2011 issue 1, missoula conservation district newsletter

8/3/2019 2011 Issue 1, Missoula Conservation District Newsletter

1/8

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Inside ThisIssue

Weeds! Weeds!Everywhere

Page 2

The NatureConservancy-MTLegacy Project

UpdatePage 3

Mtn. Pine BeetlePages 4 & 5

MT Ice Jams

Pages 6 & 7

Lori Zeiser-Editor Issue 1 - 2011

Missoula Conservation District Sponsors

Gooden-Kiel County Water District Tank Site Restoration

DNRC-RCAC 223 Grant

Weed Pulling and Site Prep Crew

In April of 2010 Missoula Conservation District was asked to sponsor a DNRC-

RCAC 223 Grant for the Goodan-Keil County Water District and Homeowners

Association water tank restoration project. Betty Tingley (right hand side of photo

the green jacket) spokes-woman for the water district & homeowners group

requested on behalf of the Goodan-Kiel Co Water District & Homeowners

Association sponsorship from the Missoula CD for funding to purchase top soil &

hydro-seeding at their new water tank site.

The District supported their proposal and applied for the grant for the group the

District felt that their proposal fit into the Districts Long Range Plan for communi

education and technical assistance along with community weed education and weed

control. If you get a chance-look at their tank project-north of I-90 across from the

Missoula County Airport.


2/8

Weeds, Weeds Everywhere, What Can We Do? ...

Bob Schroeder with His Dog Rudy On His Ranch

Some observations on weed control

from a guy who's tried most everything

and had most of it fail.

Not planning your long term goals is the greatest

reason for failure in weed control. Most

landowners, myself included, want the weeds gone

yesterday which leads us to make hasty decisions.

Not thinking through the entire process will most

likely cause added expense, lackluster weed controland harm to the land you were trying to help.

Some questions that should be asked before

proceeding with any weed control:

1. Do you know the weed you are trying to

control and its life cycle?

2. If spraying, do you know the herbicide that is

best for control and does it have a residual

that stays in the soil and for how long?

3. Can the weeds be controlled in oneapplication, or does it take multiple spray

applications?

4. Do you have the financing to continue if it

requires long term control or if you need to

reseed after control?

5. Are you prepared to exclude livestock from

the area, sometimes for a couple of years?

These are just a few questions that need to be

thought about, if you don't know the answers, get

help.

What is the best way to kill weeds?

The short answer is there is no best way. Everysituation is different, soils change, precipitation

differs, spray application rates and methods change

Herbicide can't be used in some areas and should n

be used in others. Bio-control with insects may wor

in some areas, for some weeds.

Leafy Spurge Control: In my experience with leafy

spurge there are no easy answers. We have fought

this weed for fifty years with really zero success. In

the areas where we applied Tordon at various ratesfor years, the plant community has changed to a

monoculture of annual grasses. Its debatable,

which is worse - Leafy Spurge or Cheat grass? Thisdo know for a fact, if you don't have leafy spurge,

youre lucky and try to keep it that way. If you have

small patches, control them now. When they get

older and bigger they are considerably harder and

more expensive to control.

Leafy Spurge Plant Sprayed But Not Dead

Don't be afraid to ask for help. But get good

helpthat may not be your neighbor with a handy

spray rig. Read as much as you can about the weed

you trying to control (the Internet is a good source)

Think through the details of a comprehensive plan.

Proceed carefully and best of luck!

Submitted by: Bob Schroeder, Bitterroot Rancher and

Missoula Conservation District Supervisor


3/8

The Nature ConservancyMontana Legacy Project Update

MT Legacy Project land transfers:

In the spring of 2010 TNC transferred about 112,000acres of checker-board land in the Swan Valley, LoloCreek watershed, Clearwater watershed, Rock Creek

watershed & land southeast of Missoula to the Forestservice. This was funded with the $250 millionQualified Forest Conservation Bond mechanism in theFarm Bill.

In spring 2010 TNC sold about 41,000 acres in the FishCreek drainage to Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. They used anumber of funding sources including Pittman-Robertson Act, Habitat Montana & Access Montana. Itwill be managed in part as a Wildlife Management Area& in part as a State Park.

In November of 2010 TNC conveyed about 32,000acres in the foothills surrounding the Potomac Valley the MT DNRC. This was funded with $21 million inGeneral Obligation Bonds passed by a large majority both houses of the 2009 state legislature.

Earlier in December 2010, Fish, Wildlife, & Parkspurchased almost 14,000 acres in the upper ClearwateRiver drainage to be managed as the Marshall CreekWildlife Management Area. This $13.5 millionacquisition was funded through the US Fish & WildlifService-Habitat Conservation Program.

Marshall Lake in the heart of the FW&P Marshall CreekWildlife Management Area

Also in December 2010, FWP purchased a conservatioeasement on about 9,300 acres of land intermingledwith the Swan River State Forest for about $14.8million. This was funded through a combination of thUS Fish & Wildlife Service and the Bonneville PowerAdministration funding. A second round of Decembeclosings transferred 1,920 acres in the north SwanValley to DNRC and 454 acres in the same area to FisWildlife & Parks.

In the Bonner/Milltown area 78 acres were sold to FisWildlife, & Parks through the Natural ResourceDamage Program. The B Hill parcel, which is slatefor conveyance to the Bonner School District, is still iTNC ownership pending resolution of potentialenvironmental issues.

TNC also sold 220 acres to the City of Missoula andone private sale to an adjoining ranch with aconservation easement placed on the land.

Taken from: Missoula Co. Rural Initiatives Newsletter: January 2011-submitby Chris Bryant, Western MT Director of Outreach, The Nature Conservanc


4/8

Mountain Pine BeetleChanging Our Landscape

Tri-Color Forests of Beetle Infested Trees

Green (uninfected-infected), Red (killed this year), & Grey(dead)

As we have recently heard in the media, the outbreak of mountainpine beetle may have peaked and be on its way down for no otherreason than the fact that they are eating themselves out of houseand home. The following is a key for determining whether yourtrees are infested and what to do if they are:

From: USDA Forest Service NW Colorado Forest Health

Guide, 2007

Pine beetles know no property boundaries and attack trees wheththey grow in wilderness areas, in national forests or in a back yarIn many areas, between 50 to 90 percent of the trees have died.Such losses typically occur in stands where little or nomanagement has taken place.

Prevention Measures: There is no substitute for good health.Pine beetles respond to stress placed on trees from a variety ofsources. Old age, overcrowding, drought, root disturbance, soilcompaction, mistletoe, and injury from machinery or fire areexamples of stress. Anything done to alleviate stress is beneficiaA vigorous, healthy tree has increased production of resin (pitch)trees natural defense mechanism.

Proper spacing of the trees encourages fuller crown growth whilelessening competition for sun, nutrients, and water and the hazarof fire. An occasional light application of fertilizer is alsobeneficial. Prune mistletoe whenever possible.

A short-term prevention measure for protecting individual high-value trees is to apply pheromones (Verbenone) or carbarylinsecticide (Seven) to the bark of uninfected trees. This isexpensive, labor-intensive, and must be done yearly.

Management of Infected Trees: If the tree has only a few pitchtubes and appears healthy otherwise, leave it and monitor itclosely. A healthy, vigorous tree can fight off a light bark beetleattack.

Heavily infected trees (still green), or brood trees, should be cdown and removed from site. If the trees are left on site, theyshould be chipped, burned or peeled. If the trees are harvested fotheir timber value, logging should be done during the winter and

spring (before June 15th of the following year) to reduce the risk beetles emerging and attacking neighboring trees. If done insummer, the logs should be removed from site into an open, sunnlocation, spread out (not stacked) and rotated every 3 weeks.

Pitch Tubes Indicator of pine beetle infected tree.


5/8

Dead standing trees (red trees) pose less of a threat to the spreadof the pine beetle, as the majority of the beetles have already leftthe tree. These trees can still be harvested, but will have blue-stained wood caused by fungi introduced by the tree-killingbeetles. The naturally occurring blue/grey color does not affect theperformance of the wood. Many products are produced from thiswood including flooring, wall paneling, fuel wood and in biomassmarkets.

Blue-Stain Fungus

Trees that have been dead for more than one year (grey), nolonger have any timber value. If left standing, they will eventuallyfall to the forest floor. They do not pose any beetle-spread threat atthis stage. Standing dead trees in a forest, called snags are hometo many wildlife species. When these trees are along a streamor river, leaving them to fall into the channel will ensure afuture supply of large woody debris recruitment. If a tree onyour private land does not have the potential to endanger personsor property, consider leaving it standing for wildlife.

Consider Leaving Dead Snags for Wildlife

Firewood: Care must be taken in cutting up beetle infested treesfor firewood. The bark beetles can continue to develop under thebark of infested firewood and emerge the following summer toattach nearby trees. Green infected trees will contain beetles, andtrees that are red during July and August may contain beetles.Standing dead grey trees typically dont have living bark beetles.

Fire Danger: Infrequent, large fires are the norm in our pineforests, and they are likely to be in the future with or withoutbeetles. Trees with red needles are more flammable than live treHowever, once the needles have fallen, standing dead trees nolonger increase wildfire risk. As the dead needles fall from thetrees, the probability of crown fire will diminish, but theprobability of surface fire may increase. As the trees drop to theground, the addition of downed woody fuels does increase fireintensity and severity.

Mountain pine beetle killed trees among younger

regeneration,

Colorado Fraser Experimental Forest

Trees at High Risk: High-risk lodge pine stands have an averagage of more than 80 years, an average diameter at breast height ogreater than 8 inches. High-risk second-growth ponderosa pinestands have a high stand basal area, are single story, and have anaverage diameter at breast height of more than 10 inches.

Managing for the Next Forest: Adding diversity to forestscan provide an insurance policy against future large-scale multi-landscape disturbance events. Having multiple species stands aswell as uneven age stands can greatly reduce the risk of a singlepathogen or outbreak wiping out your entire forest.

Keeping the stand thinned so that each tree remains vigorous wita healthy full crown will reduce fire risk and chance of insectinfestation. Patch cutting or creating naturally-shaped openings pine forests creates a mosaic of age and size chasses, whichreduces the acreage that will be highly susceptible to beetles at otime.

Where to Go for Additional Information and Help:An excellent web site for information on the Mountain pine beetlis: www.beetle.mt.gov.

This is a multi-agency sponsored web site. For on-the-groundassistance with insect and forest management on private lands:contact Amy Gannon, Montana DNRC at (406)542-4283,http://forestry.mt.gov/forestry/assistance/pests/default.asp

For pesticide and insecticide information, contact the MontanaDepartment of Agriculture, pesticide licensing division:http://www.agr.state.mt.us/(see pesticides, program contacts).

Submitted by: Tara L. Comfort, Resource Conservationist,

Missoula Conservation District
http://www.beetle.mt.gov/http://www.beetle.mt.gov/http://forestry.mt.gov/forestry/assistance/pests/default.asphttp://forestry.mt.gov/forestry/assistance/pests/default.asphttp://www.agr.state.mt.us/http://www.agr.state.mt.us/http://www.agr.state.mt.us/http://forestry.mt.gov/forestry/assistance/pests/default.asphttp://www.beetle.mt.gov/


6/8

Is 2011 Shaping Up to Be a Major Ice-Jam & Flooding Year?

Ice jams have begun in Montana! According to the MTState Department of Emergency Services (DES) PublicInformation Officer, Monique Lay and the National WeatherService reports of ice jams and wide spread flooding havebeen received from Madison and Gallatin Counties and thereis a good possibility of more.

Montana has been blanketed with persistent cold much of thewinter thus far, and in response many rivers and creeks haveexperienced freezing and some ice jamming. Unfortunately,with off and on cold temperatures in the forecast, theNational Weather Service and DES do not see muchopportunity for improvement, and the potential for ice jamformation could increase over the next couple of weeks. Butwill it be as bad as the winters of 1996 & 1997?

Since the 1st of January, 2011, the forecast has called formore cold weather along with more snow how coldtemperatures will be is still a forecast challenge as themodels continue to fluctuate on their outlooks. Depending

on the long range forecast, and the fact that Montana canexperience sub-zero temperatures well into March, the coldwill only complicate the current conditions.

It is important to remember that ice jams can form and breakquickly. Flash flooding is often possible behind the jam as itforms, and downstream from the jam after it breaks. Break-up jams, composed of chunks of ice, are highly unstable andsubject to sudden failures with associated surges in waterflow. As open water builds behind the jam, it may reach alevel that will lift and move the ice suddenly. Themovement of the ice can be extremely powerful causing

damage and scour for several feet outside stream channels.

Clark Fork River near Clinton, MT winter 1996

Anyone with property or livestock close to rivers or creeksshould maintain vigilance for the possible development ofice jams, keeping in mind that conditions can and willchange rapidly. Once ice jams development begins, there islittle time for response. Those that live or have livestock inlocations where ice jams form as a recurring event may wantto take protective measurers prior to ice jam development.

An ice jam is an accumulation of ice in a river that restrictswater flow and may cause backwater that flood low-lyingareas upstream. Downstream areas also can be flooded if tjam releases suddenly, sending excessive water and icedownstream.

Lolo Creek-flooding across US Hwy 12 West of Lolo, MT February 1996

Costly damages to private and public properties andcommunities are a direct result of ice jams. Ice jams cancause an estimated $100 million dollars in damages annualin the US. Roads may be flooded and closed to traffic, orbridges weakened or destroyed, limiting emergency andmedical relief to the affected areas. In the ice jam data forwater year 1997 (October 1, 1996-September 30, 1997) thehighest percentage of ice jams in the US occurred inFebruary (40%) with Montana reporting ice jams mostfrequently. Montana experienced 29 ice jams, the highestnumber reported per state for 1997.

Engineers at the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) CoRegions Research & Engineering Lab (CRREL) are workinto develop and optimize low-cost structural andnonstructural techniques to prevent or alleviate damagescaused by ice jams.

Many of these methods, such as early warning systems, icedusting, ice breaking, ice weakening, and ice jam removaltechniques can be carried out by local DES offices.Despite Montanas sparse population, with only 5.7 personper square mile (Edstrom 1993), ice jams have a frequent

and destructive history in the state. In 1992 there were24,800 farms in Montana; ice jam floods often left theminundated, especially in lowland areas. As of January of1998, there were 1039 Montana ice jam events documentedin the ACOE-CRREL ice jam database.

When do ice jams occur in Montana? The number of icejams reported varies greatly from year to year, with one ofthe highest recorded number of 65 in 1996. Ice jamoccurrence depends on the time of year; 59% of MT ice jamhave occurred in March and April, when the rivers begin tobreak-up, an indication that these ice jams are largely breakup ice events. The 32% of jams that occur in January &

February could be either freeze-up or break-up events.


7/8

In Montana residents living near rivers and streams prone toice jams and flooding due to ice jams, ice jams can bedamaging to property, especially if not protected by a dike orlevee. High waters caused by ice jams pose a threat to manyMontana ranchers who may not receive sufficient warning tomove their stock to higher ground.

Clark Fork River near Clinton, MT winter 1996

Ice jams may affect fish populations because of physicaldisplacement of fish, habitat destruction, and the disruptionof spawning activity. The ice jam/run event in 1996 on the

Blackfoot River resulted in a significant fish kill with deadfish noted overbank. Ravens & eagles were observed eatingfish in the overbank areas as well. Another concern in 1996was the Upper Clark Fork in the Bearmouth and Drummondarea, where ice jam scouring released soils contaminatedwith heavy concentrations of mining wastes that are toxic tofish.

Blackfoot Ice Jam February 1996 near downstream end

During the 1996 event, a massive, glacier-like ice jamominously descended the Blackfoot Rivers narrow canyon.

Emergency action was taken to release millions of tons ofwater from the small dam behind the Stimson Bonner Millsite and the Milltown dam on the Clark Fork River so the ijam would grind to a stop on the riverbed above the mill siIf the massive ice jam had broken through the small dambehind the mill, it had the potential to take out the Highwa200 and I-90 bridges over the Blackfoot River and break thMilltown Dam on the Clark Fork River (~6 highway mileseast of Missoula, MT). If the Milltown dam had breached

6,600,000 cubic yards of toxic sediment would havepoisoned aquatic, terrestrial & human lives as far down rivas Idahos Lake Pend Oreille.Even so, as a result of this massive release of water, a largeamount of sediment flush down the Blackfoot and ClarkFork Rivers raising copper concentrations to 770 parts perbillion (ppb) where MT state standards allow 18ppb. 50% the fish down stream died, and studies reveal that probablyonly 20% of the rivers fish population survive to this day.

Aftermath of the 1996 Blackfoot Ice Jam, Bonner MT

What are the odds of Ice Jams causing Flooding in Missoufor 2011? Adam Painter a meteorologist for NBC Montanand KECI TV reported on January 19, 2011 that the odds oflooding due to ice jams are low. There are 3 events thatneed to occur to kickoff an ice jam. A 3 to 4 day articoutbreak is neededfollowed by a real quick warm-upwith quite a bit of rain being added at the end. The bibanks of the Clark Fork, Blackfoot & Bitterroot Rivers helto lower the ice jam/flooding threat. Michelle Mead at theNWS said that the two most prone to ice jam and flooding the Missoula proper area are Rattlesnake Creek and LoloCreek.

Where can you go for help or can you help? The NationalWeather Service is available for updates on currentconditions and forecast at 406-453-2081, or your countysDepartment of Emergency Services. You can help during ice jam by recording and reporting. If you can safelyphotograph the area where the jamming and flooding areoccurring this information is helpful as well. Send thephotos along with information on the location, date and thename of the photographer to the DES in your county.Information taken from US ACOE, National Weather Servic

MT DES, and NBC Montana Submitted by Lori Zeiser,

Missoula Conservation District


8/8

The public is always invited to the meetings of the Conservation District. Meetings are held on

the 2nd

Monday of each month at the District office, 3550 Mullan Road, Ste. 106, at 7 PM

DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Tim Hall, ChairmanLibby Maclay, Vice-ChairmanRichard Ramberg, Treasurer

Robert SchroederSidney WillsArt Pencek

Rob Roberts

ASSOCIATE SUPERVISORS

Greg Martinsen

All MCD & NRCS Programs are offered on aNONDISCRIMINATORY basis without REGARD TO RACE,

COLOR, NATION OF ORIGIN, RELIGION, SEX, AGE,MARITAL STATUS, OR DISABILITY

MISSOULA CONSERVATION DIASTRICT

EMPLOYEES

Tara Comfort . . . . . . . . . . District AdministratoLori Zeiser . . . . . . . . . . AdministrativeAssistant

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Area/Field Office StaffCraig Engelhard . . . . . . . Assistant State ConservationJohn Bowe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Conservation

John Blaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource ConservationSusan Sakaye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil ConservationMark Zuber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Senior Civil EngineKristine Handley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Civil EngineJay Brooker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil ScientiMona Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative SpecialiPat Lauridson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BiologiWalter Lujan . . . . . .. . . . . .Range Management SpecialiJulie Sacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource ConservationiJay Skovlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil SurveBeth Rowley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Surve

2011 issue 1, missoula conservation district newsletter

Documents