Page 4

Current SWCD Board of Supervisors:

Bill Mershon, Chairman

Rick Baish, Vice Chairman

Jeff Rabon, Secretary/Treasurer

Eddie Vigil, Supervisor

Bob Nichols, Supervisor

Thomas Mendez, Supervisor

James Evrage, Supervisor

NRCS Staff:

Sam Gutierrez, Soil Conservationist

Clarice Ford, Range Management Specialist

Leslie Tiley, NMACD Soil Con. Technician

John Hartung, Area Range Mgt. Specialist

FSA Staff:

Lynn Muncy, County Executive Director

Carol Ruiz, Program Technician

District Employee:

Victoria Milne, District Manager

The USDA Alamogordo Service Center will be closed:

May 25th - Memorial Day and July 3rd for the Observance of Independence Day

Otero Soil and Water Conservation District

3501 Mesa Village Dr. Alamogordo, NM 88310

District board meetings are generally, the

first Wednesday of each month at 9:30 am.

The meetings are held in the same building,

in the Forest Service's conference room

located at 3463 Las Palomas Dr.

OTERO SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

2015

3501 Mesa Village Drive, Alamogordo, NM 88310 (575) 437-3100 x 3

The Otero SWCD Noxious Weed Program

begins April 13th.

Herbicide quantities are limited. Please call ahead for price and availability.

The Alamogordo Field Office has a new NRCS Rangeland Management

Specialist. Clarice Ford started working here in February.

Clarice is a graduate of NMSU,

worked on a ranch in Hope, NM, then

she worked with US Forest Service

on the Mark Twain National Forest in

Ava, MO before she headed to Datil

in January of 2012 to start her career

with the Natural Resources Conser-

vation Service.

She is excited to have the opportunity

to work out of the Alamogordo Field

Office, because she was born and

raised in the area. She is looking for-

ward to assisting the producers in

Otero County.

Inside this issue:

NM Tech

Watershed

Study

2

Noxious Weed

Highlight -

Musk Thistle

3

Welcome Clarice Ford!

USDA is an equal opportunity employer, provider, and lender.

We are online! Check us out on the web @ oteroswcd.org/ Page 2

This report summarizes progress on the watershed study on the Coleman Ranch

property since the quarterly project report of January 2015. As this project is coming

to an end, we have begun removing instruments from the study site. Trevor Kludt

visited the field site in April to download data and remove equipment. The weir in

Cotton Canyon was removed in its entirety. All tipping bucket rain gauges were also

removed. We will remove the remainder of the equipment, including weather sta-

tions and soil moisture sensors in the next couple of weeks. We plan on leaving data

loggers in the three monitoring wells on site.

We are on track to deliver a final report by June 30, 2015. This report will present

all the different data collected over the last seven years, along with interpretations and

implications for the use of tree thinning as a means to increase the water supply in the

Sacramento Mountains. This report, which will be published as a NMBGMR Open

File Report, will not include a description of the watershed-scale modeling of the soil

water balance. We will continue working on this model and plan on adding it to the

report at a later date. The addition of the model will allow us to publish this work as

a higher level publication that will have undergone an extensive peer review process.

In general, we have found that tree thinning in the Sacramento Mountains: 1)

increases the amount of precipitation (both rain and snow) that reaches the ground,

2) decreases net evapotranspiration (soil water evaporation and water used by vege-

tation), 3) does not significantly change the amount surface runoff, and 4) Increases

the amount of water that infiltrates through soils to potentially recharge the local

groundwater system. However, it cannot be predicted with certainty that tree thin-

ning on a large scale at high elevations in the Sacramento Mountains will significantly

increase the regional groundwater supply because of the complexity of the karstic

groundwater system.

If there are any questions or comments please contact Talon Newton at 575-835-

6668 or talon@nmbg.nmt.edu.

Sacramento Mountains Watershed Study

Progress Report, April 2015

Sacramento Mountains Hydrogeologic Studies

Find the most current reports online at:

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/resources/water/amp/

projects/Southern_Sacramentos.html

Page 3

Otero SWCD Noxious

Weed Program Guidelines

Requirements for

participation are:

1. Resident of Otero County

2. Current Private

Applicators License

3. Presence of a Otero County

Noxious Weed

4. Approval to map noxious

weeds

5. Coordinate plan for treatment

6. Follow-up after treatment

Otero County

Noxious Weed List

African Rue

Hoary Cress

Leafy Spurge

Malta Star-thistle

Musk Thistle

Russian Knapweed

Diffuse Knapweed

Yellow Toadflax

Yellow Star-thistle

Dalmatian Toadflax

Spotted Knapweed

Purple Loosestrife

Purple Star-thistle

Camelthorn

Scotch Thistle

Canada Thistle

Teasel

Perennial Pepperweed

Halogenton

Musk thistle is a biennial weed over taking mountain properties in Otero County. According to NMSU’s weed fact sheet, Musk thistle is a dark green tap-rooted plant that can grow from 2 to 6 feet tall. As a biennial, Musk this-tle forms rosettes in the fall, develop-ing a large, fleshy taproot by spring (Whitson 1991). The weed reproduces and spreads by seed. Seed production has been re-ported as high as 100,000 seeds/plant, but can vary depending on habitat conditions (Beck 1999). It is suggested that Musk thistle seeds may remain viable in soil for 10 - 15 years or more.

Flowers are found at the tips of shoots, and are 1.5 to 3 inch-es in diameter. Flower color is usually deep rose, but can range to white. Bracts located below the flower petals, are spine-tipped and resemble a pinecone (Lym and Christianson 1996). Flower heads tend to droop or nod. Musk thistle is typ-ically a biennial, but it may complete its life cycle as an annual. Successful management of Musk thistle prevents seed produc-tion and enhances competition from desirable perennial vege-tation. Combining control methods in an integrated manage-ment system will result in the best long-term management. Prevention and early detection, are the most cost-effective strategies for managing Musk thistle. Maintaining a healthy stand of desirable vegetation will resist Musk thistle establish-ment, since seed-lings are sensitive to intense competition, especially for light (Hull and Evans 1973).

Noxious Weed Highlight