'Znwp
397

Legislative Audit Division

State of Montana

Report to the Legislature

June 1997

Performance Audit

Noxious Weed Program

This report contains reconunendations for improyement of program
operations. Reconunendations address:

Department of Agriculture

- Noxioiis Weed Management Plan Training.
»■ Noxious Weed Trust Fund Participation.
Department of Transportation

- Right-of-way Weed Control Funding.
County Weed Districts

- Management Practices to Improve Capability and Compliance.

96P-13

Direct comments/inquiries to:
Legislative Audit Division
Room 135, State Capitol
PO Box 201705
Helena MT 59620-1705

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

JATE DOCUIVIENTS COLLECTION

f^FR 1 0 2003

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

1515 E. 6th AVE.
HELENA, MONTANA 59620

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

3 0864 1001 7652 1

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. In performing the audit work, the audit staff uses 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,
computer science, communications, 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 Greg Jergeson, Vice Chairman

Senator Sue Bartlett

Senator Reiny Jabs

Senator Tom Keating

Senator Ken Miller

Senator Linda Nelson

Representative Ernest Bergsagel, Chairman
Representative Beverly Bamhart
Representative A. R. "Toni" Hagener
Representative Bob Keenan
Representative Robert Pavlovich
Representative Bruce Simon

LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIVISION

Scott A. Seacat, Legislative Auditor i^^^^S^ Deputy Legislative Auditors:

John W. Northey, Legal Counsel H^^^^Sl ^™ Pellegrini, Perfonnance Audit

Tori Hunthausen, IT & Operations Manager ^m^^^^J James Gillett, Financial-Compliance Audit

June 1997

The Legislative Audit Committee
of the Montana State Legislature:

We conducted a perfonnance audit of noxious weed control activities of the Department of Agriculture
(MDA), Department of Transportation (MDT), and county weed districts. While MDA and MDT are
assigned management and administrative roles, coimty governments are statutorily responsible for the
majority of noxious weed control activities. This report contains recommendations for improving
noxious weed control capability and compliance. Written responses from both departments are included
at the end of this report.

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance of department and coimty staff during this audit.

Respectfully submitted.

icotr A. Seacat
Legislative Auditor

Room 135, State Capitol Building PO Box 201705 Helena, MT 59620-1705
Phone (406) 444-3 122 FAX (406) 444-9784 E-Mail lad@nit.gov

. I . . &'^ - ( M (^ '-^^ \

1

I

Legislative Audit Division

Performance Audit

Noxious Weed Program

Department of Agricultwe
Department of Transportation
County Weed Districts

Members of the audit staff involved in this audit were Tom Cooper and
Mary Zednick.

Table of Contents

Chapter I - Introduction

Chapter n - Background

List of Tables iv

Appointed and Administrative Officials v

Report Summary S-1

Introduction 1

Audit Objectives 1

Audit Scope and Methodologies 1

Methodologies 2

Compliance 3

Report Organization 4

Introduction 5

Weed Management and Control Techniques 5

Primary Weed Control Responsibility with Counties 6

Counties Establish Weed Districts 6

Districts Prepare Weed Management Plans 6

District-Landowner Agreements 7

Weed Boards to Pursue Noncompliance 7

Boards Employ Weed Supervisors 8

District Weed Control Funding 8

MUl Levy 8

Other Revenue is Available 11

Department of Agriculture (MDA) 11

Noxious Weed Trust Fund (NWTF) Administration 12

NWTF Grant Funding 12

Conclusion: 25 percent Requirement Met 12

Grants are Cost-Sluure 13

Conclusion: NWTF Process is Well Documented and

Controls in Place 14

Project Eligibility Criteria 14

Department Policy Influences Landowner Project

Eligibility 15

Cooperative Cost-share Grant Application Starts with

Landowner Interest in Weed Control 15

Environmental Assessment is Required 16

Other Types of Grant Application Procedures 16

Advisory Council Recommends Grant Awards 17

Page!

Table of Contents

Contracts Identify Funding and Reporting

Requirements 17

Grant Distribution 18

Noxious Weed Management Coordinator 18

Noxious Weed Seed Free Forage Aa 19

Weed Seed Free Forage Advisory Council 19

Department of Transportation (MDT) 19

MDT State and Federal Right-of-Way 20

District-State Agency Cooperative Agreements 20

Chapter III - Noxious Introduction 21

Weed Program Capability

and Compliance Many Factors Influence Weed Control Capability and

Compliance 21

Weather is a Major Influence on Weed Control 21

Resource Availability Impacts Weed Control 22

Equipment, Facilities, and Services Differ 22

Weed Supervisors Discussed Compliance 23

Coordination Also Impacts Capability and Compliance 23

Infestations Continue to Move 24

Alternatives to Increase Capability 25

Is Legislation Needed? 25

Alternative Management Practices 25

Management Plans are a Coordination Tool 26

Plans Cited as Useful 26

Can Management Plans Improve Weed Control

Coordination? 27

Weed Supervisor Training is Informal 27

Training Objectives Could Improve Conununication and

Coordination 28

Other Options to Enhance Training 28

Department Agrees Concerns are Valid 29

Chapter IV - Noxious Introduction 31

Weed Trust Fund

Administration Grant Paperwork Workload Conflicts with Weed

District Priorities 31

Participation is a Concern 31

How to Increase NWTF Participation? 32

I

Pageii

Table of Contents

Reduce Paperwork and Review for Special County/Reservation

Grants 33

Assess Weed Districts 34

Use NWTF to Facilitate Project Development 34

Department Supports Need to Improve Participation .... 35

Chapter V - State and Introduction 37

Federal Right-of-Way

Weed Control MDT and Weed Districts Agree on Work and Funding 37

Funding Level Based on Historical Expenditure 37

Weed Districts Submit Expenditures to MDT for

Reimbursement 38

Department Tracks Activity and Expenditure 38

Procedures Followed Do Not Increase Controls

or Effectiveness 38

Process Does Not Include Performance Measures 39

Weed Control Budget Overruns Occur 41

The Process Could be Improved 42

Provide Funds to Weed Districts 42

Funding Distribution Format Needed 42

Statutory Revision is Necessary 43

Contracts are an Alternative 43

MDT Recognizes Need for Process Improvement 44

Agency Responses Department of Agriculture 47

Department of Transportation 51

Page Hi

List of Tables

Table 1 County Mill Levies for Noxious Weed Control

(Fiscal Year 1995-96) 10

Table 2 NWTF Funding

(Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1995-96) 13

Table 3 NWTF Distribution by Grant Category

(Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1995-96) 14

Table 4 Number of NWTF Grant Awards by Category

(Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1995-96) 18

Table 5 Cooperative Cost-Share Projects

(Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1995-96) 32

Table 6 County Lane/Mile Expenditures for ROW Weed Control

(Fiscal Year 1995-96) 40

Table 7 Maintenance District/ Area Expenditure

(Fiscal Year 1995-96) 41

Page It

Appointed and Administrative Officials

Department of Agriculture

Department of
Transportation

W. Ralph Peck, Director

Gary L. Gingery, Administrator, Agricultural Sciences Division

George Algard, Chief, Technical Services Bureau

Harold Stepper, Coordinator, Weed Program

Marvin Dye, Director

D. John Blacker, Administrator, Maintenance Division

Pagev

Pagevi

Report Summary

Introduction

The Legislative Audit Committee requested a performance audit of
the noxious weed program in Montana. The noxious weed program
involves county governments and state agencies. We developed four
audit objectives:

— Provide information to the legislature on noxious weed
management.

— Examine state and local noxious weed control resources to
assess their effect on compliance with weed control statutory
requirements.

— Examine procedures and verify controls for administration of
the Noxious Weed Trust Fund (NWTF).

— Assess the process for fiinding weed district noxious weed
control on state and federal highway right-of-way.

Noxious weeds are defined as exotic plant species established or
introduced in the state which may render land unfit for agriculture,
forestry, livestock, wildlife, or other beneficial uses or that may
harm native plants. It is unlawful to permit any noxious weed to
propagate or go to seed on private, local government, state, or
federal land.

Law Places Responsi-
bility with Counties

Statute requires counties to form weed management districts which
include all land within the county boundary. Weed districts may
consolidate and encompass more than one county. Statute requires
county commissioners to appoint a district weed board to administer
a noxious weed management program. District weed management is
based on a board-approved weed management plan vtdiich specifies
goals, infiestations, procedures for addressing water quality, public
safety, equipment and maintenance, and chemical seleaion,
application and disposal. Weed management plans typically address
public land, state/federal road right-of-way, and municipal areas
which require weed control. Statute allows weed boards to hire a
district weed supervisor to administer district noxious weed control
programs.

PageS-1

Report Summary

Weed Boards Pursue
Noncompliance

Statute requires weed boards ensure compliance with district noxious
weed control management plan criteria. When a board determines a
landowner is not in compliance, the board requests voluntary
compliance. If unsuccessful, statute requires the board to issue a
notice of noncompliance and identification of controls which lead to
compliance. If corrective action is not taken, boards are authorized
access to initiate controls.

District Weed Control
Funding

Statute requires county commissioners to establish a noxious weed
fund to pay for weed control aaivity. Statute also allows the
commissioners to assess a levy up to two mills for noxious weed
control. Additional mill levies require a vote. Other weed control
revenue can include: fees for services on private property,
equipment rental, chemical sales, and contracts for services for
municipal and state/federal lands.

Capability and
Compliance

According to legislative intent: "It is the policy of the state of
Montana to properly control and manage noxious weeds in order to
protect the agricultural economy and natural ecosystems of the
state."

Many Factors Influence
Capability and Compliance

The primary factors which influence weed control capability and
compliance by weed boards are: weather, resources such as staff,
equipment, facilities and services, and local commitment to statutory
compliance. In addition, county autonomy, local economic factors,
coordination between state/federal agencies and districts, and
environmental concerns impaa local program capability and
compliance.

Compliance Varies

We found a wide range of compliance with statutory weed control
requirements. Some districts control weeds on county and
state/federal right-of-way exclusive of other weed control activities
such as landowner noncompliance. Other districts control right-of-
way, including identification of landowner noncompliance, and assist
with determination of control techniques. However, some districts
neither pursue landowner noncompliance nor emphasize control
along county right-of-way. There are examples of weed control
projects with excellent coordination between weed districts,
landowners, and state/federal agencies. We noted joint weed district

PageS-2

Report Summary

management and observed cooperative projects comprised of several
landowners with the weed district playing an integral role.

Infestations Continue to
Move

Despite the dedicated efforts of many weed districts and landowners,
when resom-ce limitations combine with differences in local
commitment to statutory requirements, infestations continue to move
to/from private land, public land and/or right-of-way, and adjoining
districts. Hiese variations in capability and assurance of compliance
continue to affect the agricultural economy and natural ecosystems.
The Montana Department of Agriculture (MDA) indicates knapweed
and leafy spurge cost Montana's range livestock industry $4.5 and
$2.2 million, respectively, in annual forage loss.

Management Practices
Vary

Management Plans are a
Coordination Tool

We compared weed district resources and capabilities, and developed
the following list of alternative management praaices. These
alternatives influence revenue and resources such as staff, equipment
and facilities. If weed districts evaluate, then implement any or all
of the alternative management praaices listed below, we believe
noxious weed control capability and compliance could be improved:

— Make rental and/or loaner equipment available to the public.

— Arrange for access to chemicals.

— Identify access to services, either weed district or commercial.

— Develop contracts with municipalities and state or federal
agencies.

— Formalize district procedures for compliance.

— Evaluate consolidation with other weed districts.

Management plans should be the tool to help coordinate weed
priorities, establish techniques for control, and communicate
compliance requirements on local, state, and federal land as well as
private property. Weed supervisors and department staff also
believe up-to-date management plans are useful tools for an
effective, coordinated weed management program. We found many
management plans have not been updated since their initial
development in 1986.

To help assure weed districts develop useful management plans,
section 7-22-2130, MCA, requires MDA to prepare administrative

PageS-3

Report Summary

rules specifying the level and type of training necessary to
implement effective weed management programs. The department
has not adopted administrative rules specifying training objectives to
support implementation of effeaive weed management plans.

As part of the Noxious Weed Trust Fund (NWTF), described in the
following section, MDA should also establish procedures to allow
application for NWTF grants to support plan development.

We recommend the department :

A. Establish long-term training goals to include weed supervisors,
weed board members and county conunissioners.

B. Develop training objectives for administering weed management
programs and improving management practices.

C. Prepare administrative rules for the level and type of weed
supervisor training.

D. Establish procedures which allow weed district officials and
project sponsors to apply for NWTF grants to help pay for
training to develop management plans and improve management
practices.

Noxious Weed Trust Statute establishes the NWTF to support noxious weed management

Fund (NWTF) projects. Cost-share commitment, area benefit, and community

involvement are the primary NWTF grant criteria. Types of grants
include cost-share cooperative for weed control projects, special
county for equipment and facilities, education, and research. The
NWTF is administered by MDA.

Interest from the fund may be expended for noxious weed control
projects as long as NWTF principal remains at $2.5 million. Statute
establishes a $1.50 fee assessed with aimual vehicle registration
which is used for NWTF grants.

PageS-4

Report Summary

Conclusion: NWTF Process
Is Well-Documented and
Controls In Place

We found MDA's application submission, review, and approval
process well-documented and controlled. Similarly, documentation
of project status and payment requests is reviewed and process
controls are in place. Staff complete annual on-site evaluations of
active cooperative cost-share projects.

Conclusion: 25 Percent
Requirement Met

According to statute, 25 percent of the vehicle assessment fee will be
used to fund nonchemical methods of weed management. The
department is complying with this statutory requirement.

Participation is a Concern

According to district weed supervisors, the paperwork associated
with NWTF grant application submission, project monitoring, and
expense tracking frequently conflicts with local work priorities due
to limited resources. Weed supervisors and MDA staff indicate
project development and coordination often requires a year-round
effort vf^ich may be impacted by available weed district staff. The
workload associated with grant application and project monitoring is
difficult for weed districts with part-time weed supervisors and/or
limited administrative staff. During the past three years 40 of
Montana's counties have participated in cooperative cost-share
projects. We recommend the department develop alternatives to
increase participation by:

State and Federal
Hi^way Rig|it-of-Way

A. Establishing procedures to facilitate cooperative cost-share
grants, including assessments of non-participating counties to
determine potential for weed control projects.

B. Developing procedures for selected special county grants to
reduce paperwork to a minimal requirement.

C. Developing procedures to use NWTF funds to provide
additional administrative support to potential sponsors of
cooperative cost-share projects.

Statute designates district weed boards responsible for weed control
on state and federal highway right-of-way (ROW) if the state does
not control weeds in these areas. Weed districts conduct the
majority of Montana's state and federal ROW weed control. For
fiscal year 1995-96, approximately $1.7 million was available to
districts for ROW weed control. By statute, the cost of weed control

PageS-5

Report Summary

for state and federal ROW is paid by the Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT) upon receipt of a district's documented
expenses.

Historical Expenditure
Determines Funding

We found a variety of procedures and documentation used to project
noxious weed work requirements and establish weed district funding
levels. In some cases, district weed supervisors prepare an annual
work proposal for MDT maintenance staff to review. Other districts
update general agreements used in previous years and issue a
memorandum which addresses funding. Historical expenditure is the
primary factor used to establish annual weed distria work and
budget contract/agreements. Following weed control work, districts
submit invoices to MDT maintenance district/area offices for
reimbursement.

Procedures Do Not
Increase Controls or
Effectiveness

Existing MDT ROW funding distribution and expense review
procedures do not increase fiscal controls or improve weed control
effectiveness. MDT primarily relies on weed districts for fiscal
constraint and weed control expertise.

Alternative: Provide Funds
to Weed Districts at the
Beginning of Fiscal Year

MDT should develop procedures to distribute appropriated funding
directly to weed districts at the beginning of each fiscal year. Weed
districts could develop and control budgets, pay bills as work
progresses, and no longer present invoices to MDT.

We recommend the department:

A. Seek legislation to reflect fiscal year distribution of state/federal
ROW funding to weed districts and eliminate the requirement
for weed districts to submit weed control expenditure
documentation to the department for reimbtirsement.

B. Develop procedures for distributing state/federal ROW weed
control fiinding to weed districts at the beginning of each fiscal
year to allow budget and program control at the county level.

PageS-6

Chapter I - Introduction

Introduction

The Legislative Audit Committee requested a performance audit of
the noxious weed program in Montana. The noxious weed program
involves county governments and several state agencies. We
established audit objectives and scope following a preliminary
review of county, Montana Department of Agriculture (MDA), and
Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) responsibilities,
operations, and activities.

Audit Objectives

Audit Scope and
Methodologies

We developed four objectives:

— Provide information to the legislature on noxious weed program
management in Montana.

— Examine state and local noxious weed control resources to
assess their effect on compliance with weed control statutory
requirements.

— Examine procedures and verify controls for MDA's Noxious
Weed Trust Fund (NWTF) grant application processing, staff
review, and award.

— Assess MDT's process to fund weed district noxious weed
control on state and federal highway right-of-way.

The audit was conducted in accordance with government standards
for performance audits. The scope of this audit included:

— Weed control and management activities conducted by county
weed districts, MDA, and MDT.

— NWTF grant application, review, award, and monitoring
process.

— Tlie process used by MDT to fund weed districts for noxious
weed control on state and federal highway right-of-way.

Although we provide background information, we did not audit
aaivity associated with the Weed Seed Free Forage Act, because the
program was implemented in calendar year 1996. Also with the
exception of reviewing NWTF grant participation, we did not audit
noxious weed control activities on Montana's seven Indian
reservations.

Pagel

Chapter I - Introduction

Methodologies To determine regulatory requirements for noxious weed control in

Montana, we reviewed the following statutes:

- Control of weeds along roads and highways, section 7-14-2132,
MCA.

- County Weed Control, Title 7, chapter 22, part 2 1 , MCA.

- Weed control fee, section 61-3-510, MCA.

- Weed Control, Title 80, chapter, 7, part 7, MCA.

- Noxious Weed Trust Fund, Title 80, chapter 7, part 8, MCA.

We also reviewed administrative rules related to noxious weed
control activities.

To provide the legislature information on county noxious weed
program activities in Montana, we reviewed files and interviewed
weed supervisors in 13 weed districts across the state. We examined
district weed supervisors' role regarding:

- County-funded weed control activities.

- Preparation and administration of cost-share, research, and
special county NWTF grants/projects.

- Right-of-way infestation evaluation, sprayer/supervisor
operations, and/or contract administration.

We also forwarded a memorandum to all district weed supervisors
requesting comments on concerns or issues with the noxious weed
program.

To assess compliance with regulatory requirements, we examined
county weed management plans and interviewed weed supervisors to
determine if plans were up-to-date and used by weed districts, state
agencies, and the public. We reviewed availability of rental/loaner
weed control equipment offered to the public. We examined the
extent of weed control services provided by weed districts to
landowners. We also discussed weed supervisor training
availability, applicability, and frequency with MDA staff and weed
district supervisors.

We examined MDA's NWTF grant administration to evaluate
process efficiency and effectiveness as well as compliance with
statutory requirements. We interviewed MDA staff and reviewed a

Page 2

Chapter I - Introduction

sample of special county, education, research, and cooperative cost-
share grant applications, contracts, and requests for payment. We
evaluated weed district participation in the program during our grant
file review. We advised Noxious Weed Management Advisory
Council members of the audit through a memorandum and requested
comments on concerns or issues. We reviewed grant award
documentation to verify a statutory minimum of 25 percent of
vehicle registration funding was awarded for non-chemical weed
control research.

To determine MDT's process effectiveness, we examined
administrative activities used to fund counties for noxious weed
control along state and federal ROW. We interviewed department
officials in 8 of 1 1 maintenance district/areas. We discussed
procedures and reviewed aimual work proposals and budget
documents for consistencies between MDT districts/areas and
between counties within a MDT district. We examined procedures
and reviewed expense documentation submitted by weed districts to
MDT for reimbursement. We also considered the use of contracts
with commercial applicators for weed control along state/federal
highways.

While we did not evaluate the adequacy of cooperative agreements
between weed districts and individual state/federal agencies, we
considered the impact of such agreements on weed control activities
by interviewing district weed supervisors.

Compliance We examined compliance with statutes and administrative rules for

noxious weed program activities. We found state agencies generally
in compliance with regulatory requirements. We address concerns
about county compliance in Chapter HI. We also discuss the need
for MDA-developed administrative rules for weed supervisor
training in Chapter m.

Page 3

Chapter I - Introduction

Report Organization ^" Chapter U, we provide background information for county,

MDA, and MDT noxious weed control programs. Chapter ni
discusses county activities and identifies alternatives to improve
weed control consistency across the state. Chapter FV presents
concerns and reconmiendations for administration of the NWTF. In
Chapter V, we discuss the process used by MDT to distribute
noxious weed control funding to counties and recommend an
alternative approach.

Page 4

Chapter II - Background

Introduction

Noxious weeds are defined as exotic plant species established or
introduced in the state which may render land unfit for agriculture,
forestry, livestock, wildlife, or other beneficial uses or that may
harm native plants. According to section 7-22-21 16, MCA, it is
unlawful to permit any noxious weed to propagate or go to seed on
private, local government, state, or federal land.

Administrative rules designate three categories of noxious weeds:

Category I - Currently established and generally widespread:
Canada Thistle, Field Bindweed, Whitetop,
Leafy Spurge, Russian Knapweed, Spotted
Knapweed, Diffuse Knapweed, Dalmatian
Toadflax, St. Johnswort, Sulfiir Cinquefoil.

Category n - Recently introduced: Dyers Woad and Purple
Loosestrife.

Category m - Not yet deteaed or in small localized

infestations: Yellow Starthistle, Common
Crupina, and Rush Skeletonweed.

Weeds such as dandelions or cheat grass are nuisance weeds, but not
classified as noxious weeds.

Weed Management and
Control Techniques

Noxious weed management or control means the planning and
implementing of a coordinated program for contaiimient,
suppression, and \^ere possible, eradication of noxious weeds.
Management techniques used to contain, suppress or eradicate
noxious weeds include:

- Use ofherbicides for spraying.

- Cultural techniques such as hand removal, burning or
cultivation.

- Biological controls such as insects, grazing or pathogens.

Management technique selection depends on:

- Weed species targeted.

- Extent of infestation (acreage and terrain).

- Environmental factors (water, threatened species, etc.).

- Economics (costs).

Pages

Chapter II - Background

An integrated weed control approach is frequently used since
infestations often cover a variety of land areas (river banks,
foothills, and mountains) and a combination of techniques may be
most effective. In some cases, restrictions such as proximity to a
water source determine the control techniques used. Education and
prevention programs are also considered control techniques.

Primary Weed Control
Responsibility with
Counties

While the Montana Department of Agriculture (MDA) and the
Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) are assigned
management and administrative roles in the noxious weed program
in Montana, by statute county governments are responsible for the
majority of weed control activities.

Counties Establish Weed
Districts

Title 7, chapter 22, part 21, MCA, County Weed Control, outlines
procedures for counties to manage or control weeds. Statute
requires every county to form weed management districts to include
all land within the county boundary. Weed districts may consolidate
and encompass more than one county. However, all Montana
counties established individual weed districts based on county
boundaries. Although statute does not address Indian reservations,
MDA policy allows for Indian reservations to establish weed districts
similar to county operations.

Statute requires county conmiissioners to appoint a district weed
board. Board responsibilities include:

— Administering a district noxious weed program.

— Establishing weed control management criteria for all land
within the district.

— Making a reasonable effort to develop and implement a noxious
weed program covering land within the district owned or
administered by a federal agency.

Districts Prepare Weed
Management Plans

According to statute, district weed management must be based on a
board-approved plan. The plan must specify goals, infestations,
management procedures addressing water quality, public safety,
equipment and maintenance, and chemical seleaion, application and
disposal. Most weed management plans identify weed infestations of
concern for the county, provide criteria to determine weed control

Page 6

Chapter II - Background

priorities, and identify alternative control techniques. Weed
management plans typically address public land, state/federal road
right-of-way, and municipal areas which require weed control. In
addition to compliance criteria for landowner property, plans
frequently describe noncompliance and enforcement alternatives and
responsibilities.

District-Landowner
Agreements

In most cases, when weed distria staff assist landowners with weed
control activities such as chemical spraying, an agreement or
contract between the weed district and landowner is developed. The
agreement specifies services provided by the district and the
landowner, and identifies reimbursement for district expenses.

Weed Boards to Pursue
Noncompliance

County commissioners, based upon weed board recommendations,
may establish cost-share agreements with landowners participating in
weed control activities. Similar cost-share agreements between weed
districts and federal officials are also prepared for weed control on
federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau
of Indian Affeirs, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service. TTiese
agencies coordinate requirements and funding directly with local
weed districts to manage and control noxious weeds.

When a board determines, through complaint or other means, a
landowner is not in compliance with noxious weed control
requirements, voluntary compliance with the district weed control
program is requested. If unsuccessful, the board is required by
statute to issue a notice of noncompliance and identify control
techniques ^ich lead to compliance with the district's management
plan criteria. Weed districts may establish an individual plan to
identify weed control responsibilities of the landowner in
noncompliance.

If corrective action is not taken, boards are statutorily authorized
access to the land and may initiate appropriate control measures. In
noncompliance situations, statute authorizes the distria to bill the
landowner for weed control expenses. Statute also provides for
administrative hearing, appeal to county commissioners, and district
court petition for a person adversely affected by weed board action.

Page?

Chapter II - Background

Boards Employ Weed
Supervisors

A weed board may employ a weed distria supervisor to implement
the requirements of the weed management plan. County
conmiissioners/weed boards determine whether the weed supervisor
is a full-time or part-time employee. Districts may employ a part-
time weed supervisor for three to four months during the weed
season or retain a full-time supervisor plus administrative support
and seasonal spray crews. Some weed districts hire a weed
supervisor to evaluate infestations and administer a contract with a
commercial chemical applicator responsible for weed control
activities. Other districts designate the county Extension Service
agent as the weed supervisor. Data collected by MDA in 1992
indicated 32 of 56 counties employed full-time weed supervisors.
According to staff estimates, in 1996 about 50 percent of the district
weed supervisors were full-time.

District Weed Control
Funding

Statute requires county commissioners to establish a noxious weed
fund to pay for weed management and control activity. Local fund
sources include:

— County general fund money.

— Funds from levies and assessments.

— Grants.

— Gifts.

Determining expenditures for a district weed control program budget
is a statutory responsibility of the weed board.

Mill Levy

Section 7-22-2142, MCA, allows county commissioners to assess a
levy up to two mills for noxious weed control in their district
without voter approval. Additional mill levies require a vote.
According to statute, lessees of state lands within the district are
responsible for assessments and taxes levied by county
commissioners. Noxious weed control mill levy applies to the
taxable value of property.

We noted mill levies ranged from zero in two counties to six mills in
one county. The average mill levy was 1.76 mills, with 6 counties
assessing more than 2 mills in fiscal year 1995-96. County mill
values averaged over $42,000 annually for all counties in fiscal year

Pages

Chapter II - Background

1995-96. Three counties generate over $100,000 annually from
weed control mill levies. Mill levies in 20 counties generate less
than $20,000 aimually. The following table lists county weed
control mill levies and tax revenue for fiscal year 1995-96.

Page 9

Chapter II - Background

Table 1

County Mill Levies for Noxious Weed Control

(Fiscal Year 1995-96)

County

Weed
Mills

Revenue

County

Weed
MUls

Revenue

Beaverhead

1.60

$29,263

McCone

0.03

$246

Big Horn

1.36

$38,443

Meagher

6.00

$53,306

Blaine

1.76

$25,838

Mineral

0.00

$0

Broadwater

2.00

$23,282

Missoula

0.65

$95,431

Carbon

2.91

$58,860

Musselshell

2.22

$17,010

Carter

2.00

$17,792

Park

1.60

$45,836

Cascade

2.00

$217,621

Petroleum

2.00

$4,129

Chouteau

2.67

$66,180

Phillips

1.30

$27,797

Custer

1.62

$26,357

Pondera

2.00

$30,767

Daniels

0.68

$4,473

Powder River

0.00

$0

Dawson

1.28

$23,189

PoweU

1.60

$21,371

Deer Lodge

2.00

$19,818

Prairie

2.00

$9,182

FaUon

3.21

$35,541

Ravalli

1.60

$70,360

Fergus

1.50

$35,930

Richland

1.95

$42,507

Flathead

1.42

$197,857

Rooseveh

2.00

$54,332

Gallatin

1.77

$179,035

Rosebud

0.30

$53,331

Garfield

1.50

$9,045

Sanders

1.10

$36,656

Glacier

2.00

$40,660

Sheridan

2.00

$24,052

Golden VaUey

2.00

$10,750

Silver Bow

0.79

$44,065

Gianite

2.00

$18,186

Stillwater

1.60

$35,987

Hill

2.54

$79,437

Sweet Grass

1.95

$17,124

Jefferson

2.00

$50,394

Teton

2.51

$38,581

Judith Basin

1.60

$16,418

Toole

1.64

$30,093

Lake

1.74

$75,643

Treasure

1.74

$8363

Lewis&Clark

1.00

$80,838

VaUey

0.78

$21,482

Liberty

2.00

$19,709

Wheatland

1.60

$13,720

Lincoln

1.19

$33,429

Wibaux

5.97

$25,556

Madison

1.70

$37,593

Yellowstone

0.46

$106,051

Total

$2398,916

Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division from Department
of Agriculture recoras.

Page 10

Chapter II - Background

Other Revenue is Available

In addition to mill levy revenue, weed districts use revenue from
other sources to support noxious weed control. These sources
include:

Department of
Agriculture (MDA)

— Fees for weed control services on landowner property.

— Equipment rental.

— Chemical sales.

— Contracts and agreements for weed control on lands controlled
by municipalities and state/federal agencies.

— Funding from MDT for state and federal highway right-of-way
(ROW ).

One other source of funding for counties/districts is the MDA-
administered Noxious Weed Trust Fund (NWTF). NWTF provides
cost-share funding for cooperative weed control projects among
landowners or weed district equipment/infrastructure requirements.
NWTF is discussed in the following sections.

MDA's statutory responsibilities include technical assistance for
management and control of noxious weeds such as:

— Develop and maintain records on noxious weed infestations.

— Determine environmental impact of noxious plants.

— Determine management approaches and control techniques
considering economic and environmental impacts.

— Distribute information on proper use of herbicides.

Department staff assigned to the Technical Services Bureau (TSB) of
the Agricultural Sciences Division provide technical assistance to
weed districts and landowners. While all 16 TSB staff respond to
requests for assistance, only 2.17 FTE are assigned to administer the
NWTF and are funded by the NWTF.

Page 11

Chapter II - Background

Noxious Weed Trust Fund
(NWTF) Administration

Section 80-7-81 1, MCA, establishes the NWTF and requires MDA
to administer the fund. Section 80-7-805, MCA, establishes the
Noxious Weed Management Advisory Council to provide advice to
the department concerning NWTF administration. Council members
are appointed by the direaor. Council membership includes
representation from livestock production, crop production,
sportsman/ wildlife, herbicide dealer, consumer, biological research,
Montana Weed Control Association, and an at large member. The
MDA director serves as council chairman.

NWTF Grant Funding

NWTF revenue was initially derived from a statutory requirement
for a herbicide sales surcharge. The statute was repealed in 1993.
In 1987, the legislature recognized vehicles as major contributors to
the spread of noxious weeds from roads to rangeland. Section 61-3-
510, MCA, establishes a special fee for weed control assessment of
$1.50 with annual motor vehicle registration. Three percent of the
proceeds from the vehicle fee may be retained by county freasurers
for colleaion cost. The remainder is deposited in a special revenue
fund established for the NWTF.

Vehicle fees and interest earned by the NWTF may be expended for
noxious weed management projects as long as the principal of the
trust fund remains at $2.5 million. In addition to grants, the NWTF
pays the program's administrative costs.

Conclusion: 25 percent
Requirement Met

According to statute, 25 percent of the vehicle assessment v^Il be
used to fund nonchemical methods of weed management such as
biological weed control research. During our review of three fiscal
years of grant awards, we determined the department is in
compliance with this statutory requirement.

The following table indicates funding from interest and vehicle
registration fees for the last three fiscal years.

Page 12

Chapter II - Background

Table 2

NWTF Funding

(Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1995-96)

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

Fund Balance

$2,534,844

$2,518,875

$2,544,390

Fund Source

NWTF Interest

$ 253,771

$ 337,133

$ 382,947

Vehicle Weed Fee

1,354,987

1,353,211

1,359,188

Total Revenue

$1,608,758

$1,690,344

$1,742,135

Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division from
Department of Agriculture records.

Grants are Cost-Share

Legislative intent for disbursement of NWTF grants is for cost-
sharing between the fund and grant recipients. Participant selection
and cost-share ratios are determined by considering:

— Ability to fund from other sources.

— Need for the project.

— Amount of beneflt from the project.

Projects with greater community involvement and benefit receive
priority for grant awards.

There are four categories of NWTF grants: cooperative cost-share,
special county or Indian reservation, education, and research. Hie
following table reflects NWTF distribution by grant category for the
last three fiscal years.

Page 13

Chapter II - Background

Table 3
NWTF Distribution bv Grant Category
(Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1995-96)

Grant Category

1993-94

Percent

of
Funds

1994-95

Percent

of
Funds

1995-96

Percent

of
Funds

Cooperative
Cost-share

$ 566,220

25

$ 480,297

41

$ 648,900

43

Special County or
Reservation

998,413

45

247,503

21

222,577

14

Education and
Research

662,706

30

455,437

38

651,473

43

Total

$2,227,339

100

$1,183,237

100

$1,522,950

100

Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division from Department of Agriculture records.

Conclusion: NWTF Process
is Well Documented and
Controls in Place

We found the application submission, review, and approval process
well-documented and controlled. MDA staff assigned to the weed
coordinator office assure compliance with statutory grant award
criteria. Enviromnental assessments (EA) are prepared by staff and
retained in project files. Similarly, documentation of project status
and payment requests is reviewed by staff and the process is
controlled. Staff complete annual on-site evaluations of active
cooperative cost-share projects and provide copies to project
sponsors.

Project Eligibility Criteria

According to statute, a project is eligible to receive a NWTF grant if
the coimty in which the project occurs has funded its own weed
management program with a levy amount of not less than 1 .6 mills,
an equivalent amount from other weed control revenue sources, or at
least $100,000 for Class One counties. This basic eligibility need
not apply if the project meets any of the following criteria:

— Employs new or iimovative methodology.

— Involves cost-share with a local weed district.

— Applies to control of a newly introduced weed.

— Significantly contributes to weed management.

Page 14

Chapter II - Background

Supports agricultural experiment stations or Extension Service
projects for research, evaluation and education.

Department Policy
Influences Landowner
Project Eligibility

Cooperative Cost-share
Grant Application Starts
with Landowner Interest in
Weed Control

To assure landowner commitment to cooperative cost-share projects,
the department also considers the history of implemented weed
control measures in the project area. In addition to reviewing
landowner monetary conmiitment prior to grant application, the
department examines cooperation between landowners during the
preceding one to two years. Grant application guidelines distributed
by the department indicate at least three landowners are necessary to
form cooperative projects and emphasize the need for integrated
weed control.

The application also requires an outline of landowners' long-term
commitment to weed control after grant funding terminates.
Department policy restricts grant funding to not more than four
consecutive years because emphasis is on use of NWTF grants to
encourage landowner commitment. After four years, landowners
should assume responsibility for long-term requirements.

The cooperative cost-share grant application process usually starts
with a group of landowners interested in establishing a project to
control weeds in their area. Administrative rules require a sponsor
to facilitate project monitoring and expense tracking. Sponsors
include weed district supervisors, county Extension Service agents,
federal agency officials, and landowners.

District weed supervisors work with landowners to identify weed
infestations, develop weed control technologies such as chemical,
biological or cultural, and determine required cost-share information
for proposed techniques. The weed supervisor and/or designated
sponsor assists landowners with preparation of the formal application
and attachments reflecting soils, vegetation, water, wildlife,
historical sites, and other environmental information. Department
staff assist landowners with preparation of cooperative cost-share
grant applications wiien requested.

Grant application also includes a project schedule and supporting
documentation such as contracts with commercial chemical

Page 15

Chapter II - Background

applicators, easement maps, and reports on previous weed controls.
Applications reflect anticipated local education program efforts to
encourage more weed control activities. In addition, the application
includes a proposal for evaluating project success, usually by photo-
graphs or a manual process which measures an area and physically
counts weeds before, during, and after control techniques. Appli-
cants forward an original plus 16 copies of the grant application
package to the department for distribution to Noxious Weed
Management Advisory Council members and staff for review.

Environmental Assessment
is Required

Based on information landowners and weed supervisors provide with
the application, MDA staff complete an EA for each cooperative
cost-share weed control project. To complete the EA, seven
department specialists review information provided with the
application to assure consideration of the following areas:

— Terrestrial and aquatic life and habitat.

— Water quality and distribution.

— Geology and soils.

— Non-target vegetation.

— Aesthetics.

— Air quality.

— Unique endangered, fragile or limited environmental resources.

— Demands on environmental resources of water, air, and energy.

— Historical and archeological sites.

While the EA is an integral part of the NWTF grant application
process, when landowners conduct weed control without grant
funding, enviroimiental reviews are not required.

Other Types of Grant
Application Procedures

In addition to cooperative cost-share grants, NWTF supports a
variety of other weed control activities. Each year, the department
designates a portion of available funds for special county grants,
frequently used by weed districts to replace or upgrade equipment.
These grants are also awarded to Indian reservations. The
department, based on a review of ftinding for the year, determines
the amount available for special county or reservation grants in
advance of applications. While the application submittal and review
process is similar to cooperative cost-share grants, special

Page 16

Chapter II - Background

county/reservation grants require less supporting documentation
such as EA information.

Advisory Council
Recommends Grant
Awards

NWTF grants may be awarded for weed control education and
awareness projects such as publishing pamphlets and posters
identifying noxious weeds. Grants are also awarded for weed
control research. In addition to MDA staff, Montana Weed Control
Association committees review and comment on education and
research grant applications. Otherwise, the application process for
education and research grants is similar to special county grants.

Advisory Council meetings are usually held in January and April of
each year. The deadline for receipt of all grant applications is
approximately six weeks prior to a scheduled advisory council
meeting. This deadline allows time for staff and council member
review. Staff contaa applicants to acquire missing information if
applications are incomplete. The department's intent is to make
applications complete to assure all projects are considered, not to
eliminate applicants.

Contracts Identify Funding
and Reporting
Requirements

Following staff review and EA completion (if required), copies of
application packages are forwarded to council members. Applicants
or project sponsors may be scheduled for a 15 minute presentation
and questions before the Council. The Council recommends
approval or disapproval of awards to the director who has final
approval. TTie Council can also recommend approval contingent
upon a revision such as a project budget increase or decrease.

Following councU recommendation, the MDA director sends
applicants a signed letter indicating approval or disapproval of each
application. Staff prepare a grant award contract for all approved
projects. The department requires the project sponsor, local weed
board official, and county commissioner(s) to sign the contracts to
reflect acceptance of projea monitoring and expense reporting
requirements. The department director signs the contract for grant
award funding approval.

Page 17

Chapter II - Background

Grant Distribution

Over the past several years, the number of grant applications has
exceeded 150 each year with over 100 approved and awarded funds.
For the 1996 cycle, the department received 167 applications. The
direaor awarded grants to 1 16 of the 167 applicants. Table 4 lists
approved grants by category for three years.

Table 4

Number of NWTF Grant Awards bv Category

(Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1995-96)

Grant Category

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

Cooperative Cost-share

51

32

34

Special County

56

51

51

Special Reservation

*

3

6

Education and Research

26

19

25

Total

133

105

166

* Indian reservation grants were not available until 1994-95.

Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division from
Department of Agriculture records.

Noxious Weed
Management Coordinator

In accordance with legislative intent, the department established the
noxious weed management coordinator position to implement the
grant program, maintain disbursement records, and record progress
of funded projects. MDA's weed coordinator determines the
effectiveness of previously funded projects and provides the director
and council information necessary to make decisions on future
projects. Responsibilities also include review of NWTF grant
applications and assistance to weed districts to help develop projects.

Page 18

Chapter II - Background

Noxious Weed Seed Free
Forage Act

MDA is also responsible for administering another noxious weed
control program. The purpose of Title 80, chapter 7, part 9, MCA,
Noxious Weed Seed Free Forage Act, is to protect Montana's
natural resources from noxious weeds and their seeds. The 1995
Legislature determined movement of agricultural crops,
commodities, and livestock cause new and expanding weed infesta-
tions. The weed seed free forage program was established to create
cooperation between federal, state and local govenmients, the
university system, and private citizens. The program provides for
annual certification of farm/ranch forage through application, fee
payment, and inspection of forage/commodities. The Noxious Weed
Seed Free Forage Certification Program effeaive date was
January 1, 1996. Revenue from weed seed free forage certification
fees and penalties is deposited in a special revenue account used to
administer the program.

Weed Seed Free Forage
Advisory Council

The director of MDA appointed an advisory council composed of 12
members involved with the production and use of forage commodi-
ties. The department is statutorily responsible for preparation of
administrative rules to carry out the program. The Weed Seed Free
Forage Advisory Council was established to provide advice on rule
development for application and inspection fees, certification
marking, contracts and agreements, certification standards, inspec-
tions records, applications, reciprocal agreements with other states,
and penalties. Administrative rules for this program became
effective in May 1996.

Department of
Transportation (MDT)

Montana's road system includes 1,250 miles of interstate, 5,450
miles of primary roads, and over 70,000 miles of secondary and off-
system roads. Section 7-14-2132, MCA, designates district weed
boards responsible for weed control on state and federal highway
ROW if the state does not control weeds in these areas. This
includes ROW within Indian reservation boundaries. By statute, the
cost of weed control on state and federal ROW is paid by MDT upon
receipt of a verified district weed board account of expenses.

Through agreements between weed districts and MDT maintenance
districts/areas, the majority of Montana's state and federal highway
ROW weed control is conducted by weed districts. For fiscal year

Page 19

Chapter II - Background

1994-95 and 1995-96, approximately $1.7 million was available to
weed districts for this purpose.

MDT State and Federal
Right-of-Way

District-State Agency
Cooperative Agreements

Typically, to determine annual weed district funding for ROW, weed
district supervisors prepare a work proposal which MDT main-
tenance district/area staff review. The basis for the annual work/-
budget agreement is historical expenditure of available funding.
Weed district and maintenance district/area officials sign an
agreement or contract to formalize work requirements and available
funding. Some weed district boundaries include more than one
MDT maintenance district/area and these weed districts establish
multiple agreements.

After implementing control techniques, weed districts submit
invoices for ROW weed control expenses to maintenance district/-
area offices. MDT maintenance staff review cost information and
bills are paid by the department. The final step in the process for
MDT staff involves preparing status information for the depart-
ment's Maintenance Management System, which tracks lane miles
and road acreage sprayed as well as costs incurred.

Section 7-22-2151, MCA, enacted by the 1995 Legislature requires
any state agency which controls land within a district to establish a
cooperative agreement with the district weed board. Agreements are
to specify mutual responsibilities for integrated noxious weed
management. These agreements must include a 6-year noxious weed
management plan and the operations budget required for imple-
mentation. The agreements need to be updated biennially, and
reflea management goals. In addition to MDT, agencies required
by statute to prepare agreements and develop 6-year plans include:
the Departments of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Corrections, and
Natural Resources and Conservation, and the Montana University
System. District weed supervisors indicated 6-year plan develop-
ment is being discussed with state agencies. These plans are in
preliminary development and not yet implemented. When
completed, agency plans should be part of the weed district
management plan.

Page 20

Chapter III - Noxious Weed Program
Capability and Compliance

Introduction

Many Factors Influence
Weed Control
Capability and
Compliance

Weather is a M^or
Influence on Weed Control

According to the legislative statement of intent for county weed
control: "It is the policy of the state of Montana to properly control
and manage noxious weeds in order to protect the agricultural
economy and natural ecosystems of the state." Statute defines weed
control management as contain, suppress, or eradicate noxious
weeds. Seaion 7-22-21 16, MCA, requires either compliance with:
1) weed district noxious weed control management criteria or, 2)
compliance with a weed control proposal established between the
landowner and weed district. The legislature intended program
effectiveness to be dependent on local management efforts to
contain, suppress or eradicate noxious weeds, while striving for
compliance with weed control regulatory requirements.

During this audit, we examined state and local noxious weed control
resources and compliance with weed control statutory requirements.
Resource availability such as local funding, staff, facilities, and
equipment influence effectiveness of weed control activity in each
weed district and the ability to ensure compliance with statutes.

In this chapter, we discuss alternatives to improve resource
availability and compliance, and present our recommendation.

To effectively control noxious weeds, local weed control programs
require as much flexibUity as possible in order to respond to
changing conditions. The primary factors which influence weed
control capability and compliance are: weather, available resources
such as staff, equipment, facilities and services, and local commit-
ment to statutory requirements. In addition to resource availability
and capability factors, county autonomy, local economic factors, and
environmental concerns also influence weed control variations.

Weather has a significant influence on noxious weed control. Not
only does weather influence plant growth, but weather dictates v/ben
weed control equipment may be used to access much of Montana's
terrain. Unlike the need to plow snow on roadways whenever it falls
to assure public access, weather may prohibit weed control at
precisely the time »*en control techniques could accomplish the
most. Similarly, because of access restrictions, factors such as local

Page 21

Chapter III - Noxious Weed Program
Capability and Compliance

crop harvests and/or the forest fire season influence when weed
control may be conducted. The need for decision-making at the
lowest level led to legislation which makes county weed districts
responsible for noxious weed control.

County commissioners/weed boards determine weed control staffing
requirements. In addition to full-time staff, districts may contract
with commercial applicators for limited weed spraying activities or
hire temporary spray crews to meet requirements based on weather
conditions and weed growth. In districts with extensive weed
control activities, staffing includes a fiill-time supervisor, a
compliance assistant/work foreman, administrative support, and
seasonal spray crews.

Resource Availability
Impacts Weed Control

Some district weed supervisors described their weed control budgets
in terms of building blocks such as mill levies, general funds, grants,
and fees for services and/or chemicals. If revenue from one source
is missing, either another source makes up the difference or
capability is reduced. We noted one county typically employed a
weed supervisor from April through November, but decided to end
all weed control activity in August due to a budget shortfall. As a
result, neither fall spraying nor preparation of applications for
potential NWTF projects was possible. Differences in available
resources means variation in weed control capability and flexibility
between weed districts.

Equipment, Facilities, and
Services Differ

Most weed district equipment resources have been modernized
significantly during the past three years primarily due to
participation in a cost-share grant program offered through the
NWTF. TTirough cost-sharing for equipment and facilities,
individual weed control programs across the state benefit because
capabilities increase and flexibUity improves. Although the impact
of these NWTF grants has been positive, equipment and facilities
available to weed districts to perform the range of activities
necessary to effectively control noxious weeds still varies. Some
distria equipment inventories include permanently attached and
slide-in truck, trailer, ATV, and backpack chemical sprayers. The
newest equipment incorporates computer-controlled sprayers

Page 22

Chapter III - Noxious Weed Program
Capability and Compliance

operated by one individual from the truck cab. Other districts
continue to operate a single truck mounted sprayer requiring two
staff and providing limited capability to cover many types of terrain.

Some weed districts further enhance weed control activities by
providing rental and/or loaner equipment to private landowners.
These districts may also provide spray services and chemicals to
landowners on a cost reimbursement basis. According to weed
supervisors, providing rental/loaner equipment and/or weed control
services facilitates landowner involvement and promotes noxious
weed education and awareness.

Several counties we visited offered neither rental/loaner equipment
nor weed control services to landowners. Comments from weed
supervisors in these counties reflected concerns from county
commissioners about competition with commercial chemical
application or equipment rental vendors who might provide similar
services for noxious weed control.

Weed Supervisors
Discussed Compliance

During our visits to weed districts, we discussed commitment to
comply with statutory noxious weed control requirements. We
found a wide range of activities to verify or assure compliance with
statutory weed control requirements. Some districts control weeds
on county and state/federal right-of-way (ROW) exclusive of any
other weed control activities such as landowner noncompliance.
Other districts control ROW, include identification of landowner
noncompliance, and assist with determination of control techniques
to achieve compliance. At the other end of the spectrum, some
districts neither pursue landowner noncompliance issues nor
emphasize noxious weed control along county ROW.

Coordination Also Impacts
Capability and Compliance

According to weed supervisors, while local resources directly impact
noxious weed control, poor coordination between agencies and
districts also reduces the overall effectiveness of individual distria
efforts. For example, NWTF cooperative cost-share grants may be
approved in weed districts which do not aggressively control noxious
weeds along adjoining properties. While the NWTF-fiinded projea
may be very successful, the long-term effectiveness is reduced

Page 23

Chapter III - Noxious Weed Program
Capability and Compliance

because of lack of weed control on adjoining land. Similarly, some
counties conscientiously use MDT ROW funds, but do not pursue
landowner noncompliance or address infestations on state and federal
lands.

There are many examples of successful noxious weed control
projects supported with adequate resources. Projects involving
infestations on Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks fishing access
sites, U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands
have achieved significant results because of coordination and
cooperation. We also noted examples of joint weed district projects;
one project involved seven districts. We observed cooperative
projects involving several landowners where the weed district played
an integral role in assuring common ROW infestations were
controlled. In addition, we noted positive examples of weed district
coordination whereby one district assisted another in isolated areas
or when staff or equipment shortfalls impacted short-term weed
control capabilities.

Infestations Continue to Despite the dedicated efforts of many weed districts and landowners.

Move when resource limitations combine with differences in local

commitment to statutory requirements, infestations move to/from
private land and public land/ROW and adjoining weed districts. In
the long term, these variations in capability and assurance of
compliance continue to affect the agricultural economy and natural
ecosystems. References to the spread of noxious weeds in the 1992
MDA Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS),
prepared to help define procedures for administering the Noxious
Weed Trust Fund, indicate the following infestation levels in
Montana:

- Knapweed, over 5,000,000 acres.

- Canadian thistle, over 500,000 acres.

- Field Bindweed, over 668,000 acres.

- St Johnswort, over 5 10,000 acres.

As examples of the impact on agricultural economy, the PEIS
suggests knapweed and leafy spurge infestations cost the Montana

Page 24

Chapter III - Noxious Weed Program
Capability and Compliance

range livestock industry $4.5 million and $2.2 million, respectively,
in annual forage loss.

Alternatives to Increase
Capability

Is Legislation Needed?

We compared weed district resources and capabilities and developed
a list of management practices currently used by the most active
weed districts across the state. We found these variables influence
available revenue and weed control resources such as staff,
equipment, and facilities.

We considered the need for statutory change to insure capability and
assurance of compliance improve. However, we determined existing
legislation already provides local government with options
appropriate for implementing and managing noxious weed programs.
Statute pertaining to state agency oversight, although limited to
MDA technical assistance, NWTF administration, and state/federal
ROW weed control, provides adequate support for local noxious
weed management. In the next section, we identify alternatives
which could increase resource availability and improve noxious
weed control and compliance with statutory requirements. These
alternatives could also enhance coordination between landowners,
local weed districts, and state and federal agencies.

Alternative Management
Practices

If weed districts evaluate, then implement any or all of the
alternative management practices listed below, we believe noxious
weed control effectiveness and capability could be improved:

Make rental and/or loaner equipment available to the public.
This capability provides opportunities for increased awareness
of weed control issues and provides options to landowners for
resolution of noxious weed problems. Revenue from rental
equipment can be used to support equipment replacement and
provide additional program flexibility (staff, administration,
facility, etc.)

Arrange for access to chemicals, either through the weed
distria or commercial sales, because landowners require
convenient access to chemicals if that is the control technique
selected. Chemical sales revenue could be used to cover
administrative costs associated with chemical purchases,
storage, mixing, and delivery.

Page 25

Chapter III - Noxious Weed Program
Capability and Compliance

Management Plans are a
Coordination Tool

Plans Cited as Useful

— Help landowners identify access to weed district services or
commercial capabilities, since these are options for chemical
weed control in lieu of owning equipment and maintaining a
license. Revenue from services could be used to increase staff
capabilities and/or improve scheduling flexibility.

— Develop contracts with municipalities and state or federal
agencies for weed control requirements. Establish labor and
equipment rates adequate to cover program costs including
wages/benefits, equipment maintenance/replacement, and
facility depreciation.

— Using the weed management plan, formalize distria procedures
for compliance and control techniques to help convey the
message for noxious weed control. Procedures should support
achievement of statutory requirements for voluntary or directed
compliance by landowners.

— Evaluate consolidation with other weed districts. Statute allows
counties to combine and form consolidated weed districts and
boards. Consolidation could lower total costs, increase staff
flexibility/coverage, and increase cost-share project
opportunities. This approach has proven effective in other
county service areas such as sanitarian inspection of restaurants,
motels, and trailer courts.

Weed control statutes do not designate a state agency/focal point for
all noxious weed control activity. The focus of Montana weed
control is at the county level. According to statute, weed boards are
responsible for establishing management criteria based on a weed
plan, and for controlling noxious weeds on all land within district
boundaries. Legislative intent infers management plans should be
the tool to help coordinate weed priorities, establish techniques for
control, and conununicate compliance requirements on local, state
and federal land as well as private property.

Statute requires development of district noxious weed control
programs based on management plans which identify weed control
priorities, designate control methodologies, and specify compliance
requirements consistent with any local statutes or control criteria.
Consistent with the successfully coordinated projects described on
page 24, we noted weed management plans in these same districts
which are up-to-date. Weed supervisors, as well as department staff

Page 26

Chapter III - Noxious Weed Program
Capability and Compliance

believe current management plans are useful tools for an effective,
coordinated noxious weed management program. We found
management plans revised by weed supervisors and approved by
weed boards and/or county commissioners during the past one to
three years are used to coordinate local noxious weed control
activities. According to weed supervisors and MDA and MDT staff,
these up-to-date plans are used more frequently by local and state
officials and the public to conmiunicate infestation priorities and
assess control activities than older plans.

We examined management plans maintained on file by MDA and
found some plans have not been updated since their initial
development in 1986. Time and resources were frequently cited as
the reason many weed management plans were out-of-date.

Can Management Plans
Improve Weed Control
Coordination?

To help weed districts comply with the development of useful
management plans, sertion 7-22-2130, MCA, requires MDA to
develop administrative rules specifying the level and type of training
necessary for weed district supervisors to implement noxious weed
management programs. The intent of this training is two-fold:

— Assure proper pesticide/herbicide management.

— Improve the effectiveness of noxious weed management
program implementation.

Although MDA is responsible for developing training, legislative
intent specifies county weed boards are responsible for assuring
weed district supervisors receive training on proper implementation
of noxious weed management programs.

Weed Supervisor Training
is Informal

Currently, the department provides training to weed district
supervisors to meet the requirements for a pesticide/herbicide
applicator license. The department also oversees training aaivities
associated with spring and fall weed supervisor conferences held in
conjunction with the Montana Weed Control Association meetings.
However, this process is informal and administrative rules have not
been adopted ^ich specify the objectives of weed supervisor
training to implement effective weed management programs. By

Page 27

Chapter III - Noxious Weed Program
Capability and Compliance

establishing required training objectives which address management
practices and plan criteria, the department could have a positive
effect on local capabilities and assurance of compliance.

Training Objectives Could
Improve Communication
and Coordination

To formalize the process, MDA, in conjunction with district weed
boards/supervisors, should develop training objectives for admini-
stering weed management programs and focus on statutory require-
ments for weed management plans. Development of objectives
should be a joint effort with weed districts to assure consideration of
county autonomy, resource availability, economic faaors, and
environmental concerns. In addition to existing pesticide/herbicide
requirements, development of training objectives should consider
weed management plan criteria such as:

— Are plans current enough to reflect weed control priorities and
techniques accepted by the district?

— Are plans available to the public and govenmient agencies?

— Are plans useful for coordination of weed control projects and
activities between and within weed districts?

To measure the effectiveness of developed objectives and subsequent
training, MDA could more closely review management plans during
the NWTF grant award process to assure consistency between a
district's plan and weed control projects described in grant
applications. Although not required by statute, MDA's weed
coordinator occasionally examines weed district management plans
for requirements relating to a specific NWTF grant application.

Other Options to Enhance
Training

Our reconmiendation emphasizes a more active and formal MDA
training role. As the department focuses on their training role, they
should consider training-related options. The department could
establish procedures allowing both weed district officials and/or
landowners to apply for NWTF grants for management plan
development training. In fiscal year 1995-96, 43 percent of NWTF
fiinding went to education and research. In addition to district weed
supervisors and other state/federal project sponsors, training could
include weed board members, county commissioners, and active/-
potential landowner projea sponsors. Finally, since training should

Page 28

Chapter III - Noxious Weed Program
Capability and Compliance

emphasize local management plan development, it could also include
review and consideration of weed district services, revenue, and
consolidation management practices discussed in earlier sections of
this chapter. Formal training is an opportunity to provide
information and exchange ideas which can benefit weed control
effectiveness.

I^Mnnimendatiori #1

We rec<Hnmend the department:

A. Establish long-term goals for training to include weed
supervisors, weed board members and county
commissioners.

B. Develop training objectives for administering weed
management programs and improving management
practices.

C. Prepare administrative rules for the level and type of weed
supervisor training.

D. Establish procedures which allow weed district officials and
project sponsors to apply for NWTF grants to help pay for
training to develop man^ement plans and improve
management practices.

Department Agrees
Concerns are Valid

In response to our reconunendation, the department indicated
agreement with two fundamental concerns:

— Weed management plans need to be current and useful.

— Training plays a significant role in state-wide noxious weed
control.

MDA suggests their NWTF administration and technical assistance
responsibilities should include assisting weed districts with plan
development. The department intends to refine the existing pesticide
certification and training program to include other weed
management responsibilities. MDA has already started a training

Page 29

Chapter III - Noxious Weed Program
Capability and Compliance

program for weed board members as well as weed supervisors. The
department acknowledges their need to develop administrative rules
for weed supervisor training which specifies types and levels of
training related to weed management program development and
implementation as well as herbicide management.

Page 30

Chapter IV - Noxious Weed
Trust Fund Administration

Introduction

Grant Paperwork
Workload Conflicts with
Weed District Priorities

Title 80, chapter 7, part 8, MCA, establishes the Noxious Weed
Trust Fund (NTWF) to support noxious weed management projects.
Legislative intent reflects cost-share commitment, area benefit, and
community involvement as priority criteria for selection of NWTF
grant recipients. A primary purpose of weed management plans
discussed in previous chapters is to establish local noxious weed
goals and priorities. The intent of the Montana Department of
Agriculture's (MDA) administration of the NWTF is to help assure
available funding is used for state-wide noxious weed concerns. We
found the grant application and review process is complex and time-
consuming. As a result, county participation is impacted and it is
difficult for the department to assure potential projects across the
state receive consideration for available grant funds. In this chapter,
we discuss our findings and present recommendations for
improvement.

According to district weed supervisors, the paperwork workload
associated with NWTF application submission and documentation for
project monitoring and expense tracking frequently conflicts with
local work priorities due to limited resources. At the same time,
weed supervisors unanimously agreed if resources are committed to
NWTF project development and monitoring, the resulting effect on
noxious weed infestations will continue to be positive.

Participation is a Concern

MDA staff agreed project development and coordination often
requires a year-round effort \»iiich may be impacted by available
weed district staff. Application paperwork such as environmental
assessment (EA) information is detailed and time-consuming to
collect and formalize. The workload associated with grant
application and project monitoring is difficult for weed districts with
part-time weed supervisors and/or limited administrative support.

Seventeen of 56 counties were awarded a total of 34 cooperative
cost-share grants in 1996. During the past three fiscal years 40 of 56
counties have participated in cooperative cost-share projects. The
following chart reflects the number of counties and projects for three
fiscal years.

Page 31

Chapter FV - Noxious Weed Trust Fund Administration

Table 5

Cooperative Cost-Share Projects

(Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1995-96)

Fiscal Year
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96

Total

Counties

Projecuj

32

51

18

32

11

34

40

117

Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division from
Department of Agriculture records.

MDA weed coordinator staff are very involved with application
review and active project monitoring. This workload is in line with
legislative intent for the weed coordinator to maintain project
records and funding status for the department. However, the weed
coordinator is also responsible for advising the director on future
fund disbursement decisions and to "work with and assist county
weed districts." The department weed coordinator is ultimately
responsible for assuring the director considers state-wide noxious
weed infestations when awarding NWTF grants.

How to Increase NWTF
Participation?

The department should consider alternatives which could increase
participation in the application and review process. One way to
increase participation is to reduce the workload associated with
application preparation, review and follow-up grant monitoring.
This workload impacts landowners, project sponsors, district weed
supervisors, MDA staff, and the advisory council and department
director. We believe by reducing procedural work requirements
wherever possible there is more opportunity for officials at all levels
to increase participation in the NWTF process.

MDA staff should continue to refine NWTF cooperative cost-share
project grant application and financial tracking procedures where
possible. Examples of efforts already initiated by the department
include:

Page 32

Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Trust Fund Administration

— Providing points of contact and telephone numbers for
assistance in compiling EA information.

— Reducing the narrative and financial summary requirement from
quarterly to twice a year.

- Supporting NWTF funding for generalized or regional EA
documentation.

- Allowing NWTF grants for administrative costs associated with
application preparation and projea monitoring.

Reduce Paperwork and
Review for Special
County/Reservation Grants

For many special county/reservation grants, standard processing
procedures and documentation appear to detraa from effective use
of the time of project sponsors, MDA staff responsible for review,
advisory council members, and the MDA director. When
applications are processed for equipment items, these procedures are
streamlined compared to the requirements for a cooperative cost-
share weed control project review because EA documentation is not
required. However, the following four steps are still followed for up
to 56 special county and 7 Indian reservation grants:

— Weed district prepares a formal multi-page application.

— Department prepares a standard application file for review by as
many as five staff, all advisory council members, and the
director.

— Department prepares a standard contraa (nine pages), reviewed
by up to five staff and the projea sponsor, then routed for
signature by approving authorities (weed board, county
commissioner, and director).

— Weed district and MDA prepare and file various financial and
project monitoring documents.

The department could develop procedures for more direct funding of
selected special county/reservation grants such as equipment items.
In lieu of the multi-page application, a one page request or a
memorandum form could be used. Instead of review by several
staff, council members and the director, one staff could compile a
list of requests. The department could set a grant limit in advance as
they do now ($5,000 for FY 1996-97), and establish application

Page 33

Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Trust Fund Administratioii

deadlines which precede advisory council meetings. The department
could comply with the requirement for the Council's recommenda-
tion to the director by providing council members a comprehensive
list of all weed district/reservation equipment proposals at scheduled
meetings. These procedures would reduce filing, distribution, and
review requirements. To simplify contracts, the department should
develop a one-page document. These procedures could reduce
paperwork workload for landowners, weed district supervisors,
MDA staff, and council members.

To assure weed districts meet the basic criteria for award of a NWTF
grant, 1 .6 mills or equivalent budget, the department could require
submission of annual district weed control budgets. This informa-
tion is already required by statute to be included in district weed
management plans.

Assess Weed Districts

In addition to reducing the NWTF paperwork workload, MDA staff
should take a more active approach to facilitate cooperative cost-
share grants for weed control projects. Previously, we indicated 17
counties were awarded cooperative cost-share projea grants in 1996
and 40 different counties received grants during the past three years.
MDA could include an assessment of counties which have not
received grants or submitted applications in recent years to deter-
mine if noxious weed infestations in those counties should be
considered priorities. To be effective, the process should include
on-site visits of infested areas by weed coordinator staff with district
supervisors. The visits could include a determination of cooperative
interest, as well as local weed control capabUities, and a review of
weed district management plans.

Use NWTF to Facilitate
Project Development

MDA staff, in conjunction with the advisory council, should develop
procedures and criteria to use the NWTF to provide preliminary
administrative support for potential cost-share projects. In lieu of an
available district-funded weed supervisor, this procedure could
provide funding directly to potential landowner projea sponsors.
While such procedures would increase the percent of trust funds used
for administration and may not always result in a successful project,
emphasis on development of cooperative cost-share weed control

Page 34

Chapter IV - Noxious Weed Trust Fund Administration

projects and identification of noxious weed priorities state-wide
could result.

Recommendation n

We recommend the department increase NWTF participation by:

A. Establishing procedures to facilitate cooperative cost-
share grants, including assessments of non-participating
counties to determine the potential for weed control
projects.

B. Developing procedures for selected special county grants
to reduce papo^ork to a minimal requirement.

C Developing fH-ocedures to use NWTF funds to provide

additional administrative support to potential sponsors of
cooperative cost-share projects.

Department Supports Need
to Improve Participation

In response to our recommendation, MDA stressed the need to
encourage participation in NWTF and focus on counties which have
not participated in recent years. The department expressed interest
in several of the options we proposed such as continuing to refine
procedures, examining ways to fund administrative costs, and
simplifying special county grant procedures.

Page 35

Page 36

Chapter V - State and Federal
Right-of-Way Weed Control

Introduction

MDT and Weed
Districts Agree on Work
and Funding

Funding Level Based on
Historical Expenditure

Section 7-14-2132, MCA, requires either the Montana Department
of Transportation (MDT) to control noxious weeds along state and
federal right-of-way (ROW) or counties to do the work if MDT does
not. Since most ROW weed control is conducted by county weed
districts, we examined the process used by MDT to review weed
control requirements and provide funding to weed districts. Statute
does not address appropriation levels or funding distribution for
state/federal ROW noxious weed control. In this chapter, we discuss
our audit findings and recommendations pertaining to MDT.

We observed documentation prepared by MDT maintenance
district/area officials and district weed supervisors and noted a
variety of procedures used to develop noxious weed work
requirements and establish weed district funding levels. In some
cases, district weed supervisors prepare an aimual work proposal for
MDT maintenance district/area staff to review. We noted proposals
reflecting highway designations, road miles, and anticipated acreage,
as well as cost estimates for labor, chemicals and equipment.
Following discussion of the proposal, weed district and maintenance
district/area officials sign a contraa to formalize anticipated work
and available funding.

Other districts update a general ROW weed control agreement used
in previous years, then issue a separate memorandum to address
available funding to pay for anticipated weed control work. We
noted agreements vt^ich only referred to the district's weed
management plan for weed control responsibilities and did not
address road miles, acreage, or cost estimates for labor, chemicals
and equipment.

We found the primary factor used to establish annual work and
budget contract/agreement funding is historical expenditures.
Funding varies for a few weed districts, but experience shows weed
control workload predictions are not very precise because of the
weather influences discussed in Chapter m.

Page 37

Chapter V - State and Federal Right-of-Way Weed Control

Weed Districts Submit
Expenditures to MDT for
Reimbursement

Following completion of weed control activity, weed districts submit
invoices/bills to MDT maintenance district/area offices for
reimbursement of expenditures. Although submittal formats vary,
procedures for a reimbursement request are similar between weed
districts. The daily crew work form used to record activity and
expense is the weed distrirt's basis for determining the
reimbursement amount. Each day, a supervisor assigns work
responsibilities. Using the daily crew work form, staff document
labor, equipment and chemical costs, and road area or acreage
covered.

From the daily forms, weeds districts prepare expense summaries.
The expense summary forms submitted by weed districts and the
process used by MDT to review and validate expenses vary among
maintenance districts/areas and between weed districts. In some
maintenance districts/areas, the maintenance chief reviews expense
summaries, in others the responsibility is delegated to foremen or
road area supervisors. Most reviews were limited to an assessment
of the reasonableness of invoices submitted by weed districts
compared to available budget. Review and validation seldom
consider the results of noxious weed control activity.

Department Tracks
Activity and Expenditure

Maintenance district/area staff prepare status information for the
department's Maintenance Management System (MMS). Since
expense summary documentation formats vary by weed district,
some MDT maintenance district/area staff encounter difficulty
interpreting lane miles, road acreage, and related cost data provided
by the weed districts. These problems are easily resolved through
follow-up telephone calls between maintenance district/area and
weed district staff. After any needed clarification, MDT staff update
MMS for weed control activity and expenditure.

Procedures Followed Do
Not Increase Controls or
E^ectiveness

State oversight of ROW weed control should increase fiscal controls
and/or improve noxious weed control effectiveness at the local level.
Existing funding distribution and expense review procedures do not
increase fiscal controls or improve weed control effectiveness.

Page 38

Chapter V - State and Federal Right-of-Way Weed Control

Since existing statute does not restrict local weed control
expenditures, it is difficult for MDT to control total spending. MDT
relies on county weed districts for fiscal constraint.

Although some MDT maintenance staff are licensed chemical
applicators, limited noxious weed control expertise affects MDT
capability to evaluate county proposals or verify performance.
Maintenance district/area staff do examine ROW weed infestations
routinely because department duties require travel on the roadways
within their area of responsibility. This informal evaluation of weed
control provides useful feedback to weed supervisors. We found
reliance on weed districts for noxious weed expertise is an effective
alternative to the department establishing and maintaining formal
noxious weed expertise.

To determine if there is a more useful way for MDT to evaluate
weed control work completed by weed districts, we compared weed
control proposals to expense documentation submitted by weed
districts. We found because of the influence of weather on weed
growth and weed control, even the most detailed work proposals
seldom match work accomplishments.

Process Does Not Include Although MDT staff review documentation and track status of ROW

Performance Measures weed control, the data collected is not used to measure performance.

We found a few maintenance districts/areas examine weed district
cost per acre data or compare labor and equipment rate information
between counties. Hiis information has not been used to negotiate
future requirements or fimding levels with weed districts. We
reviewed information from the department's MMS on county weed
district cost per lane mile and maintenance district/area cost per acre
for fiscal year 1995-96. Weed district cost per lane mile varied from
$6 to $125. Maintenance district/area expenditure per acre ranged
from $18 to $241. While these differences appear significant, the
department has neither analyzed the data to determine if variations
are justified nor used the information to provide guidance to
district/area staff to help negotiate aimual weed control requirements
and fimding levels. Table 6 shows fiscal year 1995-96 county lane
mile expenditures. Table 7 shows maintenance district/area acre
expenditure information for 1995-96.

Page 39

Chapter V - State and Federal Right-of-Way Weed Control

Table 6

County Lane/Mile Expenditures for ROW Weed Control

(Fiscal Year 1995-96)

Counties

Expenditure
per County

Lane
Miles

$/Lane
Miles

Counties

Expenditure
per County

Lane
Miles

$/Lane
Miles

Beaverhead

$30,891

502.6

$61

McCone

$3,466

302.0

$11

Big Horn

$12,228

662.8

$18

Meaner

$17,997

204.8

$88

Blaine

$2,032

194.6

$10

Mineral

$16,058

421.8

$38

Broadwater

$20,324

163.2

$125

Missoula

$0

644.5

$0

Carbon

$5,425

307.4

$18

Musselshell

$1,689

204.0

$8

Carter

$3,460

102.8

$34

Park

$24,971

380.8

$66

Cascade

$48,339

746.6

$65

Petroleum

$499

125.4

$4

Chouteau

$3,557

247.6

$14

Phillips

$1,533

272.0

$6

Custer

$3,425

477.4

$7

Pondera

$25,052

311.0

$81

Daniels

$0

97.8

$0

Powder River

$1,547

239.2

$6

Dawson

$2,981

423.8

$7

Powell

$19,804

261.6

$76

Deer Lodge

$20,859

200.6

$104

Prairie

$1,163

172.0

$7

Fallon

$645

172.8

$4

Ravalli

$3,518

210.4

$17

Fergus

$19,189

461.6

$42

Richland

$4,919

250.2

$20

Flathead

$49,460

467.0

$106

Roosevelt

$2,543

300.2

$8

Gallatin

$23,451

658.0

$36

Rosebud

$12,910

602.8

$21

Garfield

$3,348

260.8

$13

Sanders

$7,192

357.0

$20

Glacier

$23,153

274.2

$84

Sheridan

S824

187.4

$4

Golden Valley

$2,508

85.4

$29

Silver Bow

$22,287

410.9

$54

Granite

$15,580

313.8

$50

StiUwater

$6,775

278.8

$24

Hill

$7,553

252.8

$30

Sweet Grass

$8,820

215.2

$41

Jefferson

$26,850

559.2

$48

Teton

$4,758

305.2

$16

Judith Basin

$7,546

176.0

$43

Toole

$6,552

346.2

$19

Lake

$17,046

301

$57

Treasure

$3,642

148.8

$24

Lewis & Clark

$53,152

700.4

$76

Valley

$2,789

347.4

$8

Liberty

$433

52.2

$8

Wheatland

$15,678

161.6

$97

Lincoln

$4,279

392.2

$11

Wibaux

$2,940

120.4

$24

Madison

$22,090

357.2

$62

Yellowstone

$4,563

795.3

$6

Source: Compiled by the Legulative Audit Division from Department of Transportation records.

Page 40

Chapter V - State and Federal Right-of-Way Weed Control

Table 7
Maintenance District/Area Expenditure

(Fiscal Year 1995-96)

Maintenance Area

Expenditure
per Acre

Missoula

$24.93

Kalispell

$32.43

Butte

$241.64

Bozeman

$19.16

Great Falls

$19.14

Havre

$95.86

Glendive

$18.34

Wolf Point

$36.82

MUes City

$40.50

Billings

$31.64

Lewistown

$69.85

Source

: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division from
Department of Transportation records.

Weed Control Budget
Overruns Occur

Although not predominant, we found examples of weed districts
exceeding their annual MDT ROW weed budgets by 100 percent for
individual weed districts. We noted maintenance district/area staff
resolve weed district overruns by transferring funding from districts
i)«4iich did not use all available budget or from weed control funding
retained for MDT projects or contingencies. Statute requires MDT
to reimburse weed districts for expenses regardless of funding
availability. According to staff, when appropriated funds have been
expended, other department funding would be transferred to
reimburse weed districts for expenses. In some cases, vfhen weed
district fiinding is depleted, districts are advised by MDT
maintenance district/area chiefs to stop weed control activities
regardless of the growing season or effect on known infestations.

Page 41

Chapter V - State and Federal Right-of-Way Weed Control

The Process Could be
Improved

Both district weed supervisors and MDT staff spend time compiling,
processing and reviewing documentation which does not signifi-
cantly enhance noxious weed control in Montana. Staff at both
levels of government can more effectively and efficiently employ
available work hours in support of assigned responsibilities including
noxious weed control.

Provide Funds to Weed
Districts

Tbe department should eliminate steps which do not add to admini-
strative control of the current process, and retain the positive aspects
of local weed control. MDT could provide funding to weed districts
at the beginning of each fiscal year for ROW weed control. Weed
districts could use this funding to develop weed budgets and pay bills
as work progresses. County weed districts would no longer be
required to present expense documentation to MDT and the
department would not reimburse counties based on invoices/records
received.

Funding Distribution
Format Needed

MDT would need to develop procedures to distribute appropriated
funding directly to weed districts each fiscal year. Initially, each
weed district's share could either be based on such factors as
historical expenditures determined from existing documentation or a
formula reflecting lane miles or anticipated acreage. Criteria could
include information on specific weed infestations identified in
district weed management plans and/or the 6-year state agency-weed
district plans. Both plans are required by statute and include
requirements to identify operating budget information.

Annual adjustments could be based on weed district justification such
as management plan revision, which could be considered by the
department as part of the legislative appropriation request process.
MDT could retain a portion of the appropriation for contingencies to
assist counties with specific short term problems or for department
weed control requirements associated with road construction or
maintenance projects.

Page 42

MDT could require weed districts to retain expense records at the
county for a minimum number of years. Similar to other county
programs, the records could be audited by the Local Government
Services Bureau in the Department of Commerce to assure funding is

Statutory Revision is
Necessary

Chapter V - State and Federal Right-of-Way Weed Control

used for ROW weed control. Similar state to county funding
distribution programs generally require records retention for a
minimum of five years.

In addition to department procedures distributing annual funding, we
believe statutory revision is necessary to effertively implement our
recommendation. Statute currently allows counties to submit bills
for expenses which the department must pay without regard to
appropriated funding. Sections 7-14-2132 and 7-22-2144, MCA.
should be revised to eliminate the requirement for weed districts to
submit expenditure documentation to the department for
reimbursement. By eliminating this language, the department can
assure the total funding provided to weed districts for ROW weed
control does not exceed the appropriation. Weed districts should
plan budgets for noxious weed control to match anticipated fiscal
year requirements and available funding distributed by the
department.

Contracts are an
Alternative

Direct contracts by MDT to commercial applicators for ROW
noxious weed control is also an option. Following discussions with
both district weed supervisors and MDT maintenance district/area
chiefs, we conclude contracts for MDT ROW weed control should be
evaluated in terms of weed control effeaiveness, not strictly dollar
savings/efficiency. Counties are provided legislative responsibility
for noxious weed control because of the need for knowledgeable
local officials, i.e., weed supervisors. Efficiencies gained from
direct contract may be off-set by the ineffectiveness of a non-
integrated weed control management approach if weed supervisors
are removed from the weed management process. TTiere may be
occasions v/hcn individual weed districts encounter funding or hiring
problems and the department may determine direa contract is an
appropriate measure. In such cases, the department could also
consider contraaing with an adjoining weed district, depending on
the district's capabilities as well as the availability of local
commercial applicators.

Page 43

Chapter V - State and Federal Right-of-Way Weed Control

Recommendation #3

We recommend the department:

A. Seek legislation to reflect fiscal year distribution of
state/federal ROW funding to weed districts and diminate
the requiranent for weed districts to submit weed control
expaiditure documentation to the department for
rdmbursement.

B. Develop procedures for distributing state/federal ROW
weed control funding to weed districts at the i>eginning of
each fiscal year.

MDT Recognizes Need
for Process
Improyement

In response to our findings, the department generally accepted our
recommendations and recognized the need for process improvement.
MDT confirmed the difficulty associated with standardizing noxious
weed control and worldoad projections based on current statutory
requirements. The department suggested completion of weed
district-state agency noxious weed agreements and 6-year plans
required by 1995 legislation would help determine responsibilities
and establish control methodologies. We believe the 6-year plans
are needed and a combination of direct distribution of ROW funding
and local expertise would be the most effective approach.

To increase the department's flexibility to respond to ROW
requirements, the state agency-weed district agreements could
include standard language to accommodate direa funding or
contracts.

Page 44

Agency Response

Page 45

Page 46

MONTANA W.RALPH PECK

DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE *"**^'*^

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

FAX ^4061 444-S4fW

MARC RACICOT ^°^ ^ ROBERTS, PO BOX 200201 tod (406) 4444687

GOVERNOR HELENA, MT 59620^)201 internet AGR«»fT.GOV

May 20, 1997

Mr. rim Pellegrini
Deputy Performance Audit
Legislative Audit Division
Rm 135 State Capitol Building
P.O. Box 201705
Helena, MT 59620-1705

Dear Mr. Pellegrini:

The Montana Department of Agriculture has reviewed the Legislative Audit Division performance
audit on the Noxious Weed Program in Montana. The audit is representative of the department's
and county's noxious weed control programs. Following is the department's response to each
recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION #1 A.

The department has and will continue to provide training to weed supervisors and other
weed district employees. Through a Noxious Weed Trust Fund grant, special training for
weed board members was initiated in FY 97 and will continue in FY 98. We are also
currently communicating with weed districts on training for county commissioners and
anticipate a specific grant proposal to be developed and initiated in FY 98.

RECOMMENDATION #1 B.

The department agrees that goals and objectives for training to improve weed
management programs and practices needs to be completed and implemented. We plan
to accomplish these tasks in FY 98.

RECOMMENDATION #1 C.

The department, in cooperation with Weed Districts, the Extension Service and others will

prepare, publish for hearing and adopt adnunistrative rules for the level and type of weed

supervisor training in FY 98.

Page 47

Serving Montana

RECOMMENDATION #1 D.

The department has, on a limited basis, granted funds to help pay for training to develop
management plans and to improve weed management practices. We have assisted several
weed districts in completing plans and improving practices. The department plans to
increase these activities and make grant funds available to financially assist districts. These
functions will be accomplished within existing financial and staff resources.

RECOMMENDATION #2 A.

We will be implementing procedures to facilitate cooperative cost-share grants and to
improve assessment of non-participating counties in FY 98. The department does want to
emphasize that application for a cooperative cost-share grant is voluntary, however, we
can directly assist these counties and communities in developing a proposed project. We
also believe it is important to recognize that some counties can only manage one or two
cooperative grants in any given year and may not request another cooperative grant until
the existing grants are near completion.

RECOMMENDATION #2 B.

We have allowed and plan to improve the use of NWTF funds to appropriately provide
administrative support to sponsors of cooperative cost-share projects.

RECOMMENDATION #2 C.

The department has significantly reduced the paper work for special county grants in FY
97 and will further reduce the paper work in FY 98. The special county grant contract has
been reduced to a one page document. We also are attempting to refine and reduce the
paper work for cooperative cost-share education and research grants while maintaining the
quality of the grant process.

The department has found this performance audit as a very useful process to improve the NWTF
program which should result in improved services to weed districts, grant cooperators and the
public.

Sincerely,

Ralph Peck
Director

Page 48

MONTANA W.RALPH PECK

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE '^>^"-

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

MARC RACICOT 303 N ROBERTS, PO BOX 200201 ^« ',J2I', Z^7

GOVERNOR HELENA, MT S9620-0201 internet agrsi^tgov

May 20, 1997 2: i M'

■" . . : J r.^^ r ^'

■ _w_. . —J

Mr. Jim Pellegrini
Deputy Performance Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Room 135, State Capitol
P.O. Box 201705
Helena, MT 59620-1705

Dear Mr. Pellegrini:

In addition to our response to the recommendations in the performance audit report, we have
several minor issues that you may want to address.

1) On page 2, paragraph 3, you make reference to the fact that you made contact
with 13 county weed districts across the state. We were wondering if the readers
of the document might be interested in knowing which weed districts were
contacted. I think, from the department's perspective, we would be interested.

2) On page 5, under Category I, St. Johnswort is misspelled.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft final report.
Sincerely,

/^^ As

Ralph Peck
Director

adin\gener8l\]egist2

Page 49

Serving Montana

Page 50

Montana Department 2701 Prospect Avenue Marc Racicot. Governor

of Transportation PO Box 201001

Helena MT 596201001

May 22, 1997

Jim Pellegrini, Deputy Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
PO BOX 201705
Helena, MT 59620-1705

Subject: Noxious Weed Program Audit.

The following is the departments response to Noxious Weed Program audit
recommendations in Chapter V- State and Federal Right-Of-Way Weed Control:

Recommendation #3

We Recommend the department:

A. Seek legislation to reflect fiscal year distribution state/federal ROW funding to
weed districts and eliminate the requirement for weed districts to submit weed
control expenditures documentation to the department for reimbursement.

The department generally concurs and will review the recommendation as well
as other options for noxious weed control on department ROW. There is a
definite need to change the legislation concerning noxious weed control -
particularly the statute that requires the department to reimburse weed districts
for expenses regardless of funding availability. Legislation will be proposed if
this method is determined to be the best method of controlling noxious weeds
and costs.

B. Develop procedures for distributing state/federal ROW weed control fimding to
weed districts at the beginning of each fiscal year.

The department concurs and will work with the weed control district to establish
a procedure for determining fimding requirements before the next legislative
budget is submitted.

The department generally concurs with the scope and findings of the audit. However, a
true analysis of a statewide noxious weed program is not complete without involving
and looking at all of the major state and federal participants i.e. State Lands, Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, the Forest Service, etc. The success of a true noxious weed program

Page 51

An Equal Opportunity Employe'

involves a chain of events that requires input and cooperation of all of the major
participants.

Thank you for your staffs effort, cooperation and professionalism during the course of
this audit.

Marvin Dye

Director of Transportation

c: D. John Blacker, Maintenance Division Administrator

Page 52