5. Carp Reduction Measures

Before proceeding to examine and recommend specific site-based interventions there are some over-arching issues that also form part of this Plan. These are:

• Promoting community engagement; • Addressing priority knowledge gaps; and, • Operating policy or regulatory 'levers' to assist carp control.

5.1 Promoting community engagement

Under the UMDR project there is a separate Communication, Education, Participation and Awareness (CEPA) Plan. This recognises that any improvement in the condition of the UMDR and its tributaries can only occur if the associated communities are fully engaged and committed to helping to achieve the objectives.

Carp are particularly abundant throughout Lake Burley Griffin, Jerrabomberra wetland, the lower reaches of the Molonglo River and the Queanbeyan River. An annual 'carp out' event around Lake Burley Griffin attracts huge interest. This year (2010), 2,049 people registered to fish and a total of 691 carp (1,256 kg) and 883 (164 kg) of Redfin were caught in the day – see Plates 17 and 18 below).

Plates 17 and 18: The 2010 Canberra Carp Out held at Lake Burley Griffin. Photographs: Bill Phillips

To ensure positive involvement by the community, the CEPA Plan has been carefully developed and targeted. It also takes into account the priorities recognised in this Carp Reduction Plan. Rather than repeat here all the relevant contents of the CEPA Plan it is recommended that readers consult it to identify the full range of carp-related engagement and awareness raising actions that are considered priorities. Where actions specified in the following sections contain some element of community engagement they are denoted with the superscript CE

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 43 5.2 Addressing priority knowledge gaps

Knowing the problem is the first step to solving it. A significant limiting factor with the development of this Plan has been the knowledge gaps. A lack of detailed knowledge of carp distribution across the region, local habitat preferences and population dynamics has meant that 'educated' guesses have had to be made based on research findings in other locations, local knowledge and knowledge gained from historical biological survey work in the region

It is vital in order to ensure the measures recommended below in Sections 5.4 are scientifically well-founded, that long-term and rigorous monitoring of the native and pest fish populations in and associated with the UMDR is undertaken. The collection of baseline data is critical to the overall success of the plan because it assists in determining if the outputs and outcomes are being achieved by providing a measure of change against the present.

Further investigations across the region are also needed to help understand the ecology of carp. In particular, information is urgently needed on habitat use, breeding ‘hotspots’ and broader movement patterns, especially between habitats such as preferred breeding locations. Knowing these details will enable actions to be targeted at carp during susceptible stages of their lifecycle and this will greatly increase the chances of success (see Figure 3).

In addition, there are some waterbodies in the UMDR region that are currently believed to be carp-free. The most notable are the Cotter catchment upstream of Cotter dam, and Googong Reservoir on the Queanbeyan River. There are a number of other ACT rivers where carp are currently absent. These include the Naas, Orroral and Tidbinbilla rivers, and the majority of the Gudgenby River (Lintermans 2000). It is much less expensive to keep an area carp-free than it is to try and remove carp at a later date.

In some of these locations the barrier that prevents invasion by carp is obvious but for others it is not. In the Cotter and Googong cases it is the physical barrier provided by the dam wall. Should carp breach these barriers (for whatever reason) this would have significant impacts on carp management in the UMDR and surrounding region with priorities and resources for carp management having to be reviewed. A priority is to gain a better understanding of those areas where carp are not found currently and what steps are required to keep them this way.

The knowledge gaps identified as priorities are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Addressing priority knowledge gaps

Actions Priority Key outputs Anticipated Timeframe Potential anticipated outcomes for project completion partner(s) 1. Support the further H Reports Improved 2012 ACT PC&L analysis and publication documenting knowledge of carp University of of existing fish survey survey and distribution and Canberra data of the region and monitoring abundance. summary of findings on programs population structure and completed. age classes 2. Undertake a survey of H Reports and Improved 2015 ACT PC&L, I&I carp populations in the population model knowledge of carp NSW, region to collect up to completed. dynamics leading Universities date information about to better targeting age classes, population of management structure and habitat actions. use.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 44 Table 3 continued.

Actions Priority Key outputs Anticipated Timeframe Potential anticipated outcomes for project completion partner(s) 3. Confirm those areas H Confirmation of Improved 2011 ACT PCL, I&I where carp are not carp distribution knowledge for NSW, Uni of currently present and across the region. prioritisation of Canberra, why. Notably the Naas management Anglers and Orroral rivers and activities. parts of the Gudgenby River. 4. Identify aggregation H Documentation of Targeted 2015 ACT PCL, I&I sites, CE when spawning aggregation sites management NSW, Uni of activity occurs and what and related interventions at Canberra, are the cues or triggers information about carp breeding Anglers for breeding. spawning. ‘hotspots’. 5. Track movement M Movement patterns Improved 2015 ACT PCL, I&I patterns within and documented. management as NSW, between the movement of fish Universities management units (see between Section 5.4). management units is clarified. 6. Investigate habitat M Reports detailing Improved 2015 ACT PCL, I&I use by carp across the habitat use, targeting of NSW, region. CE preferences, habitats for carp Universities seasonal patterns control. etc. 7. Undertake carp larval H 'Hot spots' or core Improved 2015 ACT PCL, I&I sampling to locate 'hot source populations. targeting of NSW, spots' or core source habitats for carp Universities populations. control 8. Establish the role of H Role of the urban Improved 2015 ACT PCL, I&I the urban ponds and ponds and lakes as targeting of NSW, lakes as sources of carp sources of carp re- habitats for carp Universities re-infestation of the infestation control. UMDR. established and documented. 9. Investigate if there are M Studies into Improved 2015 ACT PCL, I&I carp refugia (such as possible carp targeting of NSW farm dams) from which refugia (such as control activities. re-infestations are being farm dams) sourced. completed. 10. Establish if there are M Investigations into Improved 2015 ACT PCL, winter aggregation sites, possible winter targeting of Universities such as thermal refuges, aggregation sites control activities which could be targeted. completed. CE

11. If existing or new M Studies completed Better designs for Dependant ACT PCL, I&I fishways are operated to on impacts of fishways, or on whether NSW, help intercept carp (see fishways operated altered fishway fishways are Universities Sections 4.4-7) for carp operating utilised for determine what impact interception. protocols. carp control. this has on native fish passage. 12. If intensive carp H Monitoring results Improved carp 2015 ACT PCL, I&I removal is undertaken in collected and management NSW, conjunction with native analysed. including cost Universities, fish stocking and habitat benefit analysis. Capital Region improvements in urban Fishing Alliance ponds, monitor the impact this has on carp re-infestation.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 45 5.3 Operating policy or regulatory 'levers' to assist carp control

Also identified at a generic level are several policy or regulatory 'levers' that it is recommended be pursued. Summary information is provided below and Table 4 sets out the actions proposed.

5.3.1 Exemptions under legislation for coarse fishing tournaments

Current ACT Government practice is to allow some exemptions under the Fisheries Act 2000 for organised ‘coarse’ fishing competitions on Canberra's urban lakes. Such competitions value the condition of captured fish, and they are released alive at the end of the tournament. These tournaments have often resulted in the capture and release of several tonnes of carp. Such exemptions clearly conflict with the intent of this Carp Reduction Plan. In NSW there are similar issues with it not being illegal to return carp to the waterway after capture.

5.3.2 Review of the ‘grey’ list for possibly noxious species

The Strategic Approach to the Management of Ornamental Fish in Australia (NRMMC 2007) lists ‘European’ carp as a noxious species nationally. However, in the same report Koi carp (the same species as ‘European’ carp) is included on the ‘grey’ list of species “requiring further scientific/technical consideration and risk assessment”. Such a situation where the same species is listed in two different categories is clearly untenable from a management perspective, particularly when more than 70% of carp examined from Lake Burley Griffin in a genetics study exhibited Koi genetic signatures (Davis 1996; Davis et al. 1998), and yet were visually indistinguishable from normal ‘wild’ carp. The 'grey' list is currently under review, and it is recommended that Koi carp to be listed as noxious also.

5.3.3 The keeping of Koi carp

Current ACT practice is to allow the keeping of Koi carp by hobbyist, including in outside ponds. This can be problematic, given that many outside ponds are adjacent to natural drainage lines, and that high rainfall events may lead to overflow and escape of Koi carp into the wild. The invasion of Koi carp into some northern NSW coastal rivers has been attributed to their escape from outside ponds (I&I NSW 2009). Keeping of Koi carp in outside ponds is still legal in NSW, despite carp being listed as a noxious species.

5.3.4 Implementation of provisions in the ACT's Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005

In 2005 the ACT's Pest Plants and Animals Act was introduced. This legislation contains provisions to declare an animal as a pest, and to also categorise it as either a notifiable pest animal (a pest animal whose presence must be notified to the chief executive) or a prohibited pest animal (a pest animal whose supply or keeping is prohibited). Carp are currently declared as a pest animal under this Act, but are not listed as either notifiable or prohibited.

Declaring an animal to be a notifiable pest animal requires landholders to notify the relevant authority with two working days of the presence of such a pest. This potentially allows for carp to be declared a notifiable pest animal in specific sub-catchments that are currently carp-free, and would greatly improve the reporting of carp invasion of such catchments in the future. The issue of who should pay for such removals will need to be addressed as some landholders may be reluctant to notify authorities if they would then be responsible for removing carp from their waterbody.

The Act also contains provisions where the minister may require the preparation of a pest animal management plan for the management of a pest animal. A pest animal management plan may outline requirements for the following, having regard to the potential threat and the practicality of control measures:

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 46 (a) managing the environmental and agricultural impact of a pest animal in a cost effective way if its eradication is impractical;

(b) controlling potential sources of invasion through trade, transport and escape from urban areas.

In NSW carp are currently listed as a Class 3 noxious species under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, allowing them to sold and possessed. This listing recognises the fact that wild carp are a commercial fisheries species and Koi carp are an important ornamental fish, but it aims, through education and awareness raising to discourage further spread of carp. Currently it is not illegal for recreational fishers to immediately return carp to the water where they were captured; however, Industry and Investment NSW strongly encourages anglers to retain and utilise them.

5.3.5 Closures to recreational fishing in specific locations

There are currently a number of closures to recreational fishing in the ACT under its Fisheries Act 2000. The most important of these to carp management is the closure of Cotter Reservoir and the Cotter River and all its tributaries upstream of the Bendora dam wall. The entire Cotter catchment upstream of the Cotter dam wall is currently carp-free (Lintermans 2000) and considerable effort is being directed to ensuring that the integrity of the Cotter dam wall as a barrier to invasion by both carp and Redfin perch is maintained (ACTEW Corporation 2009a,b).

If recreational fishing were allowed in these locations in the future, then the likelihood of carp being introduced as baitfish increases significantly, as the introduction and spread of alien fish through bait bucket introductions is an acknowledged problem worldwide (Lintermans 2004; Litvak and Mandrak 1993; Ludwig and Leitch 1996). Opening of the Cotter Reservoir to recreational fishing would also increase pressure to stock the reservoir with recreational angling species, and contaminants of alien species in stocking programs has been well established (Lintermans 2004).

5.3.6 Policy on stocking of native fish

The current ACT fish stocking policy does not allow the stocking of native fish for recreational purposes in the ACT's rivers and streams, unless it is part of a recognised research program or for conservation purposes (ACT Government 2009). This allows the abundance of native fish detected in regular fish monitoring programs in ACT streams to be used as a barometer of stream or fisheries 'health' (Lintermans 2002). A change to this policy would potentially have implications for any monitoring program established under this Carp Reduction Plan because it is not currently practical to distinguish stocked fish from wild fish.

Industry and Investment NSW supports several Departmental and community fish stocking programs through research and the Dollar for Dollar Native Fish Stocking Program (funded through the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust). Stocking activities are managed in accordance with the Freshwater Fish Stocking Fishery Management Strategy.

The priority policy or regulatory 'levers' to assist Carp control are presented in Table 4.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 47 Table 4: Operating policy or regulatory 'levers' to support carp control

Actions Priority Key outputs Anticipated Timeframe Potential anticipated outcomes for project completion partner(s) 1. Review the anomaly H Review completed Policy and 2011 ACT PCL which allows an exemption and provided to practice on coarse under the Fisheries Act appropriate fishing aligns with 2000 for coarse fishing decision makers. objectives of this competitions to return live plan. carp back to Canberra's lakes. 2. As part of the current H Review Carp and Koi carp 2012 ACT PCL, I&I review of the national 'grey' recommends Koi are recognised as NSW list of possibly noxious carp recognised a single species species, seek to have Koi as noxious along and managed as carp recognised as noxious with Carp. such. along with the related 'European' carp. 3. Both the NSW and ACT M Both Cross-border 2014 ACT PCL, I&I governments are urged to Governments ban consistency in NSW ban the keeping of Koi carp the keeping of Koi carp management in outside ponds consistent carp in outside and reduced risk with the above action. ponds. of escapes to the wild. 4. Declare Carp as a H Declaration of Improved 2012 ACT PCL 'notifiable pest animal' Carp as a surveillance of under the ACT's Pest Plants 'notifiable pest those waters and Animals Act 2005 animal' currently carp- completed. free. Faster response times to new incursions 5. Continue the exclusion of H Exclusion Helping to Ongoing ACT PCL recreational angling in the continues. maintain the Cotter Reservoir and the Cotter catchment Cotter River and all its upstream of the tributaries upstream of the Cotter dam wall Bendora dam wall. as carp-free. Improved protection of Cotter river fish community. 6. Continue the current ACT M Policy continues. Maintenance of On-going ACT PCL government policy of not consistent picture allowing the stocking of of the ‘health’ of native fish for recreational the native fish purposes in ACT rivers and community streams, unless it is part of a recognised research program or is for conservation purposes. 7. Review NSW stocking M Document current Avoid policy 2012 I&I NSW, activities within the practices. inconsistencies Fishing groups, geographical scope of this between the ACT Murrumbidgee plan, in consultation with and NSW. CMA and others local fishing groups and other government and non- government stakeholders.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 48 5.4 Site-specific interventions

In the UMDR and surrounding waterways, the Carp Reduction Plan aims for controlled reductions; with complete eradication impossible given currently available methods. This Plan also assumes that the other measures envisaged under the UMDR Implementation Plan will be undertaken (see Section 4.1) and that these will see improvements to in-stream and riparian habitats, water quality, native fish passage and growth in the native fish population so that these can also play a role in carp control.

Table 2 (in Section 2) set out the suite of carp control options currently available, and based on these, and the way the waterways of the UMDR region flow and are regulated, the following are seen as the most suitable forms of site-specific intervention.

1. Where feasible, operate existing and any future fishways on in-stream structures to provide opportunities to remove a proportion of the dispersing carp population;

2. Identify spawning sites in the lakes and wetlands, and where possible reduce breeding activity by minimising access to these by adult carp and/or removing these fish from the population;

3. Identify any other aggregation sites in the rivers, creeks and lakes, and where possible take steps to remove large numbers of carp from the population at these sites;

4. In the urban ponds apply a combination of screens, carp removal, habitat improvements and re-stocking with native fish to reduce the roles these may be playing as source for re-infestation; and,

5. Examine the possible role farm dams may be playing as a source for re-infestation of the waterways by carp (see Knowledge gaps, above).

Management units In order to assist with setting out a strategic approach, the UMDR and its tributaries has been divided into management units. These are shown in Figure 20 and are as follows:

Management Description Units 1 Murrumbidgee River from Bredbo to and including Angle Crossing. This also includes the Bredbo River tributary. 2 From Angle Crossing to and including Casuarina Sands. This also includes the Gudgenby, Orroral and Naas River tributaries, Tuggeranong Creek and its upstream weir and lake plus urban ponds. The Paddy's and Cotter River tributaries are also included in this management unit. 3 From Casuarina Sands to and including the junction of Ginninderra Creek with the Murrumbidgee River. Also included in the unit is the Molonglo and Queanbeyan Rivers, Lake Burley Griffin, Jerrabomberra Creek and wetland, Sullivan's Creek and several other drainage lines discharging into Lake Burley Griffin.

Where appropriate, sub-management units have been described within these broader units to assist further targeting of actions.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 49 Bredbo h c a 1 e

e Bredbo River R

n n o o i Z t a r t s n

o Angle Crossing m e D Gudgenby and Naas Rivers e e g d i b 2

m

e Tuggeranong Creek, weir, lake and ponds upstream u r n r o u Z M

r

e Cotter and Paddy’s rivers p p U Casuarina Sands 3

e Molonglo River, Lake Burley Griffin, Sullivan’s and Jerrabomberra n

o Creeks (and wetland), Queanbeyan River Z

Ginninderra Creek, lake and ponds upstream Junction of Ginninderra Creek with Murrumbidgee River

Figure 20: Stylised diagram showing the tributaries of the Demonstration Reach and below it extending to where Ginninderra Creek joins the Murrumbidgee River (This is a repeat of Figure 6.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 50 5.4.1 Management Unit 1: Murrumbidgee River from Bredbo to Angle Crossing

The Murrumbidgee River from Bredbo to Angle Crossing has significant populations of native fish, including Trout cod and Macquarie perch (Lintermans 2002), while carp are also present in this part of the UMDR. Where they breed and how much emigration or immigration upstream or down is not known. Gaining a better understanding of these things is vital and has been identified as a priority knowledge gap (see Table 3.). Little is currently known about the carp population in the Bredbo river.

Within this unit there are no in-stream structures with fishways that might allow for the installation of carp traps. Angle Crossing (see Plates 19 and 20) is too low-level and therefore not suitable for any future consideration of a fishway with carp trap, unless the structure is upgraded in the future when this should be considered.

There are also no floodplain wetlands in this upland part of the UMDR that it would be expected carp might seek out as spawning areas.

As part of the Murrumbidgee to Googong dam water transfer project being undertaken by ACTEW at present, there is to be a pump station installed at Angle Crossing. This poses the risk of carp being transferred from the Murrumbidgee to Googong Dam, which is at present carp-free. To reduce this risk, there will be a 0.5 mm mesh screen installed on the pump off- take at Angle Crossing which should exclude carp eggs and above.

At this southern end of the UMDR is the township of Bredbo, and engaging with this community to get their assistance with implementing this plan and providing information on carp aggregations etc is recognised as a priority in the CEPA Plan.

Plates 19 and 20: Angle Crossing looking upstream (left) and downstream (right). Photo: Bill Phillips

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 51 Table 5: Actions recommended for Management Unit 1

Actions Priority Key outputs Anticipated Timeframe Potential anticipated outcomes for project completion partner(s) 1. Engage with the M Anecdotal Better 2011 Murrumbidgee community CE of Bredbo and information that understanding of CMA surrounds to enlist their may help focus carp population I&I NSW assistance with future detailed dynamics in this Bredbo implementing this plan and surveys and part of the UMDR, stakeholders providing information on research is and the interplay carp aggregations etc. documented. between carp in the area with upstream and downstream populations. 2. See Table 3 – Knowledge H Primary Scientific data Ongoing I&I NSW gaps, especially in relation biological on population to gaining a better information growth, understanding of the carp regarding recruitment, populations in this part of population mortality and the UMDR and the Bredbo status and age applied to River. recruitment fine tune this collected. plan. 3. Ensure that as part of H Testing of fine Evidence that Mid-2011 ACTEW the Murrumbidgee to screening carp cannot ACT PC&L Googong dam water mechanisms for survive the I&I NSW transfer project being pump off takes screening and undertaken by ACTEW, the completed. pumping off-take of the pump Recommendatio process. station installed at Angle ns for screening Googong Dam Crossing has a 0.5 mm early life-stages remains carp- mesh screen to exclude of carp at free. carp eggs and above, so commercial that the currently carp-free pumping sites. Googong dam is kept that way. 4. If the above actions M Community- Demonstrably Ongoing Murrumbidgee reveal opportunities for based projects effective carp CMA highly focussed activities to for reduction I&I NSW interfere with carp demonstrating exercise in spawning or for community effective carp partnership with demonstration projects CE to control based on major showcase carp removal, sound science stakeholders. then these should be undertaken. considered in consultation with stakeholders and management agencies. 5. If at some future time a M Site used as Demonstrably Dependant ACT decision is taken to demonstration effective carp on available Government upgrade Angle Crossing to site for Williams’ reduction funding. a road culvert crossing or carp cage and exercise in similar fish passage and impacts on local partnership with carp trapping should be carp population. major factored into the design. stakeholders.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 52 5.4.2 Management unit 2: Murrumbidgee River from Angle Crossing to Casuarina Sands

This Management Unit includes several important tributaries (Gudgenby-Naas, Cotter-Paddy’s River systems and the Tuggeranong Creek system).

This management unit has been further divided into four sub-units as follows:

Sub-unit 2(a): Gudgenby, Orroral and Naas Rivers Sub-unit 2(b): Cotter and Paddy's Rivers Sub-unit 2(c): Murrumbidgee River, Point Hut Crossing and Casuarina Sands weir and fishway Sub-unit 2(d): Tuggeranong Creek, weir, lake and related urban ponds

Sub-unit 2(a): Gudgenby, Orroral and Naas Rivers

In this sub-unit there are several creeks, stream and rivers. Notably, the Naas and Orroral rivers, and the majority of the Gudgenby river are carp-free (Lintermans 2000). Gaining an understanding of why carp have not as yet infested the whole system is important to help develop strategies to keep these waterways carp-free. This is a priority knowledge gap (see Table 3). Once addressed, then strategies and surveillance and rapid response systems need to be developed to keep carp from moving in. The latter may require vigilance from anglers and landholders as well as management agencies.

Sub-unit 2(b): Cotter and Paddy's Rivers

The Cotter River catchment upstream of Cotter dam remains carp-free, but downstream of the dam carp are present both above and below the weir on the Cotter River (immediately before it joins the Murrumbidgee River) (see Plate 5) and in Paddy's River.

Should carp breach the dam wall on the Cotter River this would be expected to impact on the threatened Macquarie perch, Trout cod, Two-spined blackfish and Murray river crayfish found in the dam and upstream. Work is underway at present to raise the height of the wall at Cotter dam and so care will need to be exercised to ensure carp are not accidentally assisted to colonise the dam and upstream during this activity. If this is detected an emergency response plan is recommended.

The existing weir and fishway near where the Cotter River joins the Murrumbidgee, with minor adaptation (addition of cones and guide rails etc), could be operated as a fish trap. This would have to be operated manually during anticipated peak migration times. In so doing there would be the chance to gather much-needed population data about carp (and then remove them) while also collecting information about native fish species moving through this fishway.

Consideration should be given to upgrading this weir structure, with the installation of a Williams' Carp Separation cage, assuming the cost-benefit analysis justified such a step. If this occurred it could be operated more frequently and would sort the carp from other fish. Carp disposal might then become an issue as well as potential interference with the trap given that this weir is on public land and close to a picnic area. Access to this site for removing large numbers of carp is good, but there is no immediate power supply for operating lifting devices.

Under Management Sub-unit 2(c) – see below – is it similarly noted that any major upgrade of the Casuarina Sands weir and fishway should also factor in the installation of a Williams' Carp Separation cage. If this investment was supported and justified in ecological terms a single Williams' cage could be moved between the two sites, as a way to reduce costs. Equally, if

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 53 there was a move to install a fishway at Point Hut Crossing (see below), or to elevate and upgrade Angle Crossing, provision for a Williams' trap, shared between several sites, is an option that should be considered.

Installation of Williams’ cage traps would enable collection of baseline data concerning carp and movement patterns, biomass etc. It would be important, however, to identify the agency or community stakeholder group responsible for operating the traps and an appropriate avenue for disposal of carp.

The design characteristics of a Williams’ cage are reasonably flexible and a concept is shown in Figure 21. The system could be manual or automated and include the latest innovations from testing in South Australia (Stuart et al. 2006, Conallin et al. 2009, Smith reference).

Figure 21. Mark IV Williams’ carp cage showing; A) the operating position used to catch and separate jumping carp (black fish symbols) and non-jumping Australian native fishes (grey fish symbols), and B) the raised position. The following elements are illustrated in each panel: 1) false lifting floor; 2) cone trap; 3) native fish exit gate; 4) non-return slide. For clarity, all mesh coverings are excluded from the diagram.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 54 Sub-unit 2(c):Murrumbidgee River, Point Hut Crossing and Casuarina Sands weir and fishway

In this management unit there is the road crossing at Point Hut and the weir and fishway at Casuarina Sands (see Plates 8 and 9). Other than at moderate to high flows, the design of the Point Hut Crossing precludes fish (native and carp) movements upriver. While the installation of a fishway at this site is considered desirable, it should also incorporate a fish trap or Williams' carp separation cage (see above). Without this, a fishway, while assisting native fish movements, would do likewise for carp, and this may not be a prudent from a carp management perspective.

The existing weir and fishway at Casuarina Sands is ready-made for operation as a fish trap (cones and guide rails etc are available now). This trap would have to be operated manually during anticipated peak migration times. In so doing there would the chance to gather valuable population data about carp (and then remove them) while also collecting information about native fish species. If this were to take place it may also be an activity of interest to local anglers interested in native fish and carp management.

As was noted above in relation to this site, consideration should be given to upgrading this weir structure, with the installation of a Williams' Carp Separation cage, assuming the cost- benefit analysis justified such a step. Again, this could then be operated more frequently. Carp disposal may become an issue as well as potential interference with the trap given its location near the recently upgraded parklands at this site. Access to this site for removing large numbers of carp is not good, and there is no immediate power supply for operating lifting devices.

Sub-unit 2(d): Tuggeranong Creek, weir, lake and related urban ponds

The Tuggeranong Creek tributary drains the urban area of Tuggeranong. This drainage system includes a weir, lake and a number of urban ponds (Isabella, Upper and Lower Stranger – see Plate 21 - Gordon and Point Hut) designed to manage siltation and help improve water quality. The latter are described in the Plan of Management for Canberra's Urban Lakes and Ponds (2001) as "water features" and are all used for a range of recreational activities.

For the Tuggeranong Creek system the only realistic options for addressing carp through this Plan are with carp catch events (focussed on Lake Tuggeranong) to raise awareness of the problems, and with intensive carp control measures at one or more of the urban ponds.

It is possible that these urban ponds are serving as spawning areas and source populations for the larger waterbodies and the UMDR itself. Depending on the site(s) chosen this could become a community demonstration project whereby appropriate carp control tools are applied (water level drawdown during spawning, installation of carp screens on inlets and outlets, for example) and these are accompanied by re-stocking with native species and some habitat improvements (additional snags for example). There may also be scope for applying to the Invasive Animals CRC to pilot test pheromone traps in ‘closed’ pond type systems. Such projects would help to promote the overall Carp Reduction Plan to the Canberra community.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 55 Table 6: Actions recommended for Management Unit 2

Actions Priority Key outputs Anticipated Timeframe Potential anticipated outcomes for project completion partner(s) Sub-unit 2(a): Gudgenby, Orroral and Naas Rivers 1. It is a priority M Understanding Adoption of a June 2011 ACT PC&L knowledge gap (see Table gained of the surveillance and 3) to establish why carp factors that inhibit rapid response have so far not been able or promote carp system based on to infest the Naas and invasion. community and Orroral rivers and only part agency of the Gudgenby river. cooperation. Once addressed, then strategies and a surveillance system need to be developed to keep carp from moving in. The latter may require vigilance from anglers and landholders CE as well as management agencies. Sub-unit 2(b): Cotter and Paddy's Rivers 2. Extreme vigilance is H Integrated Cotter Dam kept Jun 2011 ACT PC&L required during the current surveillance carp-free with Research work to raise the height of monitoring and robust native fish institutions the wall at Cotter dam to rapid response population. ensure carp are not systems in place accidentally assisted to and functioning. colonise the dam and upstream. If this is detected an emergency response is required to protect the threatened species found there (Macquarie perch, Trout cod, Two-spined blackfish and Murray river crayfish). 3. Undertake minor H Carp monitoring Important data Jun 2011 ACT PC&L adaptations (addition of and removal gathering relating ACTEW cones and guide rails etc) system operating. to native fish and to the fishway on the carp movements existing weir on the Cotter informing further River near where it joins control planning. the Murrumbidgee. Then operate it manually during anticipated peak migration times to gather much- needed population data about carp (and then remove them) while also collecting information about native fish species moving through this fishway. 4. Undertake cost-benefit M Cost-benefit Determined by Jun 2011 ACT PC&L analysis to establish if analysis. cost-benefit ACTEW upgrading the Cotter weir analysis. structure, with the installation and operation of a Williams' Carp Separation cage should proceed. If indicated, seek to undertake works.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 56 Table 6 continued.

Actions Priority Key outputs Anticipated Timeframe Potential anticipated outcomes for project completion partner(s) Sub-unit 2(c): Murrumbidgee River, Point Hut Crossing and Casuarina Sands weir and fishway 5. Pursue installation of a M Carp monitoring Excellent location Required if ACT fishway at Point Hut (road) and removal for removing carp road crossing Government Crossing incorporating a system installed and monitoring is upgraded. ACTEW fish trap or Williams' carp and operating. native fish. separation cage (see Data concerning above). Without this, a carp movement fishway, while assisting rates and timing native fish movements, gained. would do likewise for carp, and this may not be prudent from a carp management perspective. 6. Commence operating the H Important Practical carp Beginning in ACT PC&L existing fishway at information on removal with 2011 – Fishing club and Casuarina Sands during carp and native minimal impacts annually other anticipated peak migration fish movements on native fish. thereafter. volunteers times CE. This will help collected. gather valuable population data about carp (and then remove them) while also collecting information about native fish species. 7. Undertake cost-benefit M Practical carp Important By no later ACT analysis to establish if removal system information on than 2012 to Government upgrading the Casuarina with minimal carp and native enable Sands weir structure, with impacts on native fish movements. incorporation the installation and fish. Removal rates of into design operation of a Williams' carp at a phase Carp Separation cage population level. should proceed. If indicated, seek to undertake works.

8. Related to the above, M Transferable trap Ability to move 2012 – as ACT PC&L should the opportunity constructed. cages among sites above arise to install Williams' depending on carp traps on two or more in- biomass and stream structures this could support logistics. be made to standardised specifications and then rotated between the various sites. This would save on costs of construction.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 57 Table 6 continued.

Actions Priority Key outputs Anticipated Timeframe Potential anticipated outcomes for project completion partner(s) Sub-unit 2(d): Tuggeranong Creek, weir, lake and related urban ponds 9. As part of the CEPA Plan M Cooperative Increased Annually ACT PC&L for the UMDR encourage angler events to community from 2010 RiverSmart carp catch events focussed remove adult carp awareness of carp onwards. Australia on Lake Tuggeranong. CE and raise and support for Recreational awareness. on-ground fishing clubs actions. 10. Support the M Demonstration of Significant change 2012 ACT PC&L establishment of urban carp control to key local Recreational pond rehabilitation technologies – habitat and native fishing clubs demonstration sites CE. some proven and fish values. Depending on the site(s) some in appropriate carp control development. tools would be applied (water level drawdown during spawning, installation of carp screens on inlets and outlets, for example) and these actions would be accompanied by re-stocking with native species and some habitat improvements (additional snags for example).

Plate 21: Upper Stranger Pond. Photograph. Bill Phillips

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 58 5.4.3 Management Unit 3: Murrumbidgee River from Casuarina Sands to the junction of Ginninderra Creek with the Murrumbidgee River

Management Unit 3 takes in the Murrumbidgee River from Casuarina Sands to the junction with Ginninderra Creek on the northern side of Canberra. Also included in the unit are the Molonglo and Queanbeyan Rivers, Lake Burley Griffin, Jerrabomberra Creek and wetland, Sullivan's Creek and several other drainage lines discharging into Lake Burley Griffin.

This management unit has been further divided into three sub-units as follows:

Sub-unit 3(a): Murrumbidgee River from Casuarina Sands to the junction with Ginninderra Creek Sub-unit 3(b): Molonglo River, Lake Burley Griffin, and it's tributaries, Jerrabomberra Creek and wetland and the Queanbeyan River up to Googong dam. Sub-unit 2(c): Ginninderra Creek and Falls, Lake Ginninderra, Gunghalin Pond, Yerrabi Pond and other urban ponds in Belconnen.

Sub-unit 3(a): Murrumbidgee River from Casuarina Sands to the junction with Ginninderra Creek.

Below Casuarina Sands the only in-stream structure is Uriarra Crossing which offers no opportunities for carp control at present. Not far below this road crossing, the Molonglo River joins the Murrumbidgee and immediately upstream on the Molonglo is the Lower Molonglo Treatment Plant. The discharge from this, Canberra largest treatment plant, does impact on water quality in this part of the Murrumbidgee but it is not known if this has positive or negative repercussions for either native species or carp.

There are no activities recommended for this management sub-unit at present.

Sub-unit 3(b): Molonglo River, Lake Burley Griffin, and it's tributaries, Jerrabomberra Creek and wetland and the Queanbeyan River up to Googong dam.

Scrivener Dam on the Molonglo River created Lake Burley Griffin in 1963. This large dam creates an obstruction for fish (native and carp) movement upstream from the Murrumbidgee River (see Plate 14).

A few kilometres downstream from Scrivener Dam work has commenced (June 2010) for the new sub-division of Molonglo. These new suburbs will have an urban lake to protect the Molonglo and Murrumbidgee Rivers from run-off, and for amenity uses. The design of the structures creating the proposed new lake impoundment and the lake habitat need to be developed with carp control and native fish needs in mind.

Lake Burley Griffin has creek tributaries such as Sullivan's Creek plus a number of urban stormwater inlets. Discharging into Lake Burley Griffin is also Jerrabomberra Creek; doing so via a floodplain wetland system (see Plate 15). The Molonglo River upstream of Lake Burley Griffin also has several tributaries, the largest of these being the Queanbeyan River. This river has a large dam upstream of Queanbeyan which creates Googong Reservoir. In the central urban area of Queanbeyan there are two small weirs; neither with a fishway (see Plates 22 and 23).

Carp are abundant throughout Lake Burley Griffin, Jerrabomberra wetland, the lower reaches of the Molonglo River and the Queanbeyan River. They are found both above and below Molonglo Gorge near Queanbeyan despite the rocky terrain and river form. At present there are no weirs with fishways that would allow opportunities for carp trapping on any of these rivers.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 59

Plates 22 and 23: Weirs near the centre of Queanbeyan on the Queanbeyan river. Photograph: Bill Phillips

There is anecdotal information suggesting several locations around Lake Burley Griffin where large numbers of carp have been observed, either during the spring (so it is assumed these are spawning aggregations) or at other times of the year.

Jerrabomberra Creek and its flood runner across the floodplain are also a well documented aggregation point.

On the Queanbeyan River above the two weirs in the urban areas, local anglers speak of large numbers of carp and these are easily observed.

Apart from the monitoring and data gathering recommended under knowledge gaps above, the opportunities to undertake carp control actions in this management sub-unit are as follows:

• Ensure that design of the new urban lake for the Molonglo sub-divisions takes into account carp control and native fish passage.

• Continue supporting 'carp out' events but aim to use these for data collection (otolith collections etc) as well as community engagement.

• Pursue opportunities for targeted carp removal at identified 'hot spots' (spawning or thermal aggregations), like the mouth of Sullivan's creek, Jerrabomberra Creek and wetland, Queanbeyan river and others identified through more intensive surveys.

Sub-Unit 3(c): Ginninderra Creek and Falls, Lake Ginninderra, Gunghalin Pond, Yerrabi Pond and other urban ponds in Belconnen.

The Ginninderra Creek tributary drains the urban areas of Belconnen and Gunghalin. Like the situation with Tuggeranong Creek (see above), this drainage system includes a weir, lake and a number of urban ponds (Gunghalin Pond, Yerrabi Pond, Dunlop Ponds 1 and 2, West Belconnen Pond) designed to manage siltation and help improve water quality. The latter are described in the Plan of Management for Canberra's Urban Lakes and Ponds (2001) as "water features" and are all used for a range of recreational activities.

For the Ginninderra Creek system the options for addressing carp through this Plan are with:

• carp catch events (focussed on Lake Ginninderra or in the small wetland long the creek itself) to raise awareness of the problems and collect bio-data;

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 60 • a possible carp trap at the upstream end of Lake Ginniderra to intercept spawning carp; and, • intensive carp control measures as a demonstration site at one or more of the urban ponds.

These urban ponds may be serving as spawning areas and source populations for the large waterbodies and the UMDR (investigating this is a priority knowledge gap). Depending on the site(s) chosen these could become a community demonstration projects whereby appropriate carp control tools are applied (water level drawdown during spawning, installation of carp screens on inlets and outlets, for example) and these are accompanied by re-stocking with native species and some habitat improvements (additional snags for example). Such projects would help to promote the overall Carp Reduction Plan to the Canberra community.

Table 7: Actions recommended for Management Unit 3

Actions Priority Key outputs Anticipated Timeframe Potential anticipated outcomes for project completion partner(s) Sub-unit 3(a): Murrumbidgee River from Casuarina Sands to the junction with Ginninderra Creek 1. There are no activities recommended for this management sub-unit at present. Sub-unit 3(b): Molonglo River, Lake Burley Griffin, and it's tributaries, Jerrabomberra Creek and wetland and the Queanbeyan River up to Googong dam 2. The design of the H New structures Efficient As new ACT structures to create the and fishways structures for carp impound- Government new lake impoundment designed for removal with ment infra- associated with the sub- native fish and minimal human structure is division of Molonglo ability to control intervention in developed. (downstream of Scrivener and remove carp. place and dam) needs to be operational. developed with carp control (and fish passage) in mind. 3. Continue supporting H Cooperative Increased 2011 and Murrumbidgee 'carp out' events (around angler events to community ongoing CMA Lake Burley Griffin and on remove adult carp awareness of thereafter. Molonglo CE the Queanbeyan River) and collect carp. Catchment but aim to use these for baseline Group data collection (otolith demographic Queanbeyan collections etc) as well as data. City Council community engagement. RiverSmart Australia Fishing clubs I&I NSW 4. Pursue opportunities for M Efficient removal Pilot testing of 2012 Murrumbidgee targeted carp removal at of large numbers new technologies CMA identified 'hot spots', like of carp using a for further Molonglo the mouth of Sullivan's range of development. Catchment creek, Jerrabomberra Creek techniques. Data gathered Group and wetland, Queanbeyan concerning Queanbeyan river and others identified effectiveness of City Council through more intensive carp removal at Fishing clubs surveys. This may include hot spot habitats. use of targeted electro- ACT Govt fishing, gill or Fyke nets, I&I NSW etc.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 61 Table 7 continued.

Actions Priority Key outputs Anticipated Timeframe Potential anticipated outcomes for project completion partner(s) Sub-unit 3(c): Ginninderra Creek, Lake Ginninderra, Gunghalin Pond, Yerrabi Pond and other urban ponds in Belconnen 5. As part of the CEPA M Cooperative Increased 2011 ACT PC&L Plan for the UMDR angler events community onwards. RiverSmart encourage carp catch held to remove awareness of Australia events focussed on Lake adult carp and carp and support Recreational Ginninderra or in some of raise awareness for on-ground fishing clubs Ginninderra creeks' of invasive fish. actions. smaller wetlands. CE 6. Investigate the L Installation (or Demonstration of 2012 ACT PC&L installation of a possible transfer) of a carp control carp trap at the upstream carp trap device for end of Lake Ginninderra designed to reducing to intercept spawning remove pre- spawning carp. spawning fish. success. Demonstrably less adult carp entering wetland. 7. Support the M Demonstration of Significant 2012 ACT PC&L establishment of urban carp control change to key Recreational pond rehabilitation technologies – local habitat and fishing clubs demonstration sites CE. some proven and native fish Depending on the site(s) some in values. appropriate carp control development. tools would be applied (installation of carp screens on inlets and outlets, for example) and these actions would be accompanied by re- stocking with native species and some habitat improvements (additional snags for example). See Figure 12 and the associated suggestion for systematic carp reduction activities down the Ginninderra Creek system in Section 4.3.1.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 62 6. Monitoring and evaluation relevant to implementation of this plan

Under the umbrella UMDR project there has been formed a specialist group to develop and then guide the implementation of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (M&E). In the development of the M&E Plan the Carp Reduction Plan has been taken into consideration so that data gathering for the UMDR as a whole is an integrated and coordinated process.

The following observations are provided to provide some context for how these M&E aspects relating to carp have been formulated.

Natural systems are complex and our understanding of them is imperfect. We can never know for certain what the outcomes of a pest management program will be. As the program progresses and monitoring data accumulates, we increase our general knowledge of the system and can better understand what the consequences of any management strategy might be. Perhaps there is concern that there will be an unintentional affect of management on a non-target species. Careful monitoring will help address this issue.

Monitoring is the systematic collection of information on the progress of a pest management program. It is an invaluable tool for management and provides the necessary information to evaluate the program.

Evaluation is the comparison of the results from pest management against the agreed objectives of the program.

There are two main forms of monitoring: Operational monitoring and performance monitoring.

Operational monitoring aims to assess the efficiency of management. It is concerned with the how management was undertaken and addresses such questions as what was done, where and at what cost. By increasing the efficiency of management, more resources can be available to manage other pests, areas or the damage due to other factors such as bank instability thus increasing the cost effectiveness of management.

Performance monitoring aims to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy and asks whether the strategy reduced the damage to an acceptable level. If the objective was not met, the management strategy may need to be modified or the initial pest problem reassessed to determine whether factors other than pest animals were the causes of the problem.

Most funding agencies require some form of monitoring and evaluation so they can determine whether the funds have been well spent. Clearly, if there is no hard evidence that the program objectives are being achieved, it will be difficult to make a case for continued funding. Satisfying funding agencies is a valid reason for setting up a good monitoring and evaluation component to a pest management program but it is not the only, or even the most important, reason. Monitoring and evaluation are also invaluable tools for the program manager.

Some reasons for monitoring and evaluation include:

• To determine whether the damage caused by carp was reduced to the desired level by the management program. • To provide feedback to those involved in the program and to maintain their engagement. • To determine the efficiency of the program and how it might be made more efficient. • To satisfy funding agencies and to justify continued funding and to seek additional funds. • To determine whether carp actually caused the damage or that other factors were significant or more important.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 63 • To obtain information for promotional material. • To increase understanding of the impact of carp and use it to refine future management.

Much care needs to be given to data collection. It is important determine what data to collect, when, where, how often, and exactly how to collect the data. Start by making a list of the data you wish to have, and begin filling in how you will get it. A good start is to set out the costs of data collection. Some monitoring data, such as assessing the satisfaction of recreational fishers about the results of management may be relatively easy to obtain. Other data such as determining the initial population size of the carp population and how it changes as a result of management, or the breeding success and recovery in native fish populations require specialised methods and hence more effort and cost – and are very difficult to determine.

An important rule to remember is not to try and collect as much data as you can, regardless of its value. Not only is this expensive, but often the data is of poor quality and cannot be analysed.

As our knowledge of most natural resource systems is imperfect, appropriate monitoring can help to address some of these gaps in knowledge. In other words, management can be used as an experiment to obtain relevant information. This often called “adaptive management”. It is a strategy that helps to cope with the problem that there will always be missing information and unexpected responses to actions taken during a pest management program. In these studies it is essential to set up the monitoring program with clear timelines and check points when results are reviewed and changes to the program are made if necessary. The explanation of Adaptive management – from the Australasian Wildlife Management Society position statement on Adaptive Management contains further information on Adaptive Management as it applies in this context.

Collecting data that will allow the success of the management strategy to be determined depends on the program but, again, it does not need to be complicated. Exceptions are where there information is required by research scientists to answer major gaps in knowledge of the system. For these cases, it is best done in cooperation with a research agency. It is usually not the main concern of a strategic pest management manager.

Very importantly, seek to involve community groups in collecting information. While not always possible, involving groups such as recreational anglers to record catch information can help to engage the community in the management program and can be used to assess satisfaction on the outcomes of management.

Data collection and storage

Observer bias Often there are several people involved in collecting similar data. Different people often record the same information differently. This is called observer bias. This can lead to a significant bias in the results if one observer is for example, consistently better at detecting fish with an electro-fisher or is more conscientious about how they take water samples for analysis. A good way to remove observer bias is to have the same person collect all the data, but this is seldom possible. However, observer bias is a potentially serious problem and needs to be addressed.

One way is to have all data collectors independently collect the same data and then check the results from each to determine the extent of any bias. This is called a “blind experiment”. If the results from different data collectors differs significantly, then observation bias is a problem. The data collectors should receive training so that they are all likely to be equally successful at detecting fish or at taking other samples. Of course, not everyone is interested in collecting data and this may affect the reliability of their data collection. Perhaps some lateral thinking is required to make the data collection more interesting and rewarding for someone

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 64 who is bored with their work. Often people become more interested in collecting data if they are involved in analysing and interpreting the data that they collect.

Where possible use standardised data sheets to avoid any confusion about how data should be recorded and help assure that all relevant data are recorded. Try to avoid codes and abbreviations as much as possible when designing data sheets and be very specific about location information (include GPS coordinates).

Backups and storage Most of us are familiar with horror stories of large, valuable datasets disappearing with a hard- drive failure or a stolen computer. Either the information was lost forever or it cost a great deal to recover. The key to protecting against this is to set up a fail-safe system of backups at the very beginning. Some basic points to consider are:

• Who is in charge: Ideally one person should be in charge of data management to avoid possible confusion (“you were the last person entering data so I assumed you backed up the file…”).

• Duplicate copies: Decide how many backup copies of files are necessary to keep your information safe.

• Storage: Where will the backup copies be stored? Keep in mind that you need copies backed up in different places. Backups will be useless if they are all in one building and that one building burns down in a fire.

• Terminology: Having a clear file naming procedure is very important. A file name should be short and concise yet contain enough information that you don’t have to open the file to know what’s in it. You should avoid using abbreviations and acronyms as much as possible. File names should include a date so there can be no confusion which file is current or which is the most current backup.

• How often to save and backup: When working on a single file you should “save” regularly, perhaps every 15-30 minutes. The file should then be duplicated each day that it is edited to make a backup copy. The timing and numbers of backup copies of files depends on your circumstances but the key is to have a regular backup system in place.

Communication of the results Regular communication of the results from monitoring helps to maintain community support in the management program, and most importantly continued engagement by those landholders that are conducting pest management. The benefit of publishing short summary reports to the stakeholders or general public, although perhaps not required, will far outweigh the effort required. Simple summaries of data may be sufficient or even just an account of what work has been done or is in progress. Regular updates should be short, simple, and pleasing to read.

More detailed reporting with in-depth analyses is also needed but less often, perhaps annually or at the mid-point or end of a program. Usually the timing for these more detailed reports is dictated by funding agencies.

A common problem with successful, long-term programs is that the participants lose interest over time. The original problem becomes a distant memory and new problems emerge requiring energy and resources. People are more likely to stay motivated if they are regularly reminded of what the program is achieving. A person collecting data is more likely to do their job carefully and with enthusiasm they can if they see how the data are used and what story the data tells.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 65 7. Cited references

ACT Government 2009. Fish Stocking Plan for the Australian Capital Territory 2009–2014.

ACTEW Corporation 2009a. Enlargement of the Cotter Reservoir and associated works. Environmental Impact Statement. ACTEW Corporation, Canberra. (http://www.actew.com.au/WaterSecurity/News/enlarged_cotter_dam.aspx#Environmental)

ACTEW Corporation 2009b. Enlargement of the Cotter Reservoir and associated works. Final public environment report 2008/4524. ACTEW Corporation, Canberra. 227 p plus appendices. (http://www.actew.com.au/WaterSecurity/News/enlarged_cotter_dam.aspx#PER)

Anderson, J.R. (1994). State of the Rivers Report: Upper Condamine River and Major Tributaries. An ecological and physical assessment of the condition of streams in the Condamine catchment. Queensland Government

Andrews, W. C. (ed) (1990). Canberra's Engineering Heritage. Institution of Engineers Australia

Arthington A.H., and Bluhdorn D.R. (1994). Distribution, genetics, ecology and status of the introduced cichlid, Oreochromis mossambicus, in Australia. Internationale Vereinigung fur theoretische und angewandte Limnologie/Communications 24: 53-62.

Balon EK (1995). Origin and domestication of the wild carp, Cyprinus carpio: from Roman Gourmets to the swimming flower. Aquaculture 129: 3–48. Barrett, J. (2004) Introducing the Murray-Darling Basin Native Fish Strategy and initial steps towards demonstration reaches. Ecological management and Restoration: 5, 15-23

Barrett, J. and Ansell, D. (2005) Demonstration reaches for native fish: moving from theory to practice. In I.D. Rutherford, I. Wiszniewski, M. J. Askey-Doran and R. Glzik (eds) Proceedings of the 4th Australian Steam Management Conference linking rivers to landscapes pp 59-67. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. Hobart, Tasmania.

Baumgartner, L., Reynoldson, N., Cameron, L. and Stanger, J., (2007). Effects of selected irrigation practices on fish of the Murray-Darling Basin. Final report to the Murray Darling Basin Commission for Project No. R5006. NSW Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries Final Report Series No. 92. 90pp.

Bomford, M. and Glover. J. (2004) Risk assessment model for the import and keeping of exotic freshwater and estuarine finfish. A report produced by the Bureau of Rural Sciences for The Department of Environment and Heritage.

Braysher, M (2007). Macintyre River carp management plan – a sub-component of the Macintyre River Native Fish Demonstration Reach.

Braysher, M. and Barrett, J. (2000) Ranking areas for action: a guide for carp management groups. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Braysher, M. and Barrett, J. (2001) Report on the workshop for the management of tilapia in the northern Murray-Darling Basin, Toowoomba, 2-3 April, 2001. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Braysher, M. and Saunders, G. (2003) PESTPLAN – a guide to setting priorities and developing a management plan for pest animals. Bureau of Rural Sciences and the Natural Heritage Trust, Canberra.

Braysher, M. Stuart, I. and Higham, J. (2009). Dewfish Demonstration reach carp management plan, A sub-component of the Condamine River Rescue program.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 66 Braysher, M. Stuart, I. and Higham, J. (2008). Tahbilk Lagoon carp management plan, A sub- component of the Tahbilk Native Fish Demonstration Site. Report prepared by Braysher Consulting

Braysher, M. (1993) Managing Vertebrate Pests – Principles and Strategies, Bureau of Rural Sciences

Bureau of Rural Science. (2007). A Strategic Approach To The Management Of Ornamental Fish In Australia. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Commonwealth of Australia November 2006. pp 40

Butcher, A. and Kerezsy, A. (2008). Myall Creek Fish Biodiversity. A short report on the pre- restoration fish biodiversity in Myall Creek, Dalby in August 2008. QDPI&F report to the Condamine Alliance. 20 pp.

Butcher, A. and Henderson, A. (2008). Condamine River headwaters fish biodiversity. A short report on the pre-restoration fish biodiversity of the Condamine River above Killarney in September 2008. QDPI&F report to the Condamine Alliance. 22 pp.

Choquenot, D., McIlroy, J., and Korn, T. (1996) Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Pigs. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra, ACT.

Clayton, P.D., Fielder, D.P., Barratt, P.J. and Hill, C. (2008). Aquatic Conservation Assessments (ACA), using AquaBAMM, for freshwater wetlands of the Condamine River catchment. Published by the Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane. 2008.

Condamine Alliance (2007) Whole of life plan for Dalby demonstration reach. Condamine Alliance, 2007.

Conallin A, Stuart I, and Higham J (2009). Commercial application of the Williams’ carp separation cage at Lock 1. SARDI report to MDBA. 40 pp.

Davies, P.E., Harris, J.H., Hillman, T.J., and K.F. Walker (2008). SRA Report 1: A Report on the Ecological Health of Rivers in the Murray–Darling Basin, 2004–2007. Prepared by the Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group for the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council. MDBC Publication No. 16/08

Davis, K. M. 1996. Investigations into the Genetic Variation of Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) in Southeastern Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney. Davis, K. M., Dixon, P. I. and Harris, J. H. 1998. Allozyme and mitochondrial DNA analysis of carp, Cyprinus carpio L., from south-eastern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 50(3): 243–260.

Harris, J. H. (1997). Environmental Rehabilitation for Carp Control. In: Controlling Carp: Exploring the Options for Australia. Proceedings of a workshop 22-24 October, Albury. (eds J. Roberts and R. Tilzey). CSIRO & MDBC. 21-36.

Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre. Economic and environmental impacts caused by tilapia (2007). viewed 3 May 2009.

Jones M, and Stuart I (2009). Lateral movement of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in a large lowland river and floodplain. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 18, 72-82.

Katarapko carp management plan for the River Murray between Locks 3 & 4 – a sub- component of the Katarapko Native Fish Demonstration Reach Plan, June 2007.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 67 Karolak, S. (2006) Alien fish in the Murray-Darling Basin. Murray-Darling basin Commission, Canberra, ACT.

Keller, K. and Brown, C. (2008). Behavioural interactions between the introduced plague minnow Gambusia holbrooki and the vulnerable native Australian ornate rainbowfish Rhadinocentrus ornatus, under experimental conditions. Journal of Fish Biology 73, 1714– 1729

Kenway, S.J. (1993). Water Quality in the Condamine-Balonne-Culgoa Catchment: Issues, Monitoring and Available Information. In Kenway, S.J. (ed.) Water Quality Management in the Condamine-Balonne-Culgoa Catchment. Condamine-Balonne Water Committee, Dalby. pp.167-230

King, S., and Warburton, K. (2007). The environmental preferences of three species of Australian freshwater fish in relation to the effects of riparian degradation. Environmental Biology of Fishes 78, 307–316.

Koehn, J., Brumley, A. and Gehrke, P. (2000). Managing the Impacts of Carp. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Koehn, J. and MacKenzie, R. (2004) Priority management actions for alien freshwater fish species in Australia. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 38: 457-472.

Lintermans, M. 2000. The Status of Fish in the Australian Capital Territory: A Review of Current Knowledge and Management Requirements. Technical Report 15, Environment ACT, Canberra. 128 pp.

Lintermans, M. 2002. Fish in the Upper Murrumbidgee Catchment: A Review of Current Knowledge. Environment ACT, Canberra. 92 p.

Lintermans, M. 2004. Human-assisted dispersal of alien freshwater fish in Australia. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 481-501.

Lintermans, M. 2005. ACT Future Water Options Fish Impact Study: A Review of Potential Impacts on Fish and Crayfish of Future Water Supply Options for the Australian Capital Territory: Stage 1. ACTEW Corporation. Canberra.125 p.

Lintermans, M. (2007). Fishes of the Murray-Darling Basin: an introductory guide. MDBC Publication No 10/07, Murray-Darling Basin Commission.

Litvak, M.K.; and Mandrak, N.E. 1993: Ecology of freshwater baitfish use in Canada and the United States. Fisheries 18(12): 6–13

Ludwig, H.R. Jr.; Leitch, J.A. 1996: Interbasin transfer of aquatic biota via anglers bait buckets. Fisheries 21(7): 14–18.

McCosker, R., (1996). An environmental scan of the Condamine-Balonne River System and Associated Floodplain. Prepared by R.O. McCosker LANDMAX Natural Resource Management Services. Queensland Government, May 1996. pp 50

Murray-Darling Basin Commission. (2000) Carp Control Co-ordination Group National Management Strategy for Carp Control 2000-2005., Canberra.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission.(2002) Conceptual model to guide investments for restoring native fish in the Murray-Darling Basin; Report by the expert panel convened by the Murray- Darling Basin Commission, January 2002.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission. (2003) Native fish strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin 2003-2013. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 68 Murray-Darling Basin Commission. (2006) Alien fish in the Murray-Darling Basin. Murray- Darling Basin Commission and World Wide Fund for Nature, Canberra.

Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. (2006) Sustainable Rivers Audit Implementation report 2005 implementation period (2004-05), Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group.

Moffat, D.B. and Voller, J. (2002) Fish and Fish habitat of the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin. Department of Primary Industries

Morgan, L. A. and Buttemer, W. A. (1996). Predation by the non-native fish Gambusia holbrooki on small Litoria aurea and L. dentata tadpoles. Australian Zoologist 30, 143–149.

Mussared, D. (1997) Living on Floodplains. The Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology & the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. 1997. ISBN: 0 85889 652 4

NSW Department of Industry and Investment. (2009) NSW Draft Control Plan for the noxious fish carp Cyprinus carpio. NSW Department of Industry and Investment.

O’Connor, J.P., O’Mahony, D.J. and O’Mahony J.M. (2004) Downstream migration of adult Murray-Darling fish species. In M. Lintermans & W. Phillips (eds.) Downstream movement of fish in the Murray-Darling Basin. Workshop held in Canberra 3-4 June 2003. Pp. 59-66. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Olsen, P. (1998) Australia’s pest animals – new solutions to an old problem. Bureau of Resource Sciences and Kangaroo Press, Canberra.

Penne C.R. and Pierce C.L. (2008). Seasonal Distribution, Aggregation, and Habitat Selection of Common Carp in Clear Lake, Iowa. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 2008; 137(4): 1050-1062

Preston, R.A. Lawson, P. and Darbas, T. (2007). Landholder Practices, Attitudes, Constraints and Opportunities for Change in the Condamine Alliance Region. May 2007. Condamine Alliance and Department of Natural Resources and

Queensland DPI (2000) Control of Exotic Pest Fishes - An Operational Strategy for Queensland Freshwaters 2000 – 2005. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Qld.

Reid, D.D., Harris, J.H. and Chapman, D.J. (1997) NSW inland commercial fishery data analysis. Final report to FRDC.

Rowe, D.K., Smith, J.P., and Baker, C. (2007). Agonistic interactions between Gambusia affinis and Galaxias maculatus: implications for whitebait fisheries in New Zealand rivers. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 23, 668 – 674.

Rowe, D. K., Moore, A., Giorgetti, A., Maclean, C., Grace, P., Wadhwa, S., and Cooke, J. (2008). Review of the impacts of gambusia, redfin perch, tench, roach, yellowfin goby and streaked goby in Australia. Prepared for the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. pp 245.

Saunders, G., Coman, B., Kinnear, J. and Braysher, M. (1995) ‘Managing Vertebrate Pests: Foxes’ AGPS, Canberra.

SMEC (2008a). Myall Creek – Edward Street weir fish passage assessment. Report to Condamine Alliance.

SMEC (2008b). Condamine River Rescue rehabilitation plans. Report to Condamine Alliance.

Starr, B. (1995). The Numeralla: River of Change. Numeralla and District Landcare Group.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 69 Starr, B., Abbott, K., Ryan, J. and Goggin, J. (1997). Bredbo and the ‘Bidgee. Bredbo Community Landcare Group Inc.

Stuart I, and Jones M (2006). Large, regulated forest floodplain is an ideal recruitment zone for non-native common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Marine and Freshwater Research 57: 333– 347.

Stuart I.G., and Jones M.A. (2006). Movement of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) in a regulated Australian river: implications for management. Fisheries Management and Ecology 13, 213-219.

Stuart I.G., Williams A., McKenzie J. and Holt T. (2006). Managing a migratory pest species: a selective trap for common carp. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26, 888- 893.

Treadwell, S. and Hardwick, R. (2003). Review of habitat associations of native fish in the Murray-Darling Basin. Sinclair Knight Merz Final report to MDBC for Project R2105.

Trueman, W. (2007). Some recollections of native fish in the Murray-Darling system with special reference to the trout cod Maccullochella macquariensis. Interim report to Native Fish Australia. 182 pp.

Carp reduction plan for the Upper Murrumbidgee Demonstration Reach and surrounding region 70