Legislative Audit Division
State of Montana
Report to the Legislature
February 2003
Limited Scope Performance Audit
Noxious Weed Management on State
Lands
This report recommends:
► Montana Department of Agricuhure to improve biennial reports
prepared by weed districts and state agencies to provide
assessments of noxious weed management effectiveness on state
lands.
► Department of Natural Resources and Conservation:
• Review alternatives for establishing grazing lease incentives to
promote weed management.
• Identify noxious weed infestations and establish a process for
monitoring priorities.
• Establish weed management enforcement options.
• Identify weed management projects warranting DNRC
involvement.
02P-12
Direct comments/inquiries to:
Legislative Audit Division
Room 160, State Capitol
PO Box 201705
Helena MT 59620-1705
Help eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in state government. Call the Fraud Hotline at 1 -800-222-4446
statewide or 444-4446 in Helena.
PERFORMANCE AUDITS
Performance audits conducted by the Legislative Audit Division are designed to assess state government
operations. From the audit work, a determination is made as to whether agencies and programs are
accomplishing their purposes, and whether they can do so with greater efficiency and economy. The
audit work is conducted in accordance with audit standards set forth by the United States General
Accounting Office.
Members of the performance audit staff hold degrees in disciplines appropriate to the audit process.
Areas of expertise include business and public administration, statistics, economics, political science,
criminal justice, logistics, computer science, and engineering.
Performance audits are performed at the request of the Legislative Audit Committee which is a bicameral
and bipartisan standing committee of the Montana Legislature. The committee consists of six members of
the Senate and six members of the House of Representatives.
MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
Senator John Cobb
Representative
Joe Balyeat
Senator Jim Elliott
Representative
Dee Brown
Senator Dan Harrington
Representative
John Musgrove
Senator John Esp
Representative
Hal Jacobson
Senator Corey Stapleton
Representative
Jeff Pattison, Vice Chair
Senator Jon Tester, Chair
Representative
David Wanzenried
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIVISION
Scott A. Seacat, Legislative Auditor
John W. Northey, Legal Counsel
Deputy Legislative Auditors:
Jim Pellegrini, Performance Audit
Tori Hunthausen, IS Audit & Operations
James Gillett, Financial-Compliance Audit
February 2003
The Legislative Audit Committee
of the Montana State Legislature:
We conducted a performance audit of noxious weed management on state lands. Our audit work
included a review of weed control activities of the departments of Corrections, Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, Natural Resources and Conservation, and Transportation, as well as the University System.
According to Montana law, these agencies are required to establish written agreements with
county weed districts addressing noxious weed management on all state lands. This report
contains recommendations for improving state lands weed management effectiveness. Written
responses from the departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Conservation are
included at the end of the report.
We appreciate the cooperation of the various state agency staff and county weed district officials
who assisted with the audit.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signature on File)
Scott A. Seacat
Legislative Auditor
Room 160, State Capitol Building PO Box 201705 Helena, MT 59620-1705
Phone (406) 444-3122 FAX (406) 444-9784 E-Mail lad@state.mt.us
Legislative Audit Division
Performance Audit
Noxious Weed Management on
State Lands
Members of the audit staff involved in this audit were Lisa Blanford,
Tom Cooper, Angie Grove, Angus K. Maciver, Jim Nelson, Jim
Pellegrini, and Mike Wingard.
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures iii
Appointed and Administrative Officials iv
Report Summary S-1
Chapter I -Introduction 1
Introduction 1
Audit Objectives 1
Scope 2
Audit Methodologies 2
Compliance 3
Report Organization 4
Chapter II -Background 5
Introduction 5
State Lands 5
State Agency Comparison 6
DNRC 6
MDT 7
FWP 7
DOC 8
University System 8
Various Approaches to Agency Weed Management 8
Written Agreements and Six -Year Plans are Required 9
Conclusion: Agencies are in Compliance with Written
Agreement and Six-Year Plan Requirements 10
Communication and Coordination is Important 10
Chapter III - Assessing Noxious Weed Management Effectiveness 11
Introduction 11
Biennial Weed District Reports 11
Biennial Report Content 11
Reports are not Used 12
State Agency Statements or Summaries of Weed Actions 12
Agency Statement or Summary Content 13
Conclusion: Current Reports do not Assess Weed
Management Effectiveness 13
How Can the Reporting Process be Improved? 14
Montana Department of Agriculture Role for Achieving
Improvements 15
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands 17
Introduction 17
Montana Law Outlines Trust Lands Responsibilities 17
Indications of Noxious Weeds on Trust Lands 17
Conclusion: Infestation on State Lands could be Higher than
9 Percent 19
Potential Impact of Noxious Weeds 19
Page i
Table of Contents
Basis of Audit Recommendations is Improving Trust
Revenue 20
Alternatives for Grazing Lease Incentive 21
Agricultural Leases 22
Grazing Leases 22
Does Weed Control Deduction Provide an Effective
Incentive? 23
Establish an Incentive for Noxious Weed Control 24
DNRC Concerned About Administrative Costs and Equity 26
Monitoring Weed Infestations 26
Current Process does not Assure Priorities are Identified or
Monitored 26
DNRC Should Establish a Weed Management Process 27
DNRC Supports the Need to Verify Compliance on the
Highest Priorities 28
Weed Management Enforcement 28
Weed District Enforcement is not Consistent 28
DNRC Enforcement Alternatives are Needed 29
Department Agrees with Need for Enforcement Alternatives 31
DNRC Responsibility for Weed Management 31
DNRC Trust Land Stewardship 31
Inventory and Mapping 32
DNRC Weed Project Involvement 32
DNRC Weed Management Funding 33
Improving and Developing State Lands 33
Noxious Weeds from Recreational Use 33
Forest Management Improvements 34
Staff Time Contributes to Weed Management 34
Other Resource Development 34
Weed Management Responsibility 34
Department Supports Need to Prioritize 36
Agency Responses A-1
Department of Agriculture A-3
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation A-5
Page ii
List of Figures and Tables
Tables
Table 1 State Agency Noxious Weed Control Expenditures 6
Table 2 Audit Assessment of Visible Noxious Weeds on State Lands 18
Table 3 Impact of a 10 Percent Noxious Weed Infestation Level
on School Trust Revenue 20
Page iii
Appointed and Administrative Officials
Montana Department of
Agriculture
Department of Corrections
Ralph Peck, Director
Greg Ames, Administrator, Agricultural Sciences Division
Bill Slaughter, Director
Bill Dabney, Prison Ranch Manager
Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks
Jeff Hagener, Director
Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation
Bud Clinch, Director
Tom Schultz, Administrator, Trust Land Management Division
Montana Department of
Transportation
University System
Dave Gait, Director
John Blacker, Administrator, Maintenance Division
Rod Sundsted, Associate Commissioner of Fiscal Affairs
Page iv
Report Summary
Introduction
At the request of the Legislative Audit Committee (LAC), the
Legislative Audit Division conducted a limited scope performance
audit of noxbus weed management activities on state lands. In May
2001, the LAC received a letter signed by over 100 Montana
legislators requesting the performance audit. The majority of state
lands are designated as school trust lands. Revenue generated from
leasing for grazing, agriculture, minerals and forest harvesting on
these state lands is used to support schools funding. We included
lands administered by five agencies in our review:
► Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC)
► Montana Department of Transportation (MDT)
► Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP)
► Department of Corrections (DOC)
► The University System
According to section 7-22-2151, MCA, noxious weed management
in Montana is administered through cooperative agreements between
state agencies and weed boards. These agreements should include:
► Six-year integrated noxious weed management plan.
► Noxious weed management goals statement.
► Plan of operations for the biennium, including budget.
► A biennial performance report from the weed board to the state
weed coordinator in the Montana department of Agriculture
(MDA).
Conclusion: Agencies are in compliance with Written Agreement
and Six -year Plan Requirements.
Biennial Performance
Reports
We found all agencies were generally in compliance with the
requirements of the law. Written agreements were in place. The six-
year plans included a goals statement and made reference to budget
requirements.
We noted the majority of the reports were generic and did not
provide an indication of specific weed control activities. There was
Page S-1
Report Summary
Noxious Weeds on Trust
Lands
no attempt to consolidate biennial reports or to generate a statewide
assessment. We do not believe the current contents of biennial
reports provide an assessment of effectiveness. As a result, the weed
district biennial reports are not used. A consolidated report
reflecting an assessment of weed management effectiveness on state
lands could be useful to the legislature and the executive branch.
Currently, legislators are not provided any statewide noxious weed
information. We recommend MDA:
A. Develop biennial report criteria and format to assess the status of
noxious weeds on state lands in each county.
B . Establish procedures for joint weed districts and state agency
report preparation, coordination, and submission.
C. Consolidate weed district biennial reports into a statewide state
lands noxious weed report for submission to the legislature and
governor.
The Montana Weed Management Plan indicates 9 percent of state
lands are infested with noxious weeds. Since "infested" was not
defined in the plan, we assumed infestation meant some level of
noxious weeds compared to total vegetation. To develop an
indicator of the infestation level, we accompanied weed coordinators
in 20 counties to 1 19 randomly selected parcels of leased trust lands.
We asked weed coordinators to rate the percent of noxious weeds
visible compared to total vegetation. Coordinators rated 43 percent
of the parcels as zero noxious weeds visible and 36 percent as 1 to 9
percent of the vegetation. In the remaining 21 percent of the parcels,
noxious weeds accounted for 10 to 100 percent of total vegetation.
Using this assessment indicator, we conclude noxious weed
infestation on state lands could be higher than the 9 percent figure
identified in the state management pla n.
According to section 77-1-106, MCA, lease rental rates and fees
should consider the best interests of the state with regard to the long-
term productivity of school trust lands, while optimizing the return to
the school trust. If the percent of infested parcels increases and/or
the level of infestation on parcels increases, then carrying capacity is
reduced and less revenue is available to the trust. If infested parcels
Page S-2
Report Summary
Alternatives for Grazing
Lease Incentive
Establish an Incentive for
Noxious Weed Control on
Grazing Lands
Monitoring Priority Weed
Infestations
Current Process Does Not
Assure Priorities are
Identified or Monitored
and/or the level of infestation decreases, canying capacity and trust
revenue can increase.
Historically, the department has relied on lessees for noxious weed
control. According to section 7-22-2149, MCA, if a weed district
conducts noxious weed control on leased state lands, the lessee is
responsible for the bill. In addition, section 36.25.132, ARM, states
the lessee shall keep the land free of noxious weeds at their own cost.
The conditions of the lease agreement also designate the lessee as
responsible for weed control. This contractual agreement is
important, because it not only designates the lessee responsible for
weed control, but also implies the department is responsible for
oversight.
The results of our state lands parcel assessment indicate noxious
weeds are a more significant problem on grazing lands than on
agricultural lands. We attribute this in part to the incentive provided
by the rental rate determination for agricultural lands, which is based
on production. The formula for grazing leases does not appear to
provide a similar incentive. We recommend DNRC:
A. Review alternatives for establishing a grazing lease incentive
for weed management.
B. Make recommendations to the State Board of Land
Commissioners and seek legislation as appropriate.
The Trust Land Management Division processes about 1 ,000 lease
renewals each year. Leases are renewed every five or ten years
depending on the term of the lease. Prior to renewal staff conduct
assessments, including a forage inventory. When the department
identifies a weed concern during renewal, staff can attach
stipulations to the lease agreement requiring supplemental weed
management. Stipulations and supplemental plans are used for five
percent of the leases renewed each year.
The current process allows for identification of noxious weed
concerns on trust lands every five or ten years. According to district
weed coordinators, infestations of existing or new noxious weeds can
Page S-3
Report Summary
become well-established within five years. While the use of a
standard lease weed clause, stipulations, and supplemental weed
plans indicates DNRC recognizes the need for weed management,
department officials do not have assurance they are managing the
highest priority noxious weed concerns. To optimize the return to
the school trust by reducing noxious weeds, we recommend DNRC:
Enforcement Alternatives
A. Identify significant noxious weed infestations on state lands.
B. Monitor priority noxious weed infestations and weed
management compliance.
We noted a reliance on weed districts for enforcement of weed
management requirements. If the lessee remains uncooperative, the
expectation is the weed district will use its enforcement authority to
resolve the problem. Currently, if a lessee does not manage weeds,
the only alternative to weed district enforcement is to invoke the
lease cancellation clause. Staff expressed reluctance to use the lease
cancellation authority, because many state parcels are inaccessible,
except through the current lessee's property. Lease cancellation can
make access for weed control by DNRC staff or a new lessee
difficult.
Department Enforcement
Alternatives are Needed
DNRC Responsibility for
Weed Management
The state is responsible for optimizing the trust. Therefore,
monitoring weed management compliance, which impacts trust
revenue, should not be left to weed districts. To improve noxious
weed control and optimize return to the trust, we recommend DNRC:
A. Verify weed management compliance on leased parcels.
B. Evaluate alternatives for enforcement of noxious weed
management requirements.
C. Make proposals to the State Board of Land Commissioners as
appropriate.
Officials indicated the approach to stewardship is based on two
principles. First, if the cause of degradation of state lands (not
limited to weeds) is other than the current lessee, then the agency
attempts to assist with corrective action. Second, because the
Page S4
Report Summary
Weed Project Involvement
formula includes a deduction for weed control, DNRC is reluctant to
provide assistance.
Some district weed coordinator comments acknowledged DNRC
involvement in weed control projects on leased lands and department
contributions to local cooperative projects. Most however, reflected
minimal DNRC involvement. In our survey of lessees, we asked
lessees to describe DNRC involvement in weed management on
leased trust lands. Respondents indicated DNRC:
DNRC Weed Management
Funding
Department Weed
Management Priorities
► Assists with inventory/mapping — 14 percent
► Assists with weed management plan — 3 percent
► Assists with weed control — 9 percent
► Does not provide assistance — 74 percent
Department noxious weed management funding for fiscal
year 2002 included:
► $31,000 from the resource development account to be
used by the DNRC's Trust Land Management Division.
► $5,000 designated for weed management from the
recreational use account.
► Approximately $90,000 expended by the Forest
Management Bureau for noxious weed management on
timber lands.
► A portion of staff time (5 to 15 percent) at land/field
offices used for noxious weed management (assessment,
spraying herbicides, bio-controls, etc).
The DNRC approach does not necessarily identify weed
priorities for trust lands, whether leased, un-leased,
agriculture, grazing, or timber. The approach relies on
lessees for weed management. Therefore, DNRC does not
request weed management funding based on state -wide
priorities. Officials use the amount approved in previous
years as the basis for succeeding budget requests. The
department should establish a more formal process
Page S-5
Report Summary
recognizing a level of responsibility for participation in weed
management on trust lands. We recommend DNRC:
A. Identify land/unit office weed management projects
warranting involvement by the department.
B. Consolidate DNRC weed management projects and
develop budget proposals for executive and legislative
consideration.
Page S-6
Chapter I - Introduction
Introduction
At the request of the Legislative Audit Committee (LAC), the
Legislative Audit Division conducted a limited scope performance
audit of noxious weed management activities on state lands. In May
2001, the LAC received a letter signed by over 100 Montana
legislators requesting the performance audit. This letter also
requested an "on- the -ground" evaluation of tracts of trust lands and a
comparison of the weed control activities of the Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to other state agencies.
Audit Objectives
In June 1997, we issued a performance audit report about the state's
Noxious Weed Program (96P-13). The audit addressed:
► Noxious Weed Trust Fund administration by the Montana
Department of Agriculture (MDA).
► Right-of-way weed control funding for the Montana Department
of Transportation (MDT).
► County weed management practices.
During the 1997 audit, we did not examine the implementation of
section 7-22-2151, MCA, enacted by HB 395 during the 1995
legislative session. Since the law was recently enacted, there was
little activity. This statute requires state agencies administering land
within a weed district (county) to enter into agreements with district
weed boards to specify mutual responsibilities for noxious weed
control on state lands. Five state agencies are identified in the law:
► Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.
► Montana Department of Transportation.
► Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP).
► Department of Corrections (DOC).
► The University System.
We developed four audit objectives:
► Determine if state agencies are in compliance with section 7-22-
2151, MCA.
Page 1
Chapter I - Introduction
► Determine if biennial reporting includes an assessment of state
agency noxious weed management effectiveness.
► Determine how DNRC noxious weed management compares to
other state agencies.
► Assess noxious weeds on trust lands and identify DNRC weed
management responsibilities.
Scope We examined noxious weed management activities in five state
agencies focusing on weed control conducted in the last two years.
The primary agencies are DNRC, MDT, and FWP. DOC and
University System lands, although limited in terms of total state
lands acreage, were also reviewed. In addition, we included the
following:
► Assessment of noxious weeds on a sample of state lands parcels.
► Survey of lessees regarding weed control on leased state lands.
► County weed coordinator comments regarding compliance with
weed control requirements related to state agencies.
Audit Methodologies We reviewed applicable Montana laws; Administrative Rules of
Montana; available budget, funding, and expenditure documentation;
and the Montana Weed Management Plan to obtain an understanding
of weed management requirements and accomplishments.
We interviewed:
► State agency central office and regional/district/field points of
contact from DNRC, FWP, MDT, DOC, and the University
System to discuss compliance with section 7-22-2151, MCA,
pertaining to written agreements between counties and state
agencies, six-year noxious weed control plans, and biennial
noxious weed reports.
► The MDA state weed coordinator to determine availability of
six-year weed control plans, cooperative agreements, and
biennial reports. We also discussed the use of biennial reports
and the intent of the statutory requirement for reporting.
Page 2
Chapter I - Introduction
► A sample of 25 district (county) weed coordinators to evaluate
compliance with the law regarding six-year noxious weed
control plans, cooperative agreements with state agencies, and
biennial reports.
We also interviewed DNRC officials to:
► Examine the effect of noxious weeds on the process used by
DNRC to determine lease rates for agricultural and grazing
lands.
► Determine how the department assesses and monitors noxious
weed infestations on both leased and non-leased state trust
lands.
► Determine how the department verifies lessee compliance with
noxious weed control requirements.
► Identify current availability and uses of noxious weed control
funding.
We solicited written comments from seven public lands -related
organizations to provide additional perspective of state lands users
regarding noxious weed control. We arranged for county weed
coordinators to help us assess a random sample of 119 parcels of
trust lands in 20 counties across the state to rate the percent of total
vegetation attributed to noxious weeds. We surveyed a random
sample of 154 state trust lands lessees selected from the most recent
fiscal year listing of lease renewals to determine leaseholder views
regarding noxious weeds on state lands and DNRC weed control
activities.
Compliance We examined state agency compliance with section 7-22-2151,
MCA, requiring written agreements. We found the five state
agencies identified in the law were generally in compliance with
these regulatory requirements. However, we found the biennial
reports submitted to MDA did not assess weed management success
as required by the law. This issue is discussed in chapter III.
Page 3
Chapter I - Introduction
Report Organization The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
► Chapter II, Background . Provides information about state
agency weed management activities and section 7-22-2151,
MCA, regarding written agreements between state agencies and
weed districts.
Page 4
►
Chapter IE, Assessing Noxious Weed Management
Effectiveness . Provides a recommendation to improve the
biennial reporting process by developing a consolidated report
for assessing weed management effectiveness.
► Chapter IV, Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands . Provides
recommendations to DNRC regarding improvements for noxious
weed control, including rental incentives, infestation monitoring,
enforcement options, and prioritization.
Chapter II - Background
Introduction
Section 7-22-2109, MCA, requires county weed boards to establish
criteria for the management of noxious weeds on all land within the
weed district. Section 7-22-2151, MCA, requires written agreements
between county weed districts and state agencies to specify mutual
responsibilities for noxious weed control on state lands. The
majority of state lands are designated as school trust lands. Revenue
generated from leasing for grazing, agriculture, minerals and forest
harvests on state lands is used to support schools funding across the
state. In this chapter, we provide background regarding how
agencies and weed districts implement noxious weed management
plans on state lands.
Section 7-22-2101(8), MCA, defines noxious weeds as exotic plant
species introduced in the state that may render land unfit for
agriculture, forestry, livestock, wildlife, or other beneficial uses. In
addition, section 7-22-2116, MCA, states it is unlawful for any
person to permit any noxious weeds to propagate or go to seed.
Section 7-22-2101, MCA, defines a person to include state
government agencies.
State Lands
For noxious weed control on state lands, we considered the
following agency administrative responsibilities:
► Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) -
Over 5.1 million acres of school trust lands are used for
agriculture, grazing, and timber harvests. Approximately 4.9
million acres are leased for crop and rangeland uses. The
department also administers 19,000 acres of state water project
lands.
► Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) - 14,000 miles
of federal, state and county road right-of-way.
► Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP) - over 400,000
acres (fishing access sites, parks, and wildlife management
areas).
► Department of Corrections (DOC) - 37,000 acres (primarily
prison ranch).
Page 5
Chapter II - Background
► The University System:
o University of Montana (UM) - 32,000 acres (Missoula area,
Lubrecht Forest, and Bandy ranch).
o Montana State University (MSU) - 37,000 acres (primarily
agricultural experiment stations/ranches).
State Agency Comparison
The Montana Weed Management Plan, dated January 2001, provides
a summary of noxious weed control budgets for state agencies. The
information in the plan was based on fiscal year 1998-99 budgets.
To better understand the level of the weed control effort of these five
state agencies, we also examined the expenditure information
reported in 2000-0 1 to the Montana Department of Agriculture
(MDA) state weed coordinator (Table 1).
Table 1
State Agency Noxious Weed Control Expenditures
Agency
2000-01 Biennium
Expenditures
MDT Right-of-Way
$1.7 million
DNRC Trust Lands
$44,633
DNRC Water Projects
$17,225
FWP
$339,83 1
DOC
$25,068
University System
Not Available
Source:
Compiled by LAD from Department of Agriculture
records.
DNRC
Page 6
We found using agency weed expenditures to obtain a cost per acre
for each agency is not a reliable estimate of agency level of effort.
The agencies approach noxious weed management in different ways.
Differences between agencies make such calculation a matter of
comparing apples to oranges.
DNRC relies on lessees for the majority of weed control on leased
agricultural and grazing lands. As a result, the lessee bears most of
the cost and the department commits only limited funding to weed
Chapter II - Background
control projects primarily on un- leased lands. Funding is used for
herbicide purchase and application by DNRC staff, county control,
or contractor support. DNRC has not established a centralized
noxious weed management staff position. The Agriculture and
Grazing Land Bureau supervisor assumes the administrative
responsibility for noxious weed management on most leased lands.
Staff allocates available weed control funding and assist with six-
year plans/agreements and compilation of a biennial report required
by section 7-22-2151, MCA. Noxious weed management on timber
lands is administered by the Forest Management Bureau. In
addition. Water Resources Division staff serve as a centralized
contact for state water project lands.
MDT MDT relies on county weed control capabilities (and in a few
jurisdictions contractors). The department allocates highway
funding to MDT maintenance districts for weed control on road
right-of-way. Based on annual reviews of requirements, MDT
maintenance districts allocate available funding to county weed
boards. MDT received funding for a centralized weed control staff
position during the 2001 legislative session. Staff focus on
development of six- year plans, annual agreements to allocate
available funding to counties, and compilation of the agency biennial
report.
FWP FWP relies on county resources, contractors, and/or in-house
capability. Regional officials determine the appropriate weed
management alternative based on consideration of the site and
available department and local resources. Regions use different
approaches for weed management. For example, one region could
rely on county capability for fishing access sites, contractors for
parks, and in-house capability for wildlife management areas. FWP
also received funding for a centralized weed control staff position
during the 2001 session. Staff works with regional offices on
identification of weed management funding sources, weed control
activities, six-year plans, cooperative agreements, and biennial
reports.
Page?
Chapter II - Background
DOC
University System
Various Approaches to
Agency Weed Management
DOC weed control is based on the agricultural needs of the Montana
State Prison Ranch. The majority of weed management is conducted
in- house. Aerial spraying is contracted. The ranch manager is
responsible for weed management.
The University System uses a combination of in-house, county, and
contractor resources for weed control activities. Procedures vary
depending on the availability of in-house staff, county capabilities,
or local contractors. The University System has not established a
centralized position. UM established a part-time weed coordinator
to address development and implementation of six-year plans for
Mount Sentinel and Fort Missoula properties. MSU established a
contact point for submission of biennial reports in Bozeman.
Individual MSU agricultural experiment station managers are
responsible for implementation of weed management plans.
These operational variations result in different approaches to noxious
weed management among state agencies. MDT, FWP, and DNRC
provide examples of differences in approaches used.
► MDT allocation of right-of-way weed control funding to weed
districts has provided for an on-going capability to manage
noxious weeds. Recent efforts by MDT to refine the
management concept along right-of-way in Missoula County
reflect an approach based on establishing a desired type of
vegetation rather than simply eradicating noxious weeds,
primarily through herbicide spraying. The new approach
outlines the use of limited funding resources for aspects of weed
management in addition to spraying, including education,
inventory, rehabilitation, and prevention. Under this concept, 15
feet of highway shoulder will be sprayed for various noxious
weeds. Weed management from the 15 -foot point to the fence
line will depend on what the landowner on the other side of the
fence is doing. If the landowner is actively controlling weeds,
right-of-way funding will also be used to control weeds all the
way to the fence. If not, the state-county obligation will end at
the 15-foot boundary, allowing limited resources to be directed
to other more productive uses. MDT is in the process of
expanding this approach to additional counties across the state.
► FWP six-year plans refer to specific parks, fishing access sites
(FAS), or wildlife management areas (WMA). For most parks
Page 8
Chapter II - Background
Written Agreements and
Six- Year Plans are
Required
and FAS locations, weed problems are geographically defined in
terms of fence-line, road, or water boundaries. Staff recognizes
the impact of vehicle traffic in these locations and expects
noxious weed control will be an on-going annual requirement.
Historic weed control budgets and ancillary maintenance
funding contribute to noxious weed control activities in these
locations. For WMAs, the noxious weed problem may be less
defined because of the larger acreage, but again historic funding
and focus on identified priorities within WMA boundaries
appears to provide for an on-going weed management effort.
► DNRC's approach is considerably different from both MDT and
FWP because the department relies on lessees for weed control.
We discuss DNRC weed control activities on leased and un-
leased state lands in detail in Chapter IV.
As a result of these operational differences, we decided a direct
comparison of state agency weed control activities was not practical.
Therefore, we focused on the requirements of section 7-22-2151,
MCA, regarding written agreements and six -year plans.
According to law, cooperative agreements between state agencies
and weed districts should include the following:
► Six-year integrated noxious weed management plan.
► Noxious weed management goals statement.
► Plan of operations for the biennium, including budget.
► A biennial performance report from the local weed board to the
MDA state weed coordinator addressing the success of the plan.
We found written agreements and six -year plans were in place for all
five agencies. Local district weed coordinators were aware of the
agreements and copies of most six -year plans were available. For
some agencies, six -year plans address all counties within the region.
In other cases, the plans are specific for each county. The focus of
most plans was to describe general responsibilities for state lands
sites/parcels such as "cooperating on an integrated approach to
noxious weed management." The result is many of the initial six-
year plans are generic in nature.
Page 9
Chapter II - Background
Conclusion: Agencies are in
Compliance with Written
Agreement and Six -Year
Plan Requirements
Communication and
Coordination is Important
We found all agencies were generally in compliance with the
requirements of the law. Written agreements were in place, although
we noted differences such as preparation of a single document for a
combination six-year plan and cooperative agreement with the weed
district. Other agencies prepared two separate documents. Most
six -year plans included a goals statement and made reference to
budget requirements.
We found the consensus among agency staff and district weed
coordinators was that section 7-22-2151, MCA, is important in
establishing a cooperative relationship between state agencies and
county officials. Agency staff and county weed coordinators
described the most effective weed control operations as those with
an agreed-upon weed management plan. We noted these site-
specific plans could either be part of the written six -year plan, a
separate management plan, or simply a verbal agreement between
cooperative participants. These participants all indicated weed
management effectiveness could be achieved using any of these
three approaches. Agency- weed district communication and
coordination, brought about at least in part by the requirements of
section 7-22-2151, MCA, were the common threads.
Page 10
Chapter III - Assessing Noxious Weed
Management Effectiveness
Introduction
Biennial Weed District
Reports
Biennial Report Content
Montana law establishes two noxious weed reporting requirements
involving state lands. According to the law, written agreements
between state agencies and weed districts should include a
requirement for submission of a biennial performance report from
the weed board to the Montana Department of Agriculture (MDA)
state weed coordinator. The purpose of the report is to address the
success of the six-year plans. In addition, each of the five state
agencies listed in the law is required to submit a statement or
summary of weed actions to the state weed coordinator. In this
chapter, we discuss contents of the current reports and provide a
recommendation for improvement.
During the audit, we interviewed 25 district weed coordinators as
well as state agency representatives (central office officials and field
staff) in all five agencies identified in the law. One of our purposes
was to discuss compliance with, and the effectiveness of, the biennial
report requirements of section 7-22-2151, MCA. We also met with
the MDA state weed coordinator to discuss statutory requirements.
The law requires weed boards to submit a biennial performance
report to MDA, on a form provided by the state weed coordinator,
regarding the success of the six- year plan. The state weed
coordinator, in cooperation with several district weed coordinators,
developed the content and format currently used by all counties
submitting biennial reports. The current biennial report includes
weed district comments in five categories:
1. Type of state lands in the county (MDT, FWP, DNRC, etc).
2. Whether or not a six -year plan is in place.
3. Program completion (status of six-year plan requirements).
4. Problems associated with state agency-weed district
coordination.
Page 11
Chapter III - Assessing Noxious Weed Management Effectiveness
5. Accomplishment of weed control work (county, agency, or
contractor).
Reports are not Used
State Agency Statements
or Summaries of Weed
Actions
We reviewed the file maintained by the state weed coordinator for
reports compiled for the 2000-01 biennium. The file included 53 of
56 weed board biennial reports. Since categories three and four
provide for completion status and problems, these sections could be
used to provide an indication of performance or a measure of plan
success. For category three, our review reflected 88 percent of the
responses were either blank or indicated "on-going or yes." The
responses did not provide a performance or success measure. For
category four, 68 percent of the responses were either blank or
indicated "none." Of the remainder, we noted only seven weed
districts provided descriptions of site -specific weed control
problems. Other weed districts provided generic responses such as
poor communication, no contact, or inadequate funding.
The state weed coordinator indicated the weed district biennial
reports are filed upon receipt. There is no attempt to consolidate
biennial weed district reports or to generate a statewide assessment.
Department officials indicated the law does not provide MDA with a
directive to compile a statewide report. As a result, weed district
biennial reports are not used by officials at the local or state level.
In addition to weed district biennial reports, state weed coordinator
files included the state agency reports also required by statute. Files
included reports from DNRC, DOC, FWP, MDT, and the
Department of Public Health and Human Services (PHHS).
Although PHHS is not required by law to report, the state weed
coordinator solicited comments because the agency is responsible for
state lands at various institutions across the state. Reports were not
available for the University of Montana (UM) or Montana State
University (MSU). Officials from both university organizations
indicated confusion regarding when to submit reports, because the
law does not specify timing criteria. In addition, the state weed
coordinator indicated there was confusion regarding the points of
contact for the two university organizations. As a result of these
problems, the 2000-01 reports were not compiled for UM or MSU.
Page 12
Chapter III - Assessing Noxious Weed Management Effectiveness
Agency Statement or
Summary Content
The content for the state agency reports reflects:
► Management plan status (by county),
► Major goals for weed control, and
► Agency expenditure and budget information.
Conclusion: Current
Reports do not Assess Weed
Management Effectiveness
We reviewed the state agency reports submitted for 2000-01.
Under management plan status, the primary responses were "current,
in-place, or complete." In a few instances, sites/parcels were noted
and the specific weed infestation was identified. Major goals were
stated in generic terms such as "continue to monitor and treat,
control or reduce weeds, and contain established infestations."
Agency expenditure information reflected the past biennium and
budget information was provided for the succeeding biennium.
Agency officials indicated these reports are of limited use to
management, except to provide an expenditure/budget summary for
weed control.
We do not believe biennial weed district or state agency reports
provide for an assessment of success or an evaluation of
effectiveness. We also interpret statutory intent to require a report
useable at both the local and state level to improve weed
management.
During our visits to weed districts, weed coordinators and agency
staff referred to a series of four steps for weed management:
assessment to determine status, action to implement weed controls,
monitoring to track progress, and re-assessment to determine
management effectiveness. Weed coordinators described assessment
and re-assessment as critical elements of the weed management
process used to identify priorities and to establish alternatives for
available resources.
A consolidated report reflecting an assessment of weed management
effectiveness on state lands in Montana counties could be useful to
Page 13
Chapter III - Assessing Noxious Weed Management Effectiveness
the Legislature and the executive branch. Given the interest
expressed by legislators during the 2001 Legislative session when
over 100 legislators requested a performance audit, it appears a
consolidated report could be helpful when establishing priorities and
determining agencies' operating budgets. Currently, legislators are
not provided any statewide noxious weed information. We believe
the intent of the reporting requirements was to advise administrators,
legislators, and the public regarding the extent of weed problems and
how the weed district- state agency relationship is progressing. In
addition, legislators should be provided with information on program
success and include identification of areas of the state requiring more
assistance.
How Can the Reporting in Chapter II, we concluded the level of communication and
Process be Improved? coordination between state agencies and weed districts improved as a
result of section 7-22-2151, MCA, requirements. An improved
reporting process could be used to continue the emphasis on
communication and coordination between weed districts and state
agencies. To create an assessment of success or an evaluation of
effectiveness and to provide useful information on noxious weeds on
state lands, three improvements are needed:
► Combine the two reports currently required, weed district
biennial reports and state agency summaries, into a single report
reflecting each agency's state lands within a weed district.
► The single report should provide for an indication of success on
each agency's lands within the district. We noted one agency
developed a simple format indicating whether noxious weeds
were increasing, decreasing, or stable. This type of criteria
could be used initially to establish a baseline for reporting on all
state lands.
► The single district/agency reports should be compiled into a
consolidated statewide report made available to the legislature
and the governor.
The district weed board should be designated as the focal point for
preparation and submission of biennial reports. State agencies
should be responsible for providing information to and coordinating
Page 14
Chapter III - Assessing Noxious Weed Management Effectiveness
with the local weed boards prior to report submission. We believe
agency coordination on the weed district report would meet the
intent of section 7-22-2151, MCA, requiring submissions by both the
weed district and each state agency. Although we noted instances of
coordination between state agency staff and weed district officia Is,
coordination was not consistent.
Montana Department of
Agriculture Role for
Achieving Improvements
The law requires submission of reports to MDA. MDA should not
be solely responsible for developing a state lands noxious weed
management assessment report acceptable to 56 weed districts and
multiple state agencies. Since Montana law places responsibility for
weed control at the local level, local officials should be involved in a
determination of report format and content. However, to establish
report content considered useful to all participants, MDA should take
the lead and work with weed district officials and state agency
representatives. This group should be charged with formalizing
acceptable report format and content.
MDA's role should be two-fold:
► Coordinate the development of criteria for noxious weed
baseline and status reporting, as well as report format. MDA
responsibility in this regard is based on the existing statute,
because section 7-22-215 l(l)(d), MCA, already requires the
department to provide the biennial report form. In addition,
section 80-7-711(2), MCA, authorizes the department to provide
technical assistance, including information and data on the
location of noxious weed infestations in each county. This
authority allows the department to work with weed districts and
state agencies to establish noxious weed status criteria.
► Consolidate reports received from weed districts and prepare a
state level report. Section 80-7-713, MCA, authorizes MDA to
prepare and submit a biennial noxious plant status report to the
legislature and governor. This authority should be used to
provide a statewide weed district-state agency assessment of
weed management effectiveness on sta te lands to the legislature
and governor.
Page 15
Chapter III - Assessing Noxious Weed Management Effectiveness
Recommendation #1
We recommend the Montana Department of Agriculture:
A. Develop biennial report criteria and format to assess the
status of noxious weeds on state lands in each county.
B. Establish procedures for joint weed district and state agency
report preparation, coordination, and submission.
C. Consolidate weed district biennial and agency reports into a
statewide state lands noxious weed report for submission to
the legislature and governor.
Page 16
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed
Control on Trust Lands
Introduction
The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) is
responsible for administering 5.1 million acres of agricultural,
grazing, and timber school trust lands. In this chapter, we discuss
the approach used by the department to address noxious weeds on
state lands. In addition, we provide recommendations for improving
noxious weed manage ment on trust lands.
Montana Law Outlines
Trust Lands
Responsibilities
We reviewed Montana law to identify responsibilities regarding
stewardship of state trust lands. We found the following references
generally applicable to this topic:
► Section 77-6-101, MCA, provides policy indicating it is in the
interest of the state to achieve a sustained income from trust
lands.
► Section 77- 1-202, MCA, assigns the State Board of Land
Commissioners responsibility for administering trust lands to
secure the largest measure of legitimate and reasonable
advantage to the state.
► Section 77- 1-106, MCA, requires the State Board of Land
Commissioners to establish rental rates that consider the long-
term productivity of trust lands, while optimizing the return to
the school trust.
► Section 77- 1-301, MCA, assigns DNRC responsibility for
leasing and managing trust lands.
Indications of Noxious
Weeds on Trust Lands
The Montana Weed Management Plan, January 2001, indicates
approximately 9 percent of state lands are infested with noxious
weeds. Since "infested" is not defined in the plan, we assumed
infestation meant "some level" of noxious weeds compared to total
forage/vegetation. To develop an indicator of the level of infestation
on trust lands, we accompanied district weed coordinators in 20
counties to 119 leased trust lands parcels selected randomly. We
asked weed coordinators to rate the percent of noxious weeds visible
on each parcel compared to total vegetation. Table 2 reflects the
results of our assessment.
Page 17
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
Table 2
Audit Assessment of Visible Noxious Weeds on State Lands
Percent Parcels
43
36
16
2
3
Percent of Noxious
Weeds Visible
1 to9
10 to 24
25 to 49
50 to 100
Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division.
Our assessment indicated for 57 percent of the parcels observed, the
level of visible noxious weeds ranged from 1 percent to 100 percent.
Based on our on-site discussions with district weed coordinators,
infestation levels of 1 to 9 percent while warranting weed
management probably do not detract much from available productive
forage. If we assume a parcel is "infested" when noxious weed
levels are 10 percent or more of the vegetation, then 21 percent of
the parcels in our sample would be considered weed infested.
We also surveyed 154 agricultural and grazing lessees from all
counties across the state selected from a listing of recent lease
renewals. One of the survey questions asked lessees to indicate the
level of infestation on their most recent state lease. Sixty-three
percent responded noxious weeds accounted for less than ten percent
of vegetation. Thirty- five percent indicated there were zero noxious
weeds on their most recently leased parcels. The other two percent
indicated infestation between ten and twenty-four percent.
In addition, we noted in some cases when the department identifies a
noxious weed concern during the renewal assessment staff attach
stipulations to the lease agreement requiring supplemental weed
management plans. Stipulations and supplemental plans are used for
approximately 5 percent of the 1000 leases renewed each year.
Page 18
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
The results of our parcel assessments made by district weed
coordinators do not correspond to the results of the lessee survey.
Our parcel assessment sample was selected using available state and
county road access. For most parcels, our observation of state land
was conducted near the right-of-way adjoining the state land to limit
the need to cross private property. As a result, we recognize our
assessment results are influenced by the impact of roads on noxious
weeds. Similarly for the lessee survey, we assumed lessees would
generally respond positively regarding weed control on recent lease
renewals. Therefore, it is difficult to directly compare results from
either the parcel assessment or lessee survey to the nine percent
"infested" figure in the Montana Weed Management Plan. While the
state plan and the lessee survey indicate the extent of infestation is
equal to or less than 9 percent, the results of the parcel assessment
suggest the extent of infestation on state lands is higher.
Conclusion: Infestation on
State Lands could be Higher
than 9 Percent
The assessment of 119 randomly selected parcels identified the level
of noxious weeds infestation visible from a single point. Using this
assessment indicator, we conclude noxious weed infestation on state
lands could be higher than the 9 percent figure identified in the state
management plan.
According to district weed coordinators assisting with our
assessment, noxious weed growth replaces more productive forage
or vegetation. Therefore, noxious weeds on state lands reduce
productive capacity and directly impact school trust revenues. To
illustrate this point, we prepared the examples in Table 3 below to
show the potential impact of weed infestations on trust lands.
Potential Impact of Noxious
Weeds
In our examples, we selected a parcel infestation level of 10 percent,
which was the level district weed coordinators indicated noxious
weeds began to impact productive forage. Department officials have
identified a carrying capacity of approximately 1 ,090,000 anima 1
unit months (AUM) for the 4.3 million acres of grazing lands, or an
average of .25 AUM/acre. An AUM represents the amount of
natural forage necessary for the subsistence of one animal unit for
one month. Animal units are identified as one cow, one horse, five
Page 19
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
sheep, or five goats. A 10 percent parcel infestation level reduces
AUMs by .025/acre. Multiplying projected infested acres times this
AUM reduction factor establishes the potential number of AUMs lost
due to noxious weeds. To determine potentia 1 lost revenue, the final
step is to multiply lost AUMs times the current lease rate of
$6.20/AUM. Figure 3 reflects the potential lost revenue to the
school trust account using the following three noxious weed
infestation indicators:
► Five percent infestation. Based on the number of weed
management stipulations developed during the department lease
renewal process.
► Nine percent infestation. Based on the figure presented in the
State Weed Management Plan.
► Twenty-one percent infestation. Based on the indicator
developed during our audit state lands assessments.
By multiplying a percent of infested state lands times total grazing
lands acreage, we use these three indicators to project infested acres
and potential lost AUMs and revenue.
Table 3
Impact of a 10 Percent Noxious Weed Infestation Level on School
Trust Revenue
Percent
Infested
Acres
5%
9%
21%
Projected
Infested
Acres
Potential
Lost
AUMs
215,000
387,000
903,000
5,375
9,675
22,575
Potential
Lost
Revenue
$33,325
$59,985
$139,965
Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division
Basis of Audit
Recommendations is
Improving Trust Revenue
If the percent of infested parcels increases and/or the level of
infestation on individual parcels is allowed to increase, then fewer
AUMs are produced and less revenue is available to the trust. If
infested parcels and/or the level of infestation can be reduced, AUMs
Page 20
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
and trust revenue will increase. According to section 77-1-106,
MCA, lease rental rates and fees should be established while
considering the best interests of the state with regard to the long-term
productivity of the school trust lands, while optimizing the return to
the school trust.
In the following sections, we present four recommendations related
to DNRC noxious weed control activities on trust lands. The intent
of these recommendations is to improve noxious weed management
because of the direct impact on trust revenue. The four
recommendations include:
► Review alternatives for establishing a grazing lease rental
incentives for noxious weed management.
► Identify noxious weed infestations and establish a process for
monitoring priorities.
► Establish enforcement options such as increasing interim lease
rates.
► Identify weed management projects warranting DNRC
involvement.
Alternatives for Grazing
Lease Incentive
Historically, the department has relied on lessees for noxious weed
control on leased state parcels. Department officials indicated the
basis for lessee responsibility is Montana law and Administrative
Rules of Montana (ARM). According to section 7-22-2149, MCA, if
a county weed district conducts noxious weed control on leased state
lands, the lessee is responsible for paying the bill. Section
36.25.132, ARM, states the lessee shall keep the land free of noxious
weeds at their own cost.
The conditions of the lease agreement designate the lessee
responsible for weed control. We believe this contractual agreement
is important, because it not only designates the lessee responsible for
weed control, but also implies the department is responsible for
oversight. Since the department relies on lessees for noxious weed
Page 21
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
Agricultural Leases
control on state lands, we examined whether current lease incentives
are effective in promoting weed management.
The law establishes agricultural lease rates based on a crop share
rental basis of not less than 25 percent to the state. During the audit,
we interviewed 25 county weed coordinators, as well as agency staff,
and found consensus was agricultural leases provide a more direct
incentive for lessees to manage weeds. By improving land
productivity through aggressive weed management, both the lessee
and the state benefit. However, according to department officials,
the decision process used by lessees of agricultural lands probably
focuses more on production concerns and controlling nuisance
weeds, such as wild oats, because noxious weeds are less prevalent
on agricultural lands. Any affect on noxious weeds, though positive,
may be a secondary consideration.
Grazing Leases
The results of our state lands assessments indicated of 119 parcels
rated, 32 were agricultural leases. The rating for 25 of the
agricultural parcels (78 percent) was zero visible noxious weeds.
The remaining seven parcels rated less than ten percent of the
vegetation as noxious weeds. Our sample supports an expectation of
fewer noxious weeds on agricultural leases.
Our parcel assessment ratings for grazing leases, on the other hand,
indicated up to 26 percent could be infested with a level of noxious
weeds accounting for 10 percent or more of the vegetation. Lease
rates for grazing lands are based partly on the department's lease
renewal assessment of each parcel' s AUM carrying capacity. The
State Board of Land Commissioners is responsible for establishing
an annual grazing lease rate. The rate is determined by multiplying a
factor times the average price per pound of beef for the previous
year, then times the AUM carrying capacity to determine the lease
rate. The method for establishing the multiplier factor used by the
Board was developed in 1993. The formula starts with the average
price for private leases per AUM ($1 1.40). The formula includes six
categories of deductions: weed control, fencing, water
developments, non-use areas, access, and fire suppression.
Page 22
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
Deductions are subtracted from the average private lease rate per
AUM and according to staff, are intended to recognize lessee costs.
There are also two additions in the formula: length of lease and
preference right. Additions are added to the average rate and are
intended to reflect the benefits of a state lease.
For calendar year 2001, the Board established a 7.54 multiplier. The
multiplier times the average price of beef for calendar year 2000
equates to an AUM rental rate of $5.55. Using the calendar year
2001 average price per pound of beef, the calendar year 2002 AUM
rental rate is $6.20.
Does Weed Control
Deduction Provide an
Effective Incentive?
The formula deduction for weed control is $2.92 per AUM. This
does not represent a direct reduction from the average private rental
rate/AUM because of the impact of the average price of beef on the
formula. For example for 2001, the average price per pound of beef
was about $.84. Therefore, the actual weed control deduction from
the market rate is approximately $2.45/AUM ($.84 x $2.92).
Department lease renewal assessments established an annual AUM
total of 1,090,000 for the 4.3 million grazing and timber acres.
Multiplying the weed deduction times the total number of AUMs
suggests lessees receive a potential credit of approximately
$2,670,500 per year for weed control.
This potential weed deduction credit can be examined in two ways:
► First, the potential credit ($2.67 million) could be applied to the
total 4.3 million acres of grazing lands. This amounts to about
$.60/acre for weed control. Discussion with county weed
coordinators indicates a realistic minimum cost for herbicide
spraying is close to $20.00 an acre.
► Second, the potential weed control credit ($2.67 million) could
be applied only to infested acreage. If infestation is based on the
nine percent figure cited in the Montana Weed Management
Plan, then infested acreage is approximately 387,000 acres and
the credit for weed control is about $6.90/acre.
Page 23
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
The dilemma is the weed deduction is applied to all lessees, whether
or not there is a level of noxious weed infestation on their lease
parcels. As a result, the total potential credit cannot be used just for
infested parcels. Regardless of the way the credit is applied in
theory, neither $.60/acre nor $6.90/acre per year provides much
incentive for weed management if costs are closer to $20/acre.
However, $20.00/acre costs are attributed to the more expensive
herbicides which are usually not applied annually.
As mentioned earlier, we conducted a survey of 154 agricultural and
grazing lessees from all counties across the state. Of the lessees
surveyed, 87 percent recently renewed grazing leases or a
combination of agricultural and grazing leases. The survey included
a question regarding the adequacy of the weed deduction. There
were three responses:
► The weed deduction adequately covered weed control costs on
leased land — 10 percent.
► The weed deduction did not cover costs — 1 1 percent.
► No opinion, because the lessee was not familiar with the
deduction and the formula — 79 percent.
It appears the grazing lease weed control deduction is not viewed by
lessees as an incentive because the majority of lessees were not
familiar with the deduction and/or the formula. Some district weed
coordinators indicated the approach used for determining grazing
leases actually provides a disincentive for noxious weed control. For
example, if the lessee invests in weed control and improves the
AUM value, the lease rate could increase. According to department
officials, there is an incentive side to this story as well. While the
lease rate could and does increase as a result of motivated lessees,
total forage also increases, and land productivity improves.
Establish an Incentive for
Noxious Weed Control
Page 24
The results of our state lands assessment survey indicate noxious
weeds are a more significant problem on grazing lands than on
agricultural lands. We attribute this in part to the incentive provided
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
by the rental rate determination for agricultural lands. The
department should review alternatives for improving the incentive to
lessees for noxious weed control on grazing lands. The department
could consider the following alternatives:
► Revise the grazing lease formula to account for differences in
noxious weed infestations by providing a range of deductions
depending on the renewal assessment. A higher deduction could
be used to reward responsible lessees with few or zero weeds.
The intent of this type of proposal would be to provide an
incentive to maintain a weed free environment.
► Delete the current weed deduction from the formula, and the
department retains the difference between the current formula
and the revision (the amount of the current weed deduction).
The department could use these funds to provide cost-share
reimbursement for weed control to qualifying lessees. The
intent of this type of proposal would be to provide an incentive
to encourage lessees with active infestations to participate in
weed management.
► Use a market-based formula and provide for annual discounts
(during the five to ten year period of the lease) for documented
noxious weed management expenditures. The intent of this type
of proposal would be to reward demonstrated weed management
by lessees.
In considering these and other possible alternatives, the department
should evaluate administrative costs associated with implementation.
While some re-prioritization of resources is always possible, any
proposal examined as part of this recommendation should minimize
department administrative requirements.
Following a determination of acceptable alternatives, the department
should make recommendations to the State Board of Land
Commissioners or seek legislation as appropriate. Section 77-6-507,
MCA, requires the State Board of Land Commissioners to establish
the annual rate for grazing lands. Therefore, any recommendation to
improve incentive by revising the grazing lease formula will require
Board approval and potentially legislation.
Page 25
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
DNRC Concerned about
Administrative Costs and
Equity
Department officials expressed concern about the amount of
administrative support required to implement an incentive
alternative. To assure any alternative is applied equitably, staff
anticipate considerable information will need to be collected,
compiled, and retained. These efforts would add to administrative
costs.
Monitoring Weed
Infestations
Recommendation #2
We recommend DNRC:
A. Review alternatives for establishing a grazing lease rental
incentive for noxious weed management.
B. Make recommendations to the State Board of Land
Commissioners and seek legislation as appropriate.
The Trust Land Management Division processes about 1000 lease
renewals each year. Leases are renewed every five or ten years
depending on the period of the lease. During the year prior to
renewal, department staff conduct trust land assessments. The law
requires assessments to take into consideration an inventory of
forage resources, including the kind, type, and location of vegetation.
According to staff, this includes noxious weeds. The inventory
process is used by the department to establish the AUM carrying
capacity and ultimately to compute the lease rate. The standard lease
agreement includes a noxious weed clause indicating the lessee
agrees at his own expense and cost to keep the land free from
noxious weeds.
Current Process does not
Assure Priorities are
Identified or Monitored
The process used for lease renewal to identify noxious weed
concerns on trust lands only allows for an assessment every five or
ten years. According to district weed coordinators, infestations of
existing or new noxious weeds can become well established within
five years, significantly increasing management costs and impacting
native forage.
Page 26
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
DNRC staff also advised when noxious weed infestations are
identified during their assessments and lease stipulations or
supplemental plans are prepared, on-going verification of lessee
compliance is rare. According to staff, the desire to conduct multiple
on-site weed evaluations of these parcels during the short Montana
growing season conflicts with other workload. In most instances
even annual visits are not possible.
While the use of the standard lease weed clause, lease stipulations,
and/or supplemental weed plans indicates DNRC recognizes the
need for noxious weed management, department officials do not
have assurance they are aware of, or managing, the highest priority
noxious weed concerns on state lands. To comply with statutory
requirements and to optimize the return to the school trust by
reducing noxious weeds, the department should identify infestations
and monitor weed management compliance.
DNRC Should Establish a a DNRC weed management process should include the foUowing:
Weed Manageme nt Process
► Identifying significant noxious weed infestations.
► Ensuring a management plan is established for identified
infestations.
► Monitoring compliance with a weed management plan.
This process does not have to incorporate 100 percent of all trust
lands. The current lease renewal process already identifies many
weed free parcels each year. A sampling technique or a procedure
building on the identification of infested areas recorded during the
renewal assessment process should meet the needs identified in this
finding. Staff suggested using cooperative agreements with district
weed coordinators to help identify significant infestations or to
provide a level of monitoring on state lands could be a useful tool.
In addition, staff suggested requiring lessees to provide noxious
weed status reports, already used by some field offices, could be
more widely incorporated as a monitoring tool.
Page 27
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
DNRC Supports the Need to
Verify Compliance on the
Highest Priorities
Department officials supported the need to identify and monitor
significant weed infestations. However, because of current duties
and workload of field staff, officials do not anticipate the capability
to implement this recommendation except for the very highest
priorities.
Recommendation #3
We recommend DNRC:
A. Identify significant noxious weed infestations on state
lands.
B. Monitor priority noxious weed infestations and weed
management compliance.
Weed Management
Enforcement
During our discussions with DNRC field staff, we noted a reliance
on weed district officials for enforcement of weed management
requirements. For example, when supplemental weed management
plans or stipulations are prepared, some staff forward copies to the
district weed coordinator. The intent is to advise the weed
coordinator regarding a noxious weed problem. Staff also provided
examples of visits to lessees to address problems and discuss
corrective action. However, if the lessee remains uncooperative, the
expectation is the weed district will use its enforcement authority to
resolve the problem.
Currently if a lessee does not manage weeds, the department's only
alternative to weed district enforcement is to invoke the cancellation
clause included in lease agreements. Staff expressed reluctance to
use the lease cancellation authority, because many state parcels are
inaccessible, except through the current lessee's private property.
Lease cancellation can make access for weed control by department
staff or a new lessee difficult.
Weed District Enforcement
is not Consistent
When DNRC relies on enforcement by district weed boards, it can
result in inconsistent enforcement of contract provisions. For
example, our discussions with district weed coordinators regarding
Page 28
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
the enforcement process outlined in the law for weed control
identified two approaches:
► Approach 1 . The informal county policy is to pursue
cooperation from landowners and lessees. The preference of the
weed board is not to use the authority in the law, which allows
county officials to enter private property, conduct weed
management, and bill the landowner (or lessee) for the costs
incurred.
► Approach 2. The preference of the weed board is to use the
threat of strict compliance with the law. Weed coordinators are
encouraged to formally identify noncompliance and implement
the sequence of enforcement steps outlined in the law.
While the scope of our audit did not include an assessment of which
approach prevails in most counties, we noted this inconsistency can
impact compliance on leased state lands. When the department
relies on enforcement by the weed board, and the county approach
more closely resembles the first scenario, then the department's
assurance of compliance on leased lands is questionable.
We also noted other factors can influence weed board willingness to
enforce weed management on leased state lands:
► According to law, state lands are exempt from property taxes.
As a result, counties do not receive revenue from leased lands
for the miU levy assessed to provide support for noxious weed
control. If a weed board is forced to establish workload
priorities because there is more weed control to be accomplished
than there is time or capability to accomplish it, some officials
may choose to concentrate on property contributing to the
revenue source.
► Trust lands are typically a small percentage of the total lands a
county weed coordinator is responsible for monitoring. Overall,
trust lands account for less than five percent of the total land in
the state. As a result, most weed district officials are busy with
the other ninety-five percent.
DNRC Enforcement Based on discussions with weed district officials and department
Alternatives are Meeaea ^^^^^^ jj ^^^g j^^j appear DNRC has assurance of compliance with
Page 29
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
weed management requirements. The state is responsible for
optimizing income to the trust. Therefore, monitoring weed
management compliance, which impacts trust revenue, should not be
left to weed districts. As a result, to improve noxious weed control
and optimize return to the school trust, the department should
examine alternatives providing for routine verification and additional
enforcement options. First, the department should establish
procedures for staff verification of compliance on parcels identified
with significant weed infestations or parcels warranting more
frequent assessment. This part of the recommendation is similar to
recommendation #3 in this report. If the department establishes the
monitoring procedures included in recommendation #3, those
procedures could be applied here as well.
Discussions with staff revealed additional enforcement options.
Based on an assessment of lessee weed management activities, the
department could establish procedures for interim lease rate
increases or reduction of the current weed deduction included in the
lease formula. This capability could allow the department to collect
a higher rental rate until an identified noxious weed problem is
resolved by the lessee. Resolution criteria should be consistent with
county noxious weed law. In addition, this process could allow the
department to retain funds received from a rate increase to conduct
weed control on state lands. The approach would be similar to the
way weed districts are authorized to enter private property for weed
control and bill the landowner to cover costs. While we envision the
increased rate enforcement option being used only for worst-case
leased parcels, it provides the department with both another
management tool and a funding source to help control noxious
weeds.
Similar to recommendation #2, State Board of Land Commissioners
approval is necessary to implement this recommendation. Section
77-1-209, MCA, allows the State Board of Land Commissioners to
prescribe rules relating to the leasing of state lands. The law requires
the Board to establish procedures for setting all fees and rental rates.
Therefore, any recommendation to establish interim rate increases as
Page 30
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
Department Agrees with
Need for Enforcement
Alternatives
a noxious weed enforcement option will require Board approval and
development of administrative rules.
The department indicated there is merit in the proposal to establish
additional enforcement options to address weed management in
specific situations. However, officials indicated staffing levels and
other workload may limit their capability to monitor weed
infestations on trust lands except in the worst cases.
Recommendation #4
We recommend DNRC:
A. Verify weed management compliance on leased parcels.
B. Evaluate alternatives for enforcement of noxious weed
management requirements including use of interim lease
rate adjustments.
C. Make proposals to the State Board of Land
Commissioners as appropriate.
DNRC Responsibility for
Weed Management
DNRC Trust Land
Stewardship
The department responded to the need to be involved in weed
management on state lands by allowing interested staff to establish
individual levels of expertise. Current department expertise was
achieved on a "part-time and as time permits" basis. Although not
available in every field office, an in -house core of noxious weed
expertise was established at all levels throughout the organization
(central office and land/unit offices). During our discussions with
weed coordinators and field staff, we discussed the kinds of weed
management activities undertaken by DNRC and the level and types
of funding available and used. We summarized comments from
district weed coordinators and department staff into three categories:
stewardship, inventory/mapping, and DNRC involvement.
There appeared to be consensus among weed coordinators that
DNRC should share in leased land stewardship, because current
Page 31
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
lessees are not necessarily responsible for existing infestations.
Infestation sources unrelated to the current lessee include: gravel
pits, recreational use (vehicles), timber harvests, mining sites,
rivers/streams/irrigation, etc. There was also consensus regarding
the need for DNRC participation in cooperative projects (plan
development), and the need to share in cooperative project funding
where appropriate (cost-share).
Inventory and Mapping
Department officials indicated the agency approach to stewardship is
based on two principles. First, if the cause of degradation of state
lands (not limited to noxious weeds) is other than the current lessee,
then the agency attempts to assist with corrective action and/or
rehabilitation. Second, because the lease formula includes a
deduction for weed control, the department is reluctant to provide
additional assistance. The department believes the predominant
responsibility for weed control rests with the lessee, because of the
administrative rule criteria and the lease weed control clause.
DNRC assesses state lands prior to lease renewal and may or may
not provide information compiled on noxious weeds to weed district
officials. In some cases, DNRC staff arrange for district weed
coordinators to conduct the noxious weed assessment on leased land
for the department.
DNRC Weed Project
Involvement
Officials indicated generally the department does not participate in
county- sponsored weed mapping or inventory projects. DNRC staff
assume lessees should be the more active participant, working
directly with weed coordinators in support of the district weed
management plan.
Some district weed coordinator comments acknowledged DNRC
involvement in weed control projects on leased lands and department
contributions to local cooperative projects. Most however, reflected
minimal involvement and/or a lack of awareness of DNRC activities.
In our survey of lessees, we asked lessees to describe DNRC
involvement in weed management on leased trust lands.
Respondents indicated DNRC:
Page 32
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
► Assists with inventory/mapping — 14 percent
► Assists with weed management plans — 3 percent
► Assists with weed control — 9 percent
► Does not provide assistance — 74 percent
Department officials indicated because of the weed control
deduction in the lease formula, typically DNRC does not provide
direct assistance. However, historically the department dedicates a
portion (8 to 10 percent) of the resources development account
funding for support of noxious weed projects on both leased and un-
leased lands.
DNRC Weed Management
Funding
Improving and Developing
State Lands
Noxious Weeds from
Recreational Use
The following sections describe DNRC funding for noxious weed
management.
In fiscal year 2002, $47,000 was budgeted from the resource
development account to be used by the Trust Land Management
Division. The purpose of this account is to provide funding to
improve and develop state lands to increase future revenue. The law
allows the State Board of Land Commissioners to set the amount up
to a maximum of three percent of trust income for resource
development. For fiscal year 2001, the total amount for resource
development was $540,360. The division spent approximately
$31,000 of the $47,000 for weed projects. Most of these funds
supported projects on un- leased lands identified by land/unit office
staff. Officials indicated the use of a portion of this account for
noxious weed control is a historic indication of department priorities.
Depending on the priority of weed control in the future compared to
other agency requirements, the allocation could change.
For the last fiscal year, $5,000 was designated for noxious weed
management from the recreational use account. The purpose of this
account is to compensate lessees for damage or noxious weeds
caused by recreational users of state lands. The revenue source is
from a fund which receives $1.50 from each state lands recreational
Page 33
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
Forest Management
Improvements
use license sold. According to staff, for fiscal year 200 1 , this
amounted to approximately $47,000. Administrative rules require
the department to designate a portion of this account for noxious
weeds and for damages. Traditionally the agency designates $5,000
each year for this purpose. The department did not receive
applications for use of this money during the last fiscal year.
According to district weed coordinators and department field staff,
the perception is criteria for approval is too stringent and
applications are not submitted.
Approximately $90,000 was expended by the Forest Management
Bureau for noxious weed management on timberlands. In addition,
the bureau expended $30,000 for re-vegetation and grass seeding
associated with timber sales to provide both erosion control and
weed control.
Staff Time Contributes to
Weed Management
Other Resource
Development
Weed Management
Responsibility
A portion of staff time at land/field offices is used for noxious weed
management (inventory/assessment, spraying herbicides/contracts,
bio-controls, etc). The department does not specific ally track staff
weed management time. Based on staff descriptions, we estimated
about 10 to 15 percent of Agricultural and Grazing Lease Bureau
field staff time is related to weed management. Approximately 5
percent of Forest Management Bureau staff time is attributed to
noxious weed management.
The department funds a variety of resource development projects
affecting noxious weeds on state lands. These include timber sales,
mining reclamation, and other re-vegetation projects. While these
activities are not typically described as weed control, there is a direct
impact on noxious weeds. We did not compile a listing of the total
funding used in this regard.
The primary source of noxious weed management funding for
agricultural and grazing leases is derived from the resource
development account. As indicated previously, approximately
$47,000 was budgeted for fiscal year 2001-02. Typically, the central
office queries land/unit offices to identify potential projects. Based
Page 34
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
on the response of land/unit office staff, identified projects are
prioritized and funding is allocated. For the last fiscal year, not all of
the resource development allocation for weed control was designated
for weed control projects by the end of the fiscal year, and the
remaining funds ($16,000) were applied to other department
priorities.
We determined the current DNRC approach does not necessarily
identify noxious weed management priorities for trust lands, whether
leased, un- leased, agricultural, grazing, or timber. That does not
mean the projects we discussed and reviewed with staff lacked merit.
The department is using available funding for legitimate weed
management projects. For example, over the past ten years, most
state lands offices participated in the introduction of beetles to
control leafy spurge. Significant progress has been demonstrated as
a direct result of these department efforts. However, we found
land/unit office staff typically submits candidate projects based on
the recognition significant funding was not available. Generally,
land/unit office staff do not categorize trust lands in their jurisdiction
in terms of noxious weed infestations.
As mentioned in previous sections, the department's approach is to
rely on lessees for weed management on leased lands. Therefore,
DNRC does not request dedicated weed management funding based
on an assessment of state-wide priorities. Traditionally, officials use
amounts approved in previous years as the basis for succeeding
budget requests. In addition, the department has not utilized
available recreational use account funding for noxious weed control.
We believe the department should establish a more formal process
recognizing a level of responsibility for participation in weed
management on trust lands. Department responsibilities include both
stewardship associated with sections 77-1-202 and 77-6-101, MCA,
and oversight associated with the requirement to monitor lease
agreements. In order to meet both obligations, the department
should establish procedures for:
Page 35
Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Control on Trust Lands
► Land/unit office identification of potential weed management
projects warranting involvement by the department.
► Consolidating prioritized DNRC noxious weed management
projects, including budget proposals for executive and legislative
consideration.
Department Supports Need
to Prioritize
While recognizing there are many internal priorities, department
officials supported the need to categorize a noxious weed
management priority. A weed management priority could be
compared to other priorities to help the legislature and executive
branch determine the most effective use of funding resources.
Recommendation #5
We recommend DNRC:
A. Identify land/unit office weed management projects
warranting involvement by the department.
B. Consolidate DNRC weed management projects and develo p
budget proposals for executive and legislative consideration.
Page 36
Agency Responses
Page A-1
Page A-2
MONTANA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
W. RALPH PECK
DIRECTOR
(406) 444-3144
FAX (40e) 444-5409
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR tdd (40S) 444-4687
JUDY H MARTZ '°' " ROBERTS, PO BOX 200201 WeIs'ItT ^T^g'^^.^:",...
GOVERNOR HELENA, MONTANA 59620-0201
February 10, 2003
RECEIVED
FEB 1 1 2003
PeJ^r^ZeAu6imanage. LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIV.
Legislative Audit Division
P.O. Box 201705
Helena MT 59620-1705
Dear Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for permitting the department to review and comment on your findings and
recommendations regarding tlie performance audit: Noxious Weed Management on
State Lands.
Recommendation:
The performance audit contained one recommendation, in three parts, to the
department as follows:
• Develop biennial report criteria and format to assess the status of noxious weeds
on state lands in each county.
• Establish procedures for joint weed district and state agency report preparation,
coordination, and submission.
• Consolidate weed district biennial and agency reports into a statewide state
lands noxious weed report for submission to the legislature and governor.
Response:
We concur with the recommendation. The department can compile information
provided by counties and state land management agencies that would report a county
self-assessment of weed control success on state lands.
The recommendation can be initiated in the 2005 biennium by developing a report
format that would include joint reporting by county weed districts and state agencies.
The report format will also include a county self-assessment of weed control activities
on state lands within each county. A cooperative process with representatives from
counties and state' land managers will be used to establish the report criteria.
Sincerely,
^S/^^
Ralph Peck PageA-3
Director
Serving Montana
Page A-4
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND CONSERVATION
JUDY H. MARTZ, GOVERNOR
RECEIVED
FEB 1 1 2003
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIV.
1625 ELEVENTH AVENUE
STATE OF MONTANA'
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE (406) 444-2074
TELEFAX NUMBER (406) 444-2684
PO BOX 201601
HELENA, MONTANA 59620-1601
February 10, 2003
Jim Nelson
Performance Audit Manager
Legislative Audit Division
PO Box 201705
Helena MT 59620
Dear Mr. Nelson:
I have reviewed and carefully considered the information and recommendations made in your
performance audit of Noxious Weed Management on State Lands. In the report, there are four
recommendations made to the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. The
following are my responses to each along with additional comments on information presented in
the report.
Recommendation #1 - Review alternatives for establishing grazing lease incentives to
promote weed management
DNRC does not believe that this recommendation will result in improved weed management.
The audit report itself suggests that the current rental adjustments are not viewed by lessees as an
incentive. Additionally, given the number of tracts and leases the Department manages, we do
not believe this could be equitably implemented.
Recommendation #2 - Identify noxious weed infestations and establish a process for
monitoring priorities.
DNRC concurs with this recommendation. Over the next year, the Department will evaluate and
develop procedures to better identify significant infestations along with methods to monitor weed
management compliance.
Recommendation #3 - Establish weed management enforcement options.
DNRC concurs with this recommendation. Enforcement authority similar to that of the county
weed districts may offer the department an additional management tool in cases of repeated non-
compliance with weed management requirements. We envision that this would actually be used
on a very limited basis. Options will be reviewed prior to the next legislative session.
Page A-5
Recommendation #4 - Identify weed management projects warranting DNRC involvement.
The DNRC concurs with this recommendation. In conjunction with identilication of noxious
weed priorities (recommendation #2), the department will establish a more formal process for
identifying and prioritizing projects which merit funding.
Lastly, I would like to comment on the audit assessment and conclusions drawn from the
information presented in Table 2 of the report. To begin, while you acknowledge that roads
influence your assessment, I believe you have underestimated the degree to which they skew the
information collected. Land managers are well aware that roadways act as a conduit in the
spread of weed infestations. As such, your exclusive use of roadside tracts makes any
conclusion you infer across all of our ownership very questionable.
Be that as it may, I am especially troubled by your conclusion that the survey indicated weed
infestations might be as high as 21% of the acreage of state land. I believe you have grossly
erred in this extrapolation based on the type of data you collected. Your basis for the estimate
was that on 21% of the parcels visited, the level of infestation was between 10 and 100%i.
However, the infestation estimates were not of the percentage of the tract area that was covered
in weeds, but rather the density of the weeds where they grew. For example, a noted infestation
may have been 100% of the vegetation, but only occupied 1 acre of a 640 acre parcel. Since
your survey dealt with weed densities and not the amount of area occupied, it is incorrect to use
the data to come to any conclusion or to even speculate on the percentage of state lands which
have weeds. Using your data and methods of inference from Table 2, a reader would draw the
conclusion that 57% of state lands have some level of weed infestation. By comparison, staff
who annually inspect these lands have estimated that from 1 to 5 percent of our acreage have
noxious weeds.
In closing, let me assure you that I and Department staff understand the importance of noxious
weed confrol for the lands we manage. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this
issue.
Sincerely,
6^J
Bud Clinch
Director
Page A-6
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11