[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.

                                
