The Resources Agency of California Department of and Game 1/ ROUGH FISH CONTROL FREDERICK A. MEYER Inland Branch

SUMMARY Rough fish control is an important tool for improving . This report reviews the theory and methods of rough fish control. Criteria for determining treatment need are discussed. A suggested pretreatment procedure is outlined. Public relations and physical difficulties of the treatment are considered. A brief discussion of rough fish control in streams points up the need to evaluate such work.

Rotenone is the chemical most widely used for rough fish control. Its toxicity to fish, fish food, and mammals; its applications, its detoxifica- tion; and its proper storage are discussed. The relative cost of various rotenone products is analyzed. A table for computing rotenone application rate, a chemical test for rotenone content in water, and a list of rotenone suppliers are also included. Other chemicals used for rough fish control, including toxaphene, endrin, cresol, and acrolein are discussed briefly. Selective fish control with rotenone, copper sulfate, and a combination of malathion and dibrom are described. These methods are still experimental.

Partial control methods include treating the epilimnion of a trout lake when the trout are in the hypolimnion by using a special rotenone formulation. Various treatment methods to partially kill squawfish and and to thin out overabundant bluegill and bullhead populations are described and dis- cussed. Carp control, using poisoned baits and water level drawdown to expose carp eggs, is. discussed. Post-treatment evaluation is mandatory on projects. Such records are valuable references when planning later treatments.

1 /Submitted August, 1963. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 63-10. -3- INTRODUCTION Rough fish control is an important tool. It makes more food available to and may also reduce predation, disease, and roiling of the water. Hence, fishing usually improves remarkably after treatment. A complete kill of all fish followed by restocking seems to restore fishing quality) at least temporarily, to about the level found in new bodies of water.

This report summarizes the available information about this important management tool, for ready reference by Department personnel.

DETERMINING IHE NEED FOR TREATMENT Rough fish control is usually indicated when satisfactory game fish populations no longer occur because of competition with rough fish, and commonly follows a decline in fishing success. Maximal trout production in lakes can usually be attained with one or few fish species. Hence, complete elimination of rough fish is often desirable in such waters.

Several methods are commonly used to gauge the need for rough fish control. Periodic creel checks to measure fishing quality are a useful technique. The rough fish-game fish ratio is often estimated from net collections, although results can be misleading because of gear selectivity. Age and growth studies may indicate the degree of competition with rough fish. Angler reports can be useful, but should never be the sole criteria for treatment..

The status of a problem water should be reviewed carefully to determine if other, less costly techniques would accomplish the same result as chemical treatment.

The benefits of partial control are usually too temporary to justify the time and funds involved. However, partial control may occasionally be desirable to facili- tate establishment of a newly introduced game species. It can also sometimes be justified in unusually productive lakes which are heavily fished. Pre-impoundment treatment of drainages above new reservoirs has become common practice. A complete kill of rough fish is almost never possible. Present know- ledge is inadequate to gauge the benefits of this type of control. In practice, managers are inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt, hoping it will increase the survival of young game fish in the new reservoir, and that they, in turn, will suppress later blooms of small rough fish. However, untreated waters, such as Folsom Reservoir, have sometimes produced outstanding black in their early years. Hubbs (1963) and Miller (1963) have written stimulating articles on this subject.

Sometimes rough fish control is clearly unwarranted. The damage from rough fish must be balanced against their benefit as forage, especially in large lakes. In Eagle Lake, for example, where tui chubs (Siphateles) act as forage for a unique game fish population, treatment would not be desirable. Native species of fish with restricted distribution must always be given careful consideration before a treatment program is carried out. There can be no excuse for risking extermination of any native species. The Department is obligated to protect them as unique natural resources. -4- PRETREATMENT PROCEDURE

The degree of planning necessary for a chemical treatment operation varies with its magnitude. The following factors need to be considered: 1. All property owners bordering the water must be contacted and their approval obtained before treatment. It is important to keep business establishments and local residents informed of the proposed work. Newspaper articles, news releases, and personal contacts are essential for projects in metropolitan or heavy-use recreation areas.

2. A thorough pretreatment analysis is essential in planning the treatment. Form FG 740 (Appendix A-1) should be used. Information needed includes:

a. Accurate measurements of the volume of water in a lake or reservoir are essential. They can often be obtained from maps or owner's records. If a survey is necessary, adequate soundings must be taken to estimate volume accurately. A depth contour map should be plotted for larger lakes to determine the amount of chemical to apply to various areas.

b. Locate all inlets and outlets to the lake, springs in the lake, and potholes or ponds in the drainage above the lake which could contain a source of recontamination of rough fish. Give special consideration to these factors to insure a complete kill with the least chance of reestablishment of rough fish.

c. Determine the length of stream section, rate of flow, accessibility, and time required for the chemical to pass through the stream section.

d. Determine the species of rough fish present. Different vary in their susceptibilities to certain chemicals. The concentration must be geared to the most resistant species to insure a complete kill.

e. Delineate the extent of shsllow, weedy areas where dispersion of the chemica. could be a problem. Spray equipment may be needed for these areas.

f. Review special access problems caused by mud and tules on the lake shore, or inaccessibility of tributaries. 3. The uses of the water must be determined. The State Department of Public Health requires a waiting period for certain chemicals before water can be used for domestic water supplies. This is not a problem with rotenone products, but may be with other chemicals. 4. Disposal of dead fish may present special problems in heavily used areas, or in domestic water supplies. Recovery and disposal of the dead fish may be manda- tory for health or aesthetic reasons. 5. The best time of year to treat should be selected far enough in advance to allow proper planning of the project. In California, lakes are usually treated in the fall when they are lowest, water temperatures are high, the weather is dry, the season is nearly over, and the fall overturn will Shortly mix the chemical thoroughly in the lake. -5- 6. Determine the kind and amount of chemical needed. Consider the following factors.

a. Volume of water in acre-feet.

b. Amount needed (Appendix A-3). Consider the species present and unusual complicating factors, such as springs, vegetation, etc., which may indicate heavier dosage.

c. Strength of the chemical - a test of the active ingredient content of rotenone compounds can be made by a testing laboratory, or a test can be made as outlined in Appendix A-4. It is especially important to check the potency of rotenone that has been stored for a year or more. A routine analysis of large lots of dry powder is desirable. The cost is small, and it is not unusual for the concentration claimed by the manufacturer to be in error.

Detoxification of the water in a stream or at a lake outlet is sometimes desirable. Unfortunately, experience with detoxification in California has been disappointing. It should be attempted only under the most unusual circumstances.

8. A detailed operational plan should be made for all major treatments, including:

a. Manpower needs, organization, and responsibility.

b. Equipment needs.

c. Division of the treatment area into small units for application based on the unit's water volume. Areas may be marked off with buoys and flags on shore. Crews may be assigned to one or more areas. A map for each man delineating the areas is desirable.

d. Allocation of the chemical to the various areas, based on water volumes.

e. A pretreatment briefing to explain the operation and to assign duties and areas to each person involved is necessary with large projects.

SISEAM TREATMENT

In California, 17 streams or rivers have been treated with rotenone to suppress rough fish temporarily. The recovery of the rough fish populations usually has been rapid. The benefits usually have been questionable and always temporary. This type of treatment sorely needs evaluation.

Streams are usually treated by means of drip stations and treatment of isolated potholes by can. A steady flow apparatus for use with drip cans is described by Price and Haus (1963).

ROTENONE

Rotenone is derived from the roots of plants of the genera Derris and Lonchocarpus. It is sold as a powder with from 5 to 20 percent active ingredient, and as an emulsion with approximately 5 percent active ingredient. Suppliers are listed in Appendix A-5. -6-

Rotenone is nontoxic to most mammals. However, it seems to have adverse effects on swine (McKee and Wolf, 1963). Men who have handled the powder continuously for several days in California treatments have sometimes developed serious eye inflammations and skin irritations. Continuing sublethal doses or rotenone in the human diet may cause fatty changes in the liver and kidneys, as well as aller- gies and pterygiums (hardening of parts of the eye) (Sowards, 1961). The lethal oral dose for humans is about 0.2 grams of pure rotenone.

Rotenone kills fish by blocking a chemical reaction in the gill filaments, thereby preventing adequate oxygen intake and suffocating the fish (Lindahl and Oberg, 1961). Its toxicity depends primarily on the species and size of fish and water temperature. In general, the toxicity of rotenone is greatest at water temperatures between 50 and 75 degrees F. Young fish of a given species are more susceptible than older fish. Toxicity drops sharply at lower temperatures.

Due to the variable active ingredient concentrations of the current rotenone products, it is desirable to standardize references to concentration of rotenone in parts per million of active ingredient (which may include other alkaloids). References throughout this report are in these terms.

Species Susceptibility

Reported experience in California and elsewhere indicates that the following concen- trations have generally elminated the species mentioned:

Trout, native cyprinidae, suckers - 0.025 to 0.050 ppm Sunfish - 0.050 to 0.075 ppm Bullhead (Ictaluridae) - 0.1 to 0.2 ppm Carp - 0.113 to 0.2 ppm Goldfish - 0.2 ppm

Individual fish are sometimes extremely resistant, especially in the case of goldfish, bullhead, and carp. Hence, complete kills of these species are unusually difficult to achieve.

The concentration needed for any specific water depends primarily on the water temperature and species of fish to be eliminated.

The higher the concentration, the longer the period of toxicity and, therefore, the longer the lake is out of production.

Natural Detoxification of Treated Waters

The duration of rotenone toxicity depends on intial concentration, water temperature, sunlight, and possibly other factors. Post (1958) found that pH (from 7.0 to 8.6), total dissolved solids, alkalinity (as ppm CO3 ion from 14.8 to 227), dissolved oxygen, and various cation and anion concentrations did not affect detoxification time. He gave the following formula for estimating the duration of toxicity in ponds:

d = 93 - 4/3 T when T = between 45 and 60 degrees.

3 d = 38 - /7 T when T = between 60 and 80 degrees.

d = one day's duration of toxicity to warmwater game fish.

T average daily water temperature. -7- Waters will remain toxic to trout longer than this formula indicates because trout are more sensitive. The hypolimnion may remain toxic after surface layers have detoxified. Therefore, it is important to test the deep waters for toxicity to avoid the loss of planted fish when the lake experiences its fall or spring over- turn. Rotenone applied under an ice and snow cover detoxifies very slowly, because of low temperatures and light intensity. Five months or more may be required to dissipate toxicity under these circumstances.

Live car tests are ordinarily used to determine when a lake is ready for restocking. Chemical tests are also possible (Appendix A-4).

Effect on Zooplankton

Recent work (Kiser et al., 1963) has shown that rotenone treatment drastically decreases open water zooplankton populations (primarily Cladocera and Copepoda). These organisms may not build back up for several months after a lake has become nontoxic to fish. Delayed restocking may therefore sometimes be desirable, to allow the zooplankton to recover, thereby enhancing survival and growth of the planted fish.

Good survival of zooplankton in weedy areas was also observed. The authors suggest that certain fish larvae night also survive in the weeds, with resulting reestab- lishment of the species. Hence, weedy lakes might be treated more effectively in winter or early spring when weed growth is minimal.

Loss of Potency With Storage

Few data on the effects of storage on the toxicity of rotenone products are avail- able, although the powder is known to deteriorate with time. Heat speeds detoxi- fication; therefore, storage in a cool location is advisable. The powder should be used within a year if possible and assayed for rotenone content if it is older than a year.

Chemical Detoxification

It may be necessary to detoxify rotenone-treated water; for example, to protect a stream fishery below a lake. Chlorine, chlorinated lime, and chlorine dioxide have been used for this purpose. They are difficult to work with and expensive. The necessary continuous application is apt to prove impossible of achievement. Addition of 1 ppm of potassium permanganate for each 0.025 ppm of rotenone is another method (McKee and Wolf, 1963). Slightly more must be used in waters rich in organic matter. Care must be taken, as 3 ppm of potassium permanganate is toxic to bluegill at 68 degrees F. and 4 ppm is toxic to trout. Florescein dye added to the rotenone helps to determine when to add the detoxifier.

Use In Water Supply Reservoir

Rotenone products have been used successfully in water supply reservoirs by removing the taste and odor of both piscicide and dead fish with activated carbon. Thirty milligrams of activated carbon per liter of water are recommended for each 0.05 ppm active ingredient (Cohen et al., 1961). At Hodges Reservoir, San Diego County, 60 milligrams of activated carbon per liter of water successfully removed Pro-Noxfish at a concentration of 0.1 ppm. The odor dissipated naturally in one month. -8- Cost Comparison of Various Products Available rotenone products and their costs (July, 1963) follow:

Product Cost per acre-foot to give 0.5 ppm 5% powder, packed in 50-1b. burlap bags $0.60 ($0.24 per lb.) designed for towing by boat (for 2,000 lbs.) 2% rotenone, 21% synergist emulsion ilt.07 ($3.20 per gal.) (for 1,000 gals.) 5% emulsion (for 1,000 gals.) $1.33 WOO per gal.) 20% powder, packed in 25- and 50-1b. $1.40 ($2.10 per lb.) burlap bags designed for towing by boat

Powder is difficult to apply in inaccessible places. It is also bulky and awkward and time consuming to apply. It irritates mucous membranes, so that workers using it often need masks. Its great advantage is low cost. Moreover, the fish killed are edible, lacking the taste which the solvents in the emulsions impart to their flesh.

The 20 percent powder is convenient for packing into remote areas. Application to Deep Water In order to assure adequate dispersion of the rotenone it may be necessary to pump the chemical into deep waters. Several available emulsions reportedly- penetrate the thermocline and disperse to the bottom of deep lakes. Appendix A-3 will assist in calculating active ingredient concentration from rotenone products of various concentrations. OTHER CHEMICALS Toxaphene, a chlorinated hydrocarbon, has been used extensively to eradicate fish populations in several states. It has been used in only two California waters: Grassy Lake, Plumas County, and Big Bearl Lake, San Bernardino County. were eradicated from Grassy Lake in October, 1959, with a concentration of 0.1 ppm. Toxicity lasted until the following spring. Big Bear Lake was treated in September, 1960, at a concentration of approximately 0.2 ppm to remove brown bullhead and goldfish. All of the bullhead and most of the goldfish were killed, but some goldfish survived into the following year, although the lake remained toxic to trout until July, 1961. Toxanhene and all other chlorinated hydrocarbons have been rejected for further use in California because of their long-lasting residual effects and the fact that they are concentrated by plants and animals, including man, as they pass through various food chains.

Endrin, another chlorinated hydrocarbon, has been used in Malaya to control preda- tory fish. Thiodan, chlorine, and sodium cyanide have also been experimented with to eradicate fish. -9- The herbicide acrolein has been used experimentally for rough fish control. It costs more than emulsig9 rotenone. The water treated remains toxic for only a few days. The 24-hour TLni.tY at 55 and 68 degrees C. was 0.08 ppm for king and 0.065 ppm for rainbow trout (McKee and Wolf, 1963). In California tests, 0.5 ppm killed carp, goldfish, brown bullhead, white catfish, bluegill, largemouth bass, and green sunfish. Under field conditions, 3.0 ppm acrolein seems to be necessary to eradicate carp, goldfish, and bullhead. Recent California experience with acrolein is summarized by St. Anent et al. (1963).

Concentrated acrolein is toxic to man. The vapor is a powerful irritant and toxicant resembling chlorine.

SELECTIVE CONTROL Selective poisoning of lamprey larvae in tributaries of the Great Lakes has stimu- lated interest in selective control. In the southeastern states, for example, gizzard shad and drum have been selectively killed with 0.0065 to 0.015 ppm rotenone. At this low dosage, other species of fish were only partially affected.

Copper sulfate at 2 to 3 ppm was used in one trial in California to selectively kill carp, golden shiner, hitch, and brown bullhead without serious loss of green sunfish and largemouth bass. It is relative inexpensive: $1.44 per acre-foot at 3 ppm compared with $2.40 for a complete kill of carp with 0.2 ppm rotenone as 5 percent powder. However, this method is still in the exploratory stage in California.

A combination of 2 parts malathion and 3 parts dibrom at 0.1 ppm has been used in Massachusetts to selectively kill sunfish, with a snail loss of largemouth bass. Its cost is $1.12 per acre-foot, compared with $1.10 for emulsive rotenone. This compound will also kill trout but has a low toxicity for mammals. One trial in California resulted in a 30 percent kill of an abundant green sunfish and bluegill population.

PARTIAL CONTROL In Massachusetts, the epilinnions of ponds have been treated with 0.025 and 0.01 ppm rotenone to reduce the warmater fish in the epilimnion without harming trout in the hypolimnion (Tompkins and Milian, 1958). Suppliers now have special rotenone preparations which will or will not penetrate the thermocline readily.

Keating (1961) notes a successful kill of spawning squawfish in tributaries of Cascade Reservoir, Idaho, with Pro-Noxfish at concentrations of 0.025 and 0.05 ppm. Water temperatures of 60 and 65 degrees F. induced the spawning run. Squawfish actively avoid treated areas, therefore block nets are need to prevent their escape.

In destroying spawning carp in shallow water, 0.1 ppm rotenone was applied by air with good success in Idaho. A concentration of 0.05 ppm was unsuccessful because of avoidance reaction by the carp. These treatments killed adults and eggs beyond the eyed stage. Uneyed eggs and adults not yet in the shallows survived to repopulate the reservoir, so that this method of control is questionable (Keating, 1961).

Partial control of carp and bluegill in some Oklahoma lakes gave varying results. Good growth was obtained in some, but a subsequent carp explosion took place in one (Jenkins, 1956). Partial removal of black bullhead and bluegill also gave negligible results (Houser and Grinstead, 1961).

2/Median tolerance limit or that cx_centration at which 50 percent of the test fish died.

-.10-

Buck et al. (1960) used sour corn at the head of moving water (inlet or internal current) to concentrate carp and catfish in a lake. Then they weighted a tarpaulin to enclose the area where the carp and catfish were concentrated and killed the fish with 0.05 ppm. rotenone. The fish did not concentrate when the bait was placed in still water.

Generally speaking partial control is a questionable type of management, since a few rough fish can repopulate a lake or stream very rapidly. Hence, projects of this sort need to be evaluated with unusual care.

OTHER CONTROL METHODS

Carp were controlled in 1955, 1956, and 1957 in Fort Randall Reservoir, South Dakota, by layering the water level 1 to 2 feet after periods of heavy spawning (Sprague, 1961). This method works Only in reservoirs in which a small drawdown exposes the shallows where carp . Moreover, the drawdown must occur within a week after egg deposition, since the fry hatch out quickly and will otherwise escape. In 1959 no drawdown was possible and yet carp did not spawn successfully in Fort Randall Reservoir, so this control program remains somewhat questionable.

Carp control using poisoned baits has met with little success. Calcium carbide pellets coated with beef tallow were tried in Colorado(Huston, 1955). The theory was that the fish would swallow the bait, the tallow would be digested away in the stomach, and the resulting acetylene gas would rupture the stomach or float the fish. Success was limited because the carp seemed able to detect the poison in the bait. Loeb (1960) gives a list of foods and flavors attractive to carp.

APPLICATION 1041 ODS

Rotenone, our primary piscicide, can be applied in many ways. Copper sulfate and the dfbrom-malathion mixture are applied in the same manner as is rotenone. Other chemicals, such as the irritating gas, acrolein, require special application methods and equipment, such as gas masks, for their safe use.

Powdered rotenone products must be mixed with water during application. The dust involved in this nixing is irritating and dangerous to the applicators. The packaging of powdered rotenone products in burlap bags with inner paper linings allows easier application but has not completely solved the dust problem. When cost considerations will allow, - it is safer to use an emulsified product.

Application of the burlap bag powder is made by towing the bags behind a boat. No special equipment is required but a gas mask should be used when rotenone dust presents a heath hazard.

The application of emulsive products is fairly simple. They can be premixed in a can and poured behind a boat in ponds with good water circulation throughout. They can be sprayed out or pumped into deep water using an ordinary centrifugal water pump. A Y-fitting connects a hose from the toxicantsupply to the discharge hose. The flow of water through the discharge hose acts as a venturi and siphons the toxicant into the water. Caution: The solvent in most emulsive products will deteriorate rubber. Extra washers should be carried for the pump. A Hamelite 2-inch centrifugal pump rents for $8.00 a day, $20.00 a week, or $60.00 a month, and costs $304.00 without hoses or fittings (approximately $100.00 more) (August, 1963). A very efficient method of applying emulsive products is to pump the emulsion from a drum mounted in the bottom of a boat by means of a Venturi pump (Amundson boat bailer) clamped onto the outboard motor. The flow can be metered by a valve at the drum hose connection. Clear plastic hose permits the observer to watch the flow of chemical. Plastic also resists the decaying action of the solvent, which rubber does not. This method gives good dispersion of the chemical and greater boat safety, since the heavy drum can be mounted in the bottom of the boat rather than above the gunwales, as required for gravity flow.

Drums of emulsive product are heavy. To avoid injury to workers and possible damage to equipment, one dram can be kept in the boat and filled from the others on the truck by means of a siphon. A block and tackle on a boom will also save manual handling of the heavy drums.

In California and elsewhere, aircraft have been used to distribute chemicals. The primary consideration in the use of this method is cost. Five hundred gallons of diluted emulsified rotenone were sprayed on isolated potholes at Turlock Reservoir on November, 1961, at a cost of $375.00. Reference costs quoted at Sacramento in February, 1963, were: helicopter, $130 an hour, $300 a day minimum; carrying capacity, 25,000 pounds at sea level, 1,500 pounds at 10,000 feet. POST-TREATMENT EVALUATION An evaluation of chemical treatments is mandatory for all projects. Form FG 741 (Appendix A-2) provides a means of figuring costs, effort expended, water conditions at time of treatment, , and restocking data, as well as a place for record- ing details of the treatment itself. It is important to document each treatment as fully as possible for later reference.

REFERENCES

Bowers, Charles C. 1955. Selective poisoning of gizzard shad with rotenone. Frog. Fish-Cult., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 134-135. Buck, D. Homer, M. A. Whitacre, and C. F. Thoits, III 1960. Some experiments in the baiting of carp. Jour. Wildl. Mangt., vol., 24, no. 4, pp. 357-364. Cohen, J. M., Q. H. Pickering, R. L. Woodward, and W. Van Heruvelen 1960. The effect of fish poisons on water supplies. Jour. Amer. Water Works Assoc., vol. 52, no. 12. 1961. The effect of fish poisons on water supplies. Jour. Amer. Water Works Assoc., vol. 53, nos. 1 and 2. Houser, Alfred, and Bob Grinstead 1961. The effect of black bullhead catfish and bluegill removals on the fish population of a small lake. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm., 15th Ann. Conf., Proc.1 Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 193-200. HUbbs, Clark 1963. An evaluation of the use of rotenone as a means of "improving" sports fishing in the Concho River, Texas. Copeia, no. 1, pp. 199-203. -12-

Huston, Joe E. 1955. Selective poisoning of carp with calcium carbide. Colo. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, vol. 2, nos. land 2, pp. 17-21. Jenkins, Robert M. 1959. Some results of the partial fish population removal technique in lake management. Okla. Acad. Sc., Proc., 1956, vol. 37, pp. 164-173. Keating, James F. 1961. Experimental rough fish control. Idaho D-J Project F-22-R Completion Rept. 1955-1960, 7 pp. Kiser,_ R. W., John R. Donaldson, and Paul R. Olson 1963. The effect of rotenone on zooplankton populations in freshwater lakes. Amer. Fish. Soc., Trans., vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 17-24. Lindahl, P. E., and K. E. Oberg 1961. The effect of rotenone on respiration and its point of attack. Experi- mental Cell Research, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 228-237. In: Biol. Abstr., vol. 36, no. 17. Abstr. no. 55313. Loeb, Hcvard A. 1960. Reactions of aquarium carp to food and flavors. New York Fish and Game Jour., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 60-71. McKee, Jack E., and Harold W. Wolf, Editors 1963. Water quality criteria (2nd ed.). Calif. Water Quality Control Board Pub'. 3A. Miller, Robert R. 1963. Is our native underwater life worth saving? national Parks Mag., vol. 37, no. 188, pp. 4-9. Post, George 1955. A simple chemical test for rotenone in water. Prog. Fish-Cult., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 190-191. 1958. Time vs. water temperature in rotenone dissipation. Western Assoc. Game and Fish Comm., 38th Ann. Conf., Proc., Sun Valley, Idaho, pp. 279-284. Price, Robert W., and Joseph B. Haus 1963. Aids for stream reclamation. Frog. Fish-Cat., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 37-39. St. Anant, James A., William C. Johnson, and Marvin J. Whalls 1963. Aqualin as a fish toxicant. Prog. Fish-Cult. (In press) Sowards, Charles L. 1961. Safety as related to the use of chemicals and electricity in fishery management. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Bur. Sport Fish. and Wildl., Branch Fish. Mangt., Spearfish, South Dakota. 33 pp. Sprague, James W. 1961. Report of fisheries investigations during the seventh year of impoundment of Fort Randall Reservoir, South Dakota, 1959. South Dakota D-J Project F-1-R-9, Job nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, op. 42-43. -13-

Tompkins, William A-, and James W. Mtn= 1958. Selective poisoning as a management tool in stratified trout ponds in Massachusetts. Frog. Fish-Cult., vol. 20, no. 31 pp. 117-123.

Turner, William R. 1959. Effectiveness of various rotenone containing preparations in eradicating farm pond fish populations. Kentucky Fish. Bull. no. 25. 22pp. APPENDIX -15- APPENDIX A-1

The Resources Agency of California Department of Fish and Game

STREAM AND LAKE REHABILITATION Pretreatment Information

Name of water County

Maximum surface area Max. depth Av. depth Miles of stream Stream flow

Use of water: Municipal Stock Irrigation Other

Was contour map prepared?: Yes No

Adjoining land ownership: Public Private Is there public access by road?

Number of established resorts Number of boats Past fishery and management:

What were fishing conditions during past five years?

Number of checks during this period

Results of these checks Plants during past five years (Numbers and species)

Have any age-growth determinations been made?

Species present

What are feelings of local residents on rehabilitation?

Name of local sports club Feelings of local sports club Places and dates of public heariLgs

Toxicant Amount Concentration

Method of application

Is plan for complete kill? Or partial control?

Method of estimating kill

Method of salvage and disposal of fish

Estimated period of toxicity

Measures proposed to protect downstream fishery or other fish, wildlife, and aquatic resources

Measures proposed to inform interested parties of treatment

Remarks:

FG 740 5/63 -2-

-17-

APPENDIX A-2 The Resources Agency of California Department of Fish and Game

STREAM AND LAKE REHABILITATION Post-treatment Evaluation Name of water County

Date treated Volume of water

Lake surface area at time of treatment

Stream length Stream flow

Toxicant used Amount

Concentration Cost Man hours expended in survey and planning Man hours expended in treatment Water conditions at time of treatment:

Depth in Dissolved feet TenRerature pH oxygen4 0

5 10 15

20

25 30

35 40 45 50

Numbers and species of fish eradicated:

-18-

Estimated percentage kill by species

REMARKS: (Give a complete description of application procedure, including use and type of equipment; time started and completed; effects of toxicant on various species of fish; any factors that might affect treatment, such as weedy areas, springs, etc.; method used, and effectiveness of, detoxification procedures; effects, if any, on other animal life such as insects, birds, amphibians, etc.; any other points that might have a bearing on project.)

Restocked: Date Species Number

7141 -2- FG 5/63 -19-

APPENDIX A-3

Table for Computing the Amount of Product to Apply for a Given Active Ingredient Concentration

Gallons of Pounds of Concentration in parts per million liquid per powder per Percentage of active ingredient in product acre-foot acre-foot of water of water 5 6 7 8 9 10 1/8 1 0.018 0.022 0.026 0.029 0.033 0.037

1/6 1-1/3 0.025 0.029 0.034 0.039 0.044 0.049

3/16 1-1/2 0.028 0.033 0.038 0.044 0.050 0.055 1/4 2 0.036 0.044 0.051 0.058 0.066 0.073

3/8 3 0.055 o.o66 0.077 0.088 0.099 0.110 3/4 6 0.110 0.132 0.154 0.176 0.198 0.220

1 8 0.146 0.176 0.205 0.234 0.264 0.293

To use the table: (1) Determine the percentage rotenone content in the rotenone product to be used (i.e., 5%, 7%, etc.). (2) Select the concentration of rotenone to water in parts per million necessary to insure complete eradication (i.e., 0.025, 0.051, etc.).

(3) Determine from columnsl or 2 the amount of toxicantneeded per acre-foot of water to give this concentration.

(4) Multiply the pounds of rotenone powder or gallons of liquid rotenone per acre- foot of water by the number of acre-feet of water to be treated. -20-

APPENDIX A-4

TEST FOR ROTENONE CONTENT IN WATER

This method is taken from Post (1955). It has been used successfully in Region 2. Different lake waters and different chemical products react in a different manner with this chemical method of analysis. Therefore, when using this method to detect rotenone concentrations after chemically treating a lake, either (1) make up a color chart using known concentrations of the rotenone product to be used and the lake water, or (2) preserve enough of the untreated water so that known concentra- tions for comparisons can be made up after the treatment. Samples must be made up daily to compare with samples of treated lake water) since the color only lasts one day. A chart prepared by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission may match the colors created by your lake water. Tap water containing chlorine will oxidize rotenone and is, therefore, not suitable in a standard solution preparation.

Reagents

Chloroform - This must be fresh with a minimum of exposure to air, since oxidized chloroform materials will bleach the sample coloring and give lower concentrations than are actually present.

10 percent thymol in chloroform.

Sodium sulphite, anhydrous.

Hydrochloric - nitric acid reagent (0.2 ml of concentrated nitric acit in 100 ml of concentrated hydrochloric acid).

Caution: This reagent may cause severe burns to the skin and the fumes are dangerous to breathe. Baking soda to neutralize it should be available in case of accident. All the reagents are stable. Care is needed to get a bottle with an acid resistant closure for the acid reagent.

Apparatus

500 ml separatory funnel. Four pipettes: 5 nil, 2 ml, 1 ml, 1 ml (automatic optional). 500 ml, graduated cylinder. A few test tubes. A glass funnel with glass wool or cotton. Color chart (optional).

Preparation of Materials.

1. Glassware, particularly the separatory funnel, must be absolutely clean or emulsions may form in the extraction process or the sample may be contaminated from a previous analysis.

2. If the water sample contains debris, this should be removed by straining through a glass wool filter.

3. Oil of any kind should be skimmed off since this also collects in the chloroform during analysis.

4. If the rotenone water sample is not treated immediately, it should be stored in a dark and cold place. -21-

APPENDIY:A-4--Continued

TEST FOR ROTENONE CONTENT IN WATER

Procedure

1. Eltract 500 ml of treated water with 5 ml of chloroform in a separatory funnel. Extraction is done by shaking the chloroform-water mixture vigorously for at least a minute with care necessary to release the pressure by inverting the funnel and opening the stopcock. A regular shaking procedure (same period of time, same way) should be adopted to get uniform extractions from each sample. Allow the chloroform layer to settle to the bottom of the flash (swirling the flask helps to dislodge the chloroform bubbles which may collect on the surface of the liquid or sides of the funnel). Draw off the chloroform into a test tube, being careful not to get water with it.

2. Extract the water again with 2 ma of chloroform. Add this extract to that previously collected. The procedure gives best results if all water is elim- inated from the chloroform layer. An emulsion may form as the chloroform settles. This can be drawn off and broken by adding a pinch of anhydrous sodium sulphite crystals. The emulsion is of water and chloroform soluble material with the anhydrous crystals removing the water and leaving the chloroform, which can be analyzed for rotenone. The crystals can be removed by filtering the solution through glass wool. Filter paper is not recommended since it absorbs too much of the chloroform. The sodium sulphite crystals can also be left in the test tube, with the chloroform poured into another test tube. The crystals are then washed with 1 ml. of chloroform, which is added to that already poured off.

3. Add 1 ml of the thymol reagent to the collected chloroform.

4. Add 1 ml of the acid reagent.

5. Twirl the tube carefully for 30 seconds to mix reagents and set it aside. Cork It for identification. Caution: This final solution is still very acid.

Color usually starts to develop in the chloroform layer within five minutes and will be complete in an hour. The color ranges from a tan (when no rotenone is present) to a yellow-green, to a green-blue (as rotenone concentration increases). The amount of green color produced is an indication of the amount of rotenone present. The presence of any green may be considered a positive test for rotenone. Color comparison with the color chart, constructed by comparisons with known concentration samples, gives an estimate of the amount of rotenone present. This method has given good results in natural water with up to 35,000 ppm. of total dissolved solids. -22- APPENDIX A-5

ROTENONE SOURCES

Rotenone powder - Prentiss Drug and Chemical Company 101 West 31st Street New York 1, New York Foreign-Domestic Distributors, Inc. 11 West 42nd Street New York 36, New York

Rotenone powder (5% - 20%) - S. B. Penick and Company Pro-Noxfish 4161 Beck Avenue Noxfish St. Louis 16, Missouri

One- and five-gallon lots of - James Chemical Company Pro -Noxfish for private pond 1111 Selby Street owners San Francisco, California

Rotenone powder - Chemical Insecticide Corporation Chem-Fish 30 Whitman Avenue Chem-Fish Special Metuchen, New Jersey

Synergized rotenone - Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation Fairfield Chemical Division P. O. Box 1616 Baltimore 3, Maryland

Emulsified rotenone - Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation Niagara Chemical Division Middleport, New York