact level. Goal: Reach a sustainable level of fish and maintain annually. JD

Jason: What about unexpected ecosystem impacts? Surprises? Considering established and potential invaders? If you
remove carp, what will come in?

Natural Enemies:
   • Getting COE could be really beneficial. If put in island, can also use this as infrastructure for carp removal. AD
   • I agree we need to do basin-wide mgmt plan. For the birds, we have 20K white-faced ibis, they do eat carp, many other
      predators can also eat if we keep age classes as low as possible. This can also help in limiting recruitment. GI
   • Fish eating birds: Islands are the best place for raising birds. We do have egrets, terns, etc. but they can’t eat large fish.
      Remove large fish and birds can help control smaller fish.
   • Don’t discount fish eating fish. When prevented winterkill it knocked down carp populations in Midwest. CA
   • Most of the wetlands on Malheur don’t have native fish assemblages in them GI
   • In Iowa?, Mike Colvin
   • In MN, native fish assemblages different – lots of small fish that like eating eggs. The key is the 1st 3 days of the carp’s life.
      Once eggs hatch, very difficult to control. Will that work here? Maybe not. I also want to say about ecosystem surprise –
      recent paper show that carp have strong negative impact on frogs – eat larvae. Reason that frog spp may be so isolated here is
      b/c carp are eating them up and they’re only where they can survive. PB
   • Maybe carp control has the potential to shift ecosystem into a totally diff place – example where tui chub could be effective
      predators on carp? Reduce biomass, clear water, healthier ecosystem will help to suppress carp.JD


                                                                  29
•   Target time frame is between now and June w/ low water levels. Consider the tributaries that direct carp in – intercept and
    eliminate first, then focus on Malheur itself. Corrals, carp are like cattle, can be herded. JA
•   Carp is an asset to me, not a liability. As soon as it becomes an asset, you’ll be looking at it as an endangered spp. That’s
    where you’ll be in 10 years. Seems like carp want warm water. Most of sports fish don’t like warm water. Utilize the fact
    that carp going back upstream. Build a place of flattened land where water can be 3” deep (like along Columbia River flooded
    fields. Millions of carp along Columbia get into those fields.). This would function like heat pad for them. Then will attract
    fish, and will repel the other fish who want colder water. Use gate on either end. Once a day hire high school kids to pick up
    carp and use (as asset), in farming. I’m an organic farmer. Weeds are an asset, not a liability, they tell me a lot about my soil,
    how I can change. AS
•   What are the headaches in Klamath system for invasive plants?
•   In Midwest, we do see those consequences, be prepared. JG
•   This basin is different, not so intensively farmed, but still will need to test water quality. We ultimately decided that carp were
    as bad as it could get. Brown bullheads were something we had to deal with, alligator weed as well. AD
•   In 90s, were there invasive aquatics? No, not then. Bullhead seem to be biggest threat, but they don’t grow as fast or get as
    deep into mud. Yellow perch and crappie also there –were abundant during flood years, then disappeared. Those are our
    predators I think. Varies a lot over refuge. Lots in Blitzen. Double-O different, spring fed system, not as many fish spp. GI,
    RV
•   If barriers are used, one impact would be that native fish assemblages would have a hard time getting back into those areas as
    well CA.
•   Brown bullhead here (we think so). Black bullheads in our Midwest system. Lots of studies comparing blacks w/ browns,
    ecosystem effects – studies all show effects are nothing like the carp effect. CP
•   If there are other non-natives that could control carp eggs, consider use? E.g. bluegills. Chad from tribe
•   There are yellow perch and pumpkin seed in Silvies – they get into lake when conditions are right. GI
•   Sunfish are in the Display Pond LB
•   Key is predation on eggs and larvae, after 1st three days, they grow too fast. PB
•   Peter Sorenson talked about gaps in research in carp in shallow water wetlands – consider how our work benefits others also
    wrestling w carp. TB
•   Health condition of carp in Malheur Lake was bad – we might be able to cause a mass mortality if we stress the population.
    Maximum capacity probably reached. Each fish I looked at had pathology. LB
•   You have capability to shut river off entirely, send the river water out through irrigation system to keep stressing the fish.
    Consider this rather than rotenone this year. GI
•   Water level manipulation can be effective, especially if know where spawning occurring. It could be effective if you knew the



                                                                30
       pattern of use.AD
   •   Potential for transport of invasive disease on refuge is small because so much of the refuge is closed. LB
   •   If you have that tool, play it at the right time. It’s a very risky card. AD
   •    Carp have a negative impact on amphibians, especially candidate species. Maybe they are the key problem. Could use as
       leverage. PB
   •   Remember, if you get rid of all the carp and it is a problem, you can always get them back. JW
   •   Bio-controls are good techniques but they don’t eliminate the issue –more of a cyclic situation. In any population control, if
       you can get population to think of as an asset to the community, not only will it be more effective, community will financially
       support and will treat the spp w/ unique and special consideration. Example, great lakes snagging devalued salmon. Allowed
       people to start using this technique on non-target organisms. Caused many problems. JD
   •   River otter another natural enemy – greatest impact when fish in river are pegged up below Grain Camp and Busse Dam. Most
       effective in winter. Consider use at Double-0. ODFW has problems each year w/ otters visiting their fish hatcheries, look at
       reintroductions. Add another stressor. Pelicans can make it work too. RR
   •   Otters are voracious on frogs – be careful of side effects. JE

Jason: Wrap Up:

Identifying priorities will be next.

Priorities:
Identification of Priorities for Carp Control Strategies (Discusion)
• Add garnering initial support to the priorities bullets.
• Value added products
• Frame this issue for larger public that may not know it’s important.
• Specific actions for each location (OO, Blitzen, Lake, Silvies River and upper drainage)
• Shortterm and longterm actions: “no brainers” versus uncertain situations
• How to coordinate? With whom?
• How to develop plan? Research and management. Sustained support for a longterm program.
• Relevance beyond MNWR. How can we construct efforts here so there is relevance elsewhere
• Learning: adaptive management
• What can go wrong?
• Timelines


                                                                 31
•   Strategies
•   Cost sustainability
•   What kind of process can we identify at this workshop that would lead to a tangible (measureable) shortterm outcome? Need a
    tangible product by Thursday.


Strategy                         Short   Lon Cost      Location            Outcome                  Level of uncertainty
                                 term    g
                                         term
Identify age classes of fish -   Yes
JA
Identify or create natural                             Silvies
barriers in river systems and
identify a reasonable
objective to attain for river
fish-AS
Use traditional low cost                        low    OO                  High chances success     Low - simpler
methods for eradication in
selected isolated areas.
Identify adult reduction                 yes           Malheur Lake        Highest value habitat,
program for lake. Could                                                    these are the fish
include many tasks,                                                        doing the damage,
including location of                                                      where refuge failing
aggregation points, creating                                               to meet purposes,
aggregation points, etc. Be                                                probably 99% of
opportunistic as well as                                                   spawning is in lake in
strategic.                                                                 the basin.
Carp removal this year           yes                                                                Likelihood of collateral
(shock and awe)                                                                                     damage
Develop and implement                    Yes.   High                       Long term
long term basin plan. As                                                   sustainability.
first step, look at a way to
really lay out problem,


                                                                 32
engage partners, build the
coalition
Develop science, really         ?     ?                          Leads to more
understand the problem.                                          effective long-term
Science is first step                                            resolution of the
                                                                 problem.
Identify successful spawner     yes                              Addresses seed
population in lake                                               population
Improve barrier at Narrows                        Mud Lake       Will prevent            Last large flood went over
– modify or electrify.                                           reestablishment in      205 (but road was 12’ lower
Would also need to get fish                                      Mud lake and Harney     than it is now). When water
out of Mud Lake first.                                           Lake. For the price     up, issues w/ tidal flow/wind.
                                                                 of one barrier we buy
                                                                 8000 acres.
Create foolproof barrier      yes                 Blitzen                                Water rights issues, plus
between Lake and Blitzen.                                                                Assumes you could actually
Make chokehold and                                                                       eliminate all fish from the
eliminate fish throughout                                                                Blitzen system in 2 years and
Blitzen by avoiding all                                                                  afterward. (we don’t have
diversion along Blitzen for 2                                                            control up stream in many
years. No water goes into                                                                areas – do carp still inhabit
fields to eliminate fish                                                                 those areas?
everywhere except in the
river itself.
Nesting island built by COE yes           COE     Lake           COE has need to
                                          money                  address other issues;
                                                                 this meets their
                                                                 needs, no harm.
Maintenance and retrofit of     yes       low
infrastructure on the refuge,
like fish wheel on 00
Identify where water comes      yes       low     Blitzen
back into the river on the


                                                            33
Blitzen; screen culverts

Comments on discussion – Short term projects:

   •   I have 44’ refrigerated van I would donate to the cause. Is there anyway to get the carp out of the lake when it’s shrunk in
       August this year. Restrictions from topography and refuge restrictions on roads make it difficult to. If fuel goes high, will shut
       off harvesting chain, can’t come down here for 10K pounds. JB
   •   You can’t really isolate fish free environments. They have tried. Simplify your plans. What do you want? Basic research or
       jump on management? If you jump, it will not be systematic, you don’t know about fish. Do you know about using barriers?
       You need a carp crew here. Collect data for several years. You won’t know how to proceed without basic research. If you
       don’t invest in basic research you won’t have effectiveness. I really think you should step back and try to understand the
       problem first. PB
   •   Go out now, with low water, to study fish patterns. JA
   •   You can’t treat effects without understanding causes. We need a shortterm target now, a success story, while keeping longterm
       needs in mind. JD
   •   Where? Blitzen? All areas have low water and fish are spawning. Use nets, barriers, Rotenone to see where fish are.
   •   Have places been identified where you could work effectively on the Silvies? The barrier by the Reservation could be used.
       Need a reasonable goal on the Silvies.
   •   Lowest cost, minimum of effort, highest chance of success, known methods would be to do the Double O. Eradicate the carp
       at the Double O. RV
   •   Why are we talking short-term? If short-term actions are not effective and contributing to the long-term, just creates cynicism.
       TB
   •   To create momentum and to launch into longer term strategy.CA
   •   We need a systematic plan, with steps, and report it. What about incorporating science in the kills? Build support?
       Could do Corps project now, to get started and build some momentum. No harm. AS
   •   I agree. Meet with local landowners every six months; present knowledge as you gain it. Rather than dead fish seek tangible
       steps. See a logical process over several years. PB
   •   In the shortterm, need a charter that lays out the problem. Partners are needed. Build a partnership with all of Burns and
       Hines. GI
   •   The Lake is the ultimate highest value. Start developing a longterm program for the Lake. Locate fish. Locate deep areas. Or
       create deep areas. Use island and road from C of E as a management structure. Address reduction of adults in the Lake. CP
   •   We could do “shock and awe” but we saw in Iraq how it worked to go in without a plan. Study the fish, develop a plan and do



                                                                  34
       what we can now. Be realistic about the budget. It will be expensive to work basinwide. Double O can wait. There is an effort
       to do the big picture plan for the basin being undertaken by High Desert Partnership BR
   •   Do the Lake first. That’s where we are not fulfilling our mission. Blitzen and Double O programs have been somewhat
       successful. Most of the spawning is in the Lake. Pick a dry year and get effective control. GI
   •   For Double O, improve barrier to Mud Lake at the Narrows so the next flood won’t restock Double O. Really cut off Double
       O but concentrate on Lake as real interest. CA
   •   There are 4 areas of concern (diagram): Lake, Blitzen, Silvies/Upper drainage, Double O.
               1. Go after Lake fish while water is low; at the same time do fish studies for the next 3 or 4 years.
                2. Cut off all water from the Blitzen drainages for several years; only have water in the river. Kill the fish in the river.
               Area will be fish free.
               3. Work on longterm Silvies/Basin plan.
               4. For Double O, treat at your convenience. Improve barriers. JG
   •   A lot of people here don’t have vested economic interest, people want results. AS
   •   I agree with Przemyslaw. You need a scientific approach Headlines bring funding. Utah guys have been very successful at
       getting in the news. You need to attract attention. This community can not pay for this. Getting in the news needs to be a
       major part of the strategy. AD
   •   There is infrastructure on the refuge that could be improved with a little money: Double O fish wheels, drains from the fields.
       LB
   •   Look at opportunities. Identify opportunities and alternatives. Meet with partners first and get miniplans in place. Pull
       together into one plan. RV
   •   Senator Merkely will be here for Bird Festival in 2 weeks, will meet w/ tribal leaders. Get in touch w/ field rep to see if you
       can arrange a meeting while he’s here. CA
   •   The research center here is already internationally significant. Their specialty is ranch management and riparian studies. They
       have been instrumental in sage grouse proposal. Refuge could work with them to reach out.
       Farmer: DOI has good student and citizen science programs. Snake River project worked well with high school kids.
       Need to frame project for wider consideration. Many people don’t know where Malheur is. BR

Carp Use Options
Grimes Brothers (Presented by Linda Beck)

Grimes brothers contacted refuge from Portland and expressed their concern and offered their help. They came three times to visit.
They researched possible uses for the fish.



                                                                    35
Possible Uses for carp harvest:
   1. Emulsion and fertilizer: pro= organic, con= transport and alkalinity
   2. Human Consumption: clean. Possible food: smoked, canned, filets, sausage, soup base, oil, roe and milt. But: not tested for
       human consumption.
   3. Pituitary Gland: use to induce spawning in females. List price for one gram (diluted) is $350.00. But: harvest is exacting.
       Also a medicinal market in China.
   4. Animal feed for chicken, beef, fish.
   5. Fish oil and meal: oceanic sources are contaminated.
   6. Biofuel: Biomass to biogas: now using algae.
   7. Taking it out on the road: portable carp processors can travel around to carp projects to can and grind fish.

Q: What to do with 7.5 million pounds of carp? One not in the slide show – Carp skin bathing suits.
What have you been doing with the carcasses Clay? SH
A: Commercial fisherman taking , state also subsidizes @ $.10/lb when prices are low. MC

• There are many uses for carp. They are good to eat. It would be good to educate Americans to eat them. In Turkey, they eat all of
  the fish except the head, guts and bones. To market carp, target ethnic groups that like them. There is a carp caviar company in
  New York that sells a caviar product that is diluted because they can’t get enough caviar. JA
• Try deep fried carp. Fish are best in the spring. Water conditions affect taste. Cold weather conditions better. If in very muddy
  areas, can have mud taste. AD

Emulsion Results
Al Stelzer, Azure Standard
• I farm 4000 acres organically. Fertilizer being used in organic farming has been processed, cooked, deactivated. A dead product.
   Price is high because of the nitrogen in it, about 3% N. Carp emulsion is a good source of nitrogen.
• My idea is a living fertilizer. Microlife in fish there when we put it on. During my first attempt, I saw we had 13% N, as
   processed raw. After 21 days, there was a lot digested, some coarser bones left, calcium layer on top? that may be useful.
• Problem is that he can put carp emulsion on his own fields but Dept of Ag doesn’t allow sale of fish fertilizer > 3% N. They also
   frown upon there being living bacteria in the fertilizer even though I believe this enhances the fertilizer.
• In my early years of farming, I took soil tests every year – now I test microlife. Microlife takes care of any demand my crops
   need. Demand very high for organic food. Fastest growing industry today. To sustain this growth, need resource. Pelletized
   chicken manure used by many. Fish is my source.
• Started in 72, when from 32 to 5 bushels/acre. Today I can take a commercially fertilized field, sustain yield for 3 years, then raise


                                                                  36
    yield from there. It does take fertilizer though. Fish is one of the great sources, my personal choice. Look at it as a resource.
•   Last summer I investigated fish sources at Newport asked about what they did w/ waste fish. I couldn’t get fish because they
    dump into ocean. Wasteful, creating growth problems there in ocean. They were willing to provide it to me, but may become
    more scarce.
•   He believes we need to rescue fish and fish waste to use for fertilizer. Organic food production is the largest growing industry
    today. They will need fertilizer. Chicken manure is ok but why not fish.
•   I advocate sustainable agriculture. Not enough research done yet to know how to use fish properly. When I started, I tried to get
    colleges to do more research, but they told me their grants written by Dow Chemical, etc., so couldn’t research organic. Now like
    2% of their research is organic.
•   Clean carp will be in demand. Along Columbia River, plenty of carp, but contaminated. Jim pulled 40,000 lbs of carp off of one
    farm field in the Columbia when was shallowly flooded. That’s why I advocate creating these shallow water areas to attract carp.
    If it works, it will be a very reasonable way to catch them.

Questions/Comments
Q: Did you test for potassium or phosphorus?
A: No, but we will be testing for that.
Q: What are you growing and what would your application rate be?
A: We could probably use everything that came off of Malheur ourselves.
Q: How about odor and neighbors?
A: I put the carp I caught here before in a commercial ice chest. I put it on a sidewalk. He could tell it was there but it wasn’t
annoying. I put in microlife that they use in pig lagoons to reduce odor.

Comments:
  • Washington State has been sampling fish – test yearly. They are very clean, guarded on that data. In reality, Hanford Reaches
     one of the cleanest sections on the river (from White Bluffs down), except for a couple pockets of nastiness. AD
  • Look at metal in tissue, but could be here from natural sources or atmospheric deposition. JD
  • Owyhee has advisory not to heat fish, it’s from the geology, natural sources. BR
  • I heard it was from mining practices. CA
  • There was an irrigation drain in 80s. RR
  • What they found was slightly elevated mercury and arsenic, natural to system GI.

Q: is it cost effective for you to haul fish compared w/ what you’d have to pay?
A:It may not be, but I’m not happy w/ what I’m getting Also looking at that bacteria, soil probiotics).


                                                                   37
Challenges the Refuge Faces
Tim Bodeen, Manager, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Challenges:
   1. Funding and partnerships: They don’t have funding and need a carp plan to get any.
   2. Staff time and expertise: Only 20 employees; already involved in developing CCP. Adding a big program will be difficult.
       Linda is it. They will need expertise to do research, equipment (boats, nets) and facilities.
   3. Isolated location: 2 ½ hrs from a main thoroughfare. Can we garner national attention, congressional interest, and regional
       support?
   4. Size and scope: 187,000 acre refuge with 100 miles of canals and 100’s of water structures.
   5. Other species to consider: Barriers, passage, frogs, mussels, chemicals.
   6. NEPA and Conservation Planning: Time consuming, requires good science and needs to blend into planning process.
   7. Climate change: What do the next 50 years hold?

Q: These need not be insurmountable challenges. Funding and partnerships are possible. This is not a carp issue; this is a water fowl,
breeding bird issue. People care about birds. There is migratory bird funding. JG
A: It is a bird issue; and native fish too. TB
Q: If you have carp issue in CCP, will funding come?
A: Some people say that it won’t get funding unless it is added into the CCP. CCP is a NEPA process.
Q: Is there a chunk of money available for invasive species from WO, given that it’s a priority.
A: Yes, but competition from other projects.
C: A lot of people don’t perceive carp as an invasive.
Q: USFWS has a national invasive fish initiative?
A: We competed unsuccessfully for these funds. We haven’t competed well yet but will keep trying.

Large Scale Projects, Developing Success
Shannon Hurn, ODFW

•   Build public support through understanding
•   Develop longterm partnerships
•   Effective communication



                                                                  38
What is large scale?:
  • large area
  • large cost
  • multiple partnerships
  • level of complexity
  *Malheur has it all

Public support:
   • who
   • when to involve
   • define role (approval, collaboration, volunteer, donations)
   • do not ask for input you do not want and will not use
   • tailor outreach and recruitment to their role
   • have clear, concise message to repeat
   • keep honest

Diamond Lake: Chub eradication program. Asked for input on what to do about failing fishery. People said “Rotenone”. They
offered alternatives.

Partnership:
    • Who has authority
    • Identify interest groups
    • Consensus vs. collaboration
    • Be prepared to give some to get some
    • Send representative with power to make decisions
    • Bring clear concise message

Communication:
  • Who will make decision
  • Run meeting to make it worth their time
  • Nonparticipant facilitator
  • Active listening, not just waiting turn to speak


                                                                   39
   •   Manage expectation, seeking public involvement and partnership not enough
   •   Give some to get some
   •   Stay on board with clear concise message
   •   Celebrate progress and success

Questions/Comments
C: Trout creek working group is a good example from SE Harney County
C: Identify multiple values – example from Ducks unlimited support on Chewacan creek from Ducks unlimited. Duck and redband
trout examples were valued by different partners but can leverage OWEB grants to get NAWCA grants etc.
Q: Did you know golden shiner might show up in Diamond Lake?
A: No. We’re hypothesizing that they spawned later than we thought and we weren’t targeting eggs and larvae at that time. I don’t
believe someone went in and deliberately planted. I think it was a miscalculation w/ more a focus on tui chub than all the spp we may
have needed to consider. Perhaps stocking so many rainbow created some biological resistance as well?
C: Collaborative process can be phenomenal. Agreement in HDP Forest Health group that people would speak respectfully. That
worked b/c we crafted common vision from the start, which has been instrumental in keeping people on track. BT


Brainstorming for Funding:

   •   Talk about Malheur, a healthy wildlife refuge, the future. People like the refuge, not carp.
   •   OWEB and NAWCA helped to fund barrier on 205 at Mud Lake.
   •   Need marketing skills. Maybe someone will donate time. Need to get public to take ownership in effort.
   •   Funding mechanisms and different entities maybe needed for the Silvies area vs. Blitzen vs OO
   •   Multiagency involvement
   •   Farm bill wetland component, NRCS EQIP.
   •   USGS has a hazards program in water discipline dealing with flooding risks. Might be some funding.
   •   USGS and FWS Refuge CoOp Research Program funding stipulation multiple refuges; carp might be a good candidate for research side.
       CP
   •   EPA has water quality funding. GI
   •   State Wildlife Action Grant available to tribes. Maybe Paiute Tribe could apply. They already have other projects they are applying for.
       CA
   •   Congressional support: If there are benefits for the community, they would be interested. In the shortterm there would be carp work; in
       the longterm, tourism.


                                                                       40
•   LLC- USGS and FWS, is taking small proposals for climate change and invasive species forecasting. Maybe we could tie to climate change.
•   USGS will be hiring a landscape ecologist who will be working w/ Great Basin LLC. Center Director may be interested in
    focusing some of his/her time here
•   National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
•   National Treasures Program
•   Climate change: may want to frame things in terms of climate change for federal dollars
•   National Forest Foundation – for basinwide project.
•   Partners Program, especially for private land.
•   Many foundations would be interested in such a large project.
•   2010 Restoration Bill
•   Oregon Wildlife Heritage Fund
•   Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (lottery funded).
•   SSP/QRP: Science Support Program
•   FWS: partners for private land
•   NGO’s galore: usually in-kind support to match federal funding such as Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Audubon, American
    Bird Conservancy, esp. local Oregon non-profits
•   Joint Ventures
•   Roaring Springs Ranch
•   FWS: Invasive Species Panel – money and/or expertise
•   Cultural Heritage interest to restore traditional food gathering
•   Tribal economic development grant
•   Rural Development: USDA grants for renewable energy and sustainability
•   Wealthy people who have an interest in Malheur
•   Private industry and private foundations
•   Sportsmen’s Organizations
•   May need a “pitch-man” to sell to be foundations
•   Wind farm mitigation?
•   Audubon Society
•   American Bird Conservancy
•   Luce Foundation (Claire Luce grew up in Harney County)
•   Ford Family Foundation
•   Fred Meyers Foundation
•   Neotropical Migratory Bird fund


                                                                  41
Break Out Into Groups: 1. Research/Control 2. Funding Opportunities 3. Partners and Volunteer
Coordination - Summaries were presented on Thursday


                                             Invasive Carp Control Workshop Agenda
                                                     Thursday March 25, 2010

Application of Information into a Strategic Model
Mike Colvin, Iowa State University

   •   Refuge problem is complex so it is a good candidate for a heuristic model.
   •   Model captures relevant parts of the entire system to predict or forecast changes.
   •   Model can cheaply synthesize available information and control methods for this complex aquatic system to look into the
       future.
   •   Model can be wrong but is an easy way to explore.
   •   Model is based on food web model which is well tested and established; doesn’t require any programming.

Assumed inputs:
   • Population growth, carrying capacity, initial biomass, connectivity
   • Range of inputs
   • Forecast over 15 years
   • Gives understanding
   • Relative predictions

Strategies:
   • Reduce connectivity
   • Reduce biomass

*Iowa State has purchased software, will provide it for our website so we can use it

What are gaps in information needed for model?
  • biomass


                                                                  42
   •   age structure, growth, mortality, recruitment
   •   connectivity

Links:
   • Adapt to weather predictions; link to weather cycles.
   • Also link to game fish models.
   • For the Lake model, we need to link to wind re-suspension and agricultural loading.

                                            Breakout Working Group Summaries

Research/Control Workgroup
Facilitated by: Sam Lohr and Joe Engler

Overall intent was to focus on identifying initial steps that can be taken with existing resources and infrastructure. Four main topics
stood out.

1. Compile existing info and document past activities addressing carp at the refuge.
      --search files for carp memos, data, etc. and synthesize

2. Determine carp population(s) and associated attributes and movement.
       --mainly focused on the Lake and Blitzen River
       --one approach is to mark fish in various areas (because population distribution and movement is unknown) during summer,
       allow several months for fish to mix, and conduct a removal during recapture sampling in winter (recapture contributes to
       population info and removal helps to engage public), assess carp abundance, age, biomass, etc.
       --people will be checking on availability of radio tags, receivers, and other gear that the refuge could use; radio telemetry work
       would ideally involve monthly flights to investigate fish movement, which likely exceeds current resources (perhaps limited
       number of tags and tracking effort may be sufficient to start investigating potential winter aggregate sites)
       --several thousand fish will likely be needed to mark at least 10% of a population; consider sampling smaller areas and look at
       catch per unit effort to get an idea of effort needed to work in the Lake

3. Address carp in the Double O unit.
      --another initial approach is to try to completely remove carp from the Double O; presently it is not connected to the Lake,
      water can be drained or pumped from areas and there is public interest in removing carp at the springs


                                                                   43
4. Identify potential choke points and investigate how water management at the refuge affects carp.
       --mainly focused on the Blitzen River and water management system
       --another initial approach is to identify locations where barriers to carp movement can be operated, this would allow areas to
       be isolated and carp removed
       --also, how carp take advantage of water management should be investigated, the refuge could then determine feasibility
       foregoing water management for a period of time if doing so would substantially reduce or eliminate carp

Several of the topics were discussed in context of activities currently planned for this year—i.e., target collection of 1,000 carp at
Sodhouse Dam in June, subsequent sampling of two reaches downstream of Sodhouse Dam in July, fly fishing group visit to Double
O in June, and availability of SCEP student during the summer. Primary info needed concerns carp biomass, age structure, and
connectivity; estimates of mortality and recruitment are also needed at the refuge, but estimates in published literature may be a good
starting point for the two rates.

Additional actions, investigations, suggestions, etc.:
--immediately begin recording water transparency and aquatic vegetation at every opportunity, as well as other variables affected by
carp that influence management objectives
--analyze carp carcasses for contaminants
--evaluate otolith microchemistry for identifying spawning areas
--determine availability of Lidar data for the refuge and utility for assessing connectivity
--collect GPS data for Double O this summer
--apply Bayesian Network approach to carp management
--investigate carp movement in the Seneca area of the Silvies River
--Przemek, Jackson, and Adam are willing to serve on


Project                 Location Resources                Resources needed         Recommendations               Comments
                                 Available now
Objective – Understanding the Fish
Population           Various? June 15 will be             Tags, clip fin, buy no   Make sure you tag fish in     May need to sample
                                 collecting ~1000         number ones for 2        different areas – need to     400,000 carp to get a
                                 fish from                cents apiece. PB has     figure out if fish are        reasonable sample if
                                 Sodhouse Dam             several thousand         mixing.                       we estimate 4 MM


                                                                   44
                    via electroshock.   extra spaghetti tags –                                 population… If we can
                    Will have barge.    but need someone         Recommend two phases –        capture 10,000 carp at a
                                        who has done the         marking and releasing –       time, that is
                    Two different       application before.      the more places the better.
                    stretches below     May be able to find      Give it several months for    Can we get population
                    Sodhouse Dam        some for free getting    them to move around.          estimate from the river?
                    will be ??? in      on phone.                Then do recapture. We         Only access is airboat –
                    July?                                        tend to mark in summer        sometimes depths are
                                                                 when dispersed and            1/8” to get to the
                    Flyfishing group                             recapture in winter when      deeper holes on Lake.
                    at 00 will be                                reaggregate. If use
                    coming out –                                 radiotags on some could       Preliminary study now?
                    about 30 people                              track 1X/mo and would
                    June 18. Could                               know when re-aggregating.     Will getting fish
                    do marking of                                                              primarily at Sodhouse
                    fish at OO.                                  Could we send a crew later    be a representation of
                                                                 in summer in lake to do       the fish and help us get
                    August 14 could                              marking in other areas?       age structure?
                    build on.                                    (possibly – in July or
                                                                 August?)

                                                                 Could you get thousands of
                                                                 fish for tagging - using an
                                                                 electrofishing boat? (may
                                                                 be able to do about 1.5
                                                                 miles from headquarter…
                                                                 may be able to do the same
                                                                 on the Silvies, but maybe
                                                                 not this year b/c water not
                                                                 that high)

Movement patterns   Adam can            Monthly flights –
(adult fish?)       provide some        may have a variety of


                                                 45
                       telemetry           partners who could
                       equipment           help? Wildlife
                       SCEP student        Services, State
                       here this summer.   police?
LIDAR which                                LIDAR - May cost $2
could help                                 MM
understand
connectivity of
system – 8 cm
resolution
Tissue (proximate)                         With fish tagged –
analysis for                               see population above.
contaminants                               May need just 10
                                           fish to start with –
                                           and from various
                                           spatial locations
Otolith analysis for                       With fish tagged –
water chemistry?                           see population above.
GPS marking in         With Linda’s
Double 0 where         person coming
find carp              this summer
Seneca telemetry                           Need 10 tags
(off refuge)
Assess data gaps       Existing staff
and compile carp       time?
control history
Age structure          Could do with
                       any fish sampled
                       or shocked
Baysian analysis to
develop
hypotheses about
how system works


                                                   46
Management - Reducing Fish
Double O shock     Double 0 Existing staff                                     Would need to know right     How is this simple
                   on private                                                  now if that’s what we want   when spring increases
                                                                               to do b/c has management     flow and water is
                                                                               implications.                always there? (with
                                                                               How low is low enough        pump could be drawn
                                                                               this year?                   down – putting water in
                                                                                                            the ditch -to 10 feet
                                                                                                            wide, 10” deep). Need
                                                                                                            a 25 cfs ditch. It may
                                                                                                            be 15 year round.

                                                                                                            Is NEPA needed?
Drain at Double 0      Double 0     Existing staff
                       springs?
Rotenone lake this
summer if lake
gets low enough?


Funding Opportunities
Facilitated by Tim Bodeen

Dynamic group with good ideas:
   1. New tag line: “Restore Malheur Marsh” to excite people. Retool information. Not a “Carp Coalition” but a “Marsh
      Restoration Coalition”. Start early with this message.
   2. Working group for funding needs a white paper. Clay and Gary will work with Linda. 12 pages long, science based, using
      key words like “climate change”.

First year:
Substation, review of dams, water control. What can be adapted to be better?

Next steps:


                                                                 47
   •   Post doc to amass information.
   •   Capacity building for outreach: good handouts, logos etc.
   •   Build basin wide perspective.
   •   Develop funding agreements.
   •   Special outreach activities (Carp Rodeo).
   •   Special tours of refuge for funders.
   •   Identify infrastructure needs, especially immediate fixes for quick small scale funding.

25 years:
    • Infrastructure
    • Research and marking
    • Monitoring
    • Congressional
    • Multiagency, public, private
    • More people: volunteers, interns, students
    • Agricultural Research Station: talk about sharing facilities and expertise especially for climate change studies.
    • Opportunistic funding
    • Address ecological health
    • Celebrate first successes
    • Working groups to set priorities
    • Update marketing materials to reflect successes
    • Grow coalition lists to target groups
    • Economic use for carp in the communities
    • Fish wheel funds for continuous harvest

   -   Local community involvement: citizen science and friends groups
   -   Need to present as a “disaster”


Partnerships and Volunteer Coordination
Facilitated by Chad Karges and Carey Goss
Information presented by Angela Sitz


                                                                   48
Jump start the process with agency personnel taking the lead with the overall goal of creating a standalone group/non-profit to help
engage interested public, recruit volunteers and continue for the long term.

Capitalize on Existing Partnerships
      High Desert Partnership
      Watershed Council
      SWCD
      BLM
      Forest Service
      USFWS-Ecological Services
      ODFW
      MWA
      Ducks Unlimited
      Trout Unlimited
      Field Station
      USDA & OSU Agricultural Research Station
      Burns Paiute Tribe
      Others…

Other Potential Partners:
      Oregon Duck hunters Assoc.
      Oregon Hunters Association
      Cabelas, Columbia Sportswear
      Optics Companies
      Private Landowners and irrigators
      Watershed Councils

   •   Volunteer Sharing between agencies
   •   Identify role of each agency involved to determine their role in partnerships/volunteer coordination efforts.
   •   Think outside the box, economic development and commercial interests may be a large key in developing a large community
       based support group. Present not only the economic cost, but the economic benefit to the community.
   •   Identify within the research (science) and management plan the potential tasks of volunteers, examples may include: fishing,


                                                                  49
    archery, netting, seining, water quality and other citizen science projects, measuring the response of native vegetation.
•   Set priorities of attack and determine the needs for volunteers and the appropriate partners to engage at each level.

    Come up with a unified consistent message in the development of the management plan.
•   What is our message? One of the Crown Jewels of the NWRS is sick, and we need your help to bring the birds back.
•   Work with local community, have a contest to create your slogan.
•   Use the carp coalition site created by Linda to keep in touch with everyone and make all information readable, past and
    present.

Potential media sources:
• Internet – dedicated website, web cams, Facebook for group outreach,
• Oregon Field Guide, Non-Profit publications, Newspapers, links from other websites, (ABC Birds, Audubon, Carp research
   sites??)

Other outreach methods:
• Enviro ed through local schools, carp free vs. carp infested wetland, great cheap source for a lot of data collection (CPWN),
   build an exclosure in winter and monitor response the rest of the year.
• Group tours for university groups, non-profits and other organized groups with an interest in carp control.
• Group talks – convert into a podcast for view on web outlets.
• Fact sheet for groups that check in at refuge headquarters and visitors to Malheur Field Station.
• Kiosks and signage at carp free/carp invaded wetland
• ODFW Restoration and Enhancement Program potential funding source.
• Carp Rodeo

Annual meetings for professional associations:
• The Wildlife Society,
• American Fisheries Society

Online/Print Newsletter
• The Pelican Press
• Working together creating healthy, sustainable fish and wildlife habitat.




                                                                50
   Potential sections to include:
   1. The problem:
   2. Our current attack:
   3. The Carp-O-Meter:
   4. The approach:
   5. Upcoming events: (netting, archery, electro-shocking, radio telemetry studies (online mapping component of telemetry, large
      scale winter ice carp removal)
   6. How you can help: Donate, volunteer, tell a friend, pass on the link to our newsletter

   •   Advertise success, set goals, have a goal meter: 100,000 lbs of carp this season, with a thermometer showing progress at
       refuge headquarters in the visitor center.
   •   Celebrate your successes and learn from failures.
   •   Other potential sources for cost effective staff resources: Americorps, SCEP, STEP and internships, university graduate
       students, RARE program.

   Scope of the message:

   •   With the web it is instantly international.
   •   Presentations given to interested groups (Audubon, Fishing, Hunting) within a defined area (Oregon, N. Calif, E. Idaho, S.
       Washington)
   •   Make the effort about the habitat and the benefits to birds, fish and other wildlife. Tout the economic benefits to the
       community of success. Tourism, potential commercial ventures.
   •   Potential for a non-profit (potentially sub-group of HDP or Friends Group in the future) because they have the ability to tap a
       variety of funding sources that the refuge can’t access.

Tribe did an ecotourism study several years ago. UNESCO considers this an International Site of Importance. It would be easy to
market internationally. BR

Closing Comments:

   •   Compare this to the lamprey situation. It was more complex since it was the full great lake system and international. They
       developed a coalition. He is very impressed with how far we’ve gone in three days. Jason’s framework and Mike’s model are
       valuable strategy tools. Good short term efforts worked in the past until the system was overwhelmed. Need an assessment


                                                                  51
       tool to track success. Find unique features to effectively use resources to control fish. This coalition gives the support we need
       to go ahead in a constructive, cohesive manner. We can begin to move forward, research as we go. JD

   •   We need to have working groups; combined funding and partnership group will work. Need for action and assessment at the
       same time. Perhaps divide into two groups: assessment and control. Keep in touch. CK

What did we accomplish?

Linda built the foundation of the coalition from her contacts. We began with carp and now are looking at the ecosystem health of the
Refuge. Now we have a coalition, working groups and a framework to look at recruitment, mortality, and movement. The assessment
and control groups have a model to use in decisions for sustainable management. Funding sources and relationships will make it
work. The coalition is necessary for success. People make it work. Do the science we’ll get the funding. It’s a good start. Now we
must maintain the momentum. CK

Comments:
  • Carp should be nervous. Keep the momentum. That was the weak link in the past. RV
  • This addresses the biggest deterrent to ecological integrity of the refuge. Happy to go forward. GI
  • Refuge management backs everything discussed. JW
  • We had to give some to get some. Everyone compromised. PB
  • Good recognition of the importance of the local community and economy. Refuge is a major component of the community
    and is becoming more progressive and a better neighbor. We can be symbiotic. Encouraging hearing good ideas. DN
  • Communication the key. JK
  • Learned a lot. The project can be effective. JC
  • Excited about what’s happening and can happen. Linda has done an exceptional job. Collaborative effort is possible. BR
  • Tribe wants to be involved in immediate small projects. We will ask the tribe to write a letter of support to help with funding
    applications. The tribe and refuge haven’t collaborated much before. This can be a new beginning. CA
  • We have an issue: carp. So this is a great step. Encouraging. We do statewide breeding bird and waterfowl estimates. We
    can monitor improvements. BR
  • From Gary’s report, we understand there has been 60 years of effort to control the problem. It’s not easy to fix. It is good we
    had disagreement and built new ideas. It will be a long haul and require commitment and energy. We’re off to a good start.
    RW
  • One of the best workshops ever, full of action. We can provide survey information and hydro models for Mike’s model. SH
  • Very encouraged. We know there is no money but it is critical to collect baseline information: water quality, secchi depth and


                                                                  52
       bird and fish information to lay the foundation against which to see improvements. AD
   •    Refuge always struggles to get local volunteers. Carp killing will draw people. We can build a relationship with community
       support groups. AS
   •   Came as an outsider; really impressed at how warmly received they have been. Group is open to ideas form the outside. CP
   •   Once the threshold for carp has been hit, we can move on to other projects. JD
   •   Look forward to accomplishments. SL
   •   High Desert board and RARE program staff person. They will be there to help form here forward. BT

We have a chance to make a huge difference. One hundred years ago, we had a great landscape with a problem. This is a
perfect parallel. We will meet again in 2 years with new information and successes. TB




                                                                53

								
To top