FY07-09 proposal 200737100

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Gorge / Columbia Gorge

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: 10/1/2009
Comments: We expect that this project will be completed in the three year period

Final deliverables: All work will be summarized and presented in a final technical report, peer reviewed publications, and presentations to professional and public interest groups.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: Taking an ecosystem approach towards an understanding of the role of invasive species is worthwhile and the ISRP appreciated the proponents’ ideas toward this end. The literature review was well done. Understanding food webs would help forecast effects of invasive species and the use of stable isotope is innovative. While the proponents try to make the case that the main effects of invasive species in the Columbia River Basin is via food chain effects, other mechanisms may be operating for example structural changes from invasive plants such as milfoil. A specific study that integrated structural and food web effects would require a more complex project. To improve this particular proposal, responses to the following would be very useful to the ISRP: 1. The proponents should provide a focused and strategic approach with a set of well-developed hypotheses rather than a synoptic study as described. 2. More details and description of the specific food webs that the proposed study would focus on are encouraged. For example white sturgeon are mentioned as a target fish species in the narrative but in Task 1.5 fish (in general) are to be obtained opportunistically from a variety of sources. If the Asian clam/white sturgeon food linkage is of most concern, this should be focus of the study. Has contact been made with fish researchers in the study area? The ISRP was also concerned that no empirical data on gut contents of the top predators (fish) were to be obtained. 3. The proposal would benefit from an explanation of how “baseline” data on stable isotopes in the food webs of the highly altered river system (above Bonneville) would provide information for managers. Are the methods too complex to use operationally? 4. Information on where the stable isotope analyses will be determined and the capability of the laboratory staff would improve the proposal.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: This is a complex project that was clarified considerably by the response and modified proposal. Statement of the hypotheses was useful and demonstrated how big a problem the study attempts to tackle and also suggests that too much is being attempted at once. It would seem better to focus on one or a subset of the hypotheses in order to have more likelihood of successful explanations and management approaches. The sponsors invoke work at the Colorado River as a template. The Colorado River model may be a good start, but the Columbia may be more complex. The first part of the response indicates the sponsors do not seem to have grasped the "overarching" point the ISRP made about structural changes in the Columbia River reservoirs arising from milfoil. This aquatic weed may foster the development of fish communities that include predators and competitors with juvenile salmon because, for example, it provides shelter for non-salmonids. The sponsors are keen on using stable isotope analysis (SIA) to investigate how milfoil decreases or increases energy flow in the reservoirs and speculate a change will effect salmon production. However, the aforementioned structural modification could confound their study and merits attention. The answers to ISRP's questions 1 to 4 showed some advancement in approaches but the project needs focusing on specific topics, as outlined below. ISRP question 1: The ISRP requested that the sponsors provide a focused and strategic approach with a set of well-developed hypotheses rather than a synoptic study as described. The sponsors now raise a number of null hypotheses or topics to be investigated (see below for list of null hypotheses given the response). Topic 1, dealing with milfoil and stable isotope analysis, is tractable and should be funded, although ISRP remains concerned about the interaction with the structural effects of the plant (see above). Work on topics 2, 3, 4, and 5 should not be funded. The study dealing with competition between fish species (topic 2) is very difficult to conduct without parallel investigations to determine if food is limiting. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 deal with major topics that are not tractable with the scope and timeframe of the project. In another topic, the sponsors also intended to sample and characterize the isotope signatures of the lower trophic levels using a probabilistic habitat based sampling design during different times of the year. The ISRP did not support this objective as it is a reversion to a synoptic approach. ISRP question 2 – the ISRP requested more details and description of the specific food webs, and these were provided. A specific task is now included that will allow for the sampling of tissue and stomach contents of multiple white sturgeon life stages, common carp, juvenile American shad, northern pikeminnow, and smallmouth bass. The food web investigations are therefore now supportable as long as the sponsors do not invoke competition as a rationale for conducting them (see above). The ISRP is happy to see that empirical feeding data (fish stomach contents) will be obtained. ISRP question 3 - the ISRP remains concerned about the manager’s ability to use stable isotope analysis data in their day-to-day work. If stable isotope analysis analyses are going to be used every few years to assess the ecosystems, researchers will have to do the work, not managers. This is apparently what is being done in the Colorado River, and it is reasonable to assume it would be done this way in the Columbia River Basin. Considerable technology transfer will therefore be required before the stable isotope analysis methods could be handed off to managers. ISRP question 4 - Information on where the stable isotope analyses will be determined and the capability of the laboratory staff was provided satisfactorily. List of research topics, in response to ISRP’s question 1: # 1: Despite the fact that Eurasian watermilfoil is now abundant in shallow water habitats and likely constitutes a large proportion of the plant biomass in Bonneville Reservoir, the production of this aquatic plant does not contribute significantly to the food web. #2: Common carp are competitors with white sturgeon and utilize similar energetic pathways. #3: The Asian clam is a significant component of the food web in Bonneville Reservoir and contributes energetic resources to white sturgeon. #4: The Northern pikeminnow and smallmouth bass are benefiting from the altered energy flow caused by the establishment of invasive species in the mainstem Columbia River, namely the American shad. #5: Established invasive species constitute a major perturbation to the historic food web in the mainstem Columbia River.