Monitoring Invasive Species in the mainstem Columbia River: the development of a design to monitor the status and trends and provide for the early detection of invasive species proposal 200708900

FY07-09 proposal 200708900

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Monitoring Invasive Species in the mainstem Columbia River: the development of a design to monitor the status and trends and provide for the early detection of invasive species
Proposal ID	200708900
Organization	US Geological Survey (USGS) - Cook
Short description	We propose to formulate a survey design to monitor the status and trends and to provide for the early detection of invasive species in the mainstem Columbia River.
Information transfer	We propose to disseminate the information from this project through the publication of annual and final reports and peer reviewed journal articles. We will also propose to formaulate and participate in a workgroup that addresses Invasive species monitoring on the Pacific Northwest through the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Contacts

Contact	Organization	Email
Form submitter
Tim Counihan	USGS	[email protected]
All assigned contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / None Selected

Latitude	Longitude	Waterbody	Description
		Columba River	Mainstem Columbia River from Bonneville Dam to The Dalles Dam
		Columbia River	Mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam

Section 3. Focal species

primary: All Anadromous Fish
secondary: All Resident Fish

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding source	Related ID	Related title	Relationship
[Funding Source left blank]	[no entry]	see narrative	We feel there are numerous project that would use the information from this research. Further, we propose to coordinate with fish sampling efforts already in progress to minimize duplication of effort.
BPA	200400200	PNAMP Funding	We propose to coordinate intensively with this group. Our sampling design will be reviewed by Phil Larsen, EPA and the Large Rivers workgroup.
BPA	200300700	Lwr Col River/Est Eco Monitor	We are coordinating with this project because of similarities in goals, overlap in study areas. The authors of this proposal are on the LCREP Science Work Group

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectives	Full description	Associated subbasin plan	Strategy
Increase productivity of white sturgeon	The introduction of the asian clam, carp, and other invasive species has likely affected the production of white sturgeon by altering food web dynamics and through competition. A stated biological objective in the subbasin plan (p. 78) is to attain a level of production (natural recruitment and individual growth) that would allow the sustainable consumptive harvest of 5 kg/ha as suggested in Beamesderfer et al. (1995).	Columbia Gorge	Increase our understanding of how exotic species are capitalizing on the Columbia River Gorge Subbasin habitats
Limit effects of invasive species on native biota	From October 2004 addendum: Comment from Oregon Invasive Species Council (p. 3) states that the subbasin inventory is incomplete without describing the actions (or potential actions) to protect fish and wildlife in the subbasin from negative impacts of invasive species. Also, the introduced Asian clam and its potential effect on other species could be more fully developed.	Columbia Gorge	Increase our understanding of how exotic species are capitalizing on the Columbia River Gorge Subbasin habitats and they have impacted ecosystem processes and relationships.
Reduce effect of invasives on sturgeon recruitment	The introduction of the asian clam, carp, and other invasive species has likely affected the production of white sturgeon by altering food web dynamics and through competition. A stated biological objective in the subbasin plan (p. 79) is to provide suitable rearing conditions for larvae and juveniles.	Columbia Gorge	Increase our understanding of how exotic species are capitalizing on the Columbia River Gorge Subbasin habitats
Reduce interspecific competition of nonnative fish	Columbia Gorge Subbasin Plan – October 2004 Addendum; Comment from the ISRP (p. 3) states that the fish community dynamics, including interspecific-relationships of non-native fishes at different life stages should be examined in this subabsin.	Columbia Gorge	Increase our understanding of how exotic species are capitalizing on the Columbia River Gorge Subbasin habitats and they have impacted ecosystem processes and relationships.
Reduce the effects of invasive species on salmon.	Introductions of invasive species into the lower Columbia River can negatively affect endangered Pacific Salmon species through direct competition of indirectly by altering trophic level dynamics. Further, efforts to restore habitats could be be effected if the restoration methods create conditions that are prone to invasion (i.e., disturbance).	Lower Columbia	Improve our understanding of the effect of invasive species on restoration projects and salmon and of the feasibility to eradicate or control them.
Reduce the effects of invasive species on salmon.	Introductions of invasive species into the lower Columbia River can negatively affect endangered Pacific Salmon species through direct competition of indirectly by altering trophic level dynamics. Further, efforts to restore habitats could be be effected if the restoration methods create conditions that are prone to invasion (i.e., disturbance).	Lower Columbia	Implement regulatory, control, and education measures to prevent additional species invasions.
Reduce the effects of invasive species on salmon.	Introductions of invasive species into the lower Columbia River can negatively affect endangered Pacific Salmon species through direct competition of indirectly by altering trophic level dynamics. Further, efforts to restore habitats could be be effected if the restoration methods create conditions that are prone to invasion (i.e., disturbance).	Lower Columbia	Take proactive steps to control or reduce the impacts of introduced, invasive, or exotic species.
Set target for sturgeon broodstock abundance	The introduction of the asian clam, carp, and other invasive species has likely affected the production of white sturgeon by altering food web dynamics and through competition. A stated biological objective in the subabsin plan (p. 78) is to determine a target level of broodstock abundance, or a target level of annual increase in broodstock abundance, or a combination of the two. However, realisitc broodstock abundance targets can only be set given the available prey base and the prey base has been altered through species introdcutions. Further introdcutions of invasive species could limit the utility of broodstock targets if the structure of the prey base is drastically altered through introducitons (e.g., zebra mussels).	Columbia Gorge	Increase our understanding of how exotic species are capitalizing on the Columbia River Gorge Subbasin habitats

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element name	Work element title	Description	Start date	End date	Est budget
Other	Conduct survey for invasive species	Implement sampiling program	6/1/2007	10/1/2008	$437,806
Biological objectives Limit effects of invasive species on native biota			Metrics
Other	Data analysis	Analyze data collected during survey	10/1/2007	10/1/2009	$250,061
Biological objectives Limit effects of invasive species on native biota			Metrics
Other	Formulate probabilistic habitat based sampling program for invasive species	Formulate the logistics and probabilistic design for the sampling program	10/1/2006	5/1/2007	$178,098
Biological objectives Limit effects of invasive species on native biota			Metrics
Other	Produce final technical report, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations	Compose final report and associated communications	10/1/2008	10/1/2009	$110,395
Biological objectives Limit effects of invasive species on native biota			Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Item	Note	FY07	FY08	FY09
Personnel	[blank]	$246,402	$243,531	$122,795
Fringe Benefits	[blank]	$82,134	$81,177	$40,931
Supplies	[blank]	$7,078	$7,078	$0
Travel	[blank]	$15,288	$15,288	$1,416
Other	taxonomic services	$0	$56,621	$56,621
Totals		$350,902	$403,695	$221,763

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Total itemized budget:	$976,360
Total work element budget:	$976,360

Cost sharing

Funding source/org	Item or service provided	FY 07 est value ($)	FY 08 est value ($)	FY 09 est value ($)	Cash or in-kind?	Status
Totals		$0	$0	$0

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $0
FY 2011 estimated budget: $0

Comments:

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: 10/1/2009
Comments: We expect that we will complete the project within the three year time frame, but are formulating a sampling design that is to be applicable to other areas. If desired the survey could be expanded. The sampling program is being structured so that it will be a long-term monitoring project.

Final deliverables: Final technical report detailing suvey design, associated protocols for the development of the survey, protocols for the response design, and the results of the survey.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget	FY08 budget	FY09 budget	Total budget	Type	Category	Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0	$0	$0	$0	Expense	Basinwide	Do Not Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0	$0	$0	$0		Basinwide

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is a proposal to formulate a survey design for invasive species in the mainstem Columbia River and to provide early detection. The proposal needs to be more strategic. What is the link to management? There should be more demonstration of management implications. What will this project result in (in terms of benefits to the native resources)? How much good work has been done solving these invasive species problems after they have been documented? Maybe something can be done if resource managers arrive on the situation early, and that may be the big benefit of this type of project, i.e., better understanding their distribution and abundance to concentrate the management response. Perhaps, the project sponsors could identify vectors to cut off -- ballast inspections, etc -- and methods. There is no single sampling method to do this research. The proposal needs to be prioritized to focus on types of invasive species that may be the most critical. When looking for everything, they may miss the key invasives that influence focal species. Specific research may be required to find the strategic focus, but this may be a more appropriate investment at this time given that we already have a fair knowledge of what invasives are found in the Columbia River Basin. Reviewers like the idea of probability sampling, but the specific gear chosen for sampling fish in particular is of questionable utility. One of the listed tasks is to evaluate effectiveness of sampling gear, but there are many experienced personnel who could advise that, for example trawls or gill nets will not be effective for sampling largemouth or smallmouth bass if one is looking for an index of abundance. The background section is good but somewhat lacking in specifics concerning why the invasives are a problem in the Lower Columbia. Clearly invasive species could potentially affect salmonids and other native biota in the Columbia River Basin. However, the background falls short with respect to invasive fish already present and does not explain which of the 81 aquatic invasives and 123 cryptogenic species (below Bonneville) are the most important to track (for possible control or vector management). For example, if the invasive clams are good food for sturgeon (as claimed), then why worry about them? What is being done to resolve the invasive species issues with other species? We know that American shad is a major invasive, yet no one seems to be doing anything about the 7 million shad that must be competing with some species (even research to identify the impacts). If we have a monitoring program for invasive species, what do we do with the information and how will it be used to benefit the native resources? Reviewers would be interested in hearing response on this issue. It seems like this whole area is one that is ripe for creativity to solve the problem. Although this project is just a plan to document the problem and the changes in distribution and abundance, the region needs to go beyond this monitoring program. The Independent Scientific Group (2000) provided a list of native and invasive fish species in Table 5.3 page 156-160. They expressed a particular concern about northern pike, which have been introduced into one or more lakes in Idaho where they have access to tributaries leading into the mainstem Columbia River. (ISG 2000. Return to the River. NWPCC 2000-12). The same may be said of many other fishes. The proposal relates well to Council’s research plan, Columbia Gorge Subbasin Plan, and the regional invasive species working group. The proposal describes fine coordination with LCREP, LCRANS, and other fish sampling programs. Apparently, this project is trying to build on the presence/absence data in earlier work and develop a better sampling scheme based on EPA’s EMAP design. The objectives of the proposed synoptic program are not well targeted on organisms that could affect fish. The proponents should provide specific information on the most likely "dangerous" invasives. More survey type information may not be that useful. The proposal contained detailed and informative tasks and methods. The use of EMAP method to use sample site is appropriate. The proposal would benefit from more strategic thinking about what to sample, not where to sample. Continued evaluations of the findings would be part of the project. The Cook Lab of USGS is well set up to do this work and has good staff. They have the facilities, good working relationships with other research groups, and a USGS mandate to do this sort of work. However, given the range of organisms they propose to sample (phytoplankton to fish), it is not clear if the correct taxonomic expertise is available. Specimens may have to be farmed out to specialists. Additional types of gear may be required to sample some fishes in proportion to their possible abundance Proponents have a good publication record for journal articles, but the proposal could better describe provision for long-term storage of data or meta-data.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested