[Senate Report 107-281]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 600
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-281
======================================================================
NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL ACT OF 2002
_______
September 17, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bingaman, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 198]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 198) to require the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a program to provide assistance through
States to eligible weed management entities to control or
eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private land,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Noxious Weed Control Act of 2002.''
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Noxious weed.--The term ``noxious weed'' has the same
meaning as in the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7702(10)).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning
given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(5) Weed management entity.--The term ``weed management
entity'' means an entity that--
(A) is recognized by the State in which it is
established;
(B) is established by and includes local
stakeholders, including Indian tribes;
(C) is established for the purpose of controlling or
eradicating harmful, invasive weeds and increasing
public knowledge and education concerning the need to
control or eradicate harmful, invasive weeds; and
(D) is multijurisdictional and multidisciplinary in
nature.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.
The Secretary shall establish a program to provide financial
assistance through States to eligible weed management entities to
control or eradicate weeds. In developing the program, the Secretary
shall consult with the National Invasive Species Council, the Invasive
Species Advisory Committee, representatives from States and Indian
tribes with weed management entities or that have particular problems
with noxious weeds, and public and private entities with experience in
noxious weed management.
SEC. 4. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.
The Secretary shall allocate funds to States to provide funding to
weed management entities to carry out projects approved by States to
control or eradicate noxious weeds on the basis of the severity or
potential severity of the noxious weed problem, the extent to which the
Federal funds will be used to leverage non-Federal funds, the extent to
which the State has made progress in addressing noxious weed problems,
and such other factors as the Secretary deems relevant. The Secretary
shall provide special consideration for States with approved weed
management entities established by Indian Tribes, and may provide an
additional allocation to a state to meet the particular needs and
projects that such a weed management entity will address.
SEC. 5. ELIGIBILITY AND USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Requirements.--The Secretary shall prescribe requirements for
applications by States for funding, including provisions for auditing
of and reporting on the use of funds and criteria to ensure that weed
management entities recognized by the States are capable of carrying
out projects, monitoring and reporting on the use of funds, and are
knowledgeable about and experienced in noxious weed management and
represent private and public interests adversely affected by noxious
weeds. Eligible activities for funding shall include--
(1) applied research to solve locally significant weed
management problems and solutions, except that such research
may not exceed 8 percent of the available funds in any year;
(2) incentive payments to encourage the formation of new weed
management entities, except that such payments may not exceed
25 percent of the available funds in any year; and
(3) projects relating to the control or eradication of
noxious weeds, including education, inventories and mapping,
management, monitoring, and similar activities, including the
payment of the cost of personnel and equipment that promote
such control or eradication, and other activities to promote
such control or eradication, if the results of the activities
are disseminated to the public.
(b) Project Selection.--A State shall select projects for funding
to a weed management entity on a competitive basis considering--
(1) the seriousness of the noxious weed problem or potential
problem addressed by the project;
(2) the likelihood that the project will prevent or resolve
the problem, or increase knowledge about resolving similar
problems in the future;
(3) the extent to which the payment will leverage non-Federal
funds to address the noxious weed problem addressed by the
project;
(4) the extent to which the weed management entity has made
progress in addressing noxious weed problems;
(5) the extent to which the project will provide a
comprehensive approach to the control or eradication of noxious
weeds;
(6) the extent to which the project will reduce the total
population of a noxious weed;
(7) the extent to which the project uses the principles of
integrated vegetation management and sound science; and
(8) such other factors that the State determines to be
relevant.
(c) Information and Report.--As a condition of the receipt of
funding. States shall require such information from grant recipients as
necessary and shall submit to the Secretary a report that describes the
purposes and results of each project for which the payment or award was
used, by not later than 6 months after completion of the projects.
(d) Federal Share.--The federal share of any project or activity
approved by a State or Indian tribe under this Act may not exceed 50
percent unless the State meets criteria established by the Secretary
that accommodates situations where a higher percentage is necessary to
meet the needs of an underserved area or addresses a critical need that
can not be met otherwise.
SEC. 6. LIMITATIONS.
(a) Landowner Consent; Land Under Cultivation.--Any activity
involving real property, either private or public, may be carried out
under this Act only with the consent of the landowner and no project
may be undertaken on property that is devoted to the cultivation of row
crops, fruits, or vegetables.
(b) Compliance With State Law.--A weed management entity may carry
out a project to address the noxious weed problem in more than 1 State
only if the entity meets the requirements of the State laws in all
States in which the entity will undertake the project.
(c) Use of Funds.--Funding under this Act may not be used to carry
out a project--
(1) to control or eradicate animals, pests, or submerged or
floating noxious aquatic weeds; or
(2) to protect an agricultural commodity (as defined in
section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5602)) other than--
(A) livestock (as defined in section 602 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1471); or
(B) an animal- or insect-based product.
SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAMS.
Assistance authorized under this Act is amended to supplement, and
not replace, assistance available to weed management entities, areas,
and districts for control or eradication of harmful, invasive weeds on
public lands and private lands, including funding available under the
Pulling Together Initiative of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation; and the provision of funds to any entity under this Act
shall have no effect on the amount of any payment received by a county
from the Federal Government under chapter 69 of title 31, United States
Code (commonly known as the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act).
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
To carry out this Act there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, of
which not more than 5 percent of the funds made available for a fiscal
year may be used by the Secretary for administrative costs of Federal
agencies.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 198 is to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a program to provide financial assistance
to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate
harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
The control of harmful non-native weeds has become a major
management concern on public and private lands. Currently, at
least 94 types of non-native weeds are recognized as ``Federal
Noxious Weeds'' and many more are designated on State noxious
weed lists. According to information provided in the National
Strategy for Invasive Plant Management, it is estimated that
invasive plants already infest over 100 million acres in the
United States and the affected area continues to increase by 8
to 20 percent annually.
The cost of invasive weeds are significant, both in terms
of control and eradication costs and loss of agricultural
production. Annual direct control costs are estimated to be as
high as $5.4 billion, with an additional $1 billion in indirect
costs. Losses in agricultural productivity are estimated to be
even higher. In addition to agricultural losses, invasive weeds
threaten important habitat for over two-thirds of the
endangered species in the United States.
Previous studies have identified that public and private
partnerships are essential to combat weed infestation. S. 198
would enable such partnership by authorizing a State grant
program to assist local weed management entities control and
eradicate harmful non-native weeds on public and private lands.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 198 was introduced by Senator Craig and others on
January 29, 2001. The bill is currently sponsored by 16
Senators. The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests held a
hearing on S. 198 on June 18, 2002. At its business meeting on
July 31, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
ordered S. 198, as amended, favorably reported.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on July 31, 2002, by a voice vote of quorum
present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 198, if amended as
described herein.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
During the consideration of S. 198, the Committee adopted
an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program
to provide financial assistance through State to eligible weed
management entities to control or eradicate noxious weeds and
incorporates several recommendations offered by the
administration and others at the subcommittee hearing on S.
198.
The subcommittee amendment provides the Secretary with
increased flexibility in administering the program and
eliminates a provision in S. 198, as introduced, that would
have established an advisory committee within the Department of
the Interior to advise the Secretary on administration on the
program. The amendment makes clear that amounts authorized
under this Act are intended to supplement current assistance
available to weed management entities.
Finally, the amendment authorizes the appropriation of $100
million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006. The
amendment is described in detail in the section-by-section
analysis, below.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 entities the bill the ``Noxious Weed Control Act
of 2002.''
Section 2 defines key terms used in the bill.
Section 3 directs the Secretary of the Interior to
establish a program to provide financial assistance through
States to eligible weed management entities to control or
eradicate weeds. In developing the program, the Secretary shall
consult with certain public and private entities.
Section 4 directs the Secretary of the Interior to allocate
funds to States to provide funding to weed management entities
for projects to control or eradicate noxious weed. The
Secretary shall allocate funding to each State based on the
severity or potential severity of the weed problem; the extent
to which Federal funds will be used to leverage non-Federal
funds; the extent to which the State has made progress in
addressing noxious weed problems, and such other factors as the
Secretary deems relevant. The Secretary shall provide special
consideration for States with approved weed management entities
established by Indian tribes.
Section 5(a) directs the Secretary to prescribe
requirements for applications by States for funding, including
auditing, monitoring and other provisions. Eligible activities
for funding shall include applied research (up to 8 percent of
the available funds in any year); incentive payments to
encourage the formation of new weed management entities (up to
25 percent of the available funds in any year); and projects
relating to the control or eradication of noxious weeds.
Subsection (b) requires at State to select projects for
funding to a weed management entity on a competitive basis and
sets forth a series of considerations.
Subsection (c) states that as a condition of the receipt of
funding, States shall require such information from grant
recipients as necessary and shall submit to the Secretary a
report that describes the purposes and results of each project
for which the payment or award was used, by not later than 6
months after completion of the projects.
Subsection (d) provides that the Federal share of any
project or activity approved by a State or Indian tribe under
this Act may not exceed 50 percent unless the State meets
criteria established by the Secretary that accommodates
situations where a higher percentage is necessary to meet the
needs of an underserved area or addresses a critical need that
can not be met otherwise.
Section 6 provides that any activity involving real
property, either private or public, may be carried out under
this Act only with the consent of the landowner and no project
may be undertaken on property that is devoted to the
cultivation of row crops, fruits, or vegetables. In addition, a
weed management entity may carry out a multi-state project only
if the entity meets the requirements of the State laws in all
applicable States. Funding under this Act may not be used to
carry out a project to control or eradicate animals, pests, or
submerged or floating noxious aquatic weeds; or to protect an
agricultural commodity other than livestock or an animal- or
insect-based product.
Section 7 states that assistance authorized under this Act
is intended to supplement, and not replace, assistance
available to weed management entities, areas, and districts;
and the provision of funds to any entity under this Act shall
have no effect on the amount of any payment received by a
county from the Federal Government under the Payments in Lieu
of Taxes Act.
Section 8 authorizes $100,000,000 to be appropriated to the
Secretary to carry out this Act for each of fiscal years 2002
through 2006, of which not more than 5 percent of the funds
made available for a fiscal year may be used by the Secretary
for administrative costs of Federal agencies.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The following estimate of the cost of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 7, 2002.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 198, the Noxious
Weed Control Act of 2002.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 198--Noxious Weed Control Act of 2002
Summary: S. 198 would direct the Secretary of the Interior
to establish a program to provide grants to states and Indian
tribes to support projects to control or eradicate noxious
weeds on public and private lands. CBO estimates that the
proposed program would cost $5 million in 2003 and $190 million
over the 2003-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the
authorized amounts. The bill would not affect direct spending
or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not
apply.
S. 198 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments. Any costs incurred by these governments to comply
with the conditions of this assistance would be voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 198 is shown in the following table. The
costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization level................................................ 100 100 100 100 0
Estimated outlays.................................................. 5 20 35 60 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: S. 198 would authorize the appropriation
of $100 million a year over the 2002-2006 period for the
Secretary of the Interior to make grants to states and Indian
tribes to fund projects to study, control, or eradicate noxious
weeds on public and private lands. Based on information from
the Department of the Interior, CBO estimates that implementing
this bill would cost $5 million in 2003 and $190 million over
the 2003-2007 period, with additional spending occurring in
later years. For this estimate, we assume S. 198 will be
enacted near the start of fiscal year 2003. We also assume that
no funds would be provided for 2002, but that other amounts
would be provided as specified by the bill. Estimates of
outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar
activities.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 198
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments. The assistance authorized by this bill
would benefit state, local, and tribal governments. Any costs
incurred by these governments to comply with the conditions of
this assistance would be voluntary.
Previous CBO estimate: On May 7, 2002, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for H.R. 1462, the Harmful Invasive Weed Control
Act, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on
April 24, 2002. H.R. 1462 would authorize the same amount of
funding as S. 198 for a substantively similar program to
control invasive weeds. Differences between our estimates of
spending under each bill reflect a change in our assumption
regarding when they would be enacted. Specifically, we
estimated that implementing H.R. 1462 would cost $45 million
more than S. 198 over the 2003-2007 period because we assumed
that H.R. 1462 would be enacted during fiscal year 2002 and
that funding authorized for that year would be provided.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Megan Carroll; Impact
on state, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie Miller;
Impact on the private sector: Cecil McPherson.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 198. The bill is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals
and businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 198, as ordered reported.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The pertinent legislative report received by the Committee
from the Department of the Interior setting forth Executive
agency recommendations relating to S. 198 is set forth below:
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2002.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to present
the Department of the Interior's views on S. 198, the Harmful
Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2000.
The Department commends Congress for bringing attention to
this important issue that has significant impacts on both
public and private landowners and managers across the country.
Invasive plant species are estimated to cause more than $20
billion per year in economic damage and affect millions of
acres of private and public lands. In total, invasive plants,
animals, and microorganisms are estimated to cost the US over
$100 billion each year. We concur with the basic principles
embodied in the legislation, specifically the recognition that
a concerted and coordinated effort by the public and private
sectors with requisite accountability is critical to the
successful prevention, control, and management of invasive
species. However, we need to identify more clearly the possible
costs of this proposal and how it would be funded within the
context of a balanced budget. We view this legislation as an
important step toward greater engagement between federal and
non-federal partners to manage the harmful impacts of invasive
plants species and reduce their spread.
The Department has identified several areas of concern with
S. 198 where textual changes could clarify the intent of the
bill. The areas of concern are addressed in this letter. It
will also address certain concerns that are specific to the
three bureaus affected by S. 198: the National Park Service
(NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM). Depending on the range of species
that are included in the bill, however, the Department's Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR) may also have a stake in this legislation.
We hope to work with the Committee to ensure that the bill
includes federal agencies as partners in developing coordinated
efforts to manage invasive species.
Mentioned also is the National Invasive Species Council
(Council), which is co-chaired by the Departments of the
Interior, Commerce and Agriculture. The Council provides
coordination on invasive species issues, including invasive
plants, and encourage partnership efforts to prevent and
control invasive species. The Council can provide assistance
with efforts to ensure a coordinated federal/state approach,
and this letter provides encouragement to recognize the
Council's important role in S. 198. Finally, this letter will
also touch upon the bureaus' programs in the areas of invasive
species prevention, management, and eradication.
The Department's first area of concern is the scope of the
bill, i.e., what is covered by and excluded from the bill, both
in terms of geography and the types of activities that are
eligible for funding. Although the bill technically applies to
the entire nation, and invasive plants are a problem in every
state, we think it would currently be difficult for most of the
eastern and southeastern states to develop ``weed management
entities'' and compete with western states that have existing
infrastructures that are likely to qualify.
The bill also does not provide for participation by Native
Americans. The Department recommends that S. 198 include Tribal
governments in all sections of the bill, including those
relating to coordinated actions and distribution of financial
assistance. Tribes should also be able to participate in
projects in areas outside their lands when they chose to
participate in a larger weed management entity, without their
funding being restricted.
In addition to our concerns about the bill's scope, its
prohibition on funding for control of submerged or floating
aquatic noxious weeds and animal pests operates against efforts
to initiate a comprehensive approach to these growing threats,
which through our work on the National Invasive Species Council
we have found to be the most effective approach to dealing with
the scourge of invasive species. This prohibition could have a
dampening effect on key coastal states with substantial aquatic
invasive species and states with extensive surface distribution
networks that can become infested with invasive aquatic weeds,
discouraging them from participating in the program. Feral
pigs, which disturb large areas of natural vegetation in Hawaii
and elsewhere, provide an example of an excluded animal pest.
The NPS wanted to remove invasive plant species in national
parks in Hawaii, but feral pigs were serving as a mechanism for
distributing the seeds of some of the invasive plants and
disturbing the soil. Without removal of the pigs, any program
to remove invasive plant species would fail. We recommend that
the bill for funding that maximizes flexibility to the states,
Tribes, and local entities to take a comprehensive approach to
controlling all invasive species.
Highlighted is the many ongoing, highly successful
partnership efforts between the public and private sectors to
control invasive species. One example is the ``Pulling Together
Initiative,'' a partnership between federal agencies and the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Since 1997, through
cost-sharing efforts, the partners have supported more than 219
weed management projects in 33 states and one territory.
The purpose of the ``Pulling Together Initiative'' is
similar to the intent of this legislation--to encourage the
development of weed management areas. These projects bring
together many stakeholders, including federal, state, Tribal,
private, and non-governmental organizations, to coordinate
management of weeds based on an integrated pest management
approach. Each project funded through ``Pulling Together'' must
have a minimum 1:1 match of non-federal funds or in-kind
contributions for every dollar of federal funds requested. As a
result, more than $6.9 million in federal dollars have
leveraged more than $13.7 million in non-federal contributions.
We recommend that language be included in this bill that would
clarify how this legislation would relate to existing federal
initiatives to ensure that significant, well-established,
federal-private partnership efforts will continue and flourish.
The second area of concern relates to the process
established by the legislation and whether it provides for
sufficient accountability, consultation, and coordination with
federal efforts and quality assurances. The bill creates a new
advisory committee within the Department to oversee the
allocation of funds. Currently, the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee (Advisory Committee) already exists to provide advice
to the National Invasive Species Council in accordance with
Executive Order 13112, and is administered by the Department of
the Interior. The Advisory Committee consists of 32 members
with critical expertise in many of the same interests in
invasive species that are called for in S. 198. We recommend
that the existing Advisory Committee be used to make recommends
to the Secretary for the allocation of funds, rather than
establishing a new advisory committee.
S. 198 lacks a reporting requirement for local weed
management entities that would enable the federal-state
partners to make judgments on success. A concise and clear
reporting requirement is necessary and should include how the
results relate to the selection and renewal process. Moreover,
there is little specific guidance in the bill on how funds
would be allocated to states, or how they, in turn, are to
allocate the funds to weed management entities. In addition, it
is unclear whether these funds can be allocated to federal
agencies for coordination activities at the state and local
levels. We recommend that language be added to the bill that
establishes requirements for a standard reporting and review
system that would ensure accountability and improve
coordination and information exchange among federal agencies,
states, and other participating entities. We also recommend the
bill be amended to specify which state agencies have the
responsibility for allocating funds to weed management entities
to assure consistency from state to state.
Moreover, except for the allocation of funds by the
Secretary to states S. 198 contains no requirement for
consultation or coordination with federal agencies. Given that
invasive species cover federal, as well as state, Tribal, and
private lands, and may even cross international borders, we
recommend that language be included that would require weed
management entities to coordinate and consult with federal
agencies to promote comprehensive invasive species programs
across all affected lands. This coordinated targeting, based
upon existing capacity and resources, will help concentrate
efforts to make a significant improvement in overall land
health.
The Department also has concerns about the budgetary
implications of the legislation, an whether the funding for
this program would come at the expense of federal control
efforts and existing programs that provide matching funds for
weed control. This program could involve significant new
funding obligations that are not now assumed in the President's
Budget. At this point, it is unclear how much funding is
needed, and we are concerned that this program could impact
existing agency and multi-agency programs (such as the
``Pulling Together Initiative'') that support local and
regional weed prevention and control projects.
Finally, our experiences have shown that inclusion of a
matching funds requirement is critical to the success of such
projects because it ensures that available federal funds are
used only for projects that have strong support and financial
backing at the regional, state, or local levels. Because of
this, we do not believe that states should utilize other
federal dollars as a weed management entity's non-federal
match. S. 198 currently includes in-kind matching. In order to
maximize the impact of federal monies available for invasive
species control programs, we believe it is important that
federal funds be used to leverage only non-federal funds.
National Park Service
The principles of coordination, targeted funding, and
accountability are fundamental aspects of the nonnative
invasive species management strategy pursued under the NPS's
five-year Natural Resource Challenge program. In FY 2000, the
NPS identified nonnative invasive species as a significant
component of the threat to the natural and cultural heritage
preserved in National Park units covering over 83 million acres
of land across the country.
As part of the Natural Resource Challenge, a new management
strategy for controlling harmful nonnative invasive plants,
called the Exotic Plant Management Team (EPMT), has been
implemented. Nine teams have been fielded to identify, treat,
control, restore, and monitor areas of parks found to be
infested with harmful exotic plants. These nine teams serve 95
parks, comprising 25% of national park units, in the Chihuahuan
Desert-Shortgrass Prairie, Florida, Hawaii, National Capital
Region, Northern Great Plains, California, Gulf Coast, Lake
Mead, and Northern Cascades.
The success of each EPMT derives from its ability to adapt
to local conditions and needs. Each team sets work priorities
based on a number of factors including: severity of threat to
high-quality natural areas and rare species; extent of targeted
infestation; probability of successful control and potential
for restoration; and opportunities for public involvement. In
addition, the President's budget for fiscal year 2003 includes
a funding request for seven additional EPMTs. Funding of these
teams will raise our capacity to control invasive plants at 186
parks, or approximately 48% of the parks in the National Park
System. The NPS hopes that S. 198 will improve the teams' work
in our park units by increasing collaborative efforts between
public and private adjacent landowners.
The EPMT of Florida provides an excellent illustration of
the effectiveness of local partnerships. The Florida EPMT
formed a partnership with the Upland Invasive Plant Management
Program of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and approximately 136 other groups in the program to control
invasive plants. Together they fund removal of exotic species
in 11 units of the National Park System in Florida with the
State of Florida matching the NPS contribution dollar for
dollar.
The NPS has many successful public and private partners in
its efforts to control and manage invasive species, including
Tribal governments. The NPS recognizes that effective
management of invasive plants must be conducted on a
coordinated basis involving all stakeholders. However, the
authority for Departmental agencies, including NPS, to work
with cooperating land managers outside the Department's
boundaries is not clear. We recommend that language be included
in S. 198 that would provide the federal agencies greater
flexibility in managing invasive plants in concert with willing
adjoining landowners where federal lands are threatened by
invasions from adjoining lands.
We are also concerned about the lack of definitions for
many of the terms used in the bill. Without terms being clearly
defined, their use in the legislation may lead to confusion or
disagreements over terminology. We note also that the bill as
currently drafted permits the establishment of a weed
management entity solely for the purpose of education. We
believe that education, while an important part of any weed
management entity's role, should not be its only objective.
Moreover, the NPS believes that substantial gains can be made
through an education campaign at the national level so that
individuals can learn about what efforts they can undertake to
address this problem. We look forward to working with the
Committee to address these and other issues.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Invasive species are one of the leading threats to fish and
wildlife, with the potential to degrade entire ecosystems. The
FWS is working to develop and implement aggressive programs to
enhance its capability and leadership to respond effectively to
present and future invasive species problems. The FWS works in
cooperation with private groups, state agencies, other federal
agencies, and other countries to combat invasive plant and
animal species. National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) from Alaska to
the Caribbean are affected by this problem. Based on national
interagency estimates, over 6 million acres of the National
Wildlife Refuge System are infested with exotic plants alone,
interfering with crucial wildlife management objectives on over
50% of all refuges. Refuge field managers have identified
invasive species problems as one of the most serious threats
affecting the Refuge System. Nationwide, the rate of spread of
invasive plants is estimated to be 5,400 acres per year. the
Refuge System has identified over 300 projects with an
estimated cost of $120 million to combat invasive species.
Among the most insidious plant invaders to fish and
wildlife resources are salt cedar, leafy spurge, whitetop,
exotic thistles, Brazilian pepper, purple loosestrife,
Australian pine, Chinese tallow trees, old world climbing fern,
and melaleuca. At Loxahatchee Refuge in Florida's Everglades,
for example, the exotic melaleuca tree and the Old World
climbing fern have infested thousands of acres of the refuge,
out-competing native vegetation and effectively eliminating
wildlife-dependent habitat. Sevilleta and Bosque del Apache
NWRs in New Mexico continually invest large amounts of time and
operational funds in eradication efforts on the salt cedar.
Salt cedar disrupts the structure and stability of native plant
communities, crowding out native plant species, altering
existing water regimes, and increasing soil salinity.
In addition, the Refuge System works with private
landowners to help them restore degraded fish and wildlife
habitats on their property, which includes the control of
invasive plants. Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program, which provides financial and technical assistance, FWS
helps landowners benefit from improved productivity of their
lands by minimizing the spread of invasive species and
improving habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species.
Activities included prescribed burning, integrated pest
management techniques, physical removal, fence construction,
and restoration of native plant communities.
Unfortunately, the invasive species negatively affecting
fish and wildlife resources are not solely contained within
terrestrial plant taxa. Many refuges have significant wetland
components, making aquatic invasive species, such as
phragmites, a serious threat to these ecosystems. FWS programs
support activities to prevent and control highly invasive
plants and animal species such as zebra mussels, giant
salvinia, Caulerpa taxifolia, Chinese mitten crabs, round
gobies, Norway rates, Asian carp, nutria, Asian swamp eels,
goats and pigs.
Nutria are an exotic invasive rodent, native to South
America that have been introduced in 22 states nationwide, and
affect over 1,000,000 acres of the Refuge System. Among areas
with high nutria populations is the lower Eastern Shore of
Maryland, including Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.
Blackwater has lost over 7,000 acres of marsh since 1933, and
the rate of marsh loss has accelerated in recent years to
approximately 200 acres per year. Although there are many
contributing factors (e.g., sea level rise, land subsidence),
nutria are a catalyst of marsh loss due to their habitat of
foraging on the below-ground portions of marsh plants. This
activity compromise the integrity of the marsh root mat,
facilitating erosion and leading to permanent marsh loss. In
light of the damage caused by nutria, FWS and twenty-two other
federal, state, and private partners joined forces in 1997 to
identify appropriate methods of controlling nutria and
restoring degraded marsh habitat. The Partnership prepared a 3-
year pilot program proposal, which was subsequently approved by
Congress, including authorization for the Secretary of the
Interior to spend up to $2.9 million over 3 years beginning in
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 105-322).
The number of invasive species threats of fish and wildlife
resources continues to increase dramatically. As noted earlier,
we recommend that S. 198 be amended to increase its scope of
coverage to include not only invasive terrestrial plant
species, but aquatic plants as well. We would also recommend
that invasive animal species be included.
Bureau of Land Management
The BLM recognizes the need for expanding on-the-ground
efforts at controlling noxious weeds. Since the completion of
the BLM's ``Partners Against Weeds Strategy Plan,'' the BLM has
followed the plan's recommendation of expanding cooperative
partnerships. We can attribute much of the BLM's success in
managing invasive species through cooperative partnerships with
federal, state, and local government agencies, private
landowners, and industries, especially those regional efforts
that work across state lines.
The BLM considers public education the key to winning the
war on weeds. Accordingly, our Partners Against Weeds Strategy
focuses on education and outreach. BLM personnel have given
over 200 weed slide presentations, prepared videos, produced
flyers and classroom projects, and conducted numerous public
weed field trips. The BLM has also developed a Weed Awareness
Course that is given to each BLM employee. In Grand Junction,
Colorado, for example, the Field Office Week Coordinator has
held classes for public land users at which all of the major
grazing permittees in that field office have attended. Ranchers
are not reporting new weed infestations and cooperating to help
control them on private and BLM lands. As the awareness of
invasive plants an their impacts accelerates, our efforts with
the public also increase.
Recently, the creation of new Cooperative Weed Management
Areas has risen significantly. Because the BLM manages over 262
million acres of public lands, cooperative weed management
efforts are essential, primarily in those areas where public
land are intermingled with state, private, and other federally-
managed lands. Today more than ninety percent of the federal,
State and private lands in Idaho and California are part of
Cooperative Weed Management Areas. For example, in fiscal year
2001 the BLM treated over 300,000 acres and is involved in over
300 weed management areas. That figure has risen annually.
In FY 2002, the BLM received $7.7 million for weed
management, a majority of which went to the BLM offices for on-
the-ground weed efforts including inventory, weed treatments,
and monitoring. In states with smaller amounts of infested
acreage, the BLM focuses funding on efforts to provides states
with the capability to detect small weed infestations in high-
risk areas and to treat small infestations before they spread.
The BLM is also dedicating funding to states with larger
infestations, focusing efforts on areas to previously
inventories, but at risk. In addition, in FY 2002 the BLM
provided nearly $457,000 for the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's Pulling Together Initiative for comprehensive, on-
the-ground weed management, treatment, prevention, and control
efforts. We are concerned that, as currently drafted, S. 198
could impact BLM's future efforts to fund this successful,
ongoing program.
Conclusion
We welcome this legislation as a symbol of future
commitment to early detection and rapid response to mitigate
the rampant spread of invasive plants. We, too, have recognized
the need to work directly with private landowners and state and
local governments. As such, we applaud the bill's recognition
of partnership as key to success across multiple jurisdictions
of natural resource management.
Our goal is to ensure that the main provisions of S. 198
allow for the coordination of existing federal efforts and
local control programs so that the bill serves to strengthen
ongoing invasive species programs and support new partnerships
and initiatives. We look forward to working with the Committee
in formulating legislation that best reflects our mutual goal
of assisting states, Tribes, and local entities to prevent,
control, and manage nonnactive invasive species while
recognizing and strengthening existing partnership efforts
among all stakeholders.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Lynn Scarlett,
Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 198, as ordered
reported.