August 2016 Newsletter Now Available

August 2016 Newsletter

June 23: CMR Community Working Group Meeting

The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR NWR) Community Working Group will meet on June 23^rd in Circle at the McCone County Fairgrounds from 10:00AM to 3:00PM. Join us as we finalize our work plan for the group in 2016 followed by updates on the Montana Sage Grouse Conservation Plan, the CMR CWG’s Conservation Menu, and potential research projects in the area.  Lunch is available for $10.00. The public is encouraged to attend and provide input as the group seeks to influence the vitality and sustainability of the 6-county region surrounding the CMR NWR. For more information, call Rachel Frost 406-454-0056 or visit CM-Russell-NWR-Community-Working-Group on Facebook.

April 14th-CMR NWR Community Working Group Meeting in Winnett

The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR NWR) Community Working Group will meet on April 14^th in Winnett at the Methodist Church, 114 W. Millsap St from 10:00AM to 3:00PM. Join us as we prioritize projects for the group in 2016. Noreen Walsh, Regional Direction of the US FWS, will provide an overview of the Fish and Wildlife Service mission, focus, and current projects. Lunch is available for $10.00. The public is encouraged to attend and provide input as the group seeks to influence the vitality and sustainability of the 6-county region surrounding the CMR NWR. For more information, call Rachel Frost 406-454-0056 or visit CM-Russell-NWR-Community-Working-Group on Facebook.

Holiday Greetings

See the CMR CWG Past, Present and Future Presentation from the Zortman Meeting

No, we didn’t have the meeting in Zortman, but I still wanted to share our celebration of the accomplishments of the CMR CWG over the last five years. You can view the full presentation online. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed making it. Merry Christmas to All, and to All a Happy New Year!

Partnerships Producing Possibilities

The MRCDC River Rendezvous highlights the success of partnership efforts to control saltcedar on the South shore of Fort Peck Lake

Over 30 folks loaded into boats gathered at the Devil’s Creek Recreation Area at Fort Peck Lake on August 25th to tour a unique, cooperative effort to combat the invasive tree, saltcedar (Tamarisk ramosissima). Saltcedar is native to Eurasia, produces thousands of seeds that float on water and germinate in the wet soils left behind as the lake level steadily drops through the summer. The tree uses large amounts of water and exudes salts into the soil altering its ability to support more desirable plants. Saltcedar has drastically altered riparian systems in the Southwestern US, prompting concerted efforts to control the plant in Montana.

After a 30 minute ride on a rare glass-like surface of Fort Peck, the boats landed at the mouth of Seven Blackfoot Creek, providing tour attendees with a first-hand look at the extent of saltcedar infestation and the challenges imposed by the rugged terrain. A delta of trees ranging from seedlings to six-foot tall individuals sprinkled with emerging cottonwoods testify of the complexity of treating the full area. To add to the challenge, the 56,000 acre drainage encompasses both public and private ownerships, steep terrain, and very limited road access. So why pick such a challenging area for a saltcedar treatment?

The project was proposed at a meeting of the Montana Saltcedar Team (MST) which is a group of over 50 public and private partners whose mission is to promote strategic, cooperative management of saltcedar along the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers in Montana. During the first meeting, the group identified the Seven Blackfoot Creek area in Garfield County as a key area for managing saltcedar on the south shore of Fort Peck Lake. The group has since spent nearly a year organizing partners, obtaining funding, and developing a treatment plan that includes the full array of landowners with the goal of controlling saltcedar in the entire watershed. “This project is important to the private landowners in Garfield County, and we hope it provides an example for how to manage saltcedar and noxious weeds in other areas”, said Dean Rogge, Chairman of the Garfield County Conservation District and the MRCDC.

The treatment plan is a cooperative effort between the US Army Corps Of Engineers (ACOE), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Garfield County Conservation District, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), private landowners, and the Missouri River Conservation Districts Council (MRCDC). Patricia Gilbert of the US ACOE believes that having everyone at the table helps keep the support for the projects coming from the federal agencies. “It’s important that we all understand how management of weeds on our land affects our neighbors and their land”, she continued.

Currently, treatments have been applied to the private land near the head of the drainage, and will continue with applications on BLM, US FWS, and US ACOE land scheduled for summer of 2016. Herbicide treatments will be applied with helicopter, UTV spray rigs, and backpack sprayers as dictated by the terrain and infestation density. This collaborative approach to managing saltcedar on a landscape scale will result in more impact to the plant community and more efficient use of everyone’s limited resources.

The MST was formed in April of 2014 to bring federal and state agencies together with local government and private individuals to combat a common problem. The Team promotes on –the-ground projects and working together across land ownership boundaries to control saltcedar. To support that mission, the MST also hosted an Americorps Member stationed in Petroleum County to help coordinate saltcedar management efforts, provide education and outreach benefits to the Missouri and Musselshell River watersheds, and create a database of current infestations of saltcedar to help MST members prioritize future areas of treatment.

The MST also serves as a source of communication about other saltcedar treatment efforts going on within the watersheds. Sara Meloy, volunteer coordinator with the Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument described their use of Montana Conservation Corps (MCC) volunteer teams to survey and hand-pull saltcedar from the Missouri River between Fort Benton and the Fred Robinson Bridge. This program removed saltcedar from over 100 miles of river the past year and there are plans for more removals and surveys in 2016.

On the ride back to Devil’s Creek, the boats stopped to survey a small site of Eurasian Watermilfoil, where Patricia discussed the impacts of lake level on the growth of the plant. Lake level forecasts are used to determine the need for treatments for both milfoil and saltcedar on an annual basis, and help guide the long-range plan of the Corps in controlling these aquatic invasive species.

Thanks to Jim Gordon with Crop Production Services for supplying the lunch for the tour participants and to Patricia Gilbert and cohorts from the US ACOE and Bridget Neilsen and fellow USFWS boat operators for a near-perfect day on the water, despite the smoke from area fires. To learn more about the MST and their projects, contact Rachel Frost, Coordinator for MRCDC, at mrcdc@macdnet.org.

# # #

 

 

 

 

 

McCone Conservation District Letter to MT FWP on Draft Bison EIS

Submitted and mailed: September 8, 2015

McCone Conservation District is a board of seven elected officials and unit of local government mandated by state law to provide for local control of natural resource management programs and activities. (§ 76-15-102 MCA)  McCone County comprises of 1,717,120 acres including three watersheds:  the Red Water River, Prairie Elk-Wolf and Fort Peck Reservoir.  Approximately 87,573 acres or 5.1 percent lies in the 1.1 million land and water boundary acres of the Charles M Russell National Wildlife Refuge (Koontz, Sexton, Ishizaki and Ritten, 2012).

We are writing to ask that you support the “No Action” alternative being analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Bison Conservation and Management in Montana. Ranchers, farmers, bison producers, tribal business entities, conservation districts, county commissioners and the Montana Association of Conservation Districts have all voiced their concerns of ecologic, economic and environmental consequences of bison re-introduction in Montana. We stand with the multitude of testimonies against this action.

McCone County citizens passed An Ordinance for the Protection of Soil and Water from Wild, Free Roaming or Domestic Bison Grazing in McCone Conservation District in the 2012 General Election. Of the 1018 voters, 640 or 63% voted yes, 318 or 31% voted no and 60 or 6% abstained from voting. It reads: To enact a soil conservation and erosion prevention program for the conservation and protection of land, water, and other resources of the McCone Conservation District from the grazing of wild, free roaming and domesticated bison; encourage the use of land in accordance with its capabilities and treat it according to its needs; prevent the degradation of rangelands, cultivated lands, waterways, drainages, reservoirs and lakes; protect the tax base; protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people; and ensure that soil resources are preserved for the production of food and fiber for the present and future generations of this district. This document is not about wildlife versus livestock designation, but of the conservation of natural resources. § 76-15-102 MCA gives Conservation Districts this authority.

During the public scoping progress, one of the potential locations for bison restoration discussed was the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The six-county area surrounding the Refuge are Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petroleum, Phillips and Valley. The population is 25,287 residents (2008 Census) or approximately 2.6 percent of Montana’s overall population. In 2007, gross revenue for agricultural operations of this area totaled $364.7 million–$164 million from livestock, $133 million from crops and $67.7 million from other sources (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2008). Farming and ranching are important cultural forces and the largest employer in each of those counties (Koontz et al., 2012). Agricultural interests could be negatively impacted by bison in areas near private land but the magnitude of those impacts is difficult to determine without a specific restoration site (EIS Executive Summary). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) ability to influence local economic activity and desired economic conditions will be related to its land-use decisions and associated land uses (Koontz et al., 2012).

In the 2007 Agricultural Census, the six-county area combined had 52,996 sheep. Sheep associated disease Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) in bison is highly lethal, with almost 100% mortality within an infected herd (Schultheiss et al., 2001). Bison most commonly become infected through direct contact with domestic sheep, though there were cases where MCF was reported in bison herds that were located 3 miles from a lamb feedlot (Schultheiss et al., 2001; Gates et al, 2010; Draft Bison EIS Page 39). It is generally recommended that domestic sheep herds not be grazed within two miles of bison to protect the population from MCF and Johne’s disease (paratuberculosis).

In the Bison Restoration Project Guidelines 3.3.1, current grazing allotments for domestic livestock should not need to be to be adjusted because of a bison restoration program unless mutually agreed upon by current allotment holder(s). Grazing allotment plans could be changed based on environmental conditions or other direction/desires from the land management agency with jurisdiction (Draft Bison EIS Page 62).   Yet in the Henry Mountains, there are currently no active sheep allotments in the area as the past active allotments have been changed to cattle allotments in order to reduce the chance that sheep could transmit MCF to bison (UDWR, 2007b, Draft Bison EIS Page 79)

Also in the 2007 Agricultural Census, the six-county area held 401,377 cow/calf pairs.   Van Vuren (1979) reported that both bison and cattle on the Henry Mountains were primarily grazers, but that bison diet consisted of 5% browse, compared to no use by cattle. Cattle, on the other hand, were more likely to use forbs than bison. While dietary overlap with cattle is significant, bison may be more likely to use shrubby vegetation during winter periods (Harper et al., 2000). In a study comparing the diet compositions of bison and cattle on short-grass plains, Peden et al. (1974) found that “bison appear to have a greater digestive power than cattle when consuming low protein, poor quality forage . . . “(pp. 497) Plumb and Dodd (1993), however, found in a comparison of bison and cattle grazing on mixed prairie that their results “do not completely support the hypothesis that bison have the ability to digest lower quality forages better than cattle” (pp.63). Bison and cattle were managed within enclosed pastures in both studies.

In spite of these beneficial behavior differences in free roaming bison, their population distribution will largely determine the degree of direct forage competition with livestock (Van Vuren 1979).   Fuhlendorf et al., (2010) states “the differences and similarities of bison and cattle on complex landscapes have not been adequately studied, and there are few studies that directly compare bison and cattle.” We agree.

This area covers 16 percent of Montana’s land with only 2.6 percent of her population. That’s about 1.1 person per square mile. It’s wide open country where people are friendly, hardy and resourceful.   Bison in the backyard alters the landscape that 100 + years of agriculture and ranching have changed—for better or for worse. It’s a romantic idea of thousands of hooves thundering across the prairie, but in reality that creates havoc with fences, livestock and people in our world. If cattle or sheep operations are replaced by bison, the losses to the local economy will be enormous.

We respectfully ask that you choose the “No Action” alternative. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Steve Wanderaas, McCone Conservation District Chairman

Literature citations available through District office.

New! River Rendezvous photos

Look under “PHOTOS” to view!

August 26th–CM Russell Community Working Group Meeting

CMR-NWR-Working-Grp-Agenda-08262015

Spring Newsletter available online & it’s in color!

Go to “About Us” and “Newsletter 2015”.

Will be mailed out next week, too.  Enjoy!

 

February 19th CMR Community Working Group Meeting

The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR NWR) Community Working Group will meet on February 19^th at the Fort Peck Interpretive Center near Fort Peck, MT from 10:00AM to 3:00PM.

Join us for a discussion on the keys to sustainability for the region surrounding the CMR and the potential for community led conservation efforts. Lunch is available for $7.00.

The public is encouraged to attend and provide input as the group seeks to influence the vitality and sustainability of the 6-county region surrounding the CMR NWR.

For more information, call Rachel Frost 406-454-0056 or visit CM-Russell-NWR-Community-Working-Group on Facebook.