examples 

Bamber, Amy 

to: 

Jack Faulk 

03/25/2010 06:55 PM 

Cc: 

"Chambers, Jenny", David Rise, "Ames, Greg" 

Show Details 

Hi Jack,

 

Here is a specific example of an aquatic weed issue we are currently involved with in Montana where I think it will be difficult to identify who is

responsible for the permit requirements:

 

Eurasian Water Milfoil--state noxious weed (prob. fed. too), state mandated control--in a reservoir in NW Montana

Multiple 'property' owners--Avista, Forest Service, DNRC state lands--these folks own the land under the water; state water

Private landowners around the lake who 'rent' the shoreline for their docks from Avista who owns the shoreline

 

 

When the weed was first discovered a task force was established to determine course of action. The task force is comprised of:

MT FWP

MSU Extension

County Commissioners

MT Dept. of Ag

Conservation Districts (and by proxy, DNRC)

Forest Service

Avista

Private landowners (not sure how many)

 

Avista, being the primary landowner, informally 'chairs' the committee, but the task force as a whole makes the decisions.

 

Financing for the project primarily comes from MT Dept. of Ag., Army Corps of Engineers and Mississippi State University.

 

The Corps and Mississippi State act as technical advisors and conduct surveying and monitoring activities.

 

A commercial applicator (who is pretty advanced and specializes in this sort of situation/has the specific types of application equip. needed) 

applies the products and makes the decisions about when and where to apply at a 'specific' or 'technical' level (it requires density 

measurements and evaluations of lake turnover timing, things like that--the lake turns over about every 9-12 days so the lake bottom 

application has to be timed and placed very specifically).

 

Who is responsible for the permit requirements? Avista, the Task Force as a whole, the Corps or Mississippi State, or the applicator? Even 

though I have been keeping up with the NPDES development for the past year, I don't have a clue as to who I would guess is responsible.

 

Just as an aside--plenty of IPMish stuff has been a part of this: a formal EA, mechanical barrier treatments, herbicide research plots, etc. 

But, those activities have also been conducted by different people/groups and coordinated by the Task Force.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

While that may seem like an unusual example, I don't really think it is. We have a Noxious Weed Trust Fund in Montana that awarded 1.3 

million to weed control programs that involve pesticides this year. A rough estimate from the program manager is that 1/3 of them involve 

some sort of riparian area or (much less frequently) direct application to water. These grants pretty much demand a collaborative approach. 

Therefore, in general the county weed district pursues and coordinates the grant, but the involved parties usually include multiple gov. and 

private collaborators. Our common collaborators include:

 

Tribal governments

BLM

BOR

USFS

DNRC

MT Dept. of Transportation

FWP

and private landowners

 

Beyond the weed district's coordination, each situation is different. The other gov. agencies may already have control programs in place and 

this project falls within that scope. Therefore they may use their own applicators (gov. employees), or commercial applicators they have hired. 

Or they may use the weed district personnel, or the commercial applicator hired by the district. Then multiply that uncertainty by the number

of entities involved--that may be 2 fed agencies, 1 tribal gov, the county district. Then add in the privates who may or may not have licenses 

and may apply on their own land, or use the commercial applicator someone else hired for part or all of the grant (they apply GUP, comm/gov 

applicator applies RUP for example). And include the non-commercial applicators who work for large acreage landowners, ranches, and land 

trust groups such as Nature Conservancy. 

 

Can we just not do this? : ) Honestly, I don't know how to sort out this sort of thing. And it is the best way to approach weed control because 

it is collaborative, financed, and covers large areas of land--that is what you want for effective noxious weed control. We don't want to see any 

inhibition in our (the state as a whole) ability to fight noxious weeds in an effective and coordinated manner.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Lastly, I'd like to clarify some thoughts on the ditch issue.

 

The management plans that we require for ditch treatments (aquatic herbicides) do not address IPM (my definition of IPM). The intention of 

the plans is to ensure that all places in the system where the treated ditch water could return to state waters is effectively blocked until the 

water has been held to allow for volitilization of the chemical (per label directions). We also do inspections to ensure that the structures used 

to contain the water are secure. There is no requirement in the plan regarding alternative treatments, non-chemical means of control, etc. We

don't advise against looking at those other options of course, but in most cases they aren't available and/or aren't economically reasonable for 

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web0467.htm 5/11/2010
the folks paying for the ditch maintenance.

 

Regarding treatment of dry ditches--why not stick to the definition of the permit--treatment to water--and not include this? I'm thinking that 

the farther you go into this area, the stickier it is going to get as well.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I hope that these examples help identify areas of the permit that have to be addressed before you go out for public comment. It is just too 

important that EPA (and our state DEQ) be able to clearly communicate about the permit to the regulated communities without these basic 

uncertainties present.

 

Thanks,

Amy

 

Amy Bamber

Technical Services Bureau Chief

Montana Department of Agriculture

303 N. Roberts

Helena, MT 59620-0201

406-444-3676

abamber@mt.gov

 

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web0467.htm 5/11/2010