DRAFT

Northwest Fisheries Science Center Non-Indigenous Species Research Plan

Authors (in alphabetical order)

Blake Feist, Aimee Fullerton, Phil Roni, Beth Sanderson, and Ashley
Steel

30-October, 2004

DRAFT

Executive Summary

Worldwide, non-indigenous species (NIS) are considered one of the top
threats to the world's ecosystems (see Mack et al. 2000). Their
perceived malignancy is rivaled only by the impact of habitat loss and
alteration. Consequently, concern over the effects of introduced
invasive species has grown over the past few decades as the rate of
these introductions has accelerated due to human advances in technology
and trade (Carlton and Geller 1993; Ruiz et al. 1997; Cohen and Carlton
1998). Invasion by NIS can have both economic and ecological impacts, as
well as adverse affects on human health (Ruiz et al. 1997; Vitousek et
al. 1997; Mack et al. 2000; Pimentel et al. 2000). It is estimated that
cumulative economic costs from damage caused by NIS in the U.S. alone
exceeds 250 billion USD (OTA 1993; Pimental et al. 2000; Pimental et al.
2001). Attaching a price tag to ecological impacts is problematic, but
suffice it say that most ecosystems around the world have been impacted
by NIS (Vitousek et al. 1997; Mack et al. 2000).

One of the greatest challenges in trying to manage NIS is the conflict
that occurs when they collide head on with endangered species. There are
circumstances where a "Catch 22" could occur, whereby preventing,
controlling or eradicating a NIS would cause harm to an ESA listed
species. This would obviously be an undesirable and difficult situation.
For example, Harvey and Kareiva (2004), using a bioenergetics modeling
approach, concluded that removing just one non-indigenous fish species
would improve juvenile chinook salmon survival more than if all
non-indigenous fish species in the Columbia River basin were removed.
Given the current dogma that all NIS are guilty until proven innocent,
the policy ramifications are obvious. The Center should lead the region
in studying and identifying NIS ecosystem level influences. This is
especially the case, given the language contained in the National
Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA 1996), and the Non-indigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA 1990). Currently,
the Center lacks a formal research plan for addressing NIS issues, and
has limited coordination of existing NIS research and funding.

In this research plan, we describe why NIS are of concern, what research
on NIS is already underway at the NWFSC, and what we think are the
central questions that must be answered in order for the Center to
address the primary issues raised by NIS as well as lead the region in
NIS research. The questions are:

-   What are the consequences and impacts of NIS on Pacific Northwest
    flora, fauna, and ecosystems;

-   What are the vectors of NIS introductions;

-   What is the distribution of NIS in space and time;

-   What is the susceptibility of land and sea-scapes to invasion of
    NIS;

-   What are the best management strategies for controlling NIS.

**Background on Non-Indigenous Species**

Non-indigenous species are defined as "those plants, animals, and
microbes found beyond their natural geographical range" (OTA 1993).
Worldwide, NIS are one of the top threats to the world's ecosystems
(Mack et al. 2000). They are recognized as one of the top two
environmental threats to global ecological diversity (Kareiva 1996,
Parker et al 1999, OTA 1993, Vitousek et al. 1997; Myers et al. 2000)
and have been cited as a cause of endangerment in 42% of species
listings under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Czech et al. 1997;
Wilcove et al. 1998; Pimental et al. 2000). Their perceived malignancy
is rivaled only by habitat loss and alteration. The rate of species
introductions has accelerated due to human population growth as well as
to advances in technology and trade. Over the past few decades,
awareness of the potential consequences of the spread of NIS has greatly
increased (Carlton and Geller 1993; Ruiz et al. 1997; Cohen and Carlton
1998). Research on NIS has identified both economic and ecological
impacts, as well as adverse effects on human health (Ruiz et al. 1997;
Vitousek et al. 1997; Mack et al. 2000; Pimentel et al. 2000). Most
ecosystems around the world have been impacted by NIS (Vitousek et al.
1997; Mack et al. 2000). It is estimated that the cumulative economic
cost of NIS in the U.S. alone exceeds 250 billion USD (OTA 1993;
Pimental 2000; Pimental et al. 2001).

The recovery of any over exploited or ESA listed species is dependent on
our ability to understand and quantify the factors that lead to
population decline. If we cannot identify and quantify these factors, it
is impossible make informed management decisions (NOAA 2003). Scientists
at the Center are extensively involved with such efforts. The most
commonly considered factors are things such as habitat loss and
alteration, exploitation by humans, and climate. Despite the dire
consequences of NIS introductions worldwide, NIS are rarely incorporated
as one of the factors contributing to a given species decline. This
situation is particularly ironic given that NIS have been associated
with in 70% of all cases of extirpations in the United States alone
(REF!!!!). It is clear that there should be a greater investment in NIS
research and management at the NWFSC.

In the Pacific Northwest, the contribution of NIS to the decline of
anadromous salmonids has been overshadowed by the "four H's" (habitat,
hatchery, hydro-system, and harvest. RSRP 2000; Ruckelshaus et al.
2002). In fact, less than 5% of the 542 million dollars distributed by
the Bonneville Power Administration's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
Authority for salmon research and management from 1995-2000 was
allocated toward NIS research and management (Sanderson et al, in prep).
Non-indigenous aquatic species are found in nearly all of the ecosystems
in which ESA-listed species occur. In the terrestrial ecosystems of
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, 80 different non-indigenous fish species
have been identified (Figure 1). The most ubiquitous include brook trout
(*Salvelinus fontinalis*), American shad (*Alosa sapidissima*), walleye
(*Stizostedion vitreum*), smallmouth bass (*Micropterus dolomieu*), and
channel catfish (*Ictalurus punctatus*). In these same states, 58% of
ESA fish listings cite introduced species as a factor in the decline of
the target species (Lassuy 1995). During their life cycle, salmonids
traverse large geographic areas spanning riverine, estuarine, and marine
environs where they encounter numerous NIS. Since the late 1800s, over
20 species of predatory fish have been introduced into the Columbia
River basin (Poe et al. 1994). Impacts of these species on ESA-listed
salmonids and on the ecosystems on which those salmonids depend are
poorly documented and often unstudied; however, they may cause poor
population performance at multiple life-stages and in many different
habitat types. For example, Levin et al. (2002) found that there was a
negative relationship between non-indigenous brook trout and chinook
salmon population performance in the Snake River basin, Idaho. Achord et
al. (2003) argued that the mechanism for this negative relationship was
likely predation. In the Columbia River basin alone, juvenile Pacific
salmon encounter no less than eight non-indigenous fish species along
their migration corridor. Competition with, and predation from NIS, have
been implicated in reduced growth and survival of these fishes
(Sanderson et al. in prep).

Non-indigenous species threats to salmon populations include avian
predators, sport fish, species introduced for aquaculture, and
potentially also aquatic plants. Salmon interact with a broad range of
species, and the presence and abundance of many species in salmon
habitats has been severely altered by human activities. For example,
since the late 1800s, over 20 species of predatory fish have been
introduced into the Columbia River basin. America shad (*Alosa
sapidissima*), introduced into the Columbia River in 1885, now number
several million, representing one of the few growing fish populations in
the Columbia River basin. Atlantic salmon, which are increasingly used
for pen-aquaculture on the West Coast, may pose a risk to wild Pacific
salmon if they introduce harmful non-indigenous pathogens, or escape and
establish naturally reproducing populations. Even the invasion of
non-indigenous plant species can be important to salmon, for example,
the spread of Atlantic smooth cordgrass (*Spartina alterniflora*) in
various West Coast estuaries has clearly altered their structure and
organization. However, we have a poor understanding, at best, of how
these alterations will affect associated flora and fauna.

While there is reasonable evidence to support our assertion that NIS
influence ESA listed anadromous salmonids, we know next to nothing about
NIS impacts on overfished groundfish stocks as well as ESA listed marine
mammals and sea turtles. Since the National Marine Fisheries Service is
responsible for identifying ways to recover or rebuild the
aforementioned animals, it would seem prudent to develop a better
understanding of the ecosystem consequences of NIS for these dwindling
organisms. Further, research on marine NIS at the Center will complement
and should be integrated with ongoing research on ballast water and
marine NIS that is being done at the U.S. Geological Survey and the
University of Washington.

The purpose of this research plan is to outline the key questions for
understanding the spread and impacts of NIS as well as for evaluating
potential management strategies for minimizing their impacts on over
exploited and ESA-listed organisms. While a few small research projects
on NIS have been initiated at the Center, there is not a Program or Team
dedicated to NIS research. This research plan is organized around five
key research questions or themes. For each of these five themes, we will
provide background, a brief description of ongoing research, and
suggested research needs. Finally, we lay out a timeline for research
projects that would be conducted if a new team was formed and adequately
funded. This plan is no less important than others, and establishes the
foundation for the development of a formal research team and its
direction.

**Key Questions**

Our general research goals in this research plan are:

-   determine the effects of NIS on terrestrial and aquatic (riverine,
    lacustrine, estuarine, and marine) ecosystems of the Pacific
    Northwest;

-   identify the mechanisms of NIS introduction, invasion and alteration
    of the aforementioned ecosystems.

In order to address our research goals, we propose focusing research
efforts on the following five questions:

1)  What are the evolutionary, physiological, and ecological impacts or
    consequences of NIS on the flora and fauna of Pacific Northwest
    ecosystems;

2)  What are the vectors of NIS introductions;

3)  What is the distribution of NIS in space and time;

4)  What is the susceptibility of Pacific Northwest ecosystems to
    invasion by NIS;

5)  What are the best management strategies for preventing, controlling,
    or eradicating NIS.

For each of these five central questions, we provide background
information, describe current research efforts and identify future
research needs.

**1. What are the evolutionary, physiological, and ecological impacts or
consequences of NIS on the flora and fauna of Pacific Northwest
ecosystems**

This overarching question includes many components relevant to the
conservation of ESA listed species and their habitats, including:

a.  What are the changes in local and regional biodiversity imposed by
    the presence of NIS?

b.  What are the local and cumulative impacts of NIS on various
    ecosystems?

c.  What are the mechanisms through which NIS impact ecosystems?

d.  In which habitats (e.g., spawning, nursery, estuary, etc.) or at
    which life-stages are organisms most susceptible to impacts by NIS?

e.  Which NIS or which types of NIS are potentially most harmful to
    various ecosystems (e.g., plants, predators, competitors)?

**Background**

Non-indigenous species are an increasing threat to the health of native
species and ecosystems. Some research suggests that increasing numbers
of NIS may even lead to an 'invasion meltdown', where the interaction of
two or more NIS leads to greater impacts than the sum of the individual
impacts (Simberloff and Van Holle 1999). In light of this potentially
dire scenario, we need to develop transparent and accessible tools to
document the occurrence and distribution of these species (Question 3),
and to understand the mechanisms through which NIS impact Northwest
species and ecosystems. The presence of a NIS can have profound effects
on ecosystem function and services. In order to fully appreciate the
impacts of a given NIS, we need to consider not only the conspicuous
impacts, such as habitat transformation, but also more cryptic changes
such as food web reorganization, trophic interactions, and community
restructuring. We should also consider the overall ecosystem changes
that might occur, since a using an ecosystem management strategy for
controlling NIS is more likely to be successful compared with a
species-specific approach (Simberloff 2004).

The individual and cumulative impacts of NIS on Pacific Northwest
ecosystems have never been systematically examined, although even a
casual analysis indicates that NIS could be as great a source of risk as
habitat loss and degradation. For example, preliminary analyses
(Sanderson et al. in prep) suggest that there is a correlation between
the presence of NIS and the number of ESA listed anadromous salmonid
stocks. There is a lot of concern over the impacts of harvest, the
hydrosystem, hatcheries and habitat condition on ESA anadromous
salmonids. However, little attention is garnered for NIS impacts.
Consequently, understanding the risks of NIS relative to other impacts
is imperative. It is troubling to note that recovery plans for ESA
listed salmon, steelhead and bull trout are currently being written, and
most do not explicitly address the role of NIS or how NIS may respond to
recovery actions.

This oversight of NIS is in part because efforts to understand the
impact of them on salmon are geographically localized. Yet, to
understand the cumulative impact of NIS on salmon Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ESUs), we must examine impacts that occur across the
many habitats salmon occupy throughout their life cycle. Work is needed
to synthesize the results of site-specific studies that quantify impacts
of NIS on salmon. For example, brook trout have been identified as a
potential risk to the growth and survival of threatened populations of
chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout in streams of the Snake and
Salmon River basins. A recent correlation analysis by Levin et al.
(2002) found that survival of juvenile stream type chinook was twice as
high in habitats without brook trout. Although these non-indigenous
brook trout are ubiquitous throughout the Northwest (Figure 2), the
mechanism driving their interactions with salmon and steelhead is not
known. The same unknowns regarding the timing, mechanisms and magnitude
of impact apply to many NIS.

**Ongoing Research**

-   *Impacts of non-indigenous sea grasses on estuarine food webs:*
    (Feist, Harvey, and Levin) The influence of non-indigenous sea
    grasses (*Spartina alterniflora* and *Zostera japonica*) on the food
    web dynamics and trophic ecology of Pacific Northwest estuaries

-   *A literature review and database compilation of native and NIS in
    Oregon and Washington estuaries and nearshore areas.* (Feist and
    Levin). These data will be synthesized and used in an analysis of
    species composition shifts and their impact on ecosystem services
    and biodiversity.

-   *Examining interactions between non-indigenous sea grass species and
    trophic dynamics of Puget Sound groundfish species*. (Vavrinec,
    Andrews, Feist, and Levin)

-   *Brook Trout impacts on chinook:* (Macneale, Sanderson, Kiffney)
    Evaluating whether brook trout negatively impact chinook populations
    in Salmon River tributaries

-   *Literature review of NIS predation rates on salmonids:* (Sanderson,
    Barnas and Rub)

-   *American shad interactions with chinook:* (Moser and Zabel) Using
    existing radiotelemetry data to assess behavioral interactions
    between migrating adult American shad and adult chinook salmon at
    lower Columbia River dam fishways

**Research Needs**

Build collaborations with U.S. Geological Survey and the University of
Washington, where there is research on ballast water and marine NIS well
underway.

Observational Studies

Manipulative Experiments

-Removal and/or exclusion of NIS in "mesocosms"

**2. What are the vectors of NIS introductions in the Pacific
Northwest?**

**Background**

Understanding the vectors of NIS introductions is of paramount
importance when trying to prevent, control or eradicate NIS. If the
source of NIS introductions is not identified and removed, then
prevention, control and/or eradication efforts are futile. For example,
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990
(NANPCA 1990), was developed, in part, to reduce the persistent influx
of NIS invertebrate species via ship ballast water. Since 1990, the Act
has been updated twice (NISA 1996; NAISA 2003). By the late 1980s,
scientists and Congress recognized that it was pointless to control or
eradicate nonindigenous invertebrates, when they were being reintroduced
everyday via ballast water from international ships. Consequently, it is
now a violation of a congressionally mandated act for a ship to exchange
ballast water brought in to the United States from waters outside of the
U.S. EEZ. This same logic should be applied to any NIS that is
considered invasive.

**Ongoing Research**

None

**Research Needs**

*Meta-analysis of Existing Introductions:* We will review the peer
reviewed and gray literature on NIS introductions in the Pacific
Northwest. From this review, we will identify all of the vectors through
which NIS are introduced. We will then develop a hierarchical flow chart
of NIS vectors, which will allow us to identify those vectors whose
existence perpetuates reintroduction of multiple NIS. The flow chart
will also help us identify which eradication and/or control programs for
particular NIS are being hindered reintroductions in the Pacific
Northwest.

Build collaborations with U.S. Geological Survey and the University of
Washington, where there is research on ballast water and marine NIS well
underway.

**3. What is the spatio-temporal distribution and species composition of
native species and NIS in the Pacific Northwest?**

**Background**

Knowledge of the distribution of NIS in space and time is a fundamental
element of any research examining the effects of NIS on ESA-listed
species, managed species and their ecosystems. Surprisingly, there are
no comprehensive or exhaustive databases of freshwater, marine and
terrestrial NIS for the Pacific Northwest. Even more surprising is the
lack of native species lists for many systems. If we do not know which
species are native to a given region, how can we know how NIS have
altered biodiversity and ecosystem services in these regions?

There is a pressing need for a comprehensive database of native species
and NIS to aid in management and policy decisions regarding protected
species, and prioritizing and developing research. Approximately half of
the fish species in Washington, Oregon and Idaho are non-indigenous
(Sanderson et al. in prep, see Figure 3). The NWFSC can take a
leadership role in Pacific Northwest NIS research by creating and
managing a spatially explicit, Northwest regional database of
terrestrial, aquatic, and marine native species and NIS available on the
worldwide web. This database would also allow users to download
spatially explicit data on NIS occurrence, upload reports of new
occurrences, and map the distribution of one or more NIS in relation to
a species of interest (i.e., Puget Sound chinook salmon, Olympic
oysters(*Ostreola conchaphila*), etc.) or a specified geographic region
(state, county, river basin, etc.).

**Ongoing Research**

Beth Sanderson, Katie Barnas and Michelle Rub have collected and
georeferenced data on terrestrial and freshwater aquatic NIS from a
variety of sources (datasets from USGS, USFWS, Northwest Habitat
Institute, Washington Department of Ecology, University of Montana
exotic plants database, BPA sub-basin reports). They currently have over
57,000 records of non-indigenous plants, amphibians, reptiles, bird,
mammals, mollusks, fish, and crustaceans (Sanderson et al. in prep,
Figures 1-2).

Blake Feist has begun collecting lists of indigenous species and NIS
from various estuarine, marine, and nearshore environs in Washington
State, based on data from the U.S. EPA EMAP program and identified a
number of additional potential data sources that could add marine
species to our database (e.g., Washington State Exotics Expedition of
1998 and 2000).

**Research Needs**

*Estuarine and marine species:* The spatio-temporal distribution of NIS
in estuarine and marine environs is poorly understood. While we have
made inroads to characterizing the spatio-temporal distribution of
terrestrial and freshwater aquatic NIS, we need to make comparable
progress in estuarine and marine environments.

*Native Species Distribution and Occurrence*: Addition of native species
lists must be made to all databases.

*Update species occurrences*: To keep up with new species occurrences
and the expanding distributions of NIS, we must update and expand our
existing terrestrial and aquatic databases with information from sources
already included in our database as well as additional data sources such
as the Global Invasive Species Database, INVADERS Database System, APIRS
Online Database, Invasivespecies.gov others.

*Web enable databases:* Databases of native species and NIS
spatiotemporal distributions are a valuable resource, so they should be
accessible to others via the web. The Center should serve as a
repository for these databases, and it should maintain and update the
records.

**4. Which factors control the susceptibility of various land- and
seascapes in the Pacific Northwest to future invasions?**

**Background**

The likelihood of invasion is a combined function of the life-history
characteristics of the invader and the physical and biological features
of the ecosystems they invade. Ecologists are trying to identify factors
that are critical for the successful invasion and establishment of NIS.
For example, Kolar and Lodge ([2002)]{.mark} combined life-history
information on successful invaders in the Great Lakes region with life
history characteristics of potential future invaders from Europe to
predict which species are most likely to successfully invade and
establish in the future. By identifying individual species or
characteristics of successful invaders, managers and policy makers can
work to prevent the introduction and establishment of such species. In
addition, identifying known vectors of NIS introductions, as described
in research question two, will assist with identifying which systems are
most susceptible to invasion, or more importantly, re-invasion after
control or eradication efforts.

In addition to life-history characteristics of NIS, habitat
characteristics and ecological processes influence the likelihood of
invasion. For example, the shape and condition of habitat patches is an
important determinant of the rate at which NIS invade (Hobbs 2001,
Cummings 2002). Much of the habitat fragmentation that leads to
increased likelihood of invasion is caused by anthropogenic disturbance.
Habitat quality and anthropogenic impacts are key factors influencing
invasion rates in aquatic habitats. For example, Corbacho and Sanchez
(2001) found that NIS were much more common in channelized versus
natural river segments. And, Feyrer and Healey (2003) identified
significant differences in flow, water temperature, and turbidity
between habitats occupied by predominantly native versus non-indigenous
fish species. In addition to the quality of habitat, the spatial
structure of habitats can influence the potential for invasive spread,
invasion process, dispersal success of invasive species, demography of
invasive species and invasibility of a particular biological community.
For example, Kraft (2002) was able to predict the likelihood of zebra
mussel (*Dreissena polymorpha*) invasions in lakes based on waterway
connectivity. Their analyses identified clear opportunities for
interrupting the invasion process and reducing future impacts of this
species. Accounting for habitat connectivity is also critical for
understanding interactions between native and non-indigenous fish
species is riverine ecosystems, especially in areas were barriers block
passage of both native and non-native species. The Kraft et al. (2002)
analytical methods could be applied to understand, predict, and manage
invasion potential of NIS in river systems.

A better understanding of the species characteristics of potential NIS
and habitat attributes, including quality, composition, and structure,
that are conducive to colonization by NIS will enable habitat
restoration strategies for salmon recovery planning that reduce the
threat from NIS. Studies should include original field data collection,
modeling, and analyses of existing data sets describing the distribution
of NIS (Question 1), as well as and habitat or landscape condition. The
combination of these three types of studies will enable predictions of
where invasion by particular non-indigenous threats are likely and
identification of areas that need to be protected. Such studies will
also enable resource managers to reduce the impact of NIS over time by
implementing actions that reduce the habitat conditions favored by
invasive species.

**Ongoing Research**

None

**Research Needs**

*Analysis of existing data:* Existing data can be useful for examining
relationships between habitat condition, landscape features, and
invasibility. By collecting, organizing, and analyzing existing data, we
will better understand those aspects of the ecosystem that preclude
invasion. In addition, we will get a better understanding of the types
of experiments that would help to identify the mechanisms of invasion.

*Conduct experiments to Identify mechanisms:* With the completion of the
previous research need, we would be able to develop experiments in the
laboratory and the field that would help us understand the mechanisms of
invasibility.

*Development of models:* We will develop models using invasion theory
(Kareiva and Morris 1991; Ruesink et al. 1995; Cruywagen et al. 1996;
Kareiva et al. 1996; Lewis et al. 1996; Mack et al. 2000) to predict the
relative likelihood and extent to which other Pacific Northwest
watersheds and estuaries will be invaded by various NIS in the future.
Common models to predict the behavior of invasive species include
reaction-diffusion, integrodifference equations and percolation-based
landscape models; these models do not, however, take into account
spatial patterning and its effects. These modeling efforts will
integrate questions of transport mechanisms, environmental
heterogeneity, and life history complexity. Given the paucity of
distributional information on NIS that are of great importance in salmon
management, these analyses may also involve survey fieldwork. In
addition to predicting invasion, establishment and spread of NIS, these
models can be used to apply temporally and spatially focused control
efforts and ask what control scenario/strategy does the best job of
deterring the spread of a given NIS. Such models cannot identify
"optimal solutions", but can be useful for quantifying tradeoffs between
different strategies. For example, one can use a model to examine the
tradeoff between investing in monitoring to detect the first invaders to
arrive in a region, versus control of existing sources for those
invaders.

**5. What are the best strategies for preventing, controlling and
eradicating NIS?**

a.  Can we prioritize which areas and species will be protected, and
    which areas will not receive control or eradication programs?

b.  What are the consequences of control versus uncontrolled invasion in
    the Pacific Northwest?

c.  What are costs and benefits of various control strategies?

**Background**

There are over 4,500 NIS in the United States alone (OTA 1993), most of
which are benevolent. Controlling and eradicating all of them would
obviously be futile and unnecessary. While most problem NIS are easy to
identify once they have become a serious environmental problem, the real
challenge lies in identifying those NIS that are likely to be a problem
in the future. There are many well known nuisance NIS (i.e., zebra
mussels; brown tree snake, *Boiga irregularis*; purple loosestrife,
*Lythrum salicaria*), and these are most often the target of control and
eradication efforts. While these most notorious of NIS generally are a
problem wherever and whenever they occur, many less well known NIS can
become invasive in some places but not in others. It is important that
we identify which NIS we should be concerned about, and which watersheds
in the Pacific Northwest are most likely to experience invasions in the
future.

Well over \$100 billion USD are spent each year in the United States to
control and eradicate NIS (OTA 1993; Pimental et al. 2000; Pimental et
al. 2001). Given the ecological and economic impact of the targeted NIS,
most of these control and eradication efforts are justified. However, we
must also consider the consequences of a given control strategy in and
of itself. For example, non-indigenous Japanese knotweed (*Polygonum
cuspidatum*) is generally regarded as a nuisance species in riparian
habitat throughout the Pacific Northwest (Potash 2001). However,
herbicides have been chosen as the primary means of controlling this
plant, which may have indirect as well as sub-lethal effects on ESA
listed trout and anadromous salmonids and other fish species (Sopinska
et al. 2000; Scholz et al. 2000; Waring and Moore 2004). Eastern smooth
cordgrass (*Spartina alterniflora*) is a nuisance aquatic species in the
State of Washington, but herbicides are used extensively to control its
expansion. Again, it is not known if the sub-lethal effects of
herbicides are more detrimental than the presence of smooth cordgrass
itself. These potential management conflicts must be thoroughly
understood before reasonably policy can be implemented.

**Ongoing Research**

There really is not any concerted effort to study prevention, control,
and eradication strategies at the NWFSC. However, some of the initial
information and analyses are currently in development or underway, and
they will described in the next section.

**Research Needs**

The existing NIS geospatial datalayer created by Sanderson et al. could
be used to begin answering the question of which watersheds in the
Pacific Northwest are most likely to experience invasions in the future.
However, we need to do much more work *in situ* in order to perform
accurate risk assessment analyses. It is important to remember that risk
assessments for each NIS are not feasible, and may not be particularly
useful. A better approach would be to treat NIS as another cause to ESA
listed species declines, and factor this in with previous risk
assessment efforts.

Analyses of habitat fragmentation, composition, and condition described
in question #2 would be one of the first steps in identifying those
watersheds that are most susceptible to invasion by any NIS. Coupling
this with the Sanderson et al. datalayer will allow us to identify those
watersheds whose habitats are susceptible to invasion, and contain NIS
that are likely to become invasive. With this classification, we could
prioritize watersheds for prevention, control, and eradication efforts,
since it is not possible to give equal attention to all places in the
Pacific Northwest.

In order to address the control or do not control question, we propose
developing meta-analyses that compare the ecosystem and economic impact
of the uncontrolled invasion versus various control, and eradication
scenarios. These analyses would draw upon established and documented
impacts of various NIS and carefully weigh those impacts against the
consequences of control.

The final aspect of this fifth research question is that of cost-benefit
analyses. These analyses should incorporate the aspects of the second
sub-question as well as simple economic costs of various control
strategies. This would constitute a formal cost-benefit analysis whereby
economic, social, and ecological consequences are accounted for. As
mentioned in the background section, there are situations where control
of a NIS may pose a higher risk to ESA listed than letting the NIS in
question invade.

Given that a coordinated NIS research program currently does not exist
at the Center, we are not able to provide a detailed description of how
much money will be needed to answer our proposed research questions.
However, it is possible to outline the potential timeline and costs for
research. Table 1 provides an outline and an initial time line for
research questions. Funding to initiate these different areas of
research would be approximately 500k. As the research matured this plan
would be revised to define more specific research questions and provide
a more detailed plan of actions and costs.

Table 1. Timeline of NIS research activities

![](media/image1.wmf)

**Literature Cited**

# Achord, S., P. S. Levin, and R. W. Zabel. 2003. Density-dependent mortality in Pacific salmon: the ghost of impacts past? Ecology Letters 6:335-342. 

Carlton, J. T., and J. B. Geller. 1993. Ecological roulette: The global
transport of nonindigenous marine organisms. Science. 261:78-82.

Cohen, A. N., and J. T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a
highly invaded estuary. Science. 279:555-558.

Corbacho, C., and J. M. Sanchez. 2001. Patterns of species richness and
introduced species in native freshwater fish faunas of a
Mediterranean-type basin: The Guadiana River (southwest Iberian
Peninsula). Regulated Rivers-Research and Management. 17(6):699-707.

Cumming, G.S. 2002. Habitat shape, species invasions and reserve design:
insights from simple models. Conservation Ecology. 6(1) article
#3.Czech, B. and P. Krausman. 1997. Distribution and causation of
species endangerement in the United States. Science. 277:1116.

Feyrer, F; and M.P. Healey. 2003. Fish community structure and
environmental correlates in the highly altered southern Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 66(2):123-132.

Hobbs, R. J. 2001. Synergisms among habitat fragmentation, livestock
grazing, and biotic invasions in southwestern Australia. Conservation
Biology 15:1522-1528.

Harvey, C.J., and P. Kareiva. 2004. Community context and the influence
of non-indigenous species on juvenile salmon survival in a Columbia
River reservoir. Biological Invasions In Press.

Kareiva, P. 1996. Developing a predictive ecology for non-indigenous
species and ecological invasions. Ecology 77: 1651-1652.

Kolar, C.S., and D.M. Lodge. 2002. Ecological predictions and risk
assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science
298(5596):1233-1236.

Kraft, C.E.; P.J. Sullivan, A.Y. Karatayev, Y.E. Burlakova, J.C. Nekola,
L.E. Johnson, and Padilla. 2002. Landscape patterns of an aquatic
invader: Assessing dispersal extent from spatial distributions.
Ecological Applications. 12(3):749-759.

Lassuy, D.R. 1995. Introduced species as a factor in extinction and
endangerment of native fish species. *In*: Management Implications of
Co-occurring Native and Introduced Fishes. H.L. Schramm, Jr. and R.G.
Piper (eds). American Fisheries Society Symposium Series, v. 15.
Portland, OR. 608 p.

Levin, P.S., S. Achord, B.E. Feist, and R.W. Zabel. 2002. Non-indigenous
brook trout and the demise of Pacific salmon: a forgotten threat?
*Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Biology*. 269:1663-1670.

Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F.
Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global
consequences, and control. Ecological Applications. 10(3): 689--710.

Myers, J. H., Simberloff, D., Kuris, A. M., & Carey, J. R. 2000.
Eradication revisited -- dealing with non-indigenous species. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, 15, 316-320.

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA).
1990. URL - <http://www.anstaskforce.gov/toc.htm>.

National Invasive Species Act (NISA). 1996. URL -
<http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sup_01_16_10_67.html>

National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA). 2003. URL -
http://www.nemw.org/biopollute.htm#laws.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. NOAA's
Strategic Plan for FY 2003 - FY 2008 and Beyond. March 31, 2003. 23 pp.
URL
\<http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov/about/pdfs/noaa_strat_plan.pdf\>:\>

OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous
Species in the United States. US Congress, Washington, D.C. OTA-F-565
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993). 397
p.

Parker, I.M., Simberloff, Lonsdale, Goodell, Wonham, Kareiva,
Williamson, Von Holle, Moyle, Byers and Goldwasser. 1999. Impact: toward
a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders.
Biological Invasions, 1: 3-19.

Pimentel, D., L. Lach, et al. (2000). \"Environmental and economic costs
of non-indigenous species in the United States.\" Bioscience 50(1):
53-65.

Pimentel, D., McNair, S., Janecka, J., Wightman, J., Simmonds, C.,
O'Connell, C., Wong, E., Russel, L., Zern, J., Aquino, T.,& Tsomondo, T.
2001. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and
microbe invasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, 84, 1-20.

Poe, T.P., Shively, R.S., and Tabor, R.A. 1994. Ecological consequences
of introduced piscivorous fishes in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers.
In: Stouder, D.J., Fresh, K.L., and Feller, R.J. (eds.) Theory and
application in fish feeding ecology. University of South Carolina Press.

Potash, L. 2001. Riparian Habitat Restoration; Control of Japanese
Knotweed on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. USDA Forest
Service, Mountlake Terrace, WA.

Recovery Science and Review Panel (RSRP). 2002. Report for the RSRP
meeting held January 3 - 4, 2002. URL
\<http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/cbd/trt/rsrp_jan02.pdf\>

Ruckelshaus, M., P. Levin. J. Johnson and P. Kareiva. 2002. The Pacific
salmon wars: what science brings to the challenge of recovering species.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:665-706.

Ruiz, G. M., J. T. Carlton, E. D. Grosholz, and A. H. Hines. 1997.
Global invasions of marine and estuarine habitats by non-indigenous
species: MechaNon-indigenous speciesms, extent, and consequences.
American Zoologist. 37:621-632.

Scholz, N.L., N.K. Truelove, B.L. French, B.A. Berejikian, T.P. Quinn,
E. Casillas, and T.K. Collier. 2000. Diazinon disrupts antipredator and
homing behavior in chinook salmon (*Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*). Canadian
Journal of Fishery and Aquatic Sciences 57:1911-1918.

Simberloff, D. and B. Von Holle. 1999. Positive interactions of
non-indigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biological Invasions
1:21-32.

Simberloff, D. 2004. Positive Community ecology: Is it time to move on?
The American Naturalist 163(6):787-799.

Sopinska, A., A. Grochola, and J. Niezgoda. 2000. Influence of water
polluted with herbicide Roundap on the organism of fish. Medycyna
Weterynaryjna **56**(9):593-597 SEP 2000

Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, et al. 1997. \"Human domination of the
earth\'s ecosystems.\" Science 277:494-499.

Waring C.P., and A. Moore. 2004. The effect of atrazine on Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) smolts in fresh water and after sea water transfer.
Aquatic Toxicology **66**(1):93-104.

Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., and Losos, E.
1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States.
BioScience, 48, 607-615.

With, KA. 2002. The landscape ecology of invasive spread. Conservation
Biology. 16(5):1192-1203.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="4.71875in" height="3.0194444444444444in"}

Figure 1. The number and distribution of aquatic non-indigenous species
in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Data are synthesized from a variety of
sources. Taxonomic groups include amphibians (2), birds (10),
crustaceans (10), fish (80), mammals (10), mollusks (30), plants (771),
and reptiles (3).

> ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.3694444444444445in"
> height="4.027083333333334in"}

Figure 2. The distribution of five non-native fish species throughout
Washington, Oregon and Idaho. These five species are some of the major
players with respect to salmon, yet most interactions are not yet
quantified.

[]{.mark}

> ![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.0in" height="3.75in"}

Figure 3. The number of native and non-indigenous fish species in
Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Shown at the bottom of the native species
boxes are the proportions of those that are either threatened,
endangered or species of special concern.