2011 Issue 1, Missoula Conservation District Newsletter
Content
Lori Zeiser-Editor
Issue 1 - 2011
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Inside This Issue
Missoula Conservation District Sponsors Gooden-Kiel County Water District Tank Site Restoration DNRC-RCAC 223 Grant
Weeds! Weeds! Everywhere Page 2
The Nature Conservancy-MT Legacy Project Update Page 3
Weed Pulling and Site Prep Crew
In April of 2010 Missoula Conservation District was asked to sponsor a DNRCRCAC 223 Grant for the Goodan-Keil County Water District and Homeowners Association water tank restoration project. Betty Tingley (right hand side of photo in 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 District’s Long Range Plan for community 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.
Mtn. Pine Beetle Pages 4 & 5
MT Ice Jams Pages 6 & 7
Weeds, Weeds Everywhere, What Can We Do? ...
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. Every situation is different, soils change, precipitation differs, spray application rates and methods change. Herbicide can't be used in some areas and should not be used in others. Bio-control with insects may work 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 rates for years, the plant community has changed to a monoculture of annual grasses. It’s debatable, which is worse - Leafy Spurge or Cheat grass? This I do know for a fact, if you don't have leafy spurge, you’re 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.
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 control and 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 one application, 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?
Leafy Spurge Plant – Sprayed But Not Dead
Don't be afraid to ask for help. But get good help…that 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
The Nature Conservancy
Montana Legacy Project Update
MT Legacy Project land transfers: In the spring of 2010 TNC transferred about 112,000 acres of checker-board land in the Swan Valley, Lolo Creek watershed, Clearwater watershed, Rock Creek watershed & land southeast of Missoula to the Forest service. This was funded with the $250 million Qualified Forest Conservation Bond mechanism in the Farm Bill. In November of 2010 TNC conveyed about 32,000 acres in the foothills surrounding the Potomac Valley to the MT DNRC. This was funded with $21 million in General Obligation Bonds passed by a large majority of both houses of the 2009 state legislature. Earlier in December 2010, Fish, Wildlife, & Parks purchased almost 14,000 acres in the upper Clearwater River drainage to be managed as the Marshall Creek Wildlife Management Area. This $13.5 million acquisition was funded through the US Fish & Wildlife Service-Habitat Conservation Program.
Marshall Lake in the heart of the FW&P Marshall Creek Wildlife Management Area
Also in December 2010, FWP purchased a conservation easement on about 9,300 acres of land intermingled with the Swan River State Forest for about $14.8 million. This was funded through a combination of the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the Bonneville Power Administration funding. A second round of December closings transferred 1,920 acres in the north Swan Valley to DNRC and 454 acres in the same area to Fish, Wildlife & Parks. In the Bonner/Milltown area 78 acres were sold to Fish, Wildlife, & Parks through the Natural Resource Damage Program. The “B” Hill parcel, which is slated for conveyance to the Bonner School District, is still in TNC ownership pending resolution of potential environmental issues. TNC also sold 220 acres to the City of Missoula and one private sale to an adjoining ranch with a conservation easement placed on the land.
Taken from: Missoula Co. Rural Initiatives Newsletter: January 2011-submitted by Chris Bryant, Western MT Director of Outreach, The Nature Conservancy
In spring 2010 TNC sold about 41,000 acres in the Fish Creek drainage to Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. They used a number of funding sources including PittmanRobertson Act, Habitat Montana & Access Montana. It will be managed in part as a Wildlife Management Area & in part as a State Park.
Mountain Pine Beetle
Changing Our Landscape
Pine beetles know no property boundaries and attack trees whether they grow in wilderness areas, in national forests or in a back yard. In many areas, between 50 to 90 percent of the trees have died. Such losses typically occur in stands where little or no management has taken place. Prevention Measures: There is no substitute for good health. Pine beetles respond to stress placed on trees from a variety of sources. Old age, overcrowding, drought, root disturbance, soil compaction, mistletoe, and injury from machinery or fire are examples of stress. Anything done to alleviate stress is beneficial. A vigorous, healthy tree has increased production of resin (pitch), a tree’s natural defense mechanism. Proper spacing of the trees encourages fuller crown growth while lessening competition for sun, nutrients, and water and the hazard of fire. An occasional light application of fertilizer is also beneficial. Prune mistletoe whenever possible. 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 mountain pine beetle may have peaked and be on its way down for no other reason than the fact that they are eating themselves out of house and home. The following is a key for determining whether your trees are infested and what to do if they are: A short-term prevention measure for protecting individual highvalue trees is to apply pheromones (Verbenone) or carbaryl insecticide (Seven) to the bark of uninfected trees. This is expensive, labor-intensive, and must be done yearly. Management of Infected Trees: If the tree has only a few pitch tubes and appears healthy otherwise, leave it and monitor it closely. A healthy, vigorous tree can fight off a light bark beetle attack. Heavily infected trees (still green), or “brood trees”, should be cut down and removed from site. If the trees are left on site, they should be chipped, burned or peeled. If the trees are harvested for their timber value, logging should be done during the winter and spring (before June 15th of the following year) to reduce the risk of beetles emerging and attacking neighboring trees. If done in summer, the logs should be removed from site into an open, sunny location, spread out (not stacked) and rotated every 3 weeks.
From: USDA Forest Service NW Colorado Forest Health Guide, 2007
Pitch Tubes – Indicator of pine beetle infected tree.
Dead standing trees (red trees) pose less of a threat to the spread of the pine beetle, as the majority of the beetles have already left the tree. These trees can still be harvested, but will have bluestained wood caused by fungi introduced by the tree-killing beetles. The naturally occurring blue/grey color does not affect the performance of the wood. Many products are produced from this wood including flooring, wall paneling, fuel wood and in biomass markets.
Fire Danger: Infrequent, large fires are the norm in our pine forests, and they are likely to be in the future – with or without beetles. Trees with red needles are more flammable than live trees. However, once the needles have fallen, standing dead trees no longer increase wildfire risk. As the dead needles fall from the trees, the probability of crown fire will diminish, but the probability of surface fire may increase. As the trees drop to the ground, the addition of downed woody fuels does increase fire intensity and severity.
Blue-Stain Fungus Trees that have been “dead for more than one year” (grey), no longer have any timber value. If left standing, they will eventually fall to the forest floor. They do not pose any beetle-spread threat at this stage. Standing dead trees in a forest, called “snags” are home to many wildlife species. When these trees are along a stream or river, leaving them to fall into the channel will ensure a future supply of large woody debris recruitment. If a tree on your private land does not have the potential to endanger persons or property, consider leaving it standing for wildlife.
Mountain pine beetle killed trees among younger regeneration, Colorado Fraser Experimental Forest
Trees at High Risk: High-risk lodge pine stands have an average age of more than 80 years, an average diameter at breast height of greater than 8 inches. High-risk second-growth ponderosa pine stands have a high stand basal area, are single story, and have an average diameter at breast height of more than 10 inches. Managing for the Next Forest: Adding diversity to forests can provide an insurance policy against future large-scale multilandscape disturbance events. Having multiple species stands as well as uneven age stands can greatly reduce the risk of a single pathogen or outbreak wiping out your entire forest. Keeping the stand thinned so that each tree remains vigorous with a healthy full crown will reduce fire risk and chance of insect infestation. Patch cutting or creating naturally-shaped openings in pine forests creates a mosaic of age and size chasses, which reduces the acreage that will be highly susceptible to beetles at one time. Where to Go for Additional Information and Help: An excellent web site for information on the Mountain pine beetle is: www.beetle.mt.gov . This is a multi-agency sponsored web site. For on-the-ground assistance 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 Montana Department 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
Consider Leaving Dead Snags for Wildlife Firewood: Care must be taken in cutting up beetle infested trees for firewood. The bark beetles can continue to develop under the bark of infested firewood and emerge the following summer to attach nearby trees. Green infected trees will contain beetles, and trees that are red during July and August may contain beetles. Standing dead grey trees typically don’t have living bark beetles.
Is 2011 Shaping Up to Be a Major Ice-Jam & Flooding Year?
Ice jams have begun in Montana! According to the MT State Department of Emergency Services (DES) Public Information Officer, Monique Lay and the National Weather Service reports of ice jams and wide spread flooding have been received from Madison and Gallatin Counties and there is a good possibility of more. Montana has been blanketed with persistent cold much of the winter thus far, and in response many rivers and creeks have experienced freezing and some ice jamming. Unfortunately, with off and on cold temperatures in the forecast, the National Weather Service and DES do not see much opportunity for improvement, and the potential for ice jam formation could increase over the next couple of weeks. But will it be as bad as the winters of 1996 & 1997? Since the 1st of January, 2011, the forecast has called for more cold weather along with more snow – how cold temperatures will be is still a forecast challenge as the models continue to fluctuate on their outlooks. Depending on the long range forecast, and the fact that Montana can experience sub-zero temperatures well into March, the cold will only complicate the current conditions. It is important to remember that ice jams can form and break quickly. Flash flooding is often possible behind the jam as it forms, and downstream from the jam after it breaks. Breakup jams, composed of chunks of ice, are highly unstable and subject to sudden failures with associated surges in water flow. As open water builds behind the jam, it may reach a level that will lift and move the ice suddenly. The movement of the ice can be extremely powerful causing damage and scour for several feet outside stream channels. An ice jam is an accumulation of ice in a river that restricts water flow and may cause backwater that flood low-lying areas upstream. Downstream areas also can be flooded if the jam releases suddenly, sending excessive water and ice downstream.
Lolo Creek-flooding across US Hwy 12 West of Lolo, MT February 1996
Costly damages to private and public properties and communities are a direct result of ice jams. Ice jams can cause an estimated $100 million dollars in damages annually in the US. Roads may be flooded and closed to traffic, or bridges weakened or destroyed, limiting emergency and medical relief to the affected areas. In the ice jam data for water year 1997 (October 1, 1996-September 30, 1997) the highest percentage of ice jams in the US occurred in February (40%) with Montana reporting ice jams most frequently. Montana experienced 29 ice jams, the highest number reported per state for 1997. Engineers at the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Cold Regions Research & Engineering Lab (CRREL) are working to develop and optimize low-cost structural and nonstructural techniques to prevent or alleviate damages caused by ice jams. Many of these methods, such as early warning systems, ice dusting, ice breaking, ice weakening, and ice jam removal techniques can be carried out by local DES offices. Despite Montana’s sparse population, with only 5.7 persons per square mile (Edstrom 1993), ice jams have a frequent and destructive history in the state. In 1992 there were 24,800 farms in Montana; ice jam floods often left them inundated, especially in lowland areas. As of January of 1998, there were 1039 Montana ice jam events documented in the ACOE-CRREL ice jam database. When do ice jams occur in Montana? The number of ice jams reported varies greatly from year to year, with one of the highest recorded number of 65 in 1996. Ice jam occurrence depends on the time of year; 59% of MT ice jams have occurred in March and April, when the rivers begin to break-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.
Clark Fork River near Clinton, MT winter 1996
Anyone with property or livestock close to rivers or creeks should maintain vigilance for the possible development of ice jams, keeping in mind that conditions can and will change rapidly. Once ice jams development begins, there is little time for response. Those that live or have livestock in locations where ice jams form as a recurring event may want to take protective measurers prior to ice jam development.
In Montana residents living near rivers and streams prone to ice jams and flooding due to ice jams, ice jams can be damaging to property, especially if not protected by a dike or levee. High waters caused by ice jams pose a threat to many Montana ranchers who may not receive sufficient warning to move their stock to higher ground.
Emergency action was taken to release millions of tons of water from the small dam behind the Stimson Bonner Mill site and the Milltown dam on the Clark Fork River so the ice jam would grind to a stop on the riverbed above the mill site. If the massive ice jam had broken through the small dam behind the mill, it had the potential to take out the Highway 200 and I-90 bridges over the Blackfoot River and break the Milltown Dam on the Clark Fork River (~6 highway miles east of Missoula, MT). If the Milltown dam had breached 6,600,000 cubic yards of toxic sediment would have poisoned aquatic, terrestrial & human lives as far down river as Idaho’s Lake Pend Oreille. Even so, as a result of this massive release of water, a large amount of sediment flush down the Blackfoot and Clark Fork Rivers raising copper concentrations to 770 parts per billion (ppb) where MT state standards allow 18ppb. 50% of the fish down stream died, and studies reveal that probably only 20% of the river’s fish population survive to this day.
Clark Fork River near Clinton, MT winter 1996
Ice jams may affect fish populations because of physical displacement of fish, habitat destruction, and the disruption of spawning activity. The ice jam/run event in 1996 on the Blackfoot River resulted in a significant fish kill with dead fish noted overbank. Ravens & eagles were observed eating fish in the overbank areas as well. Another concern in 1996 was the Upper Clark Fork in the Bearmouth and Drummond area, where ice jam scouring released soils contaminated with heavy concentrations of mining wastes that are toxic to fish.
Aftermath of the 1996 Blackfoot Ice Jam, Bonner MT
What are the odds of Ice Jams causing Flooding in Missoula for 2011? Adam Painter a meteorologist for NBC Montana and KECI TV reported on January 19, 2011 that the odds of flooding due to ice jams are low. There are 3 events that need to occur to kickoff an ice jam. A 3 to 4 day artic outbreak is needed…followed by a real quick warmup…with quite a bit of rain being added at the end. The big banks of the Clark Fork, Blackfoot & Bitterroot Rivers help to lower the ice jam/flooding threat. Michelle Mead at the NWS said that the two most prone to ice jam and flooding in the Missoula proper area are Rattlesnake Creek and Lolo Creek. Where can you go for help or can you help? The National Weather Service is available for updates on current conditions and forecast at 406-453-2081, or your county’s Department of Emergency Services. You can help during an ice jam by recording and reporting. If you can safely photograph the area where the jamming and flooding are occurring this information is helpful as well. Send the photos along with information on the location, date and the name of the photographer to the DES in your county.
Information taken from US ACOE, National Weather Service, MT DES, and NBC Montana – Submitted by Lori Zeiser, Missoula Conservation District
Blackfoot Ice Jam February 1996 near downstream end
During the 1996 event, a massive, glacier-like ice jam ominously descended the Blackfoot River’s narrow canyon.
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, Chairman Libby Maclay, Vice-Chairman Richard Ramberg, Treasurer Robert Schroeder Sidney Wills Art Pencek Rob Roberts MISSOULA CONSERVATION DIASTRICT EMPLOYEES Tara Comfort . . . . . . . . . . District Administrator Lori Zeiser . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Assistant Natural Resources Conservation Service Area/Field Office Staff
Craig Engelhard . . . . . . . Assistant State Conservationist John Bowe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Conservationist John Blaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Conservationist Susan Sakaye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Conservationist Mark Zuber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Senior Civil Engineer Kristine Handley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Civil Engineer Jay Brooker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Scientist Mona Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Specialist Pat Lauridson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biologist Walter Lujan . . . . . .. . . . . .Range Management Specialist Julie Sacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Conservationist Jay Skovlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Survey Beth Rowley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Survey
ASSOCIATE SUPERVISORS
Greg Martinsen
All MCD & NRCS Programs are offered on a NONDISCRIMINATORY basis without REGARD TO RACE, COLOR, NATION OF ORIGIN, RELIGION, SEX, AGE, MARITAL STATUS, OR DISABILITY
Issue 1 - 2011
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Inside This Issue
Missoula Conservation District Sponsors Gooden-Kiel County Water District Tank Site Restoration DNRC-RCAC 223 Grant
Weeds! Weeds! Everywhere Page 2
The Nature Conservancy-MT Legacy Project Update Page 3
Weed Pulling and Site Prep Crew
In April of 2010 Missoula Conservation District was asked to sponsor a DNRCRCAC 223 Grant for the Goodan-Keil County Water District and Homeowners Association water tank restoration project. Betty Tingley (right hand side of photo in 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 District’s Long Range Plan for community 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.
Mtn. Pine Beetle Pages 4 & 5
MT Ice Jams Pages 6 & 7
Weeds, Weeds Everywhere, What Can We Do? ...
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. Every situation is different, soils change, precipitation differs, spray application rates and methods change. Herbicide can't be used in some areas and should not be used in others. Bio-control with insects may work 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 rates for years, the plant community has changed to a monoculture of annual grasses. It’s debatable, which is worse - Leafy Spurge or Cheat grass? This I do know for a fact, if you don't have leafy spurge, you’re 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.
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 control and 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 one application, 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?
Leafy Spurge Plant – Sprayed But Not Dead
Don't be afraid to ask for help. But get good help…that 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
The Nature Conservancy
Montana Legacy Project Update
MT Legacy Project land transfers: In the spring of 2010 TNC transferred about 112,000 acres of checker-board land in the Swan Valley, Lolo Creek watershed, Clearwater watershed, Rock Creek watershed & land southeast of Missoula to the Forest service. This was funded with the $250 million Qualified Forest Conservation Bond mechanism in the Farm Bill. In November of 2010 TNC conveyed about 32,000 acres in the foothills surrounding the Potomac Valley to the MT DNRC. This was funded with $21 million in General Obligation Bonds passed by a large majority of both houses of the 2009 state legislature. Earlier in December 2010, Fish, Wildlife, & Parks purchased almost 14,000 acres in the upper Clearwater River drainage to be managed as the Marshall Creek Wildlife Management Area. This $13.5 million acquisition was funded through the US Fish & Wildlife Service-Habitat Conservation Program.
Marshall Lake in the heart of the FW&P Marshall Creek Wildlife Management Area
Also in December 2010, FWP purchased a conservation easement on about 9,300 acres of land intermingled with the Swan River State Forest for about $14.8 million. This was funded through a combination of the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the Bonneville Power Administration funding. A second round of December closings transferred 1,920 acres in the north Swan Valley to DNRC and 454 acres in the same area to Fish, Wildlife & Parks. In the Bonner/Milltown area 78 acres were sold to Fish, Wildlife, & Parks through the Natural Resource Damage Program. The “B” Hill parcel, which is slated for conveyance to the Bonner School District, is still in TNC ownership pending resolution of potential environmental issues. TNC also sold 220 acres to the City of Missoula and one private sale to an adjoining ranch with a conservation easement placed on the land.
Taken from: Missoula Co. Rural Initiatives Newsletter: January 2011-submitted by Chris Bryant, Western MT Director of Outreach, The Nature Conservancy
In spring 2010 TNC sold about 41,000 acres in the Fish Creek drainage to Fish, Wildlife, & Parks. They used a number of funding sources including PittmanRobertson Act, Habitat Montana & Access Montana. It will be managed in part as a Wildlife Management Area & in part as a State Park.
Mountain Pine Beetle
Changing Our Landscape
Pine beetles know no property boundaries and attack trees whether they grow in wilderness areas, in national forests or in a back yard. In many areas, between 50 to 90 percent of the trees have died. Such losses typically occur in stands where little or no management has taken place. Prevention Measures: There is no substitute for good health. Pine beetles respond to stress placed on trees from a variety of sources. Old age, overcrowding, drought, root disturbance, soil compaction, mistletoe, and injury from machinery or fire are examples of stress. Anything done to alleviate stress is beneficial. A vigorous, healthy tree has increased production of resin (pitch), a tree’s natural defense mechanism. Proper spacing of the trees encourages fuller crown growth while lessening competition for sun, nutrients, and water and the hazard of fire. An occasional light application of fertilizer is also beneficial. Prune mistletoe whenever possible. 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 mountain pine beetle may have peaked and be on its way down for no other reason than the fact that they are eating themselves out of house and home. The following is a key for determining whether your trees are infested and what to do if they are: A short-term prevention measure for protecting individual highvalue trees is to apply pheromones (Verbenone) or carbaryl insecticide (Seven) to the bark of uninfected trees. This is expensive, labor-intensive, and must be done yearly. Management of Infected Trees: If the tree has only a few pitch tubes and appears healthy otherwise, leave it and monitor it closely. A healthy, vigorous tree can fight off a light bark beetle attack. Heavily infected trees (still green), or “brood trees”, should be cut down and removed from site. If the trees are left on site, they should be chipped, burned or peeled. If the trees are harvested for their timber value, logging should be done during the winter and spring (before June 15th of the following year) to reduce the risk of beetles emerging and attacking neighboring trees. If done in summer, the logs should be removed from site into an open, sunny location, spread out (not stacked) and rotated every 3 weeks.
From: USDA Forest Service NW Colorado Forest Health Guide, 2007
Pitch Tubes – Indicator of pine beetle infected tree.
Dead standing trees (red trees) pose less of a threat to the spread of the pine beetle, as the majority of the beetles have already left the tree. These trees can still be harvested, but will have bluestained wood caused by fungi introduced by the tree-killing beetles. The naturally occurring blue/grey color does not affect the performance of the wood. Many products are produced from this wood including flooring, wall paneling, fuel wood and in biomass markets.
Fire Danger: Infrequent, large fires are the norm in our pine forests, and they are likely to be in the future – with or without beetles. Trees with red needles are more flammable than live trees. However, once the needles have fallen, standing dead trees no longer increase wildfire risk. As the dead needles fall from the trees, the probability of crown fire will diminish, but the probability of surface fire may increase. As the trees drop to the ground, the addition of downed woody fuels does increase fire intensity and severity.
Blue-Stain Fungus Trees that have been “dead for more than one year” (grey), no longer have any timber value. If left standing, they will eventually fall to the forest floor. They do not pose any beetle-spread threat at this stage. Standing dead trees in a forest, called “snags” are home to many wildlife species. When these trees are along a stream or river, leaving them to fall into the channel will ensure a future supply of large woody debris recruitment. If a tree on your private land does not have the potential to endanger persons or property, consider leaving it standing for wildlife.
Mountain pine beetle killed trees among younger regeneration, Colorado Fraser Experimental Forest
Trees at High Risk: High-risk lodge pine stands have an average age of more than 80 years, an average diameter at breast height of greater than 8 inches. High-risk second-growth ponderosa pine stands have a high stand basal area, are single story, and have an average diameter at breast height of more than 10 inches. Managing for the Next Forest: Adding diversity to forests can provide an insurance policy against future large-scale multilandscape disturbance events. Having multiple species stands as well as uneven age stands can greatly reduce the risk of a single pathogen or outbreak wiping out your entire forest. Keeping the stand thinned so that each tree remains vigorous with a healthy full crown will reduce fire risk and chance of insect infestation. Patch cutting or creating naturally-shaped openings in pine forests creates a mosaic of age and size chasses, which reduces the acreage that will be highly susceptible to beetles at one time. Where to Go for Additional Information and Help: An excellent web site for information on the Mountain pine beetle is: www.beetle.mt.gov . This is a multi-agency sponsored web site. For on-the-ground assistance 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 Montana Department 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
Consider Leaving Dead Snags for Wildlife Firewood: Care must be taken in cutting up beetle infested trees for firewood. The bark beetles can continue to develop under the bark of infested firewood and emerge the following summer to attach nearby trees. Green infected trees will contain beetles, and trees that are red during July and August may contain beetles. Standing dead grey trees typically don’t have living bark beetles.
Is 2011 Shaping Up to Be a Major Ice-Jam & Flooding Year?
Ice jams have begun in Montana! According to the MT State Department of Emergency Services (DES) Public Information Officer, Monique Lay and the National Weather Service reports of ice jams and wide spread flooding have been received from Madison and Gallatin Counties and there is a good possibility of more. Montana has been blanketed with persistent cold much of the winter thus far, and in response many rivers and creeks have experienced freezing and some ice jamming. Unfortunately, with off and on cold temperatures in the forecast, the National Weather Service and DES do not see much opportunity for improvement, and the potential for ice jam formation could increase over the next couple of weeks. But will it be as bad as the winters of 1996 & 1997? Since the 1st of January, 2011, the forecast has called for more cold weather along with more snow – how cold temperatures will be is still a forecast challenge as the models continue to fluctuate on their outlooks. Depending on the long range forecast, and the fact that Montana can experience sub-zero temperatures well into March, the cold will only complicate the current conditions. It is important to remember that ice jams can form and break quickly. Flash flooding is often possible behind the jam as it forms, and downstream from the jam after it breaks. Breakup jams, composed of chunks of ice, are highly unstable and subject to sudden failures with associated surges in water flow. As open water builds behind the jam, it may reach a level that will lift and move the ice suddenly. The movement of the ice can be extremely powerful causing damage and scour for several feet outside stream channels. An ice jam is an accumulation of ice in a river that restricts water flow and may cause backwater that flood low-lying areas upstream. Downstream areas also can be flooded if the jam releases suddenly, sending excessive water and ice downstream.
Lolo Creek-flooding across US Hwy 12 West of Lolo, MT February 1996
Costly damages to private and public properties and communities are a direct result of ice jams. Ice jams can cause an estimated $100 million dollars in damages annually in the US. Roads may be flooded and closed to traffic, or bridges weakened or destroyed, limiting emergency and medical relief to the affected areas. In the ice jam data for water year 1997 (October 1, 1996-September 30, 1997) the highest percentage of ice jams in the US occurred in February (40%) with Montana reporting ice jams most frequently. Montana experienced 29 ice jams, the highest number reported per state for 1997. Engineers at the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Cold Regions Research & Engineering Lab (CRREL) are working to develop and optimize low-cost structural and nonstructural techniques to prevent or alleviate damages caused by ice jams. Many of these methods, such as early warning systems, ice dusting, ice breaking, ice weakening, and ice jam removal techniques can be carried out by local DES offices. Despite Montana’s sparse population, with only 5.7 persons per square mile (Edstrom 1993), ice jams have a frequent and destructive history in the state. In 1992 there were 24,800 farms in Montana; ice jam floods often left them inundated, especially in lowland areas. As of January of 1998, there were 1039 Montana ice jam events documented in the ACOE-CRREL ice jam database. When do ice jams occur in Montana? The number of ice jams reported varies greatly from year to year, with one of the highest recorded number of 65 in 1996. Ice jam occurrence depends on the time of year; 59% of MT ice jams have occurred in March and April, when the rivers begin to break-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.
Clark Fork River near Clinton, MT winter 1996
Anyone with property or livestock close to rivers or creeks should maintain vigilance for the possible development of ice jams, keeping in mind that conditions can and will change rapidly. Once ice jams development begins, there is little time for response. Those that live or have livestock in locations where ice jams form as a recurring event may want to take protective measurers prior to ice jam development.
In Montana residents living near rivers and streams prone to ice jams and flooding due to ice jams, ice jams can be damaging to property, especially if not protected by a dike or levee. High waters caused by ice jams pose a threat to many Montana ranchers who may not receive sufficient warning to move their stock to higher ground.
Emergency action was taken to release millions of tons of water from the small dam behind the Stimson Bonner Mill site and the Milltown dam on the Clark Fork River so the ice jam would grind to a stop on the riverbed above the mill site. If the massive ice jam had broken through the small dam behind the mill, it had the potential to take out the Highway 200 and I-90 bridges over the Blackfoot River and break the Milltown Dam on the Clark Fork River (~6 highway miles east of Missoula, MT). If the Milltown dam had breached 6,600,000 cubic yards of toxic sediment would have poisoned aquatic, terrestrial & human lives as far down river as Idaho’s Lake Pend Oreille. Even so, as a result of this massive release of water, a large amount of sediment flush down the Blackfoot and Clark Fork Rivers raising copper concentrations to 770 parts per billion (ppb) where MT state standards allow 18ppb. 50% of the fish down stream died, and studies reveal that probably only 20% of the river’s fish population survive to this day.
Clark Fork River near Clinton, MT winter 1996
Ice jams may affect fish populations because of physical displacement of fish, habitat destruction, and the disruption of spawning activity. The ice jam/run event in 1996 on the Blackfoot River resulted in a significant fish kill with dead fish noted overbank. Ravens & eagles were observed eating fish in the overbank areas as well. Another concern in 1996 was the Upper Clark Fork in the Bearmouth and Drummond area, where ice jam scouring released soils contaminated with heavy concentrations of mining wastes that are toxic to fish.
Aftermath of the 1996 Blackfoot Ice Jam, Bonner MT
What are the odds of Ice Jams causing Flooding in Missoula for 2011? Adam Painter a meteorologist for NBC Montana and KECI TV reported on January 19, 2011 that the odds of flooding due to ice jams are low. There are 3 events that need to occur to kickoff an ice jam. A 3 to 4 day artic outbreak is needed…followed by a real quick warmup…with quite a bit of rain being added at the end. The big banks of the Clark Fork, Blackfoot & Bitterroot Rivers help to lower the ice jam/flooding threat. Michelle Mead at the NWS said that the two most prone to ice jam and flooding in the Missoula proper area are Rattlesnake Creek and Lolo Creek. Where can you go for help or can you help? The National Weather Service is available for updates on current conditions and forecast at 406-453-2081, or your county’s Department of Emergency Services. You can help during an ice jam by recording and reporting. If you can safely photograph the area where the jamming and flooding are occurring this information is helpful as well. Send the photos along with information on the location, date and the name of the photographer to the DES in your county.
Information taken from US ACOE, National Weather Service, MT DES, and NBC Montana – Submitted by Lori Zeiser, Missoula Conservation District
Blackfoot Ice Jam February 1996 near downstream end
During the 1996 event, a massive, glacier-like ice jam ominously descended the Blackfoot River’s narrow canyon.
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, Chairman Libby Maclay, Vice-Chairman Richard Ramberg, Treasurer Robert Schroeder Sidney Wills Art Pencek Rob Roberts MISSOULA CONSERVATION DIASTRICT EMPLOYEES Tara Comfort . . . . . . . . . . District Administrator Lori Zeiser . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Assistant Natural Resources Conservation Service Area/Field Office Staff
Craig Engelhard . . . . . . . Assistant State Conservationist John Bowe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Conservationist John Blaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Conservationist Susan Sakaye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Conservationist Mark Zuber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Senior Civil Engineer Kristine Handley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Civil Engineer Jay Brooker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Scientist Mona Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Specialist Pat Lauridson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biologist Walter Lujan . . . . . .. . . . . .Range Management Specialist Julie Sacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Conservationist Jay Skovlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Survey Beth Rowley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Survey
ASSOCIATE SUPERVISORS
Greg Martinsen
All MCD & NRCS Programs are offered on a NONDISCRIMINATORY basis without REGARD TO RACE, COLOR, NATION OF ORIGIN, RELIGION, SEX, AGE, MARITAL STATUS, OR DISABILITY
