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 curre ntly involved with in Montana where I think it will be difficul t to identify who is responsible for the permit requirements:

Eurasian Water Milfoil--state noxious weed (prob. fed. too), state mandated control--i n a reservoir in NW Montana Multiple 'property' owners--Avis ta, 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, info rmally 'chairs' the committee, but the task force as a whole makes the decisions.

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

T he Corps and Mississippi State act as technical adviso rs and conduct surveying and monitoring activities.

A commercial applicator (who is pr etty advanced and specializes in this sort of situation/has th e 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 de nsity measurements and evaluations of lake turnover timing, things like that--the lake turns over about every 9-12 days so the lake b ottom 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 appl icator? 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 resp onsible.

Just as an aside--plenty of IPMish stuff has been a part of this: a formal EA, mechanical barr ier treatments, herbicide researc h 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 awa rded 1.3 million to weed control programs that involve pesticides th is year. A rough estimate from th e program manager is that 1/3 of t hem involve some sort of riparian area or (much less frequently) direct app lication to water. These grants pretty much demand a collaborat ive approach.

T herefore, in general the county weed district pursues and coordinates the grant, but the involved parties usually include multi ple gov. and private collaborators. Our common collaborators include:

T ribal governments

BLM

BOR

USFS

DNRC MT Dept. of Transportation

FWP and private landowners

Beyond the weed district's coordination, each situation is differ ent. The other gov. agencies may already have control program s in place and this project falls within that scope. Therefore they may use their own applicators (gov. employ ees), 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 uncertaint y 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 n ot 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 G UP, comm/gov applicator applies RUP for example). And include the non-commerc ial applicators who work for la rge acreage landowners, ranches , and land trust groups such as Nature Conservancy.

Can we just not do this? : ) Honestly, I do n't know how to sort out this sort of thing. And it is the best way to approach w eed control because it is collaborative, financed, and covers large areas of land--that is what you want for effective noxious weed control. We do n't want to see any inhibition in our (the state as a whole) ability to fi ght noxious weeds in an effective and coordinated manner.

_ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________ _

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

T he management plans that we require for ditch treatments (aquatic herbicides) do not address IPM (my definition of IPM). The i ntention 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 volitilizatio n of the chemical (per label directions). We also do inspecti ons 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 c ontrol, 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 economical ly reasonable for 

# Page 1 of 2

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web0467.htmthe 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. I t is just too important that EPA (and our state DEQ) be able to clearly communicate about the permit to the regulated communities without the se basic uncertainties present.

T hanks, Amy

Amy Bamber

T echnical Services Bureau Chie f Montana Department of Agriculture

303 N. Roberts Helena, MT 59620-0201

406-444-3676 abamber@mt.gov 

# Page 2 of 2

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web0467.htm