# LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER AQUATIC NONINDIGENOUS
SPECIES SURVEY
2001-2004

Final Technical Report

Mark D. Sy tsma
Center for L a kes and Reservoirs
Portland S t a t e Univers i ty Portland OR 97207

Jeffery R. Cordell Wetland Ecosystem Team University of W a shington
Seattle W A 98195

John W. Chapman
Hatfield Marine Science Center Oregon State University Newport OR 97365

Robyn C. Draheim
Center for L a kes and Reservoirs
Portland S t a t e Univers i ty Portland OR 97207

Prepared for the

UNITED S T ATES COAST GUAR D
and the

UNITED STATES FISH AND W I LDLIFE SERVICE

October 2004

## Executive Summary

The National Invasive S p ecies Act of 1996 identified the need to conduct an ecological

survey of aquatic nonindigenous species (ANS ) in the Columbia River and authorized

funding for this purpose. The Lower Colum b ia River Aquatic Nonindigenous Species

Survey (LCRANS) was initiated to provide com p rehensive infor m ation about the

nonnative species present in th e lower Colum b ia River. A comprehensive list of

nonnative species distribution is the f i rst st ep to understanding invasions, assessing

im pacts, and developing effective m a nagem e nt actions. This investigation provides a

baseline f o r evalua ting the rate of species introd uctions to th e rive r tha t will a llow

assessm ent of the efficacy of ballas t water m a nagem e nt regulations and contribu te

im portant new infor m ation to ongoing regi onal aquatic nonindige nous species (ANS)

studies. Despite the considerable volum e of shipping received by the five m a jor

freshwater and brackish ports on the lower Co lumbia River it had not been previously

surveyed ex plicitly for n onnative species.

The objectiv e of the LCRANS wa s to provide a com p rehensive survey and analysis of all

ANS present in th e tid ally influenced , 234-kilom e ter reach of the lower Colum b ia River

from Bonne ville Dam to the Pacific Ocean and th e tidal portions of the major tribu t aries.

The project included a review of literature, condu cted in 2001 -2002, and field su rveys,

conducted in 2002-2003.

Due to the size and diversity of habitats the taxonom ic scope of the LCRANS, field

surveys wer e lim ited to f r ee-living p l ants a nd anim als. The geographic area survey ed

encom p assed brackish and freshwater m a rshes, low salinity mudflats, polyhaline beaches,

rocky shorelines, protected em baym e n ts, la rge river habitats, tidally influenced

agricultural drainages, and urban sloughs.

We sa m p led at 134 stations and docum ented 269 aquatic species (and 55 other distinct

organism s that we were unable to identify at the species leve l) in th e lowe r Colum b ia

River. Of the 269 species identified, 54 ( 21%) w e re introduced, 92 (34%) were native,

and 123 (45%) were cryptogenic.

LCRANS pa g e iThe literature review and field survey reveal ed that at least 81 organism s have been

introduced into the lower Colum b ia River si nce the m i d 1800s. The m a jority of these

species were fish (28%), aquatic plan ts ( 23%) and crustacea (1 5 %). The rem a ining 18%

was a com b i n ation of m o llusks, annelids, br yozoans, cnidaria, am phibians, reptiles and

an aquatic mammal. Due to the lim itations of this survey, in adequate taxonom i c
resolution in prior studies, and the abundance of unresolve d and cryptogenic taxa, our

results are likely a cons ervative es tim a te of the ANS invasion of the lower Colum b ia

River.

From the 1880s to the 1970s a new introdu ced species was discovered in the lower

Colum b ia about every five years. T h e fre quency of new discoveries ANS is increasing

worldwide (OTA 1993, Ruiz et al. 2000), how ever, and the rate of discovery of

introduced invertebrates in the lower Colum b ia River m i rrors this trend. Over the past

ten years a new invertebrate species was discovered about every five m o nths. The

increasing rate of new discovery is due to increasing freque ncy of introductions and to

the num ber and type of surveys conducted. It is not possible to separate these effects

from the availab l e data.

In contrast to the increasing rate of invert ebrate discovery, the ra te of fish discovery

peaked in the 1950s. This trend was likel y due to a decline in intentional fish

introductions by both individuals and fish and gam e agencies to increas e the diversity of

food and gam e fishes.

The m a jority of introdu ced spec ies in the lowe r Colum b ia or igina t ed in North Am erica.

Introduced fish accoun ted for m o st of the speci es with North Am erican origin, while Asia

was the native region of 34 percent of th e invertebrates introduced via shipping

m echanis m s in the Columbia River. The high proportion of Asian invertebrates in the

Colum b ia River fauna may be related to shi pping patterns. Asian por ts ar e the la st por t

of call for most arrivals to the Columbia River from outside the Exclusive Econom ic

Zone (EEZ). These patterns, however, are ba sed on estim ates of both origin and vectors

of dispersal. For m a ny s p ecies precise vectors and origins rem a in uncertain.

The Colum b ia River receives m o re port ca lls f r o m vessels f r o m dom e stic ports (59

percent) than it does from in ternational ports (Flynn and Sy tsm a 2004). About 25 percent

LCRANS pa g e iiof coastal vessel traffic entering Oreg on estuar ies origin ated in th e highly invaded San

Francisco B a y/Sacram e n to/San Joaquin Delta (Flynn and Sytsm a 2004). Short transit

tim es, established populations of introduced i nvertebrates possibly selected for dispersal

by shipping vectors in several dom estic ports on the W e st Coast, and abundant shipping

traffic suggests that domestic shipping is a highly im portant vector for ANS introduction

to the Colu mbia River.

This repor t e s tablishes a baseline on ANS in lower Colum b ia River. Addition a l

monitoring and sam p ling is neces sary to dete ct n e w invasion s and to docum ent invas i on

rate, im pacts, and efficacy of m a nagem e nt efforts. W e recomm end a multiple -purpose

sam p ling approach to m a xim i ze the potential of detec ting ad dition a l spe c i es and new

arrivals. Sampling should target habitats and taxa that are likely to contain new invaders

every year; a synoptic survey of the lowe r Columbia River should be conducted every

five years; and additional sam p ling should target data gaps and survey limitations of this

project.

LCRANS p a ge iii

## Acknowledgement s

Funding of this project by the U.S. Coast Gu ard and U.S. Fish and W ildlif e Service was

stim ulated b y the Columbia River A quatic Nu isance Species Initiative, a joint effort b y

the Ports of Portland and Astoria and th e Colum b ia River S t eam s hip Ope r ators

Association. Rich Everett, Denny Lass uy, Paul Heim owitz, and Stephen Phillips

facilitated the project. T h e Technical Advi sory Comm ittee assis t ed with the lite ratu re
review, reviewed draft reports, and provided sampling and analysis advice when needed.

The project could not have been comple ted without the assistance of consulting

taxonom ists: Leslie Harris, Terry Frest, Je nnifer P a rsons, Jin Hwan Lee and Steve Fend.

Selene O’Dell, April Fong, Laura Johnson, Mary Pfauth, Jeff Ada m s, Bruce Sutherland,

Dennis Issacson, Chris Kodadek’s summer 2002 aquatic science class, Christy

McDonough, Dr. and Mrs. Richard P e terson, Di ane Kightlinger, and Kurt Getsinger

provided valuable volunteer assistance in the field.

LCRANS pa g e iv

### Table of Contents:

Executive S u mm ary

............................................................................................................. i Acknowledgem e nts

............................................................................................................ iv List of Figures

.................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables

.................................................................................................................... vii List of Abbreviations and Acronym s

............................................................................... viii List of Abbreviations and Acronym s

............................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction

....................................................................................................... 1
Overview

......................................................................................................................... 1
Structu r e an d Scope

........................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2: T h e Lower Colum b ia River

.............................................................................. 4
The Lower Colu m b ia River Basin

.................................................................................. 4 The Changing Nature of Invasions

................................................................................. 8
Introductions

................................................................................................................. 11

Vectors

...................................................................................................................... 12 Pathways

................................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 3: L ite ratu re Re view

............................................................................................ 19
Methods

......................................................................................................................... 19
Results

........................................................................................................................... 20
Database

.................................................................................................................... 20
Liter a tur e Review

...................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 4: F i eld Sam p ling

................................................................................................ 25
Methods

......................................................................................................................... 25
Locations

....................................................................................................................... 25 Techniques

.................................................................................................................... 26
Classificatio n of species

................................................................................................ 30 Chapter 5: R e sults and Discussion

.................................................................................... 33 Field Survey Results

..................................................................................................... 33 Literature Review and Field Survey Results

................................................................ 35
Patterns of Introduction

................................................................................................. 42
Rates of Invasion

........................................................................................................... 45 Vectors and Pathways

................................................................................................... 46 Chapter 6: C onclusions and Recommendations

............................................................... 50 Additional surveys

........................................................................................................ 51 Targeted sampling

..................................................................................................... 51 Discrete sampling

...................................................................................................... 52 Synoptic surveys

....................................................................................................... 53
Research Needs

............................................................................................................. 53 Managem e nt Needs

....................................................................................................... 54
References

......................................................................................................................... 56

Appendices [Bound Separately] Appendix A: Technical Advi sory Comm ittee Pa rticipan ts Appendix B: Species Descriptions

LC R ANS pa g e v

## List of Figures

Figure 1. The LCRANS study area – the tida lly influenced portions of the lower
Colum b ia and W illam e tte River s

. ............................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Habitat alteration along the Colum b ia River estuary

.......................................... 7 Figure 3. Past and present flow data for th e lowe r Colum b ia River collec ted at the
Bonneville Da m

. . ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4. L CRANS sampling locations 2002, 2003

......................................................... 28 Figure 5. Distribution of LCRANS s a m p le types 2002-2003

........................................... 29 Figure 6. L CRANS field survey species collections broken dow n by m a jor taxonomic group and origin.

....................................................................................................... 33 Figure 7. L CRANS field survey species collections broken down by m i nor taxonom ic group and origin

........................................................................................................ 34 Figure 8. Number of introduced species in vari ou s taxa in the lower Colu mbia River f r om the lite ratu re review and field survey.

....................................................................... 36 Figure 9. Comparison of invasive specie s in several North American system s.

.............. 44 Figure 10. Accum u lation of non-indigenous spec ies in the lower Colum b ia by year of discovery.

.................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 11 Changes in invertebrate introduction vect ors over tim e

. .................................. 47

LC R ANS pa g e vi

## List of T a bles

Table 1. Principal biological survey s of the lower Colu m b ia River consulted by the
literature review.

....................................................................................................... 22 Table 2. Summary of nonindigenous and cr yptogenic species com p iled during the
litera t ure re view,lis ted b y m a jor taxonom i c category.

.............................................. 23
Table 3. Criteria for intro duced species

............................................................................ 31
Table 4. Invasion dates and m echanism s of introduction for al l introduced species in the
lower Colu mbia River.

.............................................................................................. 37
Table 5. W e st Coast distributions of all introduced invertebrates found in the lower
Colum b ia River

......................................................................................................... 43 Table 6. Suggested sam p ling locations proposed for targeted sam p ling.

......................... 52

LCRANS pa g e vii

## List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANS Aquatic Nonindigenous Species

BSW Q P Bi-State W a ter Quality P r ogram CREDDP Colum b ia River Es tuary Data Develo pm ent Proje c t
CREST Colu m b ia River Es tuary Studies Tas k force

IUCN The W o rld Conservation Union al so known as the International Union
For Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

LCRANS Lower Columbia River Aqua tic Nonindigenous Species Survey

LCREP Lower Columbia River Estuary Project
NAISA National Aquatic I nvasive Species Act, 1996

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Se rvice, also known as NOAA Fisheries

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm i nistration ODEQ Oregon Departm e nt of Environm ental Quality

ODFW Oregon Departm e nt of Fish and W ildlife

OSU Oregon State University

OTA Office of Technology and Assessm e n t
SERC Sm ithsonian Environm e n tal Research Center

TAC Technical Advisory Committee (part of LCRANS) (see Appendix A)

USACE United States Arm y Corps of Engineers

USFC United States Fish Comm issi on (predecessor to USF W S and NOAA Fisheries) also known as United Stat es Comm ission of Fish and Fisheries

USFW S United Sta t e s Fish and W ildlif e Service

WEMAP West Coast Environm ental Monitoring and Assessm ent Program

WDE Washington State Departm e nt of Ecology

WDFW Washington Departm e nt of Fish and W ildlife

LCRANS p a ge v iii

## Chapter 1: Introduction

Overview

Rates of aquatic nonindigenous species (ANS ) introductions and their social, econom i c , and ecological im pacts are increasing (OTA 1993, Ruiz et al. 2000). Introductions of

nonnative m a rine organism s have increased exp onentially over the last two centuries and

expenditu res on outrea c h

, contro l, an d resea r ch e x ceed m illio ns of dollars per spec ies for

several invaders of particular con cern to the United States (C arlton 2001) 1 . These tren ds

suggest that m a jor changes are occurring in the freshwater, estu arine, and m a rine

ecosystem s of North Am erica (OTA 1993, Cohe n and Carlton 1995), but their m a gnitude

is probably underestim ated. For every well-do cum e nted i m pact of notorious invaders,

such as intake-pipe fouling by the zebra m u ssel, Dreissena polymorpha (OTA 1993),

water quality decline caused by hydrilla, Hydrilla verticillata (Langeland 1996), and

mudflat conversion by the sm ooth cord grass, S partina alter n iflora (Daehler and S t rong

1996), there are unknown num b ers (likely thousands) of nonnativ e species with

undocum ent e d ecological and econom i c i m pacts.

Basic inform ation on species p r esence is necessary for ecosystem m a na gem e nt. A

com p rehensive list of nonnative species distri bution is the first step to understanding

invasions, assessing im pacts, and developing effective m a na gem e nt actions. Several

estuaries, bays and other protected coastal ha bitats of the northeast Pacific have been the

subject of rapid assessment surveys (Cohen and Carlton 1995, Cohen et al. 1998, Mills et

al. 2000 and Cohen et. al. 2001). Studies of ANS and ballast water release on the W e st

Coast of North Am erica have focused on ports in higher sa lin ity es tu aries and bays such

as San Francisco Bay and Coos Bay. Freshw ater-dom inated estuaries and large river

system s have received little attention

. Discha rge of ballast water into m a rine and aquatic

system s has becom e a significant pathway for ANS introductions worldwide as a result of

a substan tial increase in the speed an d vol um e of global trade over the past century

1 Recent estim a t es place the cost of the i n troduction of D r iessn a po lym o rpha bet w ee n $7 5 0 m i ll i on a n d $ 1 b illio n fro m 19 89 and 2 000 (Carlton 2 001 ); state an d fed e ral fund ing fo r und erstan d i n g im p acts an d eradicating S p a r tina a ltern iflo ra in th e Pacific No rt h w est to tal ov er $4 .5 mil lio n in th e past 5 years; $1

m i ll i on o f fe de ral f u n d i n g we nt t o Erioc h eir sinensis control and resea r c h efforts i n California in 2000-
20 0 1 ; an d c o nt rol a n d m oni t o ri n g of C a u l erp a ta xifo lia i n sout her n C a l i f or ni a c o st $ 2

. 3 3 m i ll i on.

LCRANS p a ge 1(Cohen & Carlton 1995, Cohen 1998). Despite the considerable volum e of shipping

received by the five m a jor freshwater and brackish ports on the lower Colum b ia River

(LCR), it has never been surveyed ex plicitly for n onnative species.

The United States Congress rem e died this di sparity in 1996 when they re-authorized the

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventi on and Control Act of 1990, renam e d the

National Invasive Species Act (NISA). The autho r s of NISA specif i ca lly identif ied the

need to cond uct an eco lo gical survey of ANS in the Colum b i a River and authorized

funding for this purpose. In the fall of 2001, the Lower Columbia River Aquatic

Nonindigenous Species Survey (LCRANS) was initiated.

LCRANS was undertaken to provide com p rehe nsive inform ation about the ANS present

in the lower Colum b ia River. The re sults of th is investigatio n will se rve as a base line f o r
evaluating the rate of species introd uctions to th e river and the efficacy of ballast water

m a nage m e nt regulations, and contribute im portant new inform ation to ongoing regional

ANS studies. In addition, the data m a y be useful for determ ining where the lower

Colum b ia River is vulnerable to invasion a nd for evaluating effect s of introductions on

im portant ecological processes.

The projec t was im plemented in con s ulta ti on with the LCRANS Technical Advisory

Comm ittee (TAC). The TAC consisted of local, regional, and national experts on

biological invasions of aqua tic system s, taxonomy, and re gional resource m a nage m e nt

(see Appendix A for a complete list of TAC pa rtic ipants ). The role of the TAC was not

supervisory; rather the T A C reviewed, evalua ted, and assisted LCRANS i n achieving the

f

o llowing goals:

• Develop a database for relevant inform ation including tim efram e of introduction, native and source regions of introduced species, mode s of introduction, etc.

• Review exis ting lite ratu r e on ANS in the lower C o lum b ia River.

• Perform field surveys for ANS to comple te and/or extend ex isting records –i.e. focusing on habitats and taxa not we ll repr esen te d in liter a tur e

.

• Design and implem e nt replicable m o nito ring protocols for detecting new or expanding invasions.

• Com p lete a written repo rt including at m i ni m u m 1) an exam ination of the attributes and patterns of invasions of ANS in the LCR, and 2) a discussion of the
effectiveness of ballast water m a nagem e nt in abating ANS invasions in LCR.

LCRANS p a ge 2

### Structure and Scope

The objectiv e of the LCRANS wa s to provide a com p rehensive survey and analysis of all

ANS present in th e lower Colum b ia River - the tidally influen ced 234-kilo m e ter reach

from Bonne ville Dam to the Pacific Ocean, and th e tidal portions of the major tribu t aries.

This geographic area en com p assed brackish and freshwater m a rshes, low salinity

mudflats, polyhaline beaches, rocky shorel ines, protected em baym ents, large river

habitats, tidally influenced ag ricultural drainages, and urba n sloughs. Due to the size and

diversity of habitats the ta xonom ic scope of the LCRANS project was lim ited to freeliving m acrophytes and anim als. Th e project included three com ponents:

• A lite ratu re review of Colum b ia River ANS,

• Field surv ey s to characterize the ANS present

• A com p rehensive analysis and summary of the results of the previous

com ponents.

The field survey focused on species and habita ts that were not well studied previously.

For exam ple, nonnative f i sh were recorded when captured in the course of sam p ling but

were not specifically targeted during the field surv eys. Much of the inf o rm ation in this

report about nonnative fishes com e s from the initi al literature review that, unlike m a ny of

the invertebrate taxa, have been well studied. 2

This report summ arizes the work perfor m e d by the LCRANS team between October

2000 and July 2004. Som e sections reference previously released LCRANS reports.

These reports are available upon request from the corresponding author or in Adobe PDF

for m at from the website http://www.clr.pdx.edu under the link “LCRANS .” In order to

further understand the ANS present in the lowe r Colum b ia River in a regional context,

this report also describes the tim e fra m e, source, vector, distribution, and impacts of

invasion where possible. In the Conclusi on, we discuss our m a jor findings and their

im plications for regional ANS m a na gem e nt, and identify data gaps and further research

needs.

2 The r e a r e se ve ral t y pes of fi s h s u c h as g obi e s an d bl en ni es t h at ha ve bee n doc um ent e d as i n t r od uce d
uni nt ent i o nal l y an d a r e ass o ci at ed wi t h ha bi t a t s (s uc h as roc k y cervices) that are not typic a lly targeted
d u ring rou tin e fish sam p lin g

. Th ese h a b itats m a y n eed t o be sp ecifically targ eted in fu ture ANS su rv eys (A ndy C o hen

, pers o n al com m uni cat i o n)

.

LCRANS p a ge 3

## Chapter 2: The Lower Columbia River

The Colum b ia River is the larg est river in the Pacific Northw est and the second largest in

the United S t ates (in term s of volume discha rged). Its drainage basin covers 671,000 km 2

in seven s t ates and one Canadian province. Tid a l influence of the Pacific Ocean is

evident 234 km upriver to Bonneville Da m , the lowest of m a ny im poundm e nts on the

river (Figure 1). The tid al influence also ex tends 207 km from the Pacific Ocean to

W illam e tte Falls on the W illam e tte River, the la rgest tr ibuta r y ente ring the lower r i v e r.

The lower Colum b ia, from Bonneville dam to the m outh, drains approxim a tely 46,600

km 2 . Although it represents only se ven percent of the entire Colum b ia Basin, it is the

most developed and urbanized portion of the watershed.

Fi gure 1. T h e L C R A N S s t u d y are a – the t i dal l y i n fluenc ed porti o ns of the l o wer Col u mbia and
Willa mette Ri v ers (ma p cre a t ed by StreamNet)



### The Lower Columbi a River Basin

For thousands of years the Colum b i a River ha s been central to the existence and cultures

of num e rous Native Am e r ican tribes. Lewi s and Clark’s exploration of the Colum b ia

LCRANS p a ge 4River in the early 1800s ushered in two centu ries of transform a tion. In 1825, the British

Hudson' s Ba y Com p any established a post at Fo rt Vancouver. W ith the arrival of the

first European Am erican settlers in th e 1840s, who reached the lower Colum b ia and

W illam e tte r i ver va lley s via the Or eg on Trail, the shape and c h arac ter of Colum b ia River

began to change. Like many other bays a nd estuaries along the W e st Coast, the lower

Colum b ia River becam e a busy port, with ships arriving daily bearing supplies and

imm i grants, and leaving with tim ber, furs and fish. Since then, the population of the

lower Colu mbia River basin has co ntinued to grow, accom p anied by in creased d e m a nds

on the river.

The lower Colum b ia River delineates th e boundary between Oregon and Washington.

Three m a jor tributaries enter the Colum b ia River downstream of Bonneville Dam ; the

W illa m e tte River on the Oregon side, and the Lewis and Cowlitz rivers from

Washington. There are five m a jor ports along the lower Columbia River: Astoria,

Longview/Kelso, Kalam a , Vancouver, and Po rtland. In 1998, the US Departm e nt of

Comm erce reported that these five deep-w ater ports support a shipping industry

responsib le for transporting 30 m illion tons of foreign trade wort h $13 billion each year

(LCREP 1999).

According to the Lower Colum b ia River Estuary Project (LCREP 1999) “historical

evidence indicates that since 1870, more than half of estuarine wetlands have been lost as

a result of diking, drainin g, filling, d r edging, and flow regulation.” (Figu r e 2). In 193 2,

construction began on the first of m a ny dam s that altered the flow regim e of the

Colum b ia. In 1938, Bonneville Dam was com p le ted. Located 233 kilom e ters from the

mouth, Bonneville Dam m a rked the new upper bounda ry of tidal influence on the river.

By the m i d 1970s, 18 dam s had been erected on the m a in stem of the Colum b ia and its

m a in tributary, the Snake River. Today, the river supports num e rous commercial and

recreational activitie s including fishing, hydroelectri c power generation, irrigation,

aquaculture, shipping, and boating.

LCRANS p a ge 5From the mouth to Skamokawa, WA (~ rive r k m 56) the lo wer Colum b ia River is a

coastal plain estuary 3 . Sand deposition in the m i ddle reach of the estuary has form ed vast

areas of sand flats and shoals. Dredge dis posal has built up som e of these areas into

islands. There are four large, shallow e m ba ym e n ts in the estuary (Grays, Baker, Youngs

and Cathlam e t bays) (Holton 1984). Upstr eam of Ska m okawa, from Puget Island to

Longview, WA and the confluence of the Cow litz River, the Colum b ia is prim arily a

single channel bordered by steep valley wa lls (Holton 1984). Further upstream , from

Longview to the start of the Colum b i a Ri ver Gorge below Bonneville Dam, the river

valley widens into a lo w-elevation flood plain.

The volum e of water discharged by the Colum b i a River varies seas onally according to

runoff, snowm e lt, and hydropower dem a nds. Me an annual discharge is estim ated to be

7,500 m 3 /s, but m a y range from lows of 2,000-3,000 m 3 /s to highs of 15,000 m 3 /s

(Ham ilton 1990; Prahl et al. 1998; NOAA 1998; USACE 199 9). Naturally occurring

m a xi m u m flows on the river occur in May, June and July as a result of snowm e lt in the

headwater regions. Minim u m flows occur from Septem ber to March with periodic peaks

due to heavy winter rains (Holton 1984). The discharge during May-June has been

reduced by more than 50 percent since im poundm e nt for water storage, hydropower

generation, and irrigatio n diversion in the m i ddle and upper basin 4 (Ebel et al. 1989)

(Figure 3).

3 Th is d e lin eati o n of t h e estu ary is a sim p lificatio n

. T h e bounda ries of t h e Colum b ia River estua r y ca n be vi ewe d as fl uct u at i n g dai l y , seas onal l y , a n d a n n u ally. Furth e r co m p licatin g an y g e n e ralizatio n is

on g o i n g dre d gi ng f o r

na vi gat i on , whi c h c r eat es a nar r o w , de ep c h an nel t h at rest ri ct s sal t w a t e r pe net r at i o n in to th e estu ary. Sim e n s tad et al. (1 990 ) g i ve a m o re d e tailed d i scu s sion of th e ph ysical an d ch em ical
ch aracteristics o f th e C o lu m b ia Riv e r estu ary

. 4 T h ere a r e o v e r 25 0 dam s and rese rv oi rs an d 15 0 hydroelectric projects i n t h e C o lum b ia River

wat e rs hed

, i n cl udi ng 1 8 m a i n

- s t e m dam s on t h e C o l u m b ia an d Sn ak e r i v e rs (U SA CE 2 001 ). Ex tensiv e d e v e l o p m en t has tu rn ed th e main stem o f th e Co lu m b ia River in t o a series o f slow-m o v i ng reservo i rs i m p o u n d e d b y 1 1 larg e d a m s , th e lowest o f wh ich is Bon n e ville Da m (Sh e rwood et al. 199 0, Prah l et al.

1 998 , U S A C E 1 999 ).

LCRANS p a ge 6Fi gure 2. H a b i tat al tera ti on al on g the C o l u mbi a Ri ver e s tu ary co ntr a s t i n g the sh orel i n e posi ti on i n 1 868 -18 7 5 with t h e present sho re line shown in outline. (So u rce: L o wer Columbi a River Bi-State Water Quality pr ogram ht tp: //www. eco t r ust

. o r g )

Interannual variability in stream flow is st rongly correlated with two recurrent clim a t e
phenom ena, the El Niño/Southern Oscill ation (E NSO) and the Pacific Decadal

Oscillation (USGS 2003). Hist orically, flooding has occurred prim arily during the cool

phase of ENSO. A m a jor exception was the devastating 1948 Vanport flood that occurred

when ENSO was in its neutral phase. Drought s have usually occurred during the warm

phase of ENSO.

Fig u re 3

. Past a n d present fl o w da ta fo r the lo wer Co lumbia Riv e r collected at the Bo nnev ille Dam. (The s t rai g h t l i ne dem o ns trates aver a ge es tima ted flow of the Columbi a River prior to the

LCRANS p a ge 7cons truc tion of dams and other impoundments. Two e x treme flood e v ents are starr e d. Data fr om the
Col u m b i a B a s i n Rese arch te am at th e Uni v ersi t y of W a s h i n gt on ht tp: //www. cbr. wa shing t o n .edu/da rt /riv erclima t e. ht ml w i th ad ditio n al pre

- d a m d a ta fr om Pr ute r

and Al vers on (1 9 7 2 ) )

.

Salinity intrusion is flow dependent but typically extends to around 50 km from the

mouth and is largely confined to the two m a in channels; the southern one is the dredged

shipping channel that extends from the m out h to Portland, OR (Ham ilton 1990). Vertical

stratification varies from fully m i xed to salt wedge conditions depending on both the

volum e of fl ow and tidal heights (Ham ilton 1990). At the river m outh the estuary is

considered p a rtially m i xed except at extrem e low flows when it can becom e vertically

hom ogeneous at high tide (Neal 19 72, Ha m ilto n 1990). Further up stream at river

kilom e ter 30 the estuary behave s as a partially m i xed estuar y except during high flows at

low tide when it can becom e vertically strati fied or com p letely freshwater (Neal 1972).

Historically the f r ee-f l o w ing Colum b ia River m a y have supported an “average to rich

bottom fauna in which caddis fly and chironom id larvae, m a yfly nym phs and m o llusks

predom inated” (Roebeck et al. 1954 in Ebel et al 1989). Aside from catch data of

commercially im portant species, how ever, fe w biologica l re c o rds exis t f o r the lower

Colum b ia Basin that pre-date the construction of the dam s (Weitkam p 1994). Today the

m a in stem of the lower Colum b ia River is c ons idered depau p erate in species (Eb e l et al

1989). The biological integrity of the river m a y be furt her degraded by pollution,

destruction of wetlands, and other impacts related to industrialization, navigation

im prove m e nt, and urbanization. W h ile m a ny adjustm e nts to the im poundm e nt of a river

happen very quickly (Petts 1984), geophysical changes m a y require m o re than 100 years

to adjust to m a jor alterations of flow (Sherwood and Creager 1990). The strong linkage

between bio l ogical communities an d the physical characteristics of riverine system s m a y

m ean that the lower Colum b ia River biota is still adjusting to an thropogenic changes.

This adjustm e nt period m a y have be nefited ANS (W eitka m p 1994).



### The Changing Nature of Invasions

Hum a n beings, unlike other species, often bri ng their favorite food, sport, and ornam e ntal

species with them when they colonize ne w locations (Minns and Cooley 1999). This

patte rn held true f o r th e new arriv a ls to the Co lu m b ia River Basin. It is ironic to note that,

LCRANS p a ge 8while the early settlers rapi dly took advantage of the abunda nce of salm on in the region

and m a de it the bas i s of a m u lti-m u llion dollar in dustry, th ey soon “tired” of its pink flesh

and yearned for the gam e fishes of their childhoods (Lam pm a n 1946). Today, the region

faces the rap i d decline of native salm on stocks.

“They c o ul d c a t c h a sal m on whe n e v er t h ey wante d it. T h e y m easured the i r cutthroat

trou t, Sal mo cl arki i , by t h e b u s hel

... [b ut ]

, b y Go df rey , w h at t h ey real l y want e d was a big m e ss of cat fish.” (Lam pman 1946)

In the late 1800s, the United States F i sh Co mm is sion (the precursor to the US Fish and

W ildlife Service) b ecame active in the transpo r t and stock i ng of Atlantic/Eastern fish

species on the W e st Coast to “increase the qua lity and variety of food and gam e fishes”

and supplem ent the “worthless and unpalatable fish” (Sm ith 1896). Today, m o re than 20

species of non-native, popular, gam e fish ha ve been successfully in troduced to the lower

W illam e tte and Colum b ia r i vers.

One early f i sh introdu ction to the lo wer Colum b ia River Bas i n was the c a rp, Cyprinus

carpio (Sm ith 1896, Lampm a n 1946). Lauded as a Eu ropean delicacy as easy to raise as

“pigs in you r back ya rd” – the f i rs t s h ipm e nts of carp a rriv e d in the W illa m e tte Valle y in

1879 and 1880. A great num b er of the carp thrived and reproduced in the pond of

Captain John Harlow and, with the arrival of a vigorous spring freshet that swelled the

waters of the Sandy River and freed the fi sh, they m a de their way into the lower

Colum b ia River system in May 1881 (Lam pm an 1946). The US Fisheries Comm ission

supplied add ition a l sh ip m e nts of carp to the Pac i f i c Northwest f r om stock raised in

California (Sm ith 1896) and by 1892 the popula tions of carp had grown so vast and

becom e such a nuisance that the Oregonian newspaper reported that fisherm e n were
“offering to supply farmers with any desired qu antity [for us e as fertilizer] at $5 a ton ”

(Lam pm an 1946).

Am erican sh ad, Alosa sapidissima , were released in California in 1871. They rapidly

dispersed along the Pacific Coast and were cau ght in the Colum b ia River as early as 1876

(Sm ith 1896), ten years prior to the intentional stocking of shad fry in the Colum b ia

Basin. Recently, m easures were enacted by the N a tiona l Ma rine Fisher ies Service

(NMFS) to reduce Am er ican shad po pulations in the Colum b ia River bec a u se they a r e

believ e d to prey on, and com p ete with, juvenile salm on (Rishi Sharm a , personal

LCRANS p a ge 9communication 2002; NMFS 1995). Am erican shad appear to have benefited from the

construction of da m s and im poundments that threaten m a ny native fish (Weitkam p 1994).

In 1914, the Oregon Fish and Ga m e Comm ission granted perm ission to a private

individual to introduce bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana, into th e m i d-Colum b ia River b a sin

below John Day (Lam pm an 1946). In 1924 or 1925 bullfrogs resulting from the above

planting were shipped to Portland for furt her distribution (Lam pm an 1946). Today,

m a ture bullfrogs are responsible for signifi can t le vels of pred a tion on native aquatic

species, particularly the Western pond turtle and th e spotted frog (Crayon 2002).

While m a ny of the earliest non-native species introductions to the lower Colum b ia River

were the res u lt of inten t ional plan tin gs, m o re recent arrivals appear to be the resu lt of

unintentional introductions 5 . It has been hypothesized th at the physical and biological

changes to the lower Colum b ia River prom ot e the estab lishm ent of new ANS (Cordell e t

al 1992, W e itkam p 1994).

Three of the m o st recen t ANS that have beco m e estab lished in the lower Colum b ia River

the New Zealand m udsnail, Potamopyrgus antipodarum , a Siberian freshwater prawn,

Exopalaemon modestus , and an Asian calanoid copepod, Pseudodiaptomus inopinus

,
dif f

e r f r om earlier invade rs in th at the y are inv e rte b rates with little or no f o od or

recreational value. As such, none of these sp ecies were likely to have been intentionally

introduced and no clear docum enta tion of the dates and vector s of introduction exists. P.

inopinus is believed to have been introduced betw een 1980 and 1990 via ballast water

released from ships arriving from Asia (Cor dell et al. 1992). W h en first captured in

1995, E. modestus was immediately recognized as an invasive species because there are

no true freshwater shrimp native to the Colu m b i a River (Em m e tt et al. 2002). This prawn

m a y also have arrived in ballast wate r (Emm ett et al. 2002). The arrival of P.

5 Th is do es no t ex clud e the p o ssib ility th at sev e ral sp ecies no w presen t in t h e lower Co l u m b ia Riv e r were th e resu lt o f early un in ten tio n a l i n tro ductio n s f acilitate d b y sh i p p i ng t r affic. Th ese early wo od en sailin g sh ip s tran sp or ted nu mer o u s wo od bor ing an d fo u ling o r g a n i sm s ( s ee Car lto n an d H odd er 199 5 fo r a di scussi o n of wo o d en shi p s and t h e di s p ers a l pot e n t i a l of f

oul i n g o r ga ni s m s), and at l e a s t o n e s p eci es, t h e barnacle B a l a n u s i m pr

ovi s us , i s t h o u ght t o h a ve a rri ve d i n t h e C o l u m b i a v i a t h i s vect or

. C ohe n a n d C a r l t on (199 5) estim at e th at 26 % of i n tro d u c tion s into San Fran cisco Bay are th e resu lt o f hu ll fo u ling

. In add i tio n , t h r o u g h o u t t h e 18 0 0 s m a ny ve ssel s car ri ed s o l i d bal l a st m a de u p of san d o r r o ck d r ed ge d f r om t h e nea r by
sh orelin e, and so lid b a llast h a s b e en im p licat ed in th e i n troduction of se ve ral m a rine species on t h e West
Co ast, e.g

. Cohen an d Car lton ( 199 5) link 3 % of inv a sion s into San Fran cisco Bay to th is v ector.

LCRA N S pag e 10antipodarum 6

, was initia lly m i sident if ied as th e native snail Fluminicola virens in

benthic surveys. W h en i t s abundance increased significantly it was co rrectly identified as

an invasive species (Rod Litton personal comm un ication). It is not know n how this snail

arrived in the lower Colum b ia River, but the lower Colum b ia population has the sam e
genotype as those in the Snak e River and other w e stern a quatic system s (Mark Dybdahl

personal communication).



### Introducti ons

Part of the global trend of increasing rates of introductions (see Ru iz et al. 2001, Cohen

2002) m a y be the result of increasing awar eness of, and effor t s to find and report,

introductions, particularly am ong the lesser-studied taxa. The trend m a y also reflect

increasing o pportunities for, and success of, introductions. For exam ple the increasing

speed and geographic range of global trade m a y facilita te the surviva l of species b e ing

transpo r ted ( i nten tiona lly or unintentionally) as well as the volum e and variety of

potential colonists. It has yet to be dete rm ined whether changes in vector m a nagem e nt

(such as the US ballast w a ter gu idelin es f o r inte rn ationa l ship ping) have had an effect on

the rate of introductions.

While m a na gem e nt regulations aim e d at redu cin g the th reat of ANS invasions in the

United States have im proved, the Pacific Nort hw est is nevertheless an at-risk region for

further introductions. Many long-established pathways and vectors are unregulated or

rem a in open due to a lack of enforcem ent of ex isting ru les. Also, in creased efficiency of

trade and transportation, new tr ade opportunities, and new trad e dim e nsions (e.g. internet

trade) m a y have opened new pathways for ANS i n troduction. As the region experiences

ecological alterations fro m global clim ate cha nge, increased use of natural resources such

as water and tim ber, and urbanization, m odif i catio ns in the aqu a tic b i olog ic al

communities are likely. Effect s of these changes on ANS in troductions in the reg i on are
unknown but probably significant.

6 R ecor d e d i n t h e be nt hi c sam p l i ng rep o rt s o f t h e C l at sop Ec on om i c Devel o pm ent C o u n ci l ’ s sal m on net

p e n op eratio n in Youn g s Bay (See Litton 200 0).

LCRA N S pag e 11Vectors

A vector is the vehicle or activity by which a nonnative species is transported

(intentionally or unintentionally) and intr oduced to a new habitat. A fundam e ntal

understanding of the diversity a nd patterns of vectors operating in a region is essential to

reducing new introductions.

There m a y be a wide range of vectors opera ting at m a ny spatial scales (i.e., between

watersheds, estuaries, o c eans, etc.) th at im p act a given system and result in substantial

transfer of biological m a terial . Tens of thousands of speci es are in transit globally on a

daily basis (Carlton 2001). Som e introductions m a y be th e result of numerous vectors

while others m a y be lim ited to one specific m echanism or action. The success of som e

vectors m a y be lim ited by environm ental factor s like clim ate or seasonality. The wide

diversity of potential vectors m a kes them a complex m a nagem e nt issue, and identifying

them is an essential step in m a naging invasions . I t is im portan t to note tha t the vec t ors
listed for each species should be considered m e rely best estim a tes of the m eans of

dispersal. F o r m a ny spe c ies the precise vect ors of dispersal are unknown. Facing a lack

of unequivocal evidence regarding which spec ies cam e in via which vecto r , the vectors

assigned to each species repres ent “p ossible” vectors bas e d prim arily on life history

characteristics of species . In the following s ection we detail severa l categories of vectors

that m a y play a significant role in the intr oduction of aquatic nonindi genous species into

the lower C o lum b ia River.

Commercial Shipping and Maritime Vessels

The introdu ction of non native o r gan i sm s into the lower Colu m b ia River by sailing

vessels h a s been possib l e since the E u ropean discovery of the river by Capt. Robert Gray

in 1792 - the first known arrival of a foreign sailing ship, but the im posing bar at the

mouth of the Colum b ia River deterred num e rous large vess els from enterin g the river. In

1875, however, the U.S. Ar m y Corps of Engi neers began construction of a jetty that,

along with dredging, turned the lower Colu m b ia River into a m a jor port system

.

In the early 1800s sailing ships entering th e lower river arrived bearing supplies and

im m i grants and leav ing with tim ber, f u rs, and fish. These ships m a y have introduced

new species in the form of fouling and w ood boring invertebrate and plants. Other

LCRA N S pag e 12organism s m a y have be en introduced from an chor chains, sea ches ts, solid ballast, and

later, water ballast. W ith the advent of m e tal-hulle d ships wood boring aquatic

invertebrates were no longer transported on the h u lls of comm ercial vess els. The

introduction of anti-fouling paint and other hu ll-coating efforts has further reduced hullfouling communities bu t the contribu tion of hull-fouling com m unities to nonnative

species intro ductions is n o t well kno wn. 7

Although num erous aspects of commercial sh ipping have been im plicated in the

introdu ction of ANS, ballast water, b ecause of its sheer volu m e, rem a ins the prim ary

m e thod by which ANS are believed to be transported globally (Carlton 2001) 8 . . As ships

continue to get bigge r a nd f a ster th e tota l vol um e of ballas t transpor ted will con tinu e to

increase as travel tim es decrease, th us incr e a sin g the probab ility tha t potentia l invad e rs

will surv ive their journ e y.

In addition to trans-oceanic ballast transport, transport of organism s in ballast wate r f r o m

dom e stic, co asta l ports is also a threa t . Sh ips in-b alla st f r om heavily invad e d loca tions,

such as San Francisco B a y, m a y spread nonna tive species along the W e st Coast. These

introdu ction s m a y have a high probability of establishm ent because trans it tim e s are s hort

and they have already been challenged by transp o r t in b a llast tanks and loc a l f actor s su ch

as clim ate and com p etition.

The commercial shipping industry is an im portant com ponent of the Oregon econom y.
Exports fro m Oregon to Asian-Pacif i c m a rkets alone am ount ed to $5.1 billion in 2001

(Oregon Bluebook W e bsite 2004). Major exports in clude wheat and cereal, vehicles, soda

ash and pot ash, (Oregon Econom ic and Comm unity Developm ent Departm e nt 2004,

Port of Portland 2004). The Portland m e tro re gion is the leader in export sales for the

7 On Jan u ary 1

, 2 003 th e In ternatio n a l Conv entio n C o nv en tion o n th e C o n t ro l of Harm fu l An ti-Fou ling Sy st em s went i n t o e ffect p r o h i bi t i ng t h e use of ha rm ful or g a no -t i n s ( w hi c h act as bi oci d es an d o v er t i m e leach int o s u rrounding water) in a n ti- fouli n g paints use d on shi p s. It als o established a mechanism to

pre v e n t t h e fut u re use o f ot he r harm ful su bst a nces a n d pol l u t a nt s i n a n t i

- f oul i n g sy st em s. B y Ja nua ry 1

, 20 0 8 al l o r gan o -t i n ant i

- fo ul i n g com p o u n d s m u st be rem oved fr om vessel s an d pl at fo rm s o r c o at ed wi t h a n

approve d seala n t to preve n t further leachi n g. (see h ttp ://www.im o .o rg fo r m o re info rm ation )

. 8 Detailed i n v e stig atio n t h ro ugh ou t th e US h a s shown th at ballast water tran sfer h a s acted as a m a j o r

vect o r of A N S but

, by c o m p ar i s on , m u ch l e ss resea r ch has been c o nducted on sh i p s’ h u lls an d th eir

p o t en tial to act as v ecto r s o f ANS in co astal waterw ays. On goi ng resea r c h at SERC and elsewhere is begi nni ng t o s u g g est t h at t h e t h reat of A N S di spe r sal pose d by s h i p s h u l l s coul d be great e r t h a n pre v i o us l y attrib u t ed.

LCRA N S pag e 13state, and ranks 11th of 253 in sales for U.S. m e t r opolitan regions (U.S. Departm e nt of

Comm erce 2001). In 2000, the shipping i ndustry produced a total earnings and

consum ption im pact in Oregon of about $1.7 billion (Port of Portland 2004).

A sustainable econom y requires effective and efficient m a nagem e nt of pathways of

invasive species introduction that are associat ed with shipping. To protect Oregon water

resources from the risk of ba llast water-related introductions the legislature enacted S B

895 during the 2001 session., revising it with HB 3620 in 2003. The bills regulate ballast

water discharge into Oregon wa ters, prohibiting all transoceani c and coastal vessels from

discharging unexchanged balla st water with a few exceptions. Oregon law allows

discharges of unexchanged ballast w a ter from vessels traveling within defined common

waters. Common waters are de fined as waters b e tween the p a rallel 40 d e grees north

latitude and the parallel 50 degrees north latitude (ORS 783.630). Currently, Oregon law

only allows the discharge of ballast water tr eated in a m a nner appr oved of by the U.S.

Coast Guard

, which creates potential probl em s for vessels with W a shington-approved

treatm ent technology that vi sit both Washington and Or egon ports on the Colum b ia

River. Balla s t water reg u lato ry chan ges ha ve occurred at international, federal, and

regiona l lev e ls and ne ce ssita te ch an ges in Orego n regula tion s to ensur e c o m p atibility

with new federal regulations, proposed re gulations in Califor nia, and existing

Washington regulations.

Vessels en te ring th e Colum b ia River discharg e b a lla st wate r in three loca tions (Mona c a
Noble personal comm unication) . Som e m i ght dump a portion of their ba llast while at

anchorage o u tside of Astoria, Oregon to adjus t th eir draft before com i ng upriver. Th is

anchorage area runs approxim a tely three km alongside the main shipping channel.

Vessels som e tim es dum p balla st while traveling up the lower river to port, again to adjust

their draft as necessary. The m a jority of vessels, however, a ppear to du m p their ba llast

while in po rt (Monaca N oble person al comm uni cation ) . Ballast wate r release sites lik ely

differ by both vessel type and draft requirem e nt s

. Ballas t water up take f o r vesse ls of f

loading cargo at ports along the Colum b ia Rive r likely m i rrors this pattern in reverse.

LCRA N S pag e 14Fishery Enh ancement
Intentional legal and illegal introductions of nonnative species to enhance local fishing

opportunities have occurred in the lower Colum b ia River for nearly 150 years. In

addition, several fishery enhancem ent acti ons m a y have led to unintentional species

introductions in the region. The late 1800s and early 1900s were characterized by many

inten tiona l p l antings by the USFC, local f i shery m a nagers, and private citizens to

im prove commercial, recreational and sust enan ce fishing in the reg i on (see Lam p m a n
1946). Legal and illegal releas es of sport fish into public and private ponds (and their

subsequent escape ) still occur, but th e st a t e wild lif e agencies are becom i ng m o re
reluctant to stock nonnative sp ecies in the region (Dailey 200 3). Fish stocking activities

in the m i ddle and upper Colum b ia River also m a y have contributed species to the system

that subsequently spread down-stream.

Maricu ltu re, especially o f oysters, is associa t ed w ith num erous detr im ental ANS

introdu ction s on the W e st Coast 9 (Cohen and Carlton 1995). However, there are no

records of s h ellf ish m a ricultu re in th e lower Colum b ia River

. The low salin ity of the

estuary is un suitab l e for most commercially d e sirable sh ellf ish, with the exception of the

soft-shell clam Mya arenaria . This s p ecies rapid l y spread up the W e st Coast from San

Francisco B a y (1874) to Puget Sound (by 1889). The arrival of M. arenaria to th e lo wer

Colum b ia may have been the result of inte ntional introduction or it m a y have spread

unintentionally in hull fo uling communities (s ee C ohen and Carlton 1995).

Other fishery enhancement activities asso ciated with ANS introductions include

freshwater aquaculture and hatchery stocking both on the low e r river and upstream of the

Bonneville Dam

. There are no aquacultu re ac tiv ities on the lower Columbia River th at

involve nonnative species.

Fishing and Recreational Water Use

Recreational anglers and other water users m a y unintentionall y transpo r t ANS (prim a rily

aquatic weeds, snails an d other sm all inverteb rate species) as they m ove from watersh e d

to watershed. Som e organism s m a y move as “hitchhikers”, in dam p gear or boat wells,

9 It has been propose d t h at the arri val of t h e Asian clam C o rbi c ul a f l u mi ne a m a y have be en t h e res u l t of

an in ten tion a l in tro d u c tion to estab lish a fo od so ur ce i n t h e C o l u m b i a R i ver but M c M a ho n (1 9 8 2 ) a r g u e s th at th is sp ecies spread n a tu rally d o w n t h e co ast fro m Vanco u v e r Island

.

LCRA N S pag e 15others m a y be transported as fouling organi sm s on boat hulls or as weeds trapped in boat

propellers. The spread of zebra m u ssel, Driessenia polymorpha, throughout m u ch of the

United States has been attributed to move m e nt by recreational boaters, etc. Although the

practice of dum p ing left-over live bait has not been im plicated in ANS introductions in

the lower C o lum b ia River, it is a potentia l vector for ANS introductions. The bait itself

m a y be an ANS, as could be its packing m a terial or other asso ciated “hitch hiking”

organism s (see live aquatics industry below). Th e risk of bait as ANS m a y increase with

the ava ilab i lity of exotic ba it sp ecies available for purchase on the in ternet (e.g. the

Vietnam e se “nuclear” w o rm ) 10

.

Live Aquatics Industry

The com m e rcial tran spor t of live aqu a tic speci es (for aquaculture, m a riculture, bait,

aquaria trade, water gardens, fisheries, sc ientific supply, etc.) is a vector for both

inten tional and acciden t al introductio n s of aqua tic organism s. Plant and an im al shipm e nts

m a y also include “hitchh i kers”, species that are acciden t ally included with the shipm e nt

as parasites or pathogens and in shipping water and packaging (O lson and Linen 1997).

Organism s in the live aquatics industry have the potential to be dispersed across broad

geographical areas and thus can be releas ed or escape to m a ny different habitats

(Chapm an e t al. 2003). In spit e of this risk, the live aquati cs industry (especially trade in

live seafood) receives less attention than other activities that introduce nonindigenous

species, such as ballast wate r (Chapm an et al 2003).

Ornamentals – the Nursery and Aquarium Trades

W ithin the live aquatics trade orn a m e ntal sp ecies, defined here as those sp ecies so ld for

use in ponds and aquariu m s, pose addition a l risk s. Num e rous nonnativ e aquatic plan ts,

fish, and aquatic invertebrate s are of fered by nurseries and aquarium stores for use in

indoor and outdoor displays. Intentional introdu ctions into the wild m a y be the result of

releases by individuals to “e nhance” a natural area, to de velop a harvestable population

for resale, to hum a nely dispose of/or “free” species, or to con v eniently dispose of

unwanted organism s. According to the Sout hwest Florid a W a tershed Cou n cil, aqu a riu m

10 The 2 0 0 4 O r e g o n Fi shi n g R e gul at i o ns ba n t h e i m port a n d t r ans p ort of l i v e bai t fi s h 1) It i s u n l a w f ul

t o t r a n sp o r t l i v e (fi s h ) bai t bet w een b o d i e s of wat e r , 2) Li ve fi sh m a y not b e use d or hel d fo r use as bai t

, except li ve nongam e fish m a y be use d in the ocean, bays a n d tide w aters when take n from the waterbody in
wh ich th ey will b e u s ed

. h ttp : //www.dfw.state.o r.u s / O DFWh t m l / R egul at i ons/ 2 0 0 4

_ fi s h re gs. p df

LCRA N S pag e 16dum p ing is the leading cause of ANS introductio ns into th e state of Florid a. W h ile m a ny

ornam e ntal species m a y be unable to overwin te r in the lower Colum b ia River ( s uch as

fish in the fam ily Characidae – in clu d ing pira nhas – which have been rep e atedly releas ed

into the system , see Farr and W a rd 1993) there are several established species that are the

result of intentional releases. These incl ude popular aquarium and pond species such as

oriental weatherfish Mis gurnus anguilla caudatus , and goldfish Carassius auratus

, aquatic plan ts lik e Cabomba caroliniana and Egeria densa , and the Chin ese m y stery

snail Cipangopaludina chinensis malleatus . Unintentional introducti ons also result from

flooding or other escapes from outdoor ponds, failure of comm ercial rearing operations,

or im proper disposal of species (especiall y via flow-through drainage system som e ti mes

found in research labs, h a tcheri es, etc.). One examples of an acciden t al in troductions into

the lower C o lum b ia River is the es c a pe of nutria, Myocaster coypus from a fur far m i n

Tillam ook, Oregon during a flood (ODFW 2001).

Biological Control

There is little inf o rm ation on early ef f

o rts at b i olo g ical contro l but the p r actice likely

origin ated w ith th e observation that p r edati on by som e ani m als and/or insects led to the

reduction of unwanted species. Certainly th e dom estication of sm all f e lines by the

Egyptians to reduce the presen ce of sm all rodents is such an exam ple. By 900 AD the

Chinese had begun successfully introducing pred atory ants into their citrus groves to

protect against worm -infested oranges. Offici al attem p ts at b i ological co ntrol in North

Am erican aquatic system s range from the failed introduction of m u skellunge, Esox

masquinongy , into a drinking water reservoir in S a n Francisco in the 1880s to rid the lake

of introduced carp, Cyprinus carpio ( w hich were late r succ ess f ully rem o ved af ter th e

introduction of sea lions, Sm ith 1896), to the re lease of nutria in L ouisiana in the late

1930s by state and federal agencies to contro l unwanted nonnative aquatic plants such as

water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes , and alligator weed, Alternanthera philoxeroides

(USGS 2000).

Grass carp, Ctenopharygodon idella , and m o squito fish, Gambusia affinis , are still in use

as aquatic biological control organism s a nd are found throughout the lower Colum b ia

River. Purple loosestrife, Lythrum s a licar i, is cu rrently th e ta rget of a biological control

LCRA N S pag e 17in the lower Colum b ia using inse cts ( s ee http://www.oda.state.or.us for m o re inform ation

on this pro j e c t).

Pathways

A pathway is the geographic pattern of an invasion. Som e pathways m a y be m o re
successful than others (Chapm an 2000). Due to clim ate compatibili ty and life history

ranges of potential invaders the tem p erate shorelines of continents are m o re likely to b e
invaded by s p ecies from less tem p erate clim ates. Pathway analysis m a y also reflect lo ngestab lished trade rou t es or pa tterns of repeated, high-volum e inoculations from particular

locations. S u ch inform a tion could be vital to m a king m a nagem e nt decisions about which

vectors p r es ented th e greates t risks to a region. F o r exam ple, if introduced species

populations are dom inated by species transported by a particular vector f r om a particular

location, m a nagem e nt actions could be taken to target that p a thway rath er than the entire

vector.

The lower Colum b ia River is pa rt of an esta b lish e d trad e route between eastern As ia and

western North Am erica. Comm er cial shipping traffic routinel y arrives at the five m a jor

deep-wate r ports in the lower rive r from des tinations such as Korea, China, Taiwan and

Japan. This pathway encom p asses the high-ri sk transport of species from less tem p erate

clim ates to the tem p erate western co ast of North Am erica.

Occasional events m a y increas e risk of transportation of nonindigenous species. One

exam ple that is r e lev a nt to the lower Co lum b ia River is the o b servanc e of the

bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. As part of the observance boaters are

encouraged and expected to re-create the jo urney of Lewis and Clark from the Midwest

to the Pacific Ocean. This activity is a pot ential conduit for transporting zebra m u ssels,

Dreissena polymorpha, and other A N S f r om infested waters to the Colu m b ia. More

frequently occurring events such as conven tions and fairs where li ve aquatics m a y be

displayed, sold or bartered, etc. m a y also be ev en ts tha t spor a d ically inc r e a se the risk of

introdu ction s

.

LCRA N S pag e 18

## Chapter 3: Literature Review

Methods

Publications, reports, and colle ction records referring to pr ojects conducted on the low e r

Colum b ia River were reviewed to compile a list of nonnative species reported in the

study area and to identify gaps in the taxa and/or habitats studie d. The goals of the

literature review were to: 1) com p ile a list of non-native species al ready reported from the

Colum b ia River, 2) iden tif y taxa that have b een poorly studied or re presented in previous

studies, and 3) identify areas of pote n tia l ANS hot-spots suc h as habitats associa t ed with

previously reported ANS and cryptogenic specie s, as well a s habita ts th at have been

under studied. All results we re entered into a database.

Due to a dea r th of inf o rm ation on ANS in th e lo wer Colum b ia River the litera t ure re view

was expanded to include all species collections in the study area. The expansion of the

review encompassed m a ny reports that do not discern between native and nonnative

species. The com p iled species list was di stributed to the TA C and other taxonom ic

experts for review.

Personal co ntacts and electron i c database se arches were conducted for infor m ation on

ANS in the lower Colum b ia. Two electron i c da tabases were search ed for journal articles:

BIOSIS Previews and ASFA (Aquatic Scien ce and Fisheries Abstracts). The online

catalog ORBIS (Orbis Cascade Alliance) allo wed a search of participating Pacific

Northwest academ ic libraries including but not lim ited to Portland State University,

Oregon State University and the University of Washington. In addi tion the libraries and

references published by the following orga niz a tions were sea r ched: Colu m b ia River

Estuary Studies Task Force (CREST), Lowe r Colum b ia River Estuary Project (LCREP),

Portland General E l ectric, National Marine F i sh eries Se rvic e (NMFS), Arm y Corps of

Engineers, and the Oregon Department of Fish a nd W ildlif e (ODFW ) . Inf o rm al

interviews of natural re source personnel were conduc ted at m a ny of the above

organiz a tion s . Other rep o rts were re trie ved from a variety of sources using the

Inter lib rary Loan Progra m at Portlan d State Univ ersity.

LCRA N S pag e 19

### Results

The com p lete results of the LCRANS Litera ture Review were published previously and

are availab l e at the Cen t er for Lakes and Reservoirs website ( http://clr/pdx/edu ) . Copies

of the LCRANS database are availa ble upon request from the authors.

Database

The for m at of the database was developed in coordination w ith SERC. The LCRANS

database includes all of the relevant ca tegories proposed by SERC including: tim efram e
of introductions, native and source regions , m ode s of introduction, taxonomy and

synonym y, e t c. The LCRANS database differs from the SERC database in two m a jor

ways - the database includes fields for in form ation collected on native sp ecies in the

lower Colu m b ia River and sever a l f i elds that ap pear in the S E RC database were om itted

or renam e d because they were not applicab le to the freshwater ANS present in the

LCRANS survey (e.g. b i ogeographic ocean prov inces). All d a ta en tered into the

databas e is c r oss- ref e ren ced with a f u ll list of bibliographic sources.

Liter a tur e Review

W ith the exception of f

i s h es, ther e is little h i sto r ical inform ation available on the flora

and fauna of the Colum b ia River. Many of th e in verteb rate taxa, such as o ligochaetes

and epibenthic m e iofauna were poorly studie d. Inform ation on species p r esent in th e

litera t ure wa s com p licate d by potential m i sidentif ications (Le s lie Har r is p e rsonal

communication). Such errors can re s u lt in f a lse c onclusions o n their orig ins (e.g.,

Carlton 1979, Rotram el 1972, Chapm a n 1988, Chapm a n and Carlton 1991, 1994). The

nonindigenous status of a species occurring in the Colum b ia River or elsewhere in

northeast Pacific m a y not be apparent until th e organism is discovered and described as

indigenous in its native habita t, or u n til the syno nym i es of the local species with

populations in other parts of th e world are resolved (a tim e consum ing undertaking that is

outside the scope of m o s t parochial biological surveys) 11

.

11 Publishe d i n form ation ass o ci ated with a s p e c ies is only acc essible under the scie ntific na me of t h at species. T h e na m e s of specie s cha n ge as e r rors in ta xonomy are c o rrected. Fe w s p ecies t h at ha ve bee n

reco g n i zed fo r l o n g peri ods o r are wi del y di st ri b u t e d h a v e been static in t h eir no m e n c latu re; m o st sp ecies
bear m a ny epithets. W i dely distri buted s p ecies are often m i sidentified as new s p ecies when they a r e found
far aw ay fro m th e lo calities wh ere th ey w e re o r i g in ally d e scrib e d

. Track i ng th e synon ymies and n a m e changes is com p licated but ne cessary to allow for search es for info rm atio n on a sp ecies un d e r its p r ev iou s

LCRA N S pag e 20Three pro j ects have com p rehensiv ely surveyed th e fauna of the lower Colum b ia River.

In 1984 the results of the Colum b ia Ri ver Estuary Data Developm ent Program

(CREDDP) were published to augment th e Atlas of Physical and Biological

Characte r is tics of the Colum b ia River Estuary. In the ea rly 19 90s the Bi-S tate W a ter

Quality Pro g ram published its find ings on the state of the lo wer Colum b ia River. Lastly,

in 1999, the Environm ental Protection Agency conducted a two-year sam p ling effort in

the lower C o lum b ia River as pa rt of its Environm ental Monitoring and Assessm ent

Program W e st Coast Pro j ect (EMAP).

Using these three com p r e hensive su rveys and se v e ral s i te-spe cific stud ies (Table 1 ) , we

com p iled an inventory of the flora and fauna of the lower Colum b ia River. Many of the

previous s t u d ies were lim ited in taxonom i c and geographic scope.

nam e s. Each e r r o r i n t h e t a x o nom y of a spec i e s pre v e n t s ac cess t o i n f o rm at i on un de r t h e cor r ect nam e s. W i t h ou t con tinu o u s rev i sion s, lo cal taxon o m ic literatu re d o es no t in cl u d e in fo rm atio n on n e w d i scov eries
el sewhe r e i n t h e w o rl d. The t a xo n o m y of A N S t h ere f o r e r e qui res c ont i n u ous ree v al uat i o n , base d o n t h e

wo rl d t a x o n o m i c devel opm ent s

.

LCRA N S pag e 21Table 1. Principal biol ogic a l surve y s of the low er Columbia River consulte d by the literature re view.

Sampling
Period Organisms Tar g eted Sites Agen cy or Prog ram (P ublishe d Re fer e n c e s )

1 9 6 2

- 1 9 6 3 F i s h Lower W i l l a m e t t e (Hutchinson and Aney 1964)

1963-1964 Fish freshwater tribu t aries of th e lower Colum b ia (Reimers 1964, Reimers and Bo nd 1967)

1963-65 fish, ben t hic inv e rtebr a tes

, zooplank t on sites on the m a in stem to Harrington Poin t (Osterberg 165

, Haertel & Oster b erg 1967, Haertel 1970)

1971-1972 Zooplankton Columbia Riv e r estuar y NMFS (Misitan o 1974)

1973 fish, ben t hic inv e rtebr a tes

, zooplank t on Lower Colum b ia River NMFS & USACE (McConnell et al. 1973; Durkin 1973;
Durkin & McCo nnell 1973; McC onnell et al. 197 3;
Misitano 1973 ; Sanborn 1973)

1973-75 fish, ben t hic inf a una Youngs Bay and tribu t aries OSU (Higley & Holton 1975; C R EDDP 1980a,b )

1975-1977 fish, ben t hic inv e rtebr a tes

, plants Miller Sands USACE (Clairai n et al. 1977)

1975-77 ? fish, ben t hic inv e rtebr a tes Estuarin e beach es of Columbia
River NMFS (Durkin et a l

. 1977)

1975-78 Benthos Alder Creek in Youngs Bay (M ontagne & As soc. 1977 , in CR EDDP 1980a)

1975-78 benthos lower estu ar y OSU (Higley et al. 1976 ; Hig l ey & Holton 1978); CREDDP 1980a)

1978-80 tidal marsh plants Columbia Riv e r estuar y CREDDP (MacDonald & Winfield 1984)

1980-81 Fish primarily in the main stem of
the Co lum b ia Ri ver estu ar y CREDDP, NMF S & ODFW (Bottom et a l

. 1984, Bottom and Jones 1990)

1 9 8 0 s M a m m a l s lower C o l u m b i a River CREDDP (Howerton 1984)

1978-80 benthic inf a una lower Columbia River CREDDP (Holton 1984)

1978-80 epiben thic organ i sms lower Colu mbia River CREDDP (Sime n stad 1984)

1980-81 benthic inv e rtebr a tes Baker B a y n ear I l waco NMFS (Furota & Emmett 1993 )

1 9 8 0 s b e n t h i c inv e rtebr a t e s Cath lamet Bay NMFS & USFWS (Emmett et al. 1986; Durkin et al. 1982)

1 9 8 7

- 1 9 9 2 b e n t h i c inv e rtebr a t e s , demersal fish es freshwater m a in stem of th e lower Colum b ia River NMFS (McCabe and Hin t on 199 0, McCab e et al. 1990,
McCabe and Hinton 1993, McC a be et al. 1993 , McCabe et al. 1997)

1990-92 benthi c inv e rt ebr a tes m outh to Bonne ville Dam BSWQP (Ellis & DeGasperi 19 94)

1991-1994 fish, ben t hic inv e rtebr a tes Rice Island , Miller Sands NMFS (Hinton et al. 1992a, Hinton et al. 1992b, McCabe

et al. 1993 , McC a be et al. 1996)

1990-1992 Fish lower Willamette Ri v e r ODFW (Ward and Nigro 1992)

1995 fish, ben t hic inv e rtebr a tes Tres tle Bay USACE (Hinton & Emmett 2000 )

1998 freshwater br y o zoans Willam e tt e Riv e r (Marsh and Woo d 2002)

1999-2000 benthi c inv e rt ebr a tes m outh to Bonneville Dam WEMAP 12

, WDE & ODEQ

2001-2002 fish, ben t hic inv e rtebr a tes lo wer Willamette Riv e r ODFW, City o f Portland (North et al. 2002)

2002 Plants lower Columbia River LCREP

2003 Plants Astoria shorelin e CREST (CREST 2003)

12 Portion s o f th e 19 99-200 0 WEMAP Surv ey d a ta fro m th e did no t b eco m e av ailab l e u n til th e literatu re revie w was c o m p le ted and a r e not re flected in the previ ous LCRANS Lite rature Revie w release.

LCRA N S pag e 22The literature review revealed uneven coverage of taxa. Nonnative fishes and aquatic

plants (subm e rsed, floating, em ergent and m a rsh) were the most abundant introduced

taxa of the lower Columbia (Table 2). Native and non-native fishes of the lower

Colum b ia River and its tribut aries have been well described (Hutchinson and Aney 1964,

Reim ers and Bond 1967, McConnell et al. 1973, Bottom et al. 1984, W a rd and Nigro

1992, North et al. 2002, but there was lit tle inform ation on nonnative and cryptogenic

inver t ebra te s. These spe c ies wer e po orly-s tudied and rar e ly id entif ied a s introduced o r
potentially introduced s p ecies. A com p lete spe c ies lis t is a v ailab l e in Appendix B.

Inten tiona lly and uninten tiona lly in tr oduced spec ies ar e pre s e n t in th e low e r Colum b ia

River. The non-native fishes were dom i nated by intenti onally introduced species. The

inver t ebra te s were considered pr im arily un inten t ional introd uctions.

Ta ble 2

. Sum mar y of nonin d igen ous an d cryp t ogenic s p ecies com p iled during the li terature

r e v ie w, lis t e d b y maj o r tax o n o m i c ca t e go ry

.

T a x o n N o n i n d i g e n o u s Species Cryptogenic Species

* Indicates species counts that in clude introdu ctio ns that failed or are t hought to h a ve failed to become established, fo r ex ample: Homerus americanus has b een introduced intentionally w ith no known surviving populations. # May include na tive species that w e re misiden tified

. P l a n t s 2 3 5

Mamm a l s 1 0

H e r p t i l e s 3 0

F i s h e s 3 6 * 1

A n n e l i d s 6 37 #

Am p h i p o d s 1 3
C o p e p o d s 6 12 #

D e c a p o d s 4 * 0

I s o p o d s 1 1

B i v a l v e s 2 0
G a s t r o p o d s 2 0

The cryptog enic spe c ies list com p iled during th e literature review in clud es species, that

have been identified as non-native, but for wh ich the validity of the identif ications is

uncertain and unverifiable. This is principa lly suspected of species in poorly studied

taxonom ic groups (e.g., polychaete wor m s, aqua tic insects, o ligochaetes ). Consulting

taxonom ists concluded that m a ny of these spec ies were not correctly identified in the

papers and reports surveyed. Mis-identifications could have resulted fro m the use of

LCRA N S pag e 23inaccu rate local keys, in experienced taxonom is ts, or attem p ts to fit unreco gnized non

native species into lo cal species k e ys

.

From the literature review we concluded that there are b i ological comm unities and

habitats within the lower Colum b ia River that are poorly studied. Patchy habitats and

poorly characterized areas exist in the estuar y as well as further upriver. Several ANS

such as the anthozoa, Nematostella vectens i s , and Japanese eelgrass, Zostera japonica

, have been reported from the two relatively high salinity bays at the m outh of the

Colum b ia; Trestle Bay and Baker Bay (F urota and Emm e tt 1993, Hinton and Emmett

2000, EMAP unpublished data) but no follow up in form ation exists on these populations.

Although common along the m a in-stem

, tidal freshwater sloughs are also poorly

charac ter i ze d and m a ny exist adjac e n t to m a jor deep-water ports, featu r es that m a de them

of special interest to this survey. W e hypothesized that such areas m a y provide

protection from strong flushing events and could therefore provide non-native aquatic

m acrophytes, insects and epibenthic invertebrate s opportunities to establish. Other sites

of interest to us had record s where a variety of poorly ch aracterized organism s, i.e.

oligochaetes, were collected but no t identif ied to species.

LCRA N S pag e 24

## Chapter 4: Field Sampling

Methods

The 2002 and 2003 field surveys were guided by sam p ling plans built on prior knowledge

and reviewed by the TAC. The lite r a ture revi ew was integr al to the dev e lopm ent of a

stra tif ied an d adaptiv e s a m p ling plan. Lim ited resources an d the re lativ e ly la rge a r e a
requir e d tha t we identif y areas of in te rest su ch as locations clo s ely asso ciated with ballast

water r e lea s e, habitats w ith pr evious ly re ported ANS and cryptogenic species, and areas

that have been understudied previously. It was also deem ed important to avoid

duplication of new and ongoing pr ojects, (i.e. the EMAP survey conducted by the EP A,

ODEQ and WDOE); we wanted to conduct sam p ling com p lem e ntary to these efforts.

The 2002 survey focused on taxa and habitats that were poorly represented in the

literature, sites that could be re-sam pled at regular intervals in a long-term monitoring

program , and/or sites that had a r e lia b le his t or ica l reco rd to perm it evaluation of invasion

rates. In 20 03, we re-sa m pl ed those stations id en tified as po tentia l long -term m onitoring

stations, and som e additional new stations. W h enever app r opriate, m e m b ers of the TAC

were asked to comment on the targeted sam p ling ef f

o rts, spec ies id entif ic ations, and

regional ANS infor m ation. W h en sampling was lim ited by access and w eather we either

arrang ed to r e turn to thos e sta tions o r attem p ted to sam p le as near to those locations as

possible.

The taxonom i c scope of the LCRANS projec t was lim ited to free- living macrophytes and

anim als, except in unm istakable cases of disease causing org a nism s and parasites, which

were noted when they were observed. Taxa that have not been well studied by previous

investigators were the prim ary focus of these surveys. W e did not conduct surveys of the

f i shes, whic h are th e m o st stud ied f a una of the lo wer Colum b ia River, o r the insec t s,
which we could not identify to species reliably.



### Locations

Seventy-two stations were sam p led from the Bonneville Dam to the Pacific Ocean

between April 2002 and October 2002 (Figure 4). Fifty-three sites were sampled by

invertebrate and aquatic m acrophyte experts. The rem a ining nineteen stations were

LCRA N S pag e 25sam p led specifically for nonindigenous aqua tic macrophytes (although the presence of

nonnative m o llusks was also noted when apparent at these sites). In 2003, 62 stations

were sam p led (Figure 4 )

. Invertebra te co mmunities were sam p led at 36 stations and

plant surveys conducted at m o re than 30 stat ions between May and September. In 2003,

phytoplankton surveys were conducte d at seven stations in the lower river. Gaps in the

spatial distribution of 2002 sam p ling were also addressed, in cluding the W illam e tte River

and parts of the m a inste m of the lower Colum b ia that had no t been adequ a tely sam p led in

2002. In 2003 we devoted m o re sa mpling effort to the m a instem of the Colum b ia in the

estuary, b e tween Portland and Bonneville Dam

, and on the W illam e tte River. In

addition, special effort was m a de to sam p le and identify soft-bodied benthic organism s
such as polychaete worm s. A m o re t horough aquatic m acrophyte survey was also

conducted that noted m acroinver tebrate communities associat ed with both native and

nonnative aquatic plants (Figure 5). At som e locations only nonnative species of aquatic

plants were noted.



### Techniques

The m a jor substrates and m i crohabitats sam p led included intertidal and subtidal m ud,

sand, gravel, cobbles, ro cks, banks, artificial subs trates such as floats and p ilings, and

aquatic plan ts. Every accessib l e hab itat at each sam p ling station was sampled. Sam p ling

was conducted at various lengths of tim e at each location, d e p e nding on th e num ber of

habita ts pr es ent; s a m p ling usually o c curred du rin g low tide. Estuary sam p ling was

scheduled to coincide with negative low tid es during daylight hours to increase access to

hard substrates. Tidal amplitudes in the freshwater reach of Colum b ia River abov e
Longview did not affect access to su bstrates . A variety of sampling m e thods were

em ployed including collection by hand, scraping substrata using a 2-mm m e sh stainless

steel m e sh sieve attached to a long pole developed specifi cally for sam p ling vertical

fouling communities, a 0.0225-m 2 Petite Ponar grab sam p ler, 700- μ m epibenth ic sle d , a

250- μ m mes h zooplankton net, a 80- μ m m e sh phytoplankton net, a plant rake, several

types of kick and dip nets. Sam p ling was conducted to obtain the best qualitative

coverage possible. Quantitative sampling pr otocols and precise species counts were not

deem ed necessary in ord e r to dev e lo p a com p rehensive lis t of species p r es ent.

LCRA N S pag e 26Benthic organism s were collected by vigorous ly agitating m ud, sand, gravel and rock

sam p les in water to su s p end organic m a terial and sm all invertebrates. The suspensions

were decan ted through a series of m e sh sieves (2-mm, 1- mm m e sh, and 0.5-mm ) to retain

suspended o r ganism s. The washing and d ecantin g procedure was repea t e d until the

m a jority of organism s in the sam p les were rem oved. Sub-samples were m a de only when

the to tal vo lum e of organism s retain ed on the s i eves exceed ed the volum e of the larg est

sam p le containers.

In 2003 m a ny sam p les were collected specifica lly for oligochaete analysis by Steve Fend.

Depending on field conditions these sam p les we re either p i cked live and un-sieved o r
preserved un-sieved for later sorting with 200- μ m sieves. Live specim e ns were preserved

by f i rst ana e s thetizing th e sam p le in dilute alcoh o l f o r 10 m i nutes, th en f i xing by s l o w ly

adding a form alin-alcohol-acetic acid (FAA) solution.

Bulky sam p l e s of aquatic plants, peat, rock s or gravel or other sim ilarly course

substratum s, were washed on a 4-mm or 2-mm mesh sieve in a 20-liter dishpan. Large

organism s and unique organism s were rem oved direc tly to sa m p le containers. Sm aller

organism s were cap tured by decantin g the wash water th roug h 0.5-mm and 1-mm m e sh

sieves. Th is procedur e was repea t e d until m o st of the inver t ebrates in th e sam p le were

acquired

LCRA N S pag e 27Fi gure 4. L C RA NS sa mpl i n g l o ca ti o n s 2 0 0 2
, 2 0 03

LCRA N S pag e 28      Sa m p l i ng Loc ations  P h yt op l ankt o n

0 7 5 150 37.5 Ki lo m e t e r s

    



     

     

  



 

 





     

      

    Sa m p l i ng Loc ations  P l ant s

0 7 5 150 37.5 Ki lo m e t e r s 
   

 



  

 

   

           

   



      

  Sa m p l i ng Loc ations  Zoopl an k t on

0 7 5 150 37.5 Ki lo m e t e r s

Figure 5. Dis t ribution of L C RANS s a m p le types 2002-2003

Organism s retain ed on the sieves o r picked out o f sam p les were placed in to plas tic b a gs
or jar s of water f r om the sam p le locati on for later exam ination and sorting in the

laboratory. Live sam p les we re kept on ice and processed on the sam e day they were

collected. T h ese collection m e thods usua lly produced large num b ers of undam a ged

invertebrates suitable for ta xonom ic identifications.

Zooplankton and phytoplankton were collected with water colum n plankton hauls m a de

either off a dock or from a boat with a 0.25-m diam eter, 250- μ m mesh plankton net

(zooplankton) and an 80- μ m mesh plankton net (phytoplankt on). The net was lowered to

the bottom

, and after several m i nutes was slowly pulled to the surf ace

. In the labo rato r y , each plank t o n sam p le wa s exam ined under a dissecting m i cro s cope, and represen tativ e s
of each species were removed. If necessary for id entification, diagnostic p a rts (e.g., fifth

legs of copepods) were rem oved and exam ined under a com pound m i croscope.

LCRA N S pag e 29Sorting thousands of specim e ns collected in som e of the fouling and benthic sam p les was

im practical and unneces sary for the purposes of the survey. Therefore, in the final

sorting, abundant and highly visib l e species were collected only during the first 40-60

m i nutes and then an additional 40-60 m i nut es of s o rting was perform e d under a

stereom i croscope to collect ra rer or inconspicuous species. L i ve sorting of the sam p les

allowed id e n tif ica tion o f species th a t were unique in behavior or coloration, and that

m i ght have been overlooked in fixed sam p le s. The large size of the benthic s a m p les

greatly inc r e a sed the p r o b abilities of colle cting all spec ies pr e s ent.



### Classification of spe c ies

Distinctions between nonindigenous, crypt ogenic and native species were based on

criteria for introduced species developed by Lindroth (1957), Carlton (1979), W e bb

(1985), Chapm a n (1988), and Chapm a n and Car lton (1991, 1994) (Table 3). Application

of these criteria to each sp ecies requ ired detailed inform ation on their tax onom y , biogeography, ecology, and life histories. Ther efore, taxa for which this infor m ation did

not exist (e.g., non-comm ercial species, poorly known groups) were difficult to assess.

Species were considered native when m o st of the criter ia were not m e t and introdu ced

when m o st of the criteria were m e t. The de gree of certain ty of the class i fication of each

species was assessed f r o m the num ber of criter ia that app lied

, and the qua lity of the d a ta

used to ass e ss the criteria. Satisfaction of a single criterion was rarely suf f icient ev idence

that a species is in troduced. Satisfaction of m u ltiple criteria, however, was considered

definitiv e for the non indigenous or native o r ig in s of species even though the criteria are

large l y subjectiv e. Spec ies f o r whic h evid ence o f these criteria was m i xed or unclear

were defined as cryptogenic (Carlton 1996). All specim e ns that were identified to

species level were classif i ed acco rdin g to th e native vs. nonnative crit eria. Species that

could not be identified to species were clas s i fied as cryptog en ic. Application of the

criter ia re lie d on the qua lity of asso ciated sys t em atic, ecolog i cal, and h i storica l data.

Pertin ent inf o rm ation was of ten lack ing, and spec ies were included in the s e analys es o n ly

when they were conf iden tly id entif ie d.

LCRA N S pag e 30LCRANSpage31Table3.Criteriafor introduced speciesmodified fromChapman and Carlton (1991,1994) andLindroth(1957), Carlton (1979),Webb (1985),Chapman (1988).(1) Historical records of introduction. (Game, aquaculture, agriculture or otherwise intentionallyintroduced species are commonlyrecorded uponentry.)(2)Association with humanmechanismsof introduction.(Speciesare associated with particularmechanismsofintroduction bytimingand location of arrivaland direct observations ofassociation such as organismsthat occurin the fouling communities on the hulls of shipsor oystersor in ballastwater discharged fromships,aquariumpets.)(3) The absencefrom fossil deposits or fromNativeAmerican shellmiddens in regions where the species is present. (Species with hard parts, such as angiosperms,diatoms, sponges, mollusks, bryozoans, echinoderms, and vertebrates leave fossil remains that can be of sufficient qualityforspecies identifications.Their presence inprehuman fossildeposits is evidence of native origins. Therefore, their absence in fossil assemblages of communities in wheretheypresentlyoccur is evidence of theirrecent appearance. Fossils are not as usefulfor species of generasuch as the bivalvesMytilusandEnnuculathat are extremelydifficult to distinguishbymorphologicallyand peracaridanfossils are all but unknown.)(4) Insufficient natural dispersal mechanisms to create the entireglobal distribution of a species. (Many species do nothavespecialized adult or larval dispersal stages orassociations with natural dispersal mechanisms that could transportthem across major geographic barriers. The occurrence on both sides of dispersal barriers bysuchspecies is evidence oftheir nonindigenous status.)(5) Appearance inregionswherenot found previously.(Recent appearances of conspicuous species such as the green crab and theChinese mitten crab in the northeastPacific or a charismatic speciessuch as the cholera bacterium,Vibrio choleraein the southeast Pacific where theywould notbe overlooked previouslyare evidence thattheywere introduced byhumanactivities.)(6) Discontinuous or otherwise incomplete local distributions relative to those of ecologicallysimilar endemic species.(Incomplete dispersal bythe mechanism ofintroduction, poor adaptation tothe range oflocal conditions, and earlystages of invasion within newgeographic rangescreate disjunctdistributionsthat are uncommonamong native species.)(7) Recent spreadfrom oneor a fewlocations to broad geographical areas. (Introductions invariably begin in isolated areas due to theuneven occurrences of themechanisms of dispersal. Thus, ballast water introductionsspread from shipping ports and aquacultureintroductions spread from areas where aquaculture activities occur.)(8) Close associations with otherintroduced species. (Spatial associations of introduced species result, in small part, fromtheir common mechanisms of dispersal andpossiblyin greater part from thepatchy, aggregateddistributions of introductions due topoorlyunderstood ecological and biological factors. The foulingcommunities offloats in San Francisco Bayaredominated byANS that are identified byother criteria. Additionally, the specialization of some parasites and predatorson a single introducedspecies can reveal their nonindigenous origins.)(9) Restriction to newor artificial environments. (Introduced aquatic species commonlyare restricted to substratums orhabitats, such as cement orstyrofoam floats, pilings,rip-rap overmudflats, and boat hulls, that were absent, uncommonor ephemeral before European settlement. A complete dependenceon such artificialsubstratums isunlikelyamongnative species.)(10) Conspecificwith geographicallyisolated populations. (All recent introductionsare geographically isolated from their native populations and therefore, all recentlyintroduced species are conspecific withgeographicallyisolated native populations.)(11) Non-endemic evolutionaryorigins apparent frommembershipin a non-indigenous taxonomic group. (Introduced species are often morphologicallyorgeneticallymostsimilar to geographicallyisolated taxonomic groups rather than local groups.)(12) Non-endemic evolutionaryorigins apparent fromecologicalor physiological adaptations. (Manyintroduced species are fromclimateswere temperature ranges exceedthose in the newlocation or wheretheyescape parasites or diseases. Some introduced species tolerate temperatures, for instance, thatdo no exist in the newlocations.Other ANS are vulnerable to nonindigenous parasites, such as the green crab totheparasitic barnacleSacculina carcini, to which the native northeast Pacificspecies arenot vulnerable.Transportation vectors, dates of discovery and the definition of native range relied

heavily on availab l e eco logical and h i storical data and m a y not re presen t the definitiv e
pattern of introduction (i.e. wh en it arrived, how it arrived, and where it cam e directly

from ), inform ation which rem a ins unknown fo r m a ny species. W h en m o re than one

vector was f ound in the literatu re or determ ined from species ’ life history characteristics

all of them were inc l ud ed in the res u lts. The following vectors were assigned to each

introdu ced s p ecies where appropriate.

• Aquarium - intentiona l aquarium disposal by an individual into waters of the
basin

• Ornam e ntal - ornam e ntal species esca pe (e.g. flooding of a private pond), release, or improper di sposal by an individual

• Release by individual - other types of release by individuals (i.e. does not include aquarium or ornam e ntal species or actions taken by state or federal agencies) release m y be intentional o r acciden t al (e.g. dum ping of bait or bait packing m a teria l in to water, un inten t i onal transpo r t of species in rec r ea tion a l gear, release of live food species for religious or hum a ne purposes, etc.

• Accidental - acciden t al introduction acco m p anying inten tion a l in troduction of a different species by a stat e or federal agency (doe s not include introductions
associated w ith oyster p l anting ;

• Escape - e s c a pe f r om com m e rcial cu ltiv ation

• Fishery enhancem ent - intentionally introdu ced f o r f i shery or wildlif e enhancem ent by an agen cy rath er th an an indiv i d u al

• Solid ballast - entrained w ith solid ballast used by ships in the 1800s before
ballast water becam e prevalent

• Ballas t wate r – collected and transpo r ted in balla s t water take n on to stab ilize

com m e rcial, m ilita ry and other ves s els

• Ship fouling - transported as part of the fouling comm unity on the hulls of ships, ancho r chains, etc.

• Gradual spread – species arrived via natural m echanism s of spread from introduced populations outside of the lo wer Columbia River (i.e. transported by birds, wind, water, etc.) often associat ed with Japanese o r Atlantic Oyster
introdu ction s in othe r es tuaries

• Biological control – specie s introdu ced intentio nally by an agency or an individual for biolog ical control purposes

LCRA N S pag e 32

## Chapter 5: Result s and Discussion

Field Survey Results

Sa m p les were collected from the field at the 134 sam p ling stations. W e docum ented 269

aquatic species (and 55 other distinct organism s that we were unable to id entif y at the

species level and are labele d as “unknown” in the following figures) in the lower

Colum b ia River. Of the 269 species iden tified, 54 (21%) were introduced, 92 (34%)

were native, and 123 (45%) were cryptogenic. It is im portant to note that vertebrates

were not in tentiona lly ta rgeted in our sa m p ling and not all native plants (especially

em ergent and m a rsh species) were recorded durin g plant su rv eys.

The introduced, native, and unknown species co llected from t h e lower Colum b ia River

were m o stly inver t ebra te s (Figure 6 )

. There were slightly m o re cryptogenic

phytoplankton than cryptogenic invertebra tes. The cryptogenic phytoplankton and

invertebrates accounted for nearly half of all the species coll ected. The low num b er of

vertebrates collected can be attributed to sa m p ling m e thods and does not reflect the actual

num b er of verteb rates (especially fis h ) presen t in the lower river. In add i tion, thes e da ta

do not reflect all of the n a tive p l ants presen t (prim a rily em er gent and m a rsh species)

because thos e species were not r ecord ed during p l ant survey s.

P l an ts /P h y to pl an k t o n I n v e rte b ra tes V erte bra t e s 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Number of Species In tro d u c ed

Na ti ve

Cry p to ge ni c

Un kn ow n

Fi gure 6. L C RA NS fi eld s u rvey species c o llections br oken down by major ta xonomic gr oup and

o r ig in.

LCRA N S pag e 33Crustaceans were the m o st abundant introdu ced invertebrates (42%) follow e d by annelids

(30%) (Figure 7). The introdu ced in verteb rates were dom inat ed by benthic organism s.

Benthic invertebrates accounted for 61% of all introduced invertebrates collected and

36% of the total num ber of introduced species. F ouling organism s (organism s capable of

attaching to surfaces like st one, concrete, wood, piers, dock s , and boat hulls) com p rised

23% of the introduced invertebrates. Pe lagic organism s accounted for the rem a ining

invertebrates.PhytoplanktonMacroalgaePlantsAnnelidsMollusksCrustaceanOtherInvertebraAmphibianMammals 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Numberof speciesstesFishs In tro d u c ed

N ative

C r y ptog en ic

Un k n o w n

Fi gure 7. L C RA NS fi eld s u rvey species c o llections br oken down by minor taxonomic gr oup and

o r ig in

Although vertebrates were not specif ically targ eted by this effort five introduced fishes

and one m a mmal were docum ented (Figure 7 ) . The single introduced m a mmal was the

nutria, Myocaster coypus , a sem i -aquatic rodent that was seen at num erous stations along

the W illam e tte Rive r.

Cryptogenic species numbers we re dom i nated by phytoplankt on, oligochaetes and m a ny
types of zooplankton (Figure 7) for which little infor m ation is available on native range.

All of diatom s, dinoflagellates, and other phy top l ankton co llected were classified as

LCRA N S pag e 34cryptogenic in this study. In addition, several of the species collected, such as

Gasterosteus aculeatus or Branchiura sowerbyi, are subject to cha nging expert opinions

on origin.

Eight of the 54 introdu ced species collected were new records for the lowe r Colum b ia

River. One of these species, the olig ochaete Eukerria sa ltensis , appears to be a new

record for th e W e st Coast. The other seven species, the o ligo c haetes Branchiura

sowerbyi, Chaetogaster diaphanous, Paranais frici, and Stylodrilus heringianus , the

purple varnish clam

, Nuttallia obscur a ta , the Chinese m y stery snail, Cipangopaludina

chinens i s mallea t us, and the crus taceans Limnoithona tetraspina and Me lita cf. n itida

have been reported previously at o t her W e st Coast locations.



### Literature Review and Field Survey Results

Com b ing the results from both the field surveys conducted in 2002 and 2003 with the

results of th e ear lie r lite r a ture review (com pl ete litera ture review results a v ailab l e a t

http://www.clr.pdx.edu/) we determ ined that at least 81 new organism s have been

introduced into the lower Colum b ia River since the m i d 1800s (Figure 8, Table 4). 13 The

m a jority of these spec ies were f i sh (2 8%), aquatic plants (23%) a nd crustacea (15%).

The rem a ining 18% was a com b ination of m o llusks, annelids, bryozoans, cnidaria,

am phibians, reptiles and an aquatic mammal.

13 Those species not c o llected by LCRANS in 2002 or 2003 a r e s p ecies c o llected either by WEMAP in
th e lower Co lum b ia in 1 9 9 9 an d 200 0 and v a lid ated b y t h e sa m e tea m o f tax ono m i sts as u s ed b y LCRANS,

o r

sp ecies no ted in th e LCRANS literature rev i ew and co nfirm e d b y reg i on al taxo no m i st s or o u r team o f

expe rt s.

LCRA N S pag e 35PhytoplanktonMacroalgaeVascular PlantsAnnelidsMollusksCrustaceansOther InvertebratesFishHerptilesMammals 0 5 10 15 20 25

LC RANS LITERAT URE R EVIEW

Figure 8. Number of intr oduced s p ecies in various taxa in the lower Colum b ia Ri ver fr om the
literature re view and field s u rve y

.

LCRA N S pag e 36Table 4.Invasiondates andmechanismsof introduction forall introduced speciespresentin the lowerColumbia River. Thistabledoes notincludeone-timeunsuccessfulintroductionsor seasonallylimited introductions suchas piranha,lobster,etc.reported from theliterature review.All speciesincludedonthis list asa resultoftheliterature review appearwithoutbold lettering and were reviewed for inclusiononthis list byfield andtaxonomicexperts beforelabeling themaspresent inthe lower ColumbiaRiverbasin.SpeciesCommonNameNativeRange1st WesternCollection1st LCRCollectionVectorRecordMechanism abbreviations: AQ = aquarium disposal, OR = ornamental species (escape, release,disposal), RI =release byindividual (not considered anaquarium orornamentalspecies nor released bya state orfederal agency),AX = accidentalintroduction accompanying intentional introduction, ES = escape from commercial cultivation, FS= fisheriesorwildlife enhancement, intentional bya state orfederal agency,SB = solid ballast, BW= ballast water, SF = ship fouling, GS = gradualspread fromother introduction locationsoutside of the river, and BC = biological control organismPLANTSVascularCabombacarolinianaCarolinafanwortNA, SA?AQLCRANSCallitriche stagnalispondwater starwortEUR-ASIA1871, 1902?BW,SBLCRANSCotulacoronopifoliabrass buttonsAF1878?SBLCRANSEgeria densaelodeaSA?1944ORLCRANSIrispseudocorusyellowflag irisEUR1860s?ORLCRANSLythrum salicariapurple loosestrifeEUR1880s?OR, GS, SBLCRANSMyriophyllum aquaticumparrot's featherSA<1957?ORLCRANSMyriophyllum spicatumEurasian milfoilEUR, AF1976?AQLCRANSMentha aquaticawater mintEUR??GS, OR, RILITREVMentha aquatica x spicatapeppermintEUR??GS, RILITREVLudwigia uruguayensiswater primroseSA?1956ORLITREVNymphaeaodoratafragrantwater lilyNA??OR, RILCRANSPhalaris arundinaceareed canary grassNA??GSLCRANSPhragmites australiscommon reedNA??GSLCRANSPotamogeton crispuscurlyleaf pondweedEUR-ASIA?1947RI, OR, AX, ESLCRANSSagittariasubulataawl-leaf arrowheadNA??AQLCRANSTyphaangustifolianarrow-leaf cattailEUR-ASIA1951?ORLCRANSVallisneria Americanawater celeryNA1900s?FSLCRANSZosterajaponicaJapanese eelgrassNWPacific??GSLCRANSLCRANSpage37LCRANSpage38Table 4. cont.SpeciesCommonNameNativeRange1st WesternCollection1st LCRCollectionMechanism ofIntroductionRecordMechanism abbreviations: AQ = aquarium disposal, OR = ornamental species (escape, release,disposal), RI =release byindividual (not considered anaquarium orornamentalspecies nor released bya state orfederal agency),AX = accidentalintroduction accompanying intentional introduction, ES = escape from commercial cultivation, FS = fisheries orwildlife enhancement, intentional bya state orfederal agency,SB= solid ballast, BW= ballast water, SF = ship fouling, GS =gradualspread fromother introduction locations outsideof the river, andBC = biological control organismINVERTEBRATESBryozoaFredericella indicaNA?1999GS, AX, RILCRANSPectinatella magnificaNA?1999GS, AX, RILCRANSAnthozoaNematostella vectensisNWAtlantic19461994SB, BWLCRANSHydrozoaCordylophoralacustrisEURca 19201965BW, SFLCRANSOligochaetaBranchiura sowerbyiBlack-CaspianSea19502002SB, BW, RILCRANSChaetogaster diaphanousnot known20022003SB, BW, RILCRANSEukerria saltensisSA?2003SB,?LCRANSParanais friciEUR19612003SB, BW, RILCRANSStylodrilusheringianusEUR?2003SB, BW, RILCRANSPolychaetaHobsonia floridaNA19401975BW,AXLCRANSManayunkia aesturinaNA?1981BWLCRANSManayunkia speciosaNA19611999AX,BWLCRANSPolydora cornutaN. Atlantic19321981BW, SF, GSLCRANSPseudopolydora kempiNWPacific19511991BW, SF, GSLITREVStreblospio benedictiN Atlantic19321999BW, SF, GSLCRANSGastropodaCipangopaludinachinesismalleatusChinese mysterysnailASIA1950s2002*OR, AQLCRANSLCRANSpage39Table 4. cont.SpeciesCommonNameNativeRange1st WesternCollection1st LCRCollectionMechanism ofIntroductionRecordMechanism abbreviations: AQ = aquarium disposal, OR = ornamental species (escape, release,disposal), RI =release byindividual (not considered anaquarium orornamentalspecies nor released bya state orfederal agency),AX = accidentalintroduction accompanying intentional introduction, ES = escape from commercial cultivation, FS = fisheries orwildlife enhancement, intentional bya state orfederal agency,SB= solid ballast, BW= ballast water, SF = ship fouling, GS =gradualspread fromother introduction locations outsideof the river, andBC = biological control organismPotamopyrgusantipodarumNewZealand mudsnailAUS-NZ1980s<1995AX, GSLCRANSBivalviaCorbicula flumineaAsian clamASIA19241932RILCRANSMya arenariasoft-shell clamNA, EUR1874<1900SB, BW, GSLCRANSNuttallia obscuratapurple varnishclamASIA19902003BW, RILCRANSCrustaceaBalanusimprovisusbay barnacleNA, EUR1853<1900SF, SB, BWLCRANSAcartiellasinensisASIA19791997BWLITREVLimnoithona sinensisASIA?1979BWLITREVLimnoithonatetraspinaASIA19932003BWLCRANSPseudodiaptomusforbesiASIA?1999BWLCRANSPseudodiaptomusinopinusASIA?1990BWLCRANSSinocalanusdoerriASIA19781999BWLCRANSTachidius(Neotachidius)triangulariASIA?1990sBWLCRANSNippoleucon hinumensisASIA19791999BWLCRANSCaecidotea racovitzai racovitzaiEUR19721999BWLCRANSCrangonyxpseudogracilisEUR19981999BWLCRANSGrandidierella japonicaASIA19661999BW,SFLCRANSExopalaemon modestusSiberian prawnEUR-ASIA19951995BW, RILCRANSSinelobus cf.stanfordinot known19431943BW, SFLCRANSMelita cf. nitidaNA19412003BW,SFLCRANSLCRANSpage40Table 4. cont.SpeciesCommonNameNativeRange1st WesternCollection1st LCRCollectionMechanism ofIntroductionRecordMechanism abbreviations: AQ = aquarium disposal, OR = ornamental species (escape, release,disposal), RI =release byindividual (not considered anaquarium orornamentalspecies nor released bya state orfederal agency),AX = accidentalintroduction accompanying intentional introduction, ES = escape from commercial cultivation, FS = fisheries orwildlife enhancement, intentional bya state orfederal agency,SB= solid ballast, BW= ballast water, SF = ship fouling, GS =gradualspread fromother introduction locationsoutside of the river, and BC = biological control organismVERTEBRATESFishLepomis gibbosuspumpkinseedNA?1893FSLITREVLepomis gulosuswarmouthNA?1893FSLITREVLepomis macrochirusbluegillNA?1893FSLITREVMicropterus dolomieusmallmouth bassNA18741923FSLITREVMicropterus salmoideslargemouth bassNA?1888FSLITREVPomoxisannulariswhite crappieNA?1893FSLCRANSPomoxis nigromaculatusblack crappieNA?1893FSLITREVAlosa sapidissimaAmericanshadNA18711880sFSLITREVMisgurnus anguillicaudatusOriental weatherfishASIA?1980sAQLITREVCarassiusauratusgoldfishASIA?1933AQ, RI, ORLCRANSCtenopharygodon idellagrass carpASIA1960s1960sBCLITREVCyprinus carpiocommon carpEUR-ASIA18721880ES, FSLITREVFundulus diaphanousbanded killifishNA?1971RI, AQLIT REVAmeiurus catuswhite catfishNA18741880sFS, RILITREVAmeiurus melasblack bullheadNA18741894RILITREVAmeiurus natalisyellowbullheardNA18741905FSLITREVAmeiurus nebulosusbrown bullheadNA18741880sRILITREVIctalurus punctatuschannel catNA?1920sRI, FSLITREVMorone chrysopswhite bassNA1895?RILITREVMorone saxatilisstripped bassNA18791900sFS,RILITREVPerca flavescensyellowperchNA?1894,1905FSLCRANSSander vitreuswalleyeNA18741940sFSLITREVGambusia affinismosquitofishNA1960sBC,ORLCRANSHerptilesChelydra serpentina serpentinaEastern snapping turtleNA??RI, AQ, ORLITREVRanacatesbeianabullfrogNA?1914,1924RILCRANSTrachemys scripta elegansred eared sliderNA??RI, AQ, ORLITREVMammalsMyocaster coypusnutriaSA?1937ESLCRANSDue to the lim itations of this survey, inad equate taxonom ic resolution in prior studies,

and the abundance of unresolved or cryptogenic taxa, our results are likely to represent a

conserva tive estim ate of the ANS invasion. Som e areas o r hab ita t types in the lower

Colum b ia were not well-sam p led previously or in this study. Because our surveys were

shore-based or conducted using sm all boats, th e deep, m a in channel of the river and the

salt wedge at the m outh of the estuary were not sam p led. W e sam p led riverbanks, sandy

islands, and the bentho s adjacen t to industrial an d port facilities, but th ese areas shou ld be

subjec ted to m o re intens ive sam p ling to better ch aracterize th ese habitats.

Som e taxa were either under-sam pled or were not identified to spec ies. The Ne m e rtea,

Porifera, Ostracoda, Acarina, Kam p tozoa, a nd aqu a tic insects were collected but not

identified to species in most cases. Other da ta gaps were revealed during analysis of the

results. W e concluded that oligochaetes we re un der-sam pled because 46 % (18 of the 39)

(including native, cryptogenic and introduced sp e c ies) we re c o llec t ed a t o n ly one of th e

134 sam p ling locations visited over two years. Such a large num b er of rare species

suggests that we undersampled a patchy o ligochaete habitat (Steve Fend, personal

communication). In addition, several native ol ig ochaete species repo rt ed in our lite rature

survey (including one described from the lo wer Colum b ia River) were not found in any

of our sam p l e s.

Other species previously reported in the Co lum b i a but not recorded in our surveys

included the m y sid Alienacanthomysis macropsis (McCabe et al. 1993 ); a copepod,

Hansenulus trebax , whic h is para sitic in the b r ood cham ber of the native mysid Neomysis

mercedis and described from the Colum b ia River by Daly and Da m k aer (1986) ; and

several endem i c m o llusk species (Appendix B). Experts who evaluated o u r species lists

also conclud e d that som e taxa lists may be incom p lete b ecaus e they in clu d ed few

m e sohaline and m a rine species, particul arly phytoplankton and polychaetes, which

should be found near the m outh of the river. Our survey results are supplem ented by the

results of the literature revi ew, but som e poorly resolved ta xa (such as the oligochaetes)

are still not well-docum ented in the lower Colu m b ia River.

The large p e rcentage of cryptogen i c species (45 % ) com p licates evaluatio n of the

m a gnitude of aquatic bioinvasion of the lower Co lum b ia River, but it is a consequence of

LCRA N S pag e 41our strict ad herence to p r ecis e protocols for assigning organism s to classes. The m a jority

of the cryptogenic species were found to bel ong to taxa that are poorly resolved in the

Colum b ia River and elsewhere. The dist ribution of m a ny spe c ie s is repo rted as

widespread or cosm opolitan without discuss i on o f the possibility that thes e species were

spread by hum a n activity. Clar ifying the status of cryptogeni c species in th e Colum b ia

River will b e difficult u n til their worldwide d i stributions are known and evaluations are

m a de about where they are native and where they are introduced. For exam ple, prior to

the publication of Kathman and Brinkhurst ( 1998) that first described a distribution

throughout North Am erica, the oligochaete, Am phichaeta sannio , was co nsidered by

som e to be a European estuarine species. In addition, its taxonom y rem a i n s in doubt

(som e consider A. sannio , to be synonym ous with A. raptisae) , which further com p licates

resolution of the classification of this speci es. As a species with unknown origin and a

holarctic distribution, we cons idered it cryp togenic.



### Patterns of Introducti on

Most inve rte b rates repo rted from the Colum b ia River also occur in San Francisco Bay

but not all of these species are distributed throughout other m a jor W e st Coast estuaries

(Table 5 ) 14 . San Francisco Bay has the highe st recorded num ber of nonindigenous

species in the region (Cohen and Carlton 1995) and nearly all ANS re ported elsewhere in

the eas tern P acific occu r in San Francisco Bay (C hapm an 2000); however, the

im portance of dispersal of introduced species from San Francisco Bay to other W e st

Coast estuaries is unclear (W asson et al . 2001). Twenty-eight of the 35 introduced

inver t ebra te s in the lowe r Colum b ia River have not been reported in other m a jor bays and

estuar ies on the W e st Coast. This d i s tinc tive a sse m b lage could be the r e su lt of unique

hydrological and physical character istics of the lower Colum b ia River. Alternatively, it

could be a result of differences in sampli ng effort. For exam ple, rap i d ass e ssm ents

surveys – th ose surveys that are con ducted ove r a lim ited per i od of tim e (usually less than

a week) by a team of spe c ies experts to id entify both native and introduced species found

14 These dat a we re assem b l e d f r o m several m a jor i n t r od uce d s p eci es s u r v ey s un de rt ake n i n t h e past 10 years but m a y not reflect t h e curren t, larg ely un pub lish e d

, state o f kn ow led g e on sp ecies d i str i bu tio ns.

LCRA N S pag e 42LCRANS page 43 at selected sites - have produced much of the information on introduced species in other

estuaries, and oligochaetes are rarely id entified during rapid assessment surveys.

Table 5. West Coast distributions of all introduced invertebrates found in the lower Columbia River. (Additional data compiled from Cohen and Carlton 1995, Cohen et al. 1998, Ruiz et al. 2000, Cohen et al. 2001, CDFG 2004, and NAS 2004.)

Invertebrate Species SFB CB LCR WB PS

Location abbreviations: SFB = San Fran cisco Bay CA, CB = Coos Bay OR, LCR = Lower Columbia River, WB = Willapa Bay WA, and PS = Puget Sound WA
Table abbreviations: Lit = in literature review but not collected by LCRANS 1 = Found in Humboldt Bay and San Die go Harbor, 2 = Found along the northern California coast, 3 = Found in other Northwest freshwater sites, Bold species names indicat es species distributed throughout all listed estuaries

Fredericella indica 3 x Pectinatella magnifica 3 x

Nematostella vectensis x X x x Cordylophora lacustris x X x x x Branchiura sowerbyi x x Chaetogaster diaphanus x x

Eukerria saltensis x Paranais frici x x Stylodrilus heringianus x x Hobsonia florida x x x Manayunkia aestuarina x x Manayunkia speciosa x x Polydora cornuta x x x Pseudopolydora kempi x X Lit x x Streblospio benedicti x X x x x Cipangopaludina chinesis malleatus x x Potamopyrgus antipodarum (drainage) x Corbicula fluminea x X x x Mya arenaria x X x x x
Nuttallia obscurata X x x Balanus improvisus x X x x

Acartiella sinensis x Lit

Limnoithona sinensis x Lit
Limnoithona tetraspina x x Pseudodiaptomus forbesi x x Pseudodiaptomus inopinus X x

Sinocalanus doerri x x Tachidius (Neotachidius) triangulari x Nippoleucon hinumensis x X x x x
Caecidotea racovitzai racovitzai 1 x Crangonyx pseudogracilis x Grandidierella japonica x X x x x Exopalaemon modestus x x Sinelobus stanfordi 2 x x

Melita nitida x X x x xLCRANS page 44 Comparisons between the Columbia River, Sa n Francisco Bay and other invaded aquatic

systems are difficult but inevitable. While they have similar habitat types, it is

problematic to compare these systems because they differ considerably in their physical,

chemical, and biological characteris tics. Depending upon the taxonomic group

considered, the lower Columbia River is more invaded than some systems and less than

others (Figure 9). Unlike the lower Co lumbia, the Hudson River is dominated by

introduced plants and mollusks. Except for a smaller number of introduced mollusks, the

Columbia River appears to be “more invade d” than Puget Sound. These differences

could result from differences in sampli ng methods, introduction vectors, invasion

pressure, habitat types, c limates, disturbance regimes, etc. For example, the

comparatively large number of introduced vasc ular plants in the Great Lakes and Hudson

River systems may be a result of longer histor ies of solid ballast discharge; the success of

introduced invertebrates in San Francisco Bay could be facilitated by the temperate

waters of the Eastern Pacific in (Chapm an 1997); and the bathymetry of Puget Sound

could decrease the success of benthi c invertebrate establishment.

Macroalgae Vascular Plants Annelids Mollusks Crustaceans 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Puget Sound

Columbia River

San Francisco Bay

Great Lakes

Hudson River

Figure 9. Comparison of invasive species in severa l North American systems (Mills et al. 1993, Cohen and Carlton 1995, Mills et al. 1995, Cohen et al. 1998, and Cohen at al. 2001).LCRANS page 45 

### Rates of Invasion

The number of introduced species found in the lower Columbia River is increasing

(Figure 12), and mirrors similar trends obs erved elsewhere (Ruiz et al. 2001); however,

the rate of introduced invertebrate discove ry and reporting probably does not represent

the actual introduction rates. The lower Columbia invert ebrate community was poorly

studied in the past and th e presence of nonnative species may have been overlooked.

Furthermore, some of the introduced species found in our survey were undoubtedly in the

Columbia River for several years prior to re cent reports. For example, the New Zealand

mudsnail, Potamopyrgus antipodarum , was present in the Snake River since the mid

1980s and was almost certainly transported downstream from the Snake River at some

earlier date than its first discovery near Astoria in 1995 (Wonham and Carlton

unpublished). The Chinese mystery snail, Cipangopaludina chinesis malletus, has been a

popular aquarium/pet species for well ove r 50 years (Cohen and Carlton 1995) and

anecdotal evidence supports a presence in protected waters of the Columbia River basin

long before our sighting in 2002. It is also probable that the invertebrate curve reflects

sampling effort, in part, which has increased in the last 20 years.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000Species accumulation

Year of discovery Fish

Invertebrates

*

Figure 10. Accumulation of non-indigenous species in the lower Co lumbia by year of discovery.

In contrast to the rate of nonative invert ebrate discovery, the rate of nonnative fish

introductions in the river may approximate the actual in introduction rate. Prior to 1955,

the majority of fish introductions were in tentional, often conducted by the U.S. FishLCRANS page 46 Commission, and well-documented (Sm ith 1896, Lampman 1946). After 1955,

intentional sport fish introductions declined but new intr oductions for biological control,

e.g., the mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis (Bond 1994), or illegal a quarium disposal, e.g.,

the oriental weather loach, Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (Logan et al 1996), continue to be

reported. Furthermore, new and unusual spec ies (e.g. piranha which cannot survive over

winter in cold water and ar e not considered successful introductions) caught by anglers

often receive media attention and are reported as novelties (Quinn 2002).



### Vectors and Pathways

Nonnative species have been introduced into the lower Columbia River intentionally and

unintentionally through a variety of vectors (Figure 10). Although v ector determination

is not precise, shipping-related vectors acc ounted for the largest number of introduced

species. Ballast water alone was considered to be a possible m echanism of introduction

for 29 out of 35 invertebrate species and one pl ant into the Columbia River. All shipping

mechanisms together (fouling, solid ba llast, and ballast wa ter) accounted for 30

invertebrates and two aquatic plants. Intentional releases for wildlife enhancement by

individuals and fisheries agen cies accounted for 19 out of 23 fish introductions to the

lower Columbia River. Similarly, many aquatic plant introductions co uld be attributed to

intentional introduction but could also have es caped from ornamental cultivation (Figure

11, Table 4). Many species are associated with multiple mechanisms. For example, the

population of the common goldfish, Carassius auratus , in the lower Columbia River may

be the result of aquarium dumping, escape from ornamental ponds, and/or release by an

individual for wildlife enhancement. Inte ntional introduction and escape from culture

ponds were documented for the common carp, Cyprinus carpio (Lampman 1949).AquariumOrnamental PondRelease by an IndividualAccidentalEscapeFishery EnhancementSolid BallastBallastWaterShip FoulingGradualSpreadBiological Control 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Number of species

Pla n ts Ver t e b ra te s I n vertebrates

Figure 10. I n vasions by type of intr oducti on mechanism

.

The im portance of various vectors for introduc tion of invertebrates has changed over tim e
(Figure 11). Shipping-relate d vectors have increased in im portance since 1950. The

increase in introductions associated with sh ipping corresponds with an increase in the

volum e and speed of shipping in the Colum b ia. Invertebrate introductions that could be

attributed to aquarium dumping and indivi dual release occurred onl y after 1999, although

anecdotal ev idence sugg ests th at this vector was activ e earlier as well.

Shipping Ornamenta l or Aquarium A ccident al Individ ual Release G radual Spread 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1850 - 1899 1900 - 1949 1950 - 1998 1999 - Present

Fig u re 11 C h ang e s in in vertebrate intr oduction vectors over time.

LCRA N S pag e 47The m a jority of introdu ced spec ies in the lo wer Colum b ia or igina t ed in North Am erica

(Figure 12 ). Introduced fish accounted for m o st of the species with North Am erican

origin. Europe, Asia, and S outh America supplied sim ilar nu mbers of plants as North

Am erica. Europe and Asia provided sim ilar numbers of invertebrates as North Am erica.

No fish or invertebrates orig in ated in Africa, and no fish or plants or igina t ed in New

Zealand/Aus t ralia.North AmericaSouth AmericaAfricaEuropeAsiaAustralia/New ZealandUnknown 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Number of Species

Plants Fish I n vert ebrat es

Fi gure 1 2 . I n v a si on s b y re gi on. T h i s fi gur e con t ai ns sp e c i e s col l ected by L C R A N S as w e l l as t h os e species fr om the WE MAP s t udy and the l i t erature re vie w that a re c o nsidered valid.

Asia was the native region of 34% of the i nvertebrates introduced vi a shipping vectors in

the Colum b ia River (F igure 13). The role of shipping in these introductions was

supported by data on shipping traffic in the Co lumbia River. Ninety -four percent of all

transoceanic voyages to Oregon ports originat e in Asia, i.e., Japan, Korea, China and

Taiwan (Flynn and Sytsm a 2004).

LCRA N S pag e 48Asia

Eur a sia Europe North Atlantic North America South America U n know n

Fig u re 13 . Orig ins o f ba lla st wa ter introduced inv e r t ebr a te species in the lower Columbia River

.

Despite an apparent correlation betw een volum e of shipping from Asia and the

preponderance of Asian species in the invert ebrate community in the lower Colum b ia

River, the source of these populations m a y not be their native ranges in Asia. Many

recen t ballas t water intro ductions were prev iously estab lished elsewhere on the W e st

Coast (Table 5). The Colum b ia River receive s more port calls from vessels from these

dom e stic ports (59%) than it does from international ports (F lynn and Sytsm a 2004).

About 25 percent of coastal ve ssel traffic com i ng into Oregon estuaries originated in the

highly invaded San Francisco Bay/S acram ento /San Joaquin Delta (F lynn and Sytsm a

2004). Short transit tim es, es tablished populations of intr oduced invertebrates possibly

selected for dispersal by shi pping vectors in several dom estic ports on the West Coast,

and abundant shipping traffic suggests that dom estic shipping is a high ly important vector

for ANS introduction to the Colum b i a River. According to the dates of first discovery,

m o st ANS in the lower Colum b ia River wer e reported earlier from other locations on the

W e st Coast. Discovery d a tes, howev er, rep r es en t detection rather than arrival and are

heavily influ e nced by sampling effort and reg i on al ANS awareness.

The Colum b ia River is probably a net im porter of ballast water and associated organism s.

Colum b ia River por ts a r e prim arily bulk ship ping ports, bulkers contain more ballast

water th an o t her sh ip typ e s, and bulk e rs typ i ca lly enter the C o lum b ia River withou t c a rgo
and in-ballast (Flynn and Sytsm a 2004). Still, ships do take on ballast water in the

Colum b ia. The role of the Colum b ia Rive r in regional and global dispersal of ANS

requires further investigation.

LCRA N S pag e 49

## Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

W e determ ined that 81 aquatic spec ies were intr oduced into the lower C o lum b ia River

since the 18 80s. The m a jority of thes e species were fish (28%), aquatic plants (23%) and

crustacea (1 5 %). The rem a ining 18% was a co mbination o f m o llusks, annelid s,
bryozoans, cnidaria, am phibians, reptiles a nd an aquatic m a mm al. These results were

likely a cons ervative es tim a te of the num b er of ANS in the river b ecau se of lim itation s of

the survey, inadequate taxonom i c resolution in prior studies, a nd the abundance of

unresolved and cryptogenic taxa.

Over the course of our field survey we docum ented 269 aquatic species (and 55 other

distinct organism s that we were unable to iden tif y at the specie s leve l) in th e lower

Colum b ia River. Of the 269 species iden tified, 54 (21%) were introduced, 92 (34%)

were native, and 123 (45%) were cryptogenic. F r om the 1880s to the 1970s a new

introduced species was discovered in the lowe r C o lum b ia about every five years. The

frequency of new discoveries ANS is incr easing worldwide (OTA 1993, Ruiz et al.

2000), however, and the rate of discovery of introduced inverteb rates in the lower

Colum b ia River m i rrors this trend. Over th e past ten years a new invertebrate species

was discovered about every five m o nths. The increasing rate of new discovery is due to

increasing frequency of introductions and to th e num b er and type of surveys conducted.

It is no t poss i ble to separate th ese effects from the available d a ta

In contr a st to the inve rte b rates, the r a te of f

i sh discoveries in the lower C o lum b ia

declined after the 1950s. For fish, the rate of discovery m a y parallel introduction rates

because m a ny introdu ctions were w e ll-docum ente d. The red u ction in fis h introdu ctions

was like l y d u e to a dec l ine in in tentional f i sh stocking by individuals and fish and gam e
agencies to increase the divers ity of food and gam e fishes.

The m a jority of introdu ced spec ies in the lowe r Colum b ia or igina t ed in North Am erica.

Introduced fish accoun ted for m o st of the speci es with North Am erican origin, while Asia

was the native region of 34 percent of the inve rtebrates introduced vi a shipping vectors.

Ballast water was the probable vector re sponsible for introducing 29 of 35 nonnative

inver t ebra te s. Most inv e rtebr a te s rep o rted f r om the Colum b ia River a l so occur in San

Francisco B a y. Seven of the 35 invertebrate s intr oduced into the lower C o lum b ia River

LCRA N S pag e 50are widesp read in m a jor bays and estuaries of th e W e st Coast. Additiona l surveys m a y

incre a se th is num b er.

The Colum b ia River rece ives m o re port ca lls f r o m vessels f r o m dom e stic ports (59

percent) than it does from in ternational ports (Flynn and Sy tsm a 2004). About 25 percent

of coastal vessel traffic com i ng into Oregon estuaries originated in the highly invaded

San Francisco Bay/Sacram ento/San Joaqui n Delta (Flynn and Sytsm a 2004). Short

transit tim es, established populat ions of introduced inverteb rates possibly selected for

dispersal by shipping vectors in several dom estic ports on th e West Coast, and abundant

shipping traf fic suggests that dom estic shi pping is a highly importa nt vector for ANS

introdu ction to the Colu m b ia River.



### Additional surveys

This report establishes a baseline on ANS in lower Colum b ia River. Additiona l

monitoring and sam p ling is neces sary to dete ct n e w invasion s and to docum ent invas i on

rate, im pacts, and efficacy of m a nagem e nt efforts. W e recomm end a multiple pu rpose

sam p ling approach to m a xim i ze the potential of detec ting ad dition a l spe c i es and new

arriv a ls. Sa m p ling shou ld ta rget hab ita ts and tax a that are lik ely to con t ain new invaders

every year; a synoptic survey of the lowe r Columbia River should be conducted every

five years; and additional sam p ling should target data gaps and survey limitations of this

project. Regular com p rehensive sam p ling of inco m i ng ballast water is als o needed to

evaluate the probability of new intr oductions d e riving from this vector.

Targeted sampling

Targeted sampling should focus on tracking ch anges in habitats that are highly invaded

and are considered hot spots for detecting ne w a r riva ls. Targ eted taxa include benthic

crustaceans, mollusks, po lychaetes, h ydroids, zoo p lankton, an d aquatic vascular p l an ts

.
Sam p ling sh ould rep lica t e the pro t oc ols f o llowed by in this su rvey. The lo cation s in

Table 9 are hot spots of i nvasion and/or have good, l ong-term records of species

com position. These locations are r ecommended for targeted sampling.

LCRA N S pag e 51T a bl e 6. Su gg ested s a m p l i n g l o c a ti ons pr op osed f o r tar g ete d s a mpl i n g.

L o c a t i o n S i t e s P r i o r Resear c h Com m e n t s Y oun g s Bay CED C Net Pens CRED D P

, b e nth i c surveys by CE DC,
LC R ANS , nea r by surveys by NMFS,

EMAP B r acki s h wat e r , be nt hi c su rve y s dem onst r at e i n t e ract i ons bet w een

m udsnai l i nva d e rs a n d nat i v e

crustacea n c o mmunity.

Yo u ngs R i ve r M out h C R E DDP , LC R ANS

, EMAP, Cordel l et al. Ch ang e s i n fresh water an d low salin ity

zo op lank ton commu n ity Trestle Bay In teri o r NMFS, LCRANS Pro t ected em b a y m en t with soft
sedi m e nt , sal t m a rsh a n d r o c k y i n t e rt i d al com m uni t y al ong j e t t y

. Bak e r Bay Sand Island LCRANS High salin ity site, clo s e t o m o u t h bu t part i a l l y pr ot ec t e d, se veral A N S fo u n d

in island p o o l s East ern m ud fl at s LC R ANS , EM AP Ext e nsi v e e x po sed m e so- pol y h al i n e

m ud fl at s, u n i q ue bent hi c i n ve rt ebrat e

com m uni t y vs. ot he r m ud fl at s i n estuary Miller San d s In teri o r NMFS, ACE,
LCRANS Artificially estab lish e d fres hwater sa nd

h a b itat, i n terior is sh allow, p r o t ected
and ad jace nt t o m a i n shi ppi ng cha nnel
Cath la m e t Bay Ru ssian Islan d NMFS, EMAP,
LCRANS Pro t ected tid ally in flu e n c ed fresh water

m udfl a t s up st r e am of pri m ary

an chorag e site for co mmercial v e ssels.

Po rt of Lon g v i ew Po ten tial site fo r ANS i n tro d u c tio ns v i a b a llast water

Po rt of Portland Po ten tial site fo r ANS i n tro d u c tio ns v i a b a llast water Sloughs Wallace, Westport,
Skam ania, Fis h er Island etc. LCRANS Slo w , p r o t ected waters in t h e tran sition

zo n e b e t w een t h e W illam e tte
conflue n ce a nd the es t u ar y m a y r e tain species release d at the Ports of Porta n d,

Vanc o uve r a n d Lo n gvi e w / K el so Sau v i e Isl a nd M u l t nom ah C h annel
Side LCRANS Po ten tial ho t sp o t fo r aqu a ri um an d

or nam e nt al pl ant di s p osal

, wa rm wat e r

area C o l u m b i a Sl ou gh OD F W , LC R A NS Pot e nt i a l h o t s pot f o r a q uari u m and

or nam e nt al pl ant di s p osal

, hi g h

n u t rien t, warm water area with limited

seaso n al fl ushi ng , hot sp ot f o r Exo pal aem o n mo dest us , etc.

Discrete sampling

The goal of the discrete sam p ling should be to use intensive surveys resolve the data gaps

and sam p ling lim itations encountered in th is survey. Sam p ling should focus on undersam p led taxa and areas s u ch as the m outh and m a in channel o f the estuary where

LCRANS was unable to sam p le. Discrete sa m p ling results should be used to m odify

targeted sam p ling if new hot spot s o r species are d i scovered.

LCRA N S pag e 52Synoptic surveys

A repeat of the synoptic survey reported on here, should be conducted every five years.

The goals of the survey should be to investig ate potential new hotspot s of invasion and to

update the database on ANS developed through review of the litera ture. The synoptic

survey should be used to fine-tune sampling m e thods and protocols to ensure com p lete

coverage of taxa and ha b ita ts in the r i ver.



### Res earch Needs

Understanding the ecology, biol ogy, dispersal of ANS is critical to m a nagem e nt of

invasions an d protec tion of native pla n t and anim al com m unities. Som e resear ch

recomm endations include investigation of:

• Facilitation – Major anth ropogenic alteration of the physical, chem ical, and hydrological characteristics of the lower Colum b ia River have occurred in the last century. Ad dition a l cha nges in th es e chara c te ris tics, as well as clim ate change, can be anticipated. The importance o f various vectors of dispersal, hum an and natural, m a y also vary. D o these ch an ges enhance estab lishm ent of ANS?

• Im pacts – While economic and ecological im pacts of ANS that are ecological engineers, like zebra m u ssels, are readily apparent, im pacts of other species m a y be less obvious but still ha ve sign ificant eco logical cons equ e nces. W h at are th e

econom ic and ecological effects of ANS? Do invaders at some trophic levels or in spec if ic g u ilds hav e g r eater im pacts than o t her s ?

• Taxonom y a nd biogeography– Taxonom i c reso lution of m a ny species is poor,
which lim its conclusions about the num b er and rate of introduction of ANS. Biogeography of m a ny species is also poorly docum e nted. Taxonom ic expertise

on m a ny taxa is lim ited. Are the large num bers of cryptogenic species found in
the lower C o lum b ia intr oduced or n a tive ? W h at is the num ber and im portance of
introdu ced d i sease o r gan i sm s, parasites (plan t and anim al) and aquatic insects in
the lower C o lum b ia?

• Disperal of ANS – Movem e nt of ANS in ballas t water tran s f erred betwe e n dom e stic ports is a particul ar thre at to the Colum b ia River. O t her vectors m a y be equally im portan t, but are not well d o cum e nted. W h at is the role of coas tal shipping in dispersal of ANS on the West Coast? W h at is the role of shipp i ngrelated vectors other than ballast water, e.g., hull fouling, in dispersal of ANS?

• Managem e nt of ANS Prevention of ne w invasions requires interdiction of pathways through regulation of vectors. W h at m e thods can be used to m a nage populations of potential ANS in ballast water, hull fouling, live aquatics,

ornam e ntal and aquarium , and other vectors?

LCRA N S pag e 53

### Management Needs

Invasive spe c ies m a nagem e nt targets introdu ctio n, estab lish m ent, f u rther spread and

im pacts of ANS. W h ile the too l s to contro l po pulations at the la tte r th ree stag es include

chem ical, biological, and m echanical options – preventing introducti ons is the best and

m o st cost ef f

ective way to lim it the negativ e im pacts of inva sive spec ies Eradica tion and

often control of ANS in open system s ha s proved nearly im po ssible and many ANS

m a nage m e nt options are sim p ly aim e d at lesse nin g the im pacts of these sp ecies, usu a lly

by buffering the affected resource, without reducing overall populat ion densities (i.e.

retrofitting water-intake pipes to dim i nish zeb ra m u ssel f o uling). In ord e r to be tte r f o cus

ANS m a nagem e nt of the lower Colu m b ia River we have ide n tif ied th e f o llowing ne eds:

• Evaluation of vectors and pathways - W h ile ballast water and other shipping
activ ities ap pear to dom inate recen t ANS introductions into the lower
Colum b ia River, other vect ors, especially intentiona l releases, rem a in poorly quantified. New ballast water regul ations (F lynn and Sytsm a 2004) should
reduce the f r e quency of balla st wate r introdu ctio ns, which will lead to an
increase in the relativ e importance o f es cape, release, and d i s posal of ANS by
individu als will in crea se . W e also need policies or guide line s that that ad dress
those individual behaviors that contribut e to both inten tiona l and unintentional
introdu ction s of ANS. .

• Com p liance data - W ithout com p liance num be rs it is difficult to estim a te the

curren t effectiveness of ballast water m a nage m e nt and other vessel

m a nage m e nt guidelines. Our study dem onstrates the prom inent role ballast water has played recently in the intr oduction of ANS into the lower Colum b ia River but because this represents the first com p rehensive su rv ey of ANS i n the ar ea it is dif f i cult to d e term ine if f

e dera l guide lines o r state balla st wate r

m a nage m e nt legislation has had an effect on ANS introductions.

• Export risk evaluation - It is im portant that we view the lower Colum b ia River
as a source of invaders and develop m a nage m e nt actions aim e d at preventing export as well as im port. This includ es not only native species that m a y be exported to other continents, but also nonnative species established in the
lower Colu m b ia River that m a y be trans ported to other nearby coastal waters

• Facilita tion activ ity ev aluation - As part of a comprehensive ANS

m a nage m e nt plan for the lower Columbia River it is vita l tha t f

u ture and ongoing environm ental modifications of the region be evaluated as actions
that m a y enhance existing or facilita te new ANS invasions. This includes projects such as dredging, diking, flow alteration, water im poundm e nt and

rem oval, and even habitat restoration ac tivities. Along with dram atic habitat disturbance, restoration, dredging and other ventures m a y require bringing in equipm ent and personnel that act as tr ansportation vectors for hitchhiking
ANS. In other instances the rem oval of pest species such as em ergent aquatic

LCRA N S pag e 54plants m a y just open up new habitat for ot her invasive species. An im por tant step in the m a nage m e nt of ANS is the evaluation of such projects in light of potential A N S i m pacts. This m a y re quire incorporating ANS into im pact

statem ents as well as m onitoring plans. The m o r e we know about how

m odif i cation s to the Colu m b ia River effect existing ANS populations the

m o re tools we will have to m a nage future introd uctions.

LCRA N S pag e 55

## References

Abbott, I.A. and G.J. Hollenberg. 1976. Marine A l gae of California. Stanford Univers i ty Press, Sanford, California. 826pp.

Aleksoff, Keith C. 1999. Achillea mille folium . In : Fire Effects Inform ation System

, [Online]. U. S. Departm e nt of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, F i re Sciences Labor atory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

Altm an, B. C.M. Henson and I.R. Waite. 1997. Summ ary of Infor m ation on Aquatic
Biota and T h eir Habitats in the W illam ette Basin, Oregon, through 1995. U.S. Geological Survey, W a t e r-Resources Investigations Report 97–4023. 188pp.

Bögge m a nn, M. 2002. Revision of the Gly ceridae Grube 1850 (Annelida:P o lychaeta). Abh. Senckenberg. naturforsch. Ges. 555. 1-249.

Bond, C.E. 1994. Keys to Oregon Freshwater Fishes. Departm e nt of Fish and W ildlif e, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 53pp.

Bottom

, D. L. K.K. Jones, and M. J. Herring. 1984. Fishes of the Colum b ia River Estuary. CREDDP, Astoria, Oregon. 113pp.

Brinkhurst, R.O. 1986. Guide to the Freshwat er Aquatic Microdril e Oligochaetes of
North Am erica. 259pp.

Brinkhurst. R.O. 1996. On the role of tubificid oligochaetes in relation to fish disease with special reference to the Myxozoan. Annual Review of Fish Diseases 6:29-40.

Brinkhurst, R.O. and R. J. Diaz. 1985. Isochaete s columbien s is , new spe c ies (o ligo c haeta : Tubificidae) from the Colum b ia River, Ore gon. Proceed ings o f the Biological Society of Washington 98:949-953.

Brinkhurst, R.O. and S. R. Gelder. 2001. Annelida: Oligoc haeta, including
Branchiobdellid ae. In T horp and Covich (e ds ). E c ology and Classificatio n of North

Am erican Freshwater Invertebrates. Academ ic Press. 1056 pp.

Britton, J.C. and B. Morton. 1979. Corbicula in North Am erica: the evidence review ed and evaluated. Pages 249-287 in: Britton, J.C. (ed.), Proc. 1st Int'l Corbicula Sym posium.
Texas Christian Univ. Fort W o rth TX, Oct 13-15, 1977.

Carlton, J.T. 1979. History, Biogeography, and Ecology of the In troduced Marine and
Estuarine In verteb rates of the Pacific Coast of North Am erica. PhD Thesis, Univers i ty of California, Davis. 904pp.

LCRA N S pag e 56Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal W a ters: Environm ental Im pacts and Managem e nt Priorities. Pe w Oceans Comm ission. 28pp.

Carlton, J.T. and J. Hodder. 1995. Bioge ography and dispersal of coastal m a rine organism s: experim e ntal st udies on a replica of a 16 th century sailing vessel. Marine Biology 121:721-730.

Carty, S. 2003. Dinoflagellates. pp 685-714 in (Wehr and Sheath eds. ) Freshwater Algae
of North Am erica: Ecology and Classification. 918 pp.

Chapm a n, W.M. 1942. Alien fishes in the wa ters of the Pacific Northwest. California
Fish and Gam e 28:9-15.

Chapm a n, W.M. and A.C. DeLancy. 1933. Notes on the fishes of the State of Washington. Copeia 2: 102-103.

Chapm a n, J.W. 1988. Invasions of the nor theast Pacific by Asian and Atlantic gammaridean am phipod crustaceans, includ ing a new species of Corophium. Journal o f Crustacean Biology. 8(3)366-382.

Chapm a n, J. W

. 2000. Clim ate effect s on nonindigenous peracarid an crustacean
introdu ction s in estu ar ie s, pp. 66-80, In J. Pederson (eds.) Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of a Confer ence, January 24-27, 1999 Massachu s etts Institu te of Technology Sea Grant College P r ogram , Ca m b ridge, MA

Chapm a n, J.W., and J.T. Carlton. 1991. A te st of criteria for introduced s p ecies : the global invasion by the isopod Synidotea laevidorsalis (Miers, 1881). Journal of Crustacean Biology. 11(3)386-400.

Chapm a n, J.W., and J.T. Carlton. 1994. Pred icted discoveries of the introduced isopod Synidotea laevidorsalis (Miers, 1881). Journal of Crus tacean Biology. 14(4)700-714.

Chapm a n, J.W., T. W. M iller and E.V. Coan . 2003. Live seafood species as recipes f o r invasion. Conservation B i ology 17:1386-1395.

Cohen, A. N. 1998. Ship's ballast water and the introduction of exotic organism s into the
San Francis c o Estuary : Curre nt status of the problem and options for m a nagem e nt, Report funded by CALFED Category III Steerin g Comm ittee, adm i nistered by Calif ornia
Urban W a ter Agencies, October 1998,San Fran cisco Bay Institute,Richmond, California, 81 pp.

Cohen, A.N. , and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindi genous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta.
United States Fish and W ildlife Service. 246pp.

LCRA N S pag e 57Cohen, A., C. Mills, H. Berry, M. W onham

, B. Bingham

, B. Bookheim , J. Carton, J, Chapm a n, J. Cordell, L. Harris, T. Klinger, A. Kohn, C. La m b ert, G. Lam b ert, K. Li, D. Secord and J. Toft. 1998. A Rapid Assessm en t Survey of Nonindigenous S p ecies in the
Shallow W a ters of Puget Sound. W a s h ington State Departm e nt of Natural Resources, Olym pia, Washington. 37pp.

Cohen, A.N. H. Berry, C.E. Mills, D. Miln e, K. Britton-Simmons, M.J. W onham

, D.L. Secord, J.A. Barkas, Brian Bingham

, Betty E. Bookheim , J.E. Byers, J.W

. Chapm a n, J.R. Cordell, B. Dum b auld, Allan Fukuyam a , L. H. Harris, A.J. Kohn, K. Li, T.F. Mum f ord Jr., V. Radashevsky, A.T. Sewell and K. W e lch. 2001. W a shington State Exotics Expedition 2000: A rapid survey of exotic speci es in th e shallow waters of Elliot Bay,
Totten and Eld Inle ts, a nd W illapa Bay. For th e W a shington State Depa r t m e nt of Natural Resources, Olym pia, WA. 47pp.

Coots, M. 1966. Yellow perch. In A. Calhoun (ed). Inland F i sheries Managem e nt. California D e partm e nt of Fish and Gam e . pp426-430.

Cordell, J.R. and S.M. Morrison. 1996. The invasive Asian copepod Pseudodiaptomus inopinus in Oregon, W a shington, an d British Co lum b ia estuaries. Es tuaries, 19 (3): 6 29-
638.

Cordell, J.R., C.A. Morgan, and C.A. Sim e nstad. 1992. Occurrence of the Asian
calano i d cop e pod Pseudodiaptomus inopinus in the zooplankton of the Colum b ia River
estuary. J

. Crust. Biol . 12(2): 260-269.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr. and D.A. Hens ley, 1980. Special problem s associated with monitoring exotic species. p. 281-307. In C.H. Hocutt and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. Biological monitoring of fish. Lexington B ooks, Lexington, Massachusetts.

Courtenay, W.R. Jr., D. A. Hensley, J.N. Ta ylor and J.A. McCann, 1984. Distribution of
exotic fish es in the con t inental United States .. p. 41-77. In W

. R. Courtenay, Jr. and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. (eds.) Distributi on, biology and m a na gem e nt of e xotic fishes. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltim ore, USA.

Courtenay, W. R., Jr., and G. K. Meffe. 1989. Sm all fishes in strange places: a review of introduced poeciliids. Pages 319-331 in G. K. Meffe, and F. F. Snelson, Jr., edito rs. Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Prentice Hall, E nglewood
Cl i ffs, NJ.

CREST (Colum bia River Estuary S t udies Ta skforce) 2003. City of Astoria Urban Waterfront Shoreline Inventory. CREST Astoria, OR. 130pp. available online at http://www.colum b iaestuary.org/channel/401comments_2003.htm

Daehler, C.C. and D.R. Strong. 1996. Stat us, prediction and prevention of introduced cordgras s Spartina spp. invasions in Pacific estuar ies, USA. Biological Conservation
78:1-58

LCRA N S pag e 58Dentler, J. L

. 1993. Noah's farce: The regula tion and control of exo tic fish and wildlife. University of Puget Sound Law Review 17:191-242.

Dill, W

. A. and A. J. Cordone. 1997. History an d status of in troduced fish es in California,
1871-1996. Fish bulletin. Volum e 178. Califor nia Departm e nt of Fish and Ga m e , Sacram ento.

Durkin, J.T. 1973. A list of crustacean shellf ish of the lower Colum b ia River between the
mouth and river m ile 108 July to October 1973. Northwest F i sheries Science Center,
National Marine Fisheries Se rvice, S eattle, W A . 4pp.

Durkin, J.T. and R.J. McConnell. 1973. A lis t of fishes of the lower Columbia and

W illam e tte r i vers. Nor t h w est Fisher ies Scienc e Center, Na tio nal Mar i ne Fisheries Service, Seattle, W A . 13pp.

Durkin, J.T. 1975. An investig ation of fish and decapod shellfish found at four dredge

m a terial disposal sites and tw o dred ge sites adjacent to the mouth of the Colum b ia River. For the United States Army Corps of Engin eers and National Marine F i sh eries Service.

Durkin, J.T., S.J. Lipovksy, G.R. Snyder and M.E

. Tuttle. 197 7. Environmental studies of
three Colum b ia River Es tuar ine Beac hes. Final R e port to Colum b ia River Program
Office. Environm ental Conser vation Division N OAA-NMFS. 78pp.

Durkin, J.T., R.L Emmett, K. Verner, T.C. Co ley, W

. Muir, G.T. McCabe, Jr. and R.J.
McConell. 1982. Benthic m acroinvertebrates and substrate of Cathlam e t Bay, Oregon. Final Rep. to US Fish and W ildlif e Service by the US National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, W A . 87pp.

Ecology, Washington S t ate Department of. 2001. An Aquatic Plant Identification
Manual . W a shington State Departm e nt of Ec ology. Olym pia, W a shington. 195pp.

Edgar, G.J., N.S. Barrett and D.J. Gra ddon. 1999. A Classification of Tasmanian
Estuaries and Assessm e n t of their C onservati on Significance using Ec ological Physical Attributes, P opulation and Land Use. Mari ne Research Laboratories - Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute , University of Tas m ania. 235 pp.

Ellis, S.G. and C.L. DeGasperi. 199 4. The Lower Colum b ia River Bi-State Program 1991 reconnaissance survey. Lake and Reservoir Managem e nt.

Emm e tt, R. L., G.T. McCabe, Jr., T.C. Coley, R.J. McConnell, and W

. D. Muir. 1986.
Benthic sam p ling in Cathlam e t Bay, Oregon, 1984. Final Report to U.S. Ar m y Corps of Engineers by U.S. National Marine Fisher ies Service, Seattle, W a shington. 11pp plus appendices.

LCRA N S pag e 59Emm e tt, R. L., S.A. Hinton, D.J. Logan, and G.T. McCabe Jr. 2002. Introduction of a Siberian freshwater shrimp to western No rth Am erica. Biological Invasions. 4(4)447-450

Farr, R.A. and D.L. W a r d . 1993. Fishes of the lo wer W illamette Riv e r, n ear Portland, Oregon. Northwest Science 67:16-22.

Fields, W

. C. and C. Messer. 1999. Life on the bottom : trends in species

com position of the IEP-DWR benthic m onitoring program . Interagency Ecological P r ogram for the Sacram ento -San Joa quin Estua r y Newslette r. 12(4):38-41.

Flynn, K. and M. Sytsm a . 2004. Report on the Oregon Ballast Water Managem e nt Program in 2004 Produced for the Oregon Stat e Legislature byThe Oregon Ballast Water Task Force Prepared by Kiirsten Fly nn and Mark Sytsm a Center for Lakes and
Reservoirs Portland State Un iversity Septem ber 2004.

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2003. FishBase. W o rld W i de W e b electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org , version 17 January 2004

Fox, D.S., S. Bell, W

. Nehlsen and J. Da m r on. 1984 The Colum b ia River Estuary: Atlas of Physical and Biological Ch ara c te ristics. Colu m b ia River Estuary Data Developm ent Program , As toria, OR.

Frest, T. J., & E. J. Johannes. 1993. Mollu sc Species of Special Concern W ithin the Range of the Northern S potted Owl. Final Report to Forest E c osystem Managem e nt Working Group, USDA Forest Service. Deixis C onsultants, S eattle, W a shington. 98 pp.

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Colum b ia Basin Mollusk Species of Special Concern. Report prepared for Interior Colu m b ia Basin Ecosystem Managem e nt Project,

W a lla W a lla, W A

.

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1996. Freshwat er Mollusks of the Upper Klam ath Drainage, Oregon. Yearly Report prepared by Deixis C onsultants for the Oregon Natural Heritage Program , Portland, OR. Contract # ORFO 092094. v +72 pp, appendices. Furota, T. and R.L. Emm e tt. 1993. Seasonal changes in the inter tidal and subtidal

m acrobenthic invertebrate community struct ure in Baker Bay, lower Columbia River estuary. U.S

. Dept. Comm erce NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NW FSC-5. 68pp.

Good, J. W

. 1977a. Plankton. In M.H. Sea m an (ed.) Colum b ia River Estuary Inventory of Physical, Biological and Cultural Characte ristics. CREST, As toria OR. 304.1-304.11.

Good, J. W

. 1977b. Benthic Invertebrates. In M.H. Sea m an (ed.) Colum b ia River Estuary Inventory of Physical, Biological and Cultu ra l Charac ter i stics. CREST, Astoria OR.
305.1-305.16.

LCRA N S pag e 60Haertel, L. and C. Osterberg. 1967. Ecology of zooplankton, benthos and fishes in the lower Columbia River Estuary. Ecology. 48:459-472.

Ham ilton, P. 1990. Modelling s a linity and circ ulation for the C o lum b ia River Estuary. Progress in Oceanography 25:113-156.

Hancock, D. R., J. E. McCauley, J. M. St ander and P. T. Tester. 1977. Distribution of benthic infauna in Coos Bay. In: Environm ental I m pacts of Dredging in Estuar ies. Prepared under NSF Grant No. ENV71- 01908-Ao3 by Schools of Engineering and Oceanography, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. p. 508-579.

Harrison, Paul Garth., Bigley, Richard E. 1982. The recen t in troduction of the seag rass Zostera japonica to the P acific Coast of North Am er ica. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 39: 1642-1648

Higley, D.L. and R.L Holton. 1975. Biological baseline da ta Youngs Bay, Oregon, 1974. School of Oceanography , Ore gon State University. 91pp.

Higley, D.L., R.L. Holton, and P.D. Ko m a r.1976. Analysis of benthic infauna

com m unitie s and sedim e ntation patters of a pr op osed f ill s ite and nearby regions on the
Colum b ia River es tua r y. Final Repor t to Port of Astoria, Astoria, Oregon

.

Hines, A.H. and G.M. Ruiz (eds). 2000. Bi ological invasions of co ld-water ecosys t ems: ballast-m ediated in trodu ctions in Port Va ldez/Prince W illiam Sound, Alaska. Final report to Regional Citizen' s Advisory Council of Pr ince W illiam Sound, 313 p

Hines, A.H. and G.M. Ruiz. 2000. Fouling com m unity surveys. In A.H. Hines and G.M. Ruiz. Biolog ical Invas i o n s Of Cold-W ater Coastal Ecosys te m s : Ballast- M edia ted
Introduction s In Port Valdez / Prince W illiam Sound, Alaska Final Pro j ect Report, 15
March 2000.

Hinton, S.A., R.L. Emmett and G.T. McCa be Jr. 1992a. Benthic invertebrates and
sedim e nt charac ter i stics in subtid al h a bita t at Ric e Island, Co lum b ia River estuary,
Decem ber 1991 and March 1992. Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies, N M FS, Seattle WA. 22pp.

Hinton, S.A., R.L. Emmett and G.T. Mc Cabe Jr. 1992b. Fishes, shrim p , benthic
invertebrates and sedim e nt charact e r istics in in tertidal and s ubtida l habitat at Rice Is land,
and Miller S a nds, Columbia River estuary 1991. Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies, NMFS, Seattle W A . 53pp.

Hinton, S.A. and R.L. Emmett. 2000. Biologica l surveys of the Trestle B a y enhancem ent project 1994, 1996-1997. U.S. Dept. Co mm erce NOAA Tech. Mem o . NMFS-NW FSC39. 72pp.

LCRA N S pag e 61Hjort, RC., P.L. Hulett, L.D. LaBolle and H. W

. Li. 1984. Fish and invertebrates of

revetm ents a nd other hab ita ts in the W illam e tte River, Oreg on. Report to the Arm y Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg MS.

Holton, R.L. and D.L. Higley. 1976. Ga mm ar idean am phipods in the Colum b ia River Estuary. Pro ceedings of the 5th Tech nical Conference: Es tuaries of the Pacific Northwest, April 1976. Oregon State Univer sity, Engineering E xperim e nt Station Circular. p 9-12.

Holton, R.L. 1984. Benthic Infauna of the Columbia River Estuary. CREDDP, Astoria, Oregon. 179pp.

Hutchinson, J.M. and W

. W. Aney. 1964. The fish and wildlife resources of the lower

W illam e tte basin, Orego n , and their wa ter use re quirem e nts. A report with

recomm endations to the Oregon State W a ter Resources Board. Federal A i d to Fish Restoration Progress Report. Fi sheries Stream Flow Require m e nts Project F-69-R-1, Job

Num b er 2, Portland, OR, June 1964.

Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Fr eshwater fishes of Virginia. Am erican
Fisheries So ciety, Bethesda, MD.

Johnson, Megan R., W illiam s , Susan L., Lieb erman, Carolyn H., Solbak, Arne. 2003. Changes in the abundance of the seagrass Zostera marina L. and Ruppia maritima L. in San Diego, California, f o llowing an El Nino event. Estuaries 26: 106-115

Jordan, D.S. 1916. The first shad taken in the Colum b ia River. California Fish and Gam e 2:152.

Kask, B.A., J.R. Sibert, and B. W i ndecker. 1982. A check list of m a rine and brackish water harpacticoid copepods from the Nanaim o e s tuary, southwestern British Colum b ia. Syesis, 15: 25-38.

Kom a rek, J. 2003. Coccoid and colonial cyanobacteria. pp 59-116 in (W ehr and Sheath eds.) Freshw ater Alg ae o f North Am eric a: Ecology and Classification. 918 pp.

Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 654

pp.

Laird, C. A., and L. M. Page. 1996. Non-native fishes inhabiting the stream s and lakes of
Illinois. Illin ois Natura l Hist ory Survey Bulletin 35(1):1-51.

Lam p man, B.H. 1946. The Com i ng of the Pond Fi shes; an A ccount of the Introduction of Certain Spiny-Rated Fishes, a nd Oth e r Exotic Species, into th e W a ters of the Lower
Colum b ia River Region and the Pacific Coas t States. Binfords and Mort, P o rtland, Oregon. 177pp.

LCRA N S pag e 62Langeland, K. A. 1996. Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle (Hydrocharita ceae), the perf ect aquatic weed. Castanea 61(3):293-304.

Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Je nkins, D. E. McAllis te r, and J. R. Stauf f

e r, Jr. 1980 et seq. Atlas of North Am erican fres hwater fishes. N o rth Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC.

Les, Donald H., and Mehrhoff, Leslie J. 1999. Intr oduction of nonindigenous aquatic vascular plants in Southern New England: a h i storica l per s p ectiv e. Biological Invasions

1:281-300

Lewin, J. and Norris, R.E. 1970. Surf-zone di atom s of the coasts of W a shington and New Zealand ( Chaetoceros armatum T. West and Asterionella spp.). Phycol. 9: 143-149.

Lewin, J. and Rao, V.N. R. 1975. Bloom s of surf- z one diatoms along the coast of the Olym pic Peninsula, W a shington. VI. Daily periodicity phenom e na associated with
Chaetoceros armatum in its na tura l h a bita t. J. Ph ycol. 11: 330-338.

Lewin, J. and Schaefer, C.T. 1983. The ro le of phytoplankton in surf ecosystem s

. In McLachlan, A. and Erasmus, T. (eds.) Sandy Beaches as Ecosystems . Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague. pp. 381-389.

Li, H. W ., C. B. Schreck, R.A. Tubb, and H. F. Horton. 1979. Habitat requirem ents for
residen t f i sh es in th e res e rvoir s of the lo wer Colum b ia River. First Quarterly Report. Oregon Cooperative Fisheries Research Un it and Oregon Departm e nt of Fish and

W ildlife (as cited in Farr and W a rd 1993).

Linder, A. D. 1963. Idaho's alien fish es. Tebiwa 6(2):12-15. As cited by http://nas.er.usgs.gov

Lindholm

, T. 1985. Mesodinium rubrum - a unique photosynthetic ciliate. Adv. Aqua t. Microbiol., 3: 1-48.

Litton, R.K. Unpublished data from the Clatsop E c onom ic De velopm ent Council Fisheries Project, As toria, OR.

Litton, R.K. 2000. Youngs Bay Benthic I nvertebrate S t udies. Report by Clatsop

Econom ic Developm ent Council Fisheries P r ojec t, Astoria, OR fo r Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 20 pp.

Loch, J.J., and S.A. Bonar. 1999. Occurrence of Grass Carp in the Lower Colum b ia and
Snake Rivers. Transactions of the Am erican Fisheries Society. 2: 374-379

Logan, D.J., E.L. Bibles and D. F. Markle . 1996 Recent collections of ex otic aqu a riu m fishes in the freshwaters of Oregon and ther m a l tolerance of oriental weatherfish and pirapatinga. California F i sh and Game 82(2)66-80.

LCRA N S pag e 63Lovrich, G. A., D. Roccatagliata, L. Pere san 2004. Hyperparasitis m of the cryptoniscid isopod Liriopsis pygmaea on the lith odid Paralomis granulosa f r om the Beagle Cha nnel, Argentina, Diseases of A quatic Organism s 58:71-77.

Lower Columbia River Estuary Program (LCR EP). 1999. Lower Columbia River Estuary
Plan: Com p r e hensive Conservation and Managem e nt Plan, Vol. 1., June 1999. The Lower Columbia River Estuary Program

, Portland, Oregon. 222pp.

MacDonald, K.B. and Winfield. 1984. Tidal Marsh Plant Production in the Colum b ia River Estuary. CREDDP, Astoria, Oregon. 108pp.

Markiw, M.E. and K. Wolf. 1983. Myxosoma cer ebralis (Myxozoa:Myxosporea),
etio logica l a g ent of salm onid whirlin g di sease requires tubificid worm (Annelida: Oligochaeta) in its life cycle. Journal of Protozoology 30:561-564.

Marsh, P. C., and M. E. Douglas. 1997. Pr edation by introduced fishes on endangered
hum pback chub and other native species in the L ittle Colorado RIver, Arizona.
Transactions of the Am erican Fisheries Society 126:343-346.

Mason, H.L. 1957. Flora of the Marshes of California . University of Calif ornia Pre ss, Berkeley, 878pp.

McCabe G.T. Jr., S.A. Hinton, R.L. Emm e tt and R.J. McConnell. 1990. Benthic invertebrates, sedim e nt characteristics, and demersal fishes off Cottonwood Island,
Colum b ia River, before and after rock gr oin construction, 1987- 1988. Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies, NMFS. Seattle, WA. 17pp.

McCabe G.T. Jr., S.A. Hinton, R.L. Emm e tt, and B.P. Sanford. 1997. Benthic
invertebrates and sedim e nt char acte r istics in m a in channe l h a bita ts in the lower Colu m b ia River. Northwest Science. 71(1)45-55.

McCabe G.T. Jr., S.A. Hinton and R.L. Emmett. 1998. Benthic invertebrates and
sedim e nt characteristics in a shallow naviga tion channel of the lower Colum b ia River, before and after dredging. Northwest Science. 72(2)116-126.

McCartney, K. 1993. Silicoflagellates. pp. 143-154 in: Lipps, J.H., ed. Fossil Prokaryotes
and Protis ts. Blackwell S c ientif ic, Boston.

McMahon, T. E., and D. H. Bennett. 1996. W a lle ye and northern pike: boost or bane to
northwest fisheries? Fisheries 21(8):6-13.

Merritt, R.W., V. H. Re sh and K. W

. Cumm ins. 1996 Design of aquatic insect studies: collecting sampling and rearing processes. p. 12-28. In Merritt, R. W and K. W

. Cumm ings (ed.) Introduction to the aquati c insects of North Am erica. 3rd Edition. Kendall Hunt Publishing Com p any, Dubuqe, IO. 862 pp.

LCRA N S pag e 64Miller, A.I., and L. G. Beckm a n. 1996. Firs t record of predation on white sturgeon eggs by sym p atric fishes. Transactions of th e Am erican Fisheries Society 125:338-340.

Mills, C.E., A. N. Cohen, H. K. Berry, M. J. W o nham

, B. Bi ngham

, B. Bookheim , J. T. Carlton, J. W. Chapm a n, L. H. Harris, T. K linger, A. Kohn, C. La m b ert, G. La m b ert, K. Li, D. Secord and J. Toft. 2000. The 1998 Puget Sound Expedition : a rapid assessm ent survey for nonindigenous species in the sh allow waters of Puget Sound. Pages 130-138
in: Proc. F i rst Nat'l Conf. on Marine Bioi nvasions, Jan. 24-27, 1999, Ca mbridge MA.

Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Fish and Ga m e Departm e nt. Si m s Printing Company, Inc., Phoenix, AZ. As cited by http://www.nas.gov

Misitano, D.A. 1973. A checklist of zooplankt on in the lower Colum b ia and W illam e tte rivers. July to October 1973. Northwest Fi sheries Science Center , National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, W A

.

Montagne and Associates. 1976. Natural resource base and physical characteristics of the proposed offshore oil platform fabrication site. F o r Pacific Fabricators Inc., W a rrenton, OR. 91pp. As cited in Colum b ia River Estu ary Data Developm en t Program (CREDDP).
1980.

Morgan, A. R., and A. R. Gerlach. 1950. Striped bass studies on Coos Bay in 1949 and 1950. Report to the Forty-sixth L e gislatur e, Oregon Fish Commission and Oregon Gam e Comm ission. Pp. 1-31.

Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley,

CA.

Moyle, P. B. 1976b. Fish introduction in Calif ornia: history and im pact on native fishes. Biological Conservation 9:101-118.

Moyle P.B. and L.H. Da vis. 2000. A list of freshwater, anadrom ous, and euryhaline
fishes of California. Californi a Fish and Ga m e 86(4)244-258.

NAS 2003, 2004 USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov

National Marine Fisheries Se rvice (NMFS). 1995. Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake
River Salm on. NOAA, NMFS, Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point W a y N.E. BIN C15700, Building 1, Seattle, W a shington. March 1995.

Neal, V.T. 1972. Physical aspects pf the Colu m b i a River and its estuary. p 14-40 In: A

. T.
Pruter and D

. L. Alberson (eds.), The Co lum b ia River Es tuary and Adjacen t Ocean Waters, Bioenvironm ental Studies. Universi ty of W a shington Press. Seattle, W A

.

LCRA N S pag e 65Nigro, A.A. 1988. Status and habitat requirem e nts of white sturgeon populations in the
Colum b ia River downstream from M c Nary Dam

. Annual Progress Report, July 1987 –
March 1988. For Bonneville Power Adm i nist ration, Division of Fisha nd W ildlife, Project Number 86-50, P o rtland, OR.

North, J.A. L.C. Burner, B. S. Cunni ngham

, R. A. Farr, T.A. Friesen, J. C

. Harrington, H.
K. Takata and D. L. W a rd. 2002. Relations hips between bank treatm ent, nearshore developm ent and anad ro mous and resident fi sh in the lower W illam e tte River, Annual Report May 2000-June 2001. Report to the City of Portland-B u reau of Environm ental Services Endangered Species Act Program . 130pp.

ODFW 2001 Backgrounder, issu e 11/06/01 Nonnative wildlife in Oregon. Available
online http://www.dfw.s t ate.or.us/O D FW ht m l/Nonnative_1.pdf

Orsi, J.J., and S. Ohtsuka. 1999. Introduction of the Asian copepods Acartie lla s i ne nsis

, Tortanus dextrilobatus (Copepoda: Calanoida), and Limnoithona tetraspina (Copepoda: Cyclopoida) to the San F r ancisco estuary, Ca lifornia, USA. Plankton Biol. Ecol. 46(2)

:128-131.

Orsi, J. J. and T. C. W a lter. 1991. Pseudodiaptomus forbesi and P. marinus (Copepoda: Calanoida), the latest cope pod imm i grants to California's Sacram ento-San-Joaquin
estuary. In : S. -i. Uye, S. Nishida, and J. -S . Ho, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Copepoda. Pp. 553-562. Bull. of the Plankton Soc. Japan, special volum e: i-xi, 1-645.

Orsi, J. J., T. E. Bowm an, D. C. Marelli, and A. Hutchinson. 1983. Recent introduction of the planktonic calanoid copepod Sinocalanus doerri (Centropagidae) from m a inland
China to the Sacram ento-San Joaquin Estuary of California. J. Pla nkton Res. 5(3): 357-
375.

Orsi, J. J. 1995. Radical changes in th e estuary's zooplankton caused by introductions
from ballast water. Interagency Ecological S t udies Program for the Sacram ento-San Joaquin Estuary, Newsletter, Summer 1995: 16-17.

OTA. 1993. Harmful nonindigenous species in the United States, Office of Techology

Assessm ent, U.S. Congr ess, W a shington, DC. 391pp.

Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North Am erica north of Mexico. Houghton Miff lin Com p any, Boston. 432 p.

Pachut, J. 1998. List Of Fresh W a ter Bryozoans. Web publication. Available at http://www.geology.iupui.edu/research/Pal eoLab/ Projects/BryoLists/Phylacto.htm

Petersen, J.H., R.A. Hinrichsen, D.M. Gado m s ki, D.H. Feil, and D. W

. Rondorf. 2003.

Am erican sh ad in the Co lum b ia River. W e b publication. Ava i lable at http://www.cbfwa.org

LCRA N S pag e 66Petts, G.E. 1984. Im pounded Rivers: Persp ectives for Ecological Managem e nt. John

W iley and Sons, New York, NY. 326pp.

Philbrick CT, Aakjar RA, Stuckey RL.1998. Invasion and spread of Callitr iche stag nalis (Callitrichaceae) in Nort h Am erica. Rhodora 100: 25-38

Quinn, T. (Oregonian 18/16/03 Tom Quinn) In Piranha, boy’s fish tale gets new bite

Rosen, P. C. , C. R. Schwalbe, D. A. Pari zek, Jr., P. A. Hol m , and C. H. Lowe. 1995. Introduced aquatic vertebrates in the Chiricahua region: e ffects on declining native ranid frogs. Pages 251-261 in Biodivers ity and Managem e nt of the Madrean Archipelago: the sky island of the southwestern United Stat es and northwestern Mexico. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report R M -GTR-264.

Ruiz, G.M., P. W

. Fofonoff, J.T. Carlton, M.J. Wonham

, and A.H. Hines. 2000. Invasion
of coastal m a rine communities in N o rth Am eri ca: apparent patterns, processes and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and System atics 31:481-531.

Sanborn, H.R. 1973. A list of benthic anim al s in the lower W illam ette and Colum b ia Rivers August to October 1973. Northwest Fi sheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, W A . 6pp.

Sanborn, H.R. 1975a. An investigation of the benthic infauna at two dredge and four dredge disp osal sites adjacen t to the mouth of the Colu m b ia River. Enviro nm ental
Conservation Divisi on NMFS-NWFSC. 19pp.

Sanborn, H.R. 1975b. Benthic infauna observed at five sites in the Columbia River from August 1973 to July 1974. Environm ental Conservation Divisi on NMFS-NW FSC. 19pp.

SCAMIT. 2002. Newsletter of the Southe rn California Association of Marine
Invertebrate Taxonom ists. Nove m b er, 2002 Vol. 21, No. 7

Scheerer, P. 2000. Oregon Chub Research In The W illam e tte Valley 1991 - 1999. Oregon Departm e nt of Fish and W ildlife, Corvallis, OR. 24 pp.

Scott, W

. B. and E.J. Crossm an, 1973. Freshw ater fishes of Canada. Bulletin of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 184:1-966.

Sheath, R.G. and J.D. Wehr. 2003. Introducti on to freshwater algae, pp 1-10 in (W ehr and Sheath eds.) Freshwater Algae of Nort h Am erica: Ecology and Classification. 918

pp.

Sherwood C.R. and J.S. Creager. 1990. Sedi m e ntary geology of the Columbia River Estuary. Progress In Oceanography. 25: 15-80.

LCRA N S pag e 67Shubert, L.E

. 2003. Nonmotile coccoid and colo nial g r een algae. pp 253-310 in (W ehr and Sheath eds.) Freshwater Algae of Nort h Am erica: Ecology and Classification. 918

pp.

Sigler, W

. F., and R. R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah Departm e nt of Fish and

Ga m e , Salt Lake City, UT. 203 pp.

Sim e nstad, C.A. L.F. Sm all, C.D. McIntire , D.A. Jay and C. Sherwood. 1990. Colum b ia
River Estua r y studies : an introdu ctio n to the estuary, a brief histor y, and prior studies. Progress In Oceanography. 25:1-13.

Sm ith, D. G. 2001. Pennak's Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States, 4 th Edition

. John W iley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 638 pp.

Sm ith, H.M. 1896. A review of the history and re sults of the attem p ts to acclim atize fish
and other w a ter anim als in the Pacific Stat e s . Bulletin of the United Sta t e s Fish

Comm ission. 15: 379-472.

Stuckey, Ronald L. 1979. Distributional history of Potamogeton crispus (curl y pondweed) in North America. Bartonia 46: 22-42

Taylor, J. N., W

. R. Courte nay, Jr., and J. A. McCann. 1984. Known i m pact of exotic
fishes in the continental United States. Pages 322-373 in W

. R. Courtenay, Jr., and J. R. Stauffer, editors. Distribution, biology, and m a na gem e nt of e xotic fish. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.

Tetra Tech. 1993. Lower Colum b ia River Bi -State Program Ta sk 6: Reconnaissance Report. May 1993. Vol. 1. The Lower Colum b ia River Bi-State W a ter Quality Program.

Toft, Jason. 2000. Community Effe cts of the Non-Indigenous Aquatic P l ant W a ter Hyacinth (E ichhornia crassipes) in the Sacram ento/San Joaquin Delta, California. M.S.
thesis. Univ ersity of W a shington, Se attle W A

.

Ueda, H. and J. W

. Reid. 2003. Guides to th e Identification of the Microinvertebrates of
the Continental W a ters Throughout the W o rld, 20. Copepoda: Cyclopoida, Genera Mesocyclop s and Thermocylops . Backhuys publishers, Leiden. 318 pp.

USDA, NRCS. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov)

. National P l a n t Data Center , Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.

U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service. 1993. Lost River ( Deltiste s lu xatus ) and shortnose ( Chamistes brevirostris ) sucker reco very plan. U

. S. Fish and W ildlife Service, Portlan d

, OR. 108 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. Fact Sheet: Nutr ia, Eating Lousiana’s Coast. FS-020-00. U.S. Geological Survey, National W e tlands Research Center. Lafayette, L A . 2pp.

LCRA N S pag e 68Ward, D.L. and A.A. Ni gro. 1992. Differences in fish assem b lages am ong habitats found
in the lower W illam e tte River, Oreg on: appl ication of and problem s with m u ltivar iate analysis. Fisheries Research. 13:119-132.

Watling, L. 1991. Rediagnosis and revi sion of so m e Nannastacidae (Crustacea:

Cum acea). Proceed ings o f the Biologi cal Society of W a shington 104(4):
751-757.

Webb, D. A. 1985. W h at are the criteria fo r presum ing native status? W a tsonia 15:231-

236.

Weitkam p, L. 1994. A review of the effects of dam s on the Colum b ia River estuarine
environm ent, with spec ia l ref e ren ce to sa lm onids. Northwest Fisheries Science Center,
National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Adm i nistration. 148pp.

Welcomme, R.L., 1988. Interna tional introductions of inla nd aquatic species.. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. No. 294. 318 p.

WEMAP unpublished. West Coast Environm ental Mon ito ring and Assessm ent Program
1999-2000

W illiam s on, G.R. and O. Tabeta. 199 1. Search for Anguilla eels on th e W e st Coast of
North Am erica and on the Aleutian and Hawaiian Islands. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology. 33(3)315-317.

Wonha m and Carlton in press C ool-tem perate marine invasi ons at local and regional
scales: The Northeast P acific Ocean as a m odel system . M. Wonha m and J. Carlton. Biological Invasions, in press.

Wydoski , R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland F i shes of W a s h ington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, W A . 220pp.

LCRA N S pag e 69