Overview
In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Below is a list of our audit objectives, indicating each question we intended our audit to answer; the conclusion we reached regarding each objective; and, if applicable, where each objective is discussed in the audit findings.
| Objective | Conclusion |
|---|---|
| 1. Did MDAR ensure that pesticide applicators who used pesticide(s) for the purpose of either clearing and/or maintaining a right-of-way (ROW) had licenses in accordance with Section 11.03(1) of Title 333 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR)? | Yes |
| 2. Did MDAR conduct investigations to ensure the proper use of pesticides on ROWs in accordance with Section VI of MDAR’s “Standard Operating Procedures for the Pesticides Enforcement Program”? | Yes |
| 3. Did MDAR educate the general public and pesticide applicators on the proper use and handling of pesticides on ROWs in accordance with Section I(4) of MDAR’s “Standard Operating Procedures for the Pesticides Enforcement Program”? | No; see Finding 1 |
| 4. Did MDAR ensure that applicants to the ROW Program submitted Vegetation Management Plans (VMPs) in accordance with 333 CMR 11.05(2)? | Yes |
| 5. Did MDAR ensure that applicants to the ROW Program submitted Yearly Operational Plans (YOPs) in accordance with 333 CMR 11.06(2)? | Yes |
To accomplish our audit objectives, we gained an understanding of the aspects of MDAR’s internal control environment relevant to our objectives by reviewing MDAR’s applicable policies and procedures, as well as its internal control plan; interviewing MDAR management and employees; and performing walkthroughs of the processes related to the ROW Program. We also evaluated the operating effectiveness of the relevant controls for the review and approval of VMPs and YOPs.
Licensing of Pesticide Applicators
To determine whether MDAR ensured that pesticide applicators who used pesticide(s) for the purpose of either clearing and/or maintaining an ROW had licenses in accordance with 333 CMR 11.03(1), we obtained and reviewed a list of the 57 applicants to the ROW Program that applied during our audit period. (See the Appendix for more information on these applicants.) We identified a total of 25 investigations that MDAR conducted during the audit period. We reviewed each investigation’s Pesticide Use Observation Report and General Inspection Report to determine whether MDAR reviewed the pesticide applicator’s license to ensure that the pesticide applicator’s license was valid and that the pesticide applicator had a valid license before they applied pesticides to ROWs. We obtained each pesticide applicator’s information (i.e., their name and license number) from the ROW Program coordinator’s copy of each pesticide applicator’s Pesticide Use Observation Report and General Inspection Report and determined the validity of the pesticide applicator’s license by reviewing evidence from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs’ online platform (i.e., documentation regarding licensing, permitting, and certification services).
We noted no exceptions in our testing; therefore, we conclude that, during the audit period, MDAR ensured that pesticide applicators who used pesticide(s) for the purpose of either clearing and/or maintaining an ROW had licenses in accordance with 333 CMR 11.03(1).
Investigations into Proper Use of Pesticides
To determine whether MDAR conducted investigations to ensure the proper use of pesticides on ROWs in accordance with Section VI of MDAR’s “Standard Operating Procedures for the Pesticides Enforcement Program,” we obtained and reviewed a list of the 57 applicants to the ROW Program that applied during our audit period. We identified a total of 25 investigations conducted during the audit period and reviewed each investigation’s Pesticide Use Observation Report and General Inspection Report. From these documents, we captured certain information regarding each investigation (i.e., the date of the investigation, the name of the entity the ROW Program coordinator investigated, the pesticide applicator’s contact information, any pesticides used, and any violations noted during the investigations).
We noted no exceptions in our testing; therefore, we conclude that, during the audit period, MDAR conducted investigations to ensure the proper use of pesticides on ROWs in accordance with Section VI of MDAR’s “Standard Operating Procedures for the Pesticides Enforcement Program.”
Education on Proper Use of Pesticides
We determined whether MDAR educated the general public and pesticide applicators on the proper use and handling of pesticides on ROWs in accordance with Section I(4) of MDAR’s “Standard Operating Procedures for the Pesticides Enforcement Program.” To do this, we obtained and reviewed presentation materials prepared by MDAR officials and emails from applicants to the ROW Program that directly requested educational materials regarding the ROW Program. We also reviewed the Pesticide Examination and Licensing Information Bulletin and publications regarding the Pesticide Enforcement Program that MDAR distributed to pesticide applicators as evidence of education provided to pesticide applicators.
Based on the result of our testing, we determined that, during the audit period, MDAR did not conduct outreach to educate entities that own or maintain ROWs on the proper use of pesticides on ROWs. See Finding 1 for more information.
Submission of VMPs
To determine whether MDAR ensured that applicants to the ROW Program submitted VMPs in accordance with 333 CMR 11.05(2), we obtained and reviewed a list of all 57 applicants to the ROW Program that applied during our audit period. We noted that these applicants submitted a total of 78 VMPs during the audit period. We selected a random, nonstatistical sample of 20 VMPs and reviewed each VMP in our sample to ensure that the VMPs included the requirements set forth in 333 CMR 11.05(2). (See “VMP Requirements” in the Overview for more information regarding these requirements.)
We used nonstatistical sampling methods for testing and therefore did not project the results of our testing to any population.
We noted no exceptions in our testing; therefore, we conclude that, during the audit period, MDAR ensured that applicants to the ROW Program submitted VMPs in accordance with 333 CMR 11.05(2).
Submission of YOPs
To determine whether MDAR ensured that applicants to the ROW Program submitted YOPs in accordance with 333 CMR 11.06(2), we obtained and reviewed a list of the 57 applicants to the ROW Program that applied during our audit period. We noted that these applicants submitted a total of 123 YOPs during the audit period. We selected a random, nonstatistical sample of 35 YOPs and reviewed each YOP in our sample to ensure that the YOPs included the requirements set forth in 333 CMR 11.06(2). See the “YOP Requirements" section in the Overview for more information regarding these requirements.
We used nonstatistical sampling methods for testing and therefore did not project the results of our testing to any population.
We noted no exceptions in our testing; therefore, we conclude that, during the audit period, MDAR ensured that applicants to the ROW Program submitted YOPs in accordance with 333 CMR 11.06(2).
Data Reliability Assessment
To determine the reliability of the list of applicants to the ROW Program (which MDAR supplied to us in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet), we performed the following procedures.
- We compared the cities and towns on this list (of which there were 32) provided by MDAR to the list of cities and towns we obtained from the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s website (of which there were 351) to identify the cities and towns that had not applied to the ROW Program. Our comparison revealed that 319 cities did not apply to the program. We then selected a sample of 22 of the 319 cities and towns not on the list provided by MDAR and made direct calls to the corresponding public works directors and conservation agents in each of those cities and towns to see if they were aware of the ROW Program and the reason(s) as to why they did not apply to the program. We noted that 9 of the 22 cities and towns in our sample did not respond to our inquiry. The 13 that responded confirmed that they did not apply to the ROW Program.
- We traced all the VMPs and YOPs on the list to the VMPs and YOPs stored on the ROW Program coordinator’s flash drive (see Other Matters).
- We selected a random sample of 20 applicants from the list and determined whether the approval date on each VMP and YOP in our sample agreed with the date on the decision notification that MDAR provided to the applicant regarding their VMP and/or YOP.
- We analyzed the list by testing for missing dates, duplicate records, hidden columns and rows, and data outside of the audit period.
To determine the reliability of the data from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs’ online platform, we tested certain information system controls (i.e., user access management, password complexity requirements, password expiration, and computer lockout settings).
MDAR’s list of applicants to the ROW Program was the only source of data available for our audit testing (see Finding 1).
Based on the results of the data reliability assessment procedures described above, we determined that the information obtained for our audit period was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our audit.
| Date published: | June 12, 2024 |
|---|