BEFORE THE Department of AGRICULTURE

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

In the matter of the amendment of ARM 4.5.210 relating to priority 3 regulated plants

) ) )

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

 

TO:  All Concerned Persons

 

1.  On July 15, 2010 the Department of Agriculture published MAR Notice No. 4-14-196 pertaining to the public hearing on the proposed amendment of the above-stated rule at page 1588 of the 2010 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 13.

 

            2.  The department received 44 comments supporting listing Russian olive trees as a regulated plant, 14 comments opposing the listing of Russian olive trees as a regulated plant, and 1 informational comment.

 

3.  The department received the following comments (comments 1-10 are from those who oppose the rule, comments 11-19 are from those who support the rule):

 

            COMMENT #1:  Russian olive trees should be banned or made a full noxious weed (3 commenters).

 

            RESPONSE #1:  The invasive properties of this plant substantiate this sentiment.  Currently, regulation to prohibit intentional sale and spread of the plant is the most practical course of action.

 

            COMMENT #2:  Russian olive trees are destroying the river and lake vegetation in the state which is harmful to the native wildlife as well (33 commenters).

 

            RESPONSE #2:  The same characteristics that allow Russian olive to survive in harsh environments, also give it some competitive advantage on more mesic sites; most notably in Montana riparian ecosystems.  When plant diversity is reduced in an area, all corresponding life is negatively impacted.  Russian olive enhances habitat for some wildlife species, but it replaces native vegetation and reduces habitat for many other wildlife species.  It is rarely eaten or used by beavers, thus furthering its competitive advantage over cottonwood and willow.

 

COMMENT # 3:  It does not make sense to spend time and money both planting the tree in one area of the state while destroying it in another (19 commenters).

 

            RESPONSE #3:  It is this practicality that drives the state placement of Russian olive into Priority 3 and prohibits the sale and intentional spread of new plants, while control of the existing plants is left to the discretion of land managers.

 

            COMMENT #4:  Dual listing would cause problems (1 commenter).

 

            RESPONSE #4:  Due to the current structure of the weed list, Russian olive is best suited to Priority 3; the regulatory aspect of this provides authorization to halt sale into or in the state of Montana.

 

            COMMENT #5:  The costs to private landowners to control Russian olive trees are starting to increase (8 commenters).

 

            RESPONSE #5:  Although slow to mature, this introduced species is very aggressive in riparian areas once it produces viable seed.  Control of a riparian invasive species is very cost prohibitive.

 

COMMENT #6:  Other western states now list Russian olive as a noxious weed (1 commenter).

 

            RESPONSE #6:  Several other states in the region do list Russian olive as a noxious weed, and they have struggled with the same conflict between windbreak proponents and riparian area opponents.  Responding to the detrimental effects on the economy and environment, federal funding is available to states working on the control of Russian olive and Saltcedar in riparian settings.

 

COMMENT #7:  Russian olive trees interfere with honey bees (1 commenter).

 

            RESPONSE #7:  We do not have data to support this nor was it a basis for the proposed rule amendment.

 

            COMMENT #8:  Some people have severe allergies to Russian olive tree pollen (1 commenter).

 

            RESPONSE #8:  This is a valid concern; human health issues are one of the criteria examined in the listing process.  Nonetheless, we do not have data to support this nor was it a basis for the proposed rule amendment.

 

COMMENT # 9:  Russian olive is the only tree that will grow in Eastern Montana (10 commenters).

 

            RESPONSE #9:  Climate and geography determine what can grow in eastern Montana.  Russian olive is an introduced species from a similar environment.  There are several native species and sterile hybrids that have been considered as viable substitutions.

 

            COMMENT #10:  The state should support any tree that will grow in Eastern Montana (5 commenters).

 

            RESPONSE #10:  The state has an obligation to protect the multiple environments that exist in our borders.  The wellbeing of riparian areas should not be compromised in order to promote a nonnative plant in an environment that does not support trees due to natural climatic and geographic limitations.

 

            COMMENT #11:  What other trees could even grow in dry parts of Montana (4 commenters)?

 

            RESPONSE #11:  Due to the climate and geography of eastern Montana, few if any, tree species grew there before Russian olive was introduced.  Several native and noninvasive introduced brush and tree species are highlighted for consideration as revegetation species when Russian olives are replaced, or when developing new windbreaks.  Examples of dry area plants that might be substituted are Rocky mountain juniper, dogwood, Silver buffaloberry, etc.

 

COMMENT # 12:  Why not restrict only elevations under 4000 feet (1 commenter)?

 

            RESPONSE #12:  The Montana noxious weed list encompasses the whole state, and areas over 4000 feet likely can't grow the tree.

 

            COMMENT #13:   Russian olive trees prevent soil erosion and are an excellent wind break (6 commenters who oppose the rule, it was mentioned by 4 commenters who support the rule as well).

 

            RESPONSE #13:  Yes.  Nonetheless, negative impacts of the Russian olive in other environments must be taken into the balance when making a statewide determination.

 

            COMMENT #14:  The amount Russian olive trees interfere with cottonwoods (and other trees) is debatable (2 commenters).

 

            RESPONSE #14:  Slow maturation and limits on the rate of seed dispersal lend to the perception that Russian olive is not invasive, but it is well documented that  Russian olive can and does displace native trees such as cottonwood, green ash, and various willows along Montana river systems.  Russian olive enhances habitat for some wildlife species, but it replaces native vegetation and reduces habitat for many other wildlife species.  It is rarely eaten or used by beavers, thus furthering its competitive advantage over cottonwood and willow.

 

COMMENT # 15:  Tree management (especially tree trimming) could eliminate most of the problems associated with Russian olive trees (1 commenter).

 

            RESPONSE #15:  Statewide application of tree trimming and similar management actions is cost prohibitive.  Given a windbreak on one ranch, it might be feasible, but when considering entire watersheds with multiple landowners it is impractical.

 

            COMMENT #16:  Instead of making it a statewide designation, make it a county by county decision or only ban it near riparian areas (sometimes referred to as dual listing) (4 commenters who oppose, and 1 who supports).

 

            RESPONSE #16:  Currently, the Montana Weed Act and Administrative Rules provide latitude for county level prioritization of noxious weeds.  Our intent is to prohibit any future sale into and around Montana, the act already provides the individual counties authorization to manage noxious weeds as is appropriate.

 

            COMMENT #17:  It will cost too much to cut down the Russian olive trees if they are made a noxious weed (1 commenter).

 

            RESPONSE #17:  Eradication of Russian olive from the state is not presumed.  Our intent is to prohibit any future sale into and around Montana, and provide state funding to augment local control efforts where warranted.  Noxious weed management is multifaceted; the individual situation directs the goal of eradication or more commonly, containment and control.

 

COMMENT # 18:  Russian olive trees are beneficial to birds especially pheasants and grouse (6 commenters who oppose the rule, it was mentioned by 4 commenters who support the rule as well).

 

            RESPONSE #18:  A happy side effect of Russian olive windbreaks in the drier environments of Montana where previously no shrubs or trees of significance grew, is the creation of habitat for animals that were either nonexistent, or there in smaller numbers.  Unfortunately, that is not the case in many environments—particularly the riparian areas.  Russian olive has crowded out native trees and shrubs that typically flourish with a variety of species.   Russian olive results in a monoculture; this results in a lack of biodiversity in animals as well as plants.  Most birds adapt if the environmental change is gradual enough, and they can meet a portion of the food, shelter, and water they require, but varieties as well as populations are generally reduced.

 

4.  In addition to the traditional comments, the department sought comment directly from the county commissioners of all Montana counties.  Six counties opposed the proposed rule, 25 counties supported the rule, and 25 counties failed to respond.

 

5.  The department's proposed amendment is unchanged after having reviewed all of the comments.

 

 

/s/ Cort Jensen                                              /s/ Ron de Yong                                

Cort Jensen                                                   Ron de Yong

Rule Reviewer                                               Director

                                                                        Department of Agriculture

 

Certified to the Secretary of State August 30, 2010.