FY07-09 proposal 200707200
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Flathead Subbasin Flowering Rush and Yellowflag Iris Project |
| Proposal ID | 200707200 |
| Organization | Salish Kootenai College/University of Montana |
| Short description | This research, demonstration, and education project on the environmenal impacts of flowering rush and yellowflag iris on wetland and aquatic habitats will help determine the biological potential and identify the future impact and test control measures. |
| Information transfer | Results from research on biological potential and control methods on flowering rush and yellowflag iris will be made available through mailings, conference presentations, and educational sections for higher education on invasive plant species and general public education strategy will be identified. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Virgil Dupuis | Salish Kootenai College | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Flathead
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| [none] | East bay of Flathead Lake |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Bull Troutsecondary: Westslope Cutthroat
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199502500 | Flathead River Instream Flow | Flathead Subbasin flowering rush and yellowflag iris project will coordinate closely with Barry Hansen, Tribal Fisheries throughout the project. Barry will conduct the macroinvetebrate study in conjunction with the research. Barry will provide biological input and represent Tribal interest during the project. |
| BPA | 199608701 | Montana Focus Watershed Coordi | The Flathead Subbasin flowering rush and yellowflag iris project will coordinate with Lynn Ducharme and the Montana Focus watershed group. We will priovide educational opportunities, project updates, and respond to Focus issues. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lakes Shoreline Condition | Restore lake shoreline conditions to a level equivalent to the shoreline condition habitat restoration score of reference lakes. | Flathead | 1. Protect critical lake wetland and riparian habitats Identify and rank all high priority areas 2 Work with the Focus Watershed Coordination project to identify site specific lake wetland riparian restoration projects to coordinate with landowners, |
| Regulated Mainstem Fine Sediment | Reduce the delivery of fine sediment in the mainstem to a level that supports sustainable population levels of focal species that function naturally and may be capable of supporting appropriate forms of human use. | Flathead | 1. Implement riparian revegetation/rehabilitation projects. |
| Regulated Mainstem Habitat Diversity | Restore the habitat diversity of the mainstem to a level that supports sustainable population levels of focal species that function naturally and may be capable of supporting appropriate forms of human use. | Flathead | 1. Restore recruitment of large woody debris, pool development, or other appropriate stream components to benefit native fish 2. Coordinate projects through the Focus Watershed Program to work collaboratively with landowners, agencies and other fundin |
| Regulated Mainstem Riparian Condition | Improve riparian condition of the mainstem to a level that supports sustainable population levels of focal species that function naturally and may be capable of supporting appropriate forms of human use. | Flathead | 1. Consolidated riparian and wetland habitat map for the regulated mainstem of the Flathead River 2. Identify losses in biological functions and performance. 3. Develop riparian and wetland habitat protection, rehabilitation, and enhancement plan. |
| Reservoirs Habitat Diversity | Improve the habitat diversity of Flathead Lake to a level equivalent to the habitat diversity habitat restoration score in LWHAQ for reference lakes. | Flathead | Increase or improve in-lake habitat by restoring appropriate components and by placing artificial and natural habitat structures where investigation indicates such actions are likely to benefit native fish. |
| Reservoirs Shoireline Condition | Improve the shoreline condition of Flathead Lake to a level equivalent to the shoreline condition habitat restoration score in LQHA for reference lakes | Flathead | ·1. Initiate and develop noxious weed management strategies with International entities |
| Riparian /Wetland | Prevent establishment of new non-native species in all subunits when they are identified treat an average of 10% of acres over the next 10 to 15 years in those subunits for which the non native vegetation index in the TBA spreadsheet tool exceeds a value of five consistent with management and mitigation plans. | Flathead | 1 & 2. .Address human and livestock impacts to riparian habitats with adaptive management 3. Coordinate effort with all natural resource mangers to develop comprehensive noxious weed management plans Coordinate subbasin noxious weed activities |
| Tributaries Channel Stability | Improve channel stability to a level equivalent to the channel stability habitat restoration score of reference streams. | Flathead | 1. Improve stream habitat 2. Restore stream channels 3.Coordinate projects through the Focus Watershed Program to assist with identifying projects and to coordinate with landowners, agencies, and other funding sources. |
| Tributaries Habitat Diversity | Improve habitat diversity to a level equivalent to the habitat diversity habitat restoration score of reference streams. | Flathead | 1. Restoring recruitment of large woody debris, pool development to benefit native fish. 2 Enhance/protect habitat diversity. Provide long-term channel stability through purchase, conservation easements, landowner incentives, management plans, and ot |
| Tributaries Protection of Class 1 Waters | Protect and maintain prime, functioning tributary habitat (identified as class 1 in QHA analysis) | Flathead | 1. Periodically evaluate and update habitat condition. Implement actions necessary to maintain Class 1 status. 2. Work with the Focus Watershed Coordination project to assist with coordinating with landowners, agencies, and other funding sources to fa |
| Tributaries Riparian Condition | Restore riparian habitats to a level equivalent to the riparian condition habitat restoration score of reference streams | Flathead | Identify impaired stream channel and riparian areas and implement tasks to restore their appropriate functions. Ø Conduct watershed problem assessments. Identify site-specific threats (problem assessment) that may be limiting focal species in watershed |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Flowering rush and yellow iris biology, control and biologic potential reserach | We propose to investigate the following aspects of flowering rush invasion in the Flathead sub-basin: 1) genetic ploidy, 2) genetic variation, 3) impact on native organisms, 4) control methodology, and 5) impact of control methods on native species. We propose to investigate the following aspects of yellowflag iris invasion in the Flathead sub-basin: 1) impact on native organisms, 2) control methodology, and 3) impact of control methods on natives. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $677,778 |
|
Biological objectives Lakes Shoreline Condition Regulated Mainstem Fine Sediment Regulated Mainstem Habitat Diversity Regulated Mainstem Riparian Condition Reservoirs Habitat Diversity Reservoirs Shoireline Condition Riparian /Wetland Tributaries Channel Stability Tributaries Habitat Diversity Tributaries Protection of Class 1 Waters Tributaries Riparian Condition |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Flowering rush and yellow iris inventory, spatial model, demonstration, and survey | Conduct an accurate inventory of the south end of Flathead Lake, lower Flathead River, tributaries and wetlands for flowering rush and yellowflag iris for those waters on the Flathead Reservation. Inventory data will be utilized to develop a spatial model to predict the potential spread. A general inventory will be conducted by survey in other regions of the Columbia Basin. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $237,580 |
|
Biological objectives Lakes Shoreline Condition Regulated Mainstem Fine Sediment Regulated Mainstem Habitat Diversity Regulated Mainstem Riparian Condition Reservoirs Habitat Diversity Reservoirs Shoireline Condition Riparian /Wetland Tributaries Channel Stability Tributaries Habitat Diversity Tributaries Protection of Class 1 Waters Tributaries Riparian Condition |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | SKC, Virgil Dupuis | $13,000 | $13,000 | $13,000 |
| Personnel | SKC, Alvin Mitchell | $5,760 | $5,760 | $5,760 |
| Personnel | SKC, 3 Student Internships | $19,200 | $19,200 | $19,200 |
| Personnel | UofM, Peter Rice | $20,500 | $20,500 | $20,501 |
| Personnel | Uof M, Ray Callaway | $9,138 | $9,138 | $9,138 |
| Personnel | UofM, Post Doc W. Ridenour | $37,832 | $37,832 | $37,832 |
| Personnel | Uof M. 4 Temp Techs(RAII) | $22,028 | $22,028 | $22,028 |
| Personnel | UofM, Student Aide AY | $3,217 | $3,217 | $3,218 |
| Personnel | UofM, Computer GRA (AY) | $10,791 | $10,791 | $10,790 |
| Personnel | UofM, Computer GRA (Summer) | $3,616 | $3,616 | $3,616 |
| Fringe Benefits | SKC, Virgil Dupuis | $3,270 | $3,270 | $3,270 |
| Fringe Benefits | SKC, Alvin Mitchell | $1,440 | $1,440 | $1,440 |
| Fringe Benefits | SKC, 3 Student Internships | $1,920 | $1,920 | $1,920 |
| Fringe Benefits | UofM, Peter Rice | $8,313 | $8,313 | $8,313 |
| Fringe Benefits | Uof M, Ray Callaway | $2,079 | $2,079 | $2,079 |
| Fringe Benefits | UofM, Post Doc W. Ridenour | $19,016 | $19,016 | $19,016 |
| Fringe Benefits | UofM Temp Techs | $3,192 | $3,192 | $3,192 |
| Fringe Benefits | UofM, Student Aide AY | $32 | $32 | $33 |
| Fringe Benefits | UofM, Computer GRA (AY) | $108 | $108 | $108 |
| Fringe Benefits | UofM, Computer GRA (Summer) | $361 | $361 | $361 |
| Other | UofM Contracted Services (Genetics Lab) | $15,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | SKC, Copy | $300 | $300 | $300 |
| Supplies | SKC, Computer | $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Supplies | SKC, Sampling Supplies | $500 | $500 | $500 |
| Supplies | SKC, Boat Supplies | $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Supplies | UofM Copy | $100 | $100 | $100 |
| Supplies | UofM Computer | $200 | $200 | $200 |
| Supplies | UofM Greenhouse Supplies | $333 | $334 | $333 |
| Supplies | UofM, Commincations | $1,080 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | UofM, Sprayer Parts | $1,200 | $0 | $0 |
| Travel | SKC Local Vehicle | $2,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 |
| Travel | SKC, Boat Fuel & Maintenance | $4,000 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
| Capital Equipment | SKC, Argo wTrack | $20,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Capital Equipment | SKC, Outboard Mud Motor | $4,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Travel | UofM Local Vehicle | $6,209 | $6,208 | $6,208 |
| Travel | UofM, Lodging | $5,778 | $5,778 | $5,778 |
| Other | UofM Publication Costs | $200 | $200 | $200 |
| Overhead | SKC Indirect 29% | $17,804 | $17,803 | $17,803 |
| Overhead | UofM Indirect 41.378% | $66,123 | $66,122 | $66,123 |
| Other | UofM Commuinications (Cell Phone) | $600 | $600 | $600 |
| Supplies | UofM Sampling Supplies | $400 | $400 | $400 |
| Totals | $332,640 | $291,358 | $291,360 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $915,358 |
| Total work element budget: | $915,358 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank] |
Future O&M costs: Implementation of control projects may evolve from this initial research and education effort. Part of our study is to determine costs, environmental issues, and public sentiment associated with invasive plant species.
Termination date: 2009
Comments: If funded, we ideally require additional time at the end of three field seasons to complete analysis and publish the results.
Final deliverables: Assessment of the impacts of flowering rush and yellowflag iris on aquatic and wetland habitats and native plant communities Assessment of various control methods and management strategies. Spatial model to predict infestation for management. Adaptive restoration demonstrations implementing control strategies and native shrub plantings.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: This proposal is well written, technically sound, and thoughtfully constructed but the benefits to fish and wildlife are not sufficiently demonstrated. This proposal does not make a strong case that this is a problem outside of the Flathead Subbasin (perhaps they are a problem in the Flathead). The sponsors describe a case in the St. Lawrence where the rush exploded and subsequently died back. However, without evidence to the contrary this seems to be a regional problem. Neither plant species seems to gather more than passing mention, if that, in other subbasin plans. The iris has been present for many years in other basin provinces (Hells Canyon Dam complex in Idaho, for example), and has not become dominant. Discussion of the plant species with which the iris and rush interact, and the extent to which the iris and rush impact other plants and an ecosystem would be useful.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: This proposal is well written, technically sound, and thoughtfully constructed but the benefits to fish and wildlife are not sufficiently demonstrated. This proposal does not make a strong case that this is a problem outside of the Flathead Subbasin (perhaps they are a problem in the Flathead). The sponsors describe a case in the St. Lawrence where the rush exploded and subsequently died back. However, without evidence to the contrary this seems to be a regional problem. Neither plant species seems to gather more than passing mention, if that, in other subbasin plans. The iris has been present for many years in other basin provinces (Hells Canyon Dam complex in Idaho, for example), and has not become dominant. Discussion of the plant species with which the iris and rush interact, and the extent to which the iris and rush impact other plants and an ecosystem would be useful.