[Senate Report 110-10]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 35
110th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 110-10
======================================================================
NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ACT
_______
February 15, 2007.--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. 241]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 241) to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect
natural resources of units of the National Park System through
collaborative efforts on land inside and outside of units of
the National Park System, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the
bill do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 241 is to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect
natural resources in units of the National Park System through
collaborative efforts on land inside and outside of units of
the National Park System.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
According to the Department of Agriculture, the cost of the
damage inflicted by invasive species in the United States
totals billions of dollars. Often an invasive species will be a
threat to both lands and waters protected by national park
units and neighboring non-federal lands. For example, leafy
spurge and spotted knapweed ruin both native grasslands and
pasture. Tamarisk, or saltcedar, an ornamental introduced into
the American West in the 1800s, sucks precious water out of
fragile desert rivers and ruins habitat for nesting birds.
Because invasive species can damage both national parks and
neighboring lands, there is a great incentive for the National
Park Service and neighboring landowners to work together. Most
invasive species easily cross property lines. Collaboration
will allow neighbors to pool their efforts to save money and
time on projects to protect their own lands.
The National Park Service does not currently have the
authority to enter into cooperative efforts with adjacent land
owners to control invasive species or to do other mutually
beneficial restoration work like tree planting for flood
control and habitat restoration. A 2005 Government
Accountability Office report (GAO-05-185) documented that the
National Park Service is the only Federal land management
agency that lacks this authority, which makes it very difficult
to control invasive plants in and around national parks.
S. 241 would grant the National Park Service the authority
to enter into cooperative agreements with other public and
private landowners. Provisions in the bill guarantee protection
for private property owners. The cooperative agreements are
between two willing parties and cannot be used for land
acquisition or regulatory actions.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 241 was introduced by Senators Wyden and Akaka on
January 10, 2007. Identical legislation, S. 1288, also
sponsored by Senators Wyden and Akaka, was considered by the
Committee during the 109th Congress. The Subcommittee on
National Parks held a hearing on S. 1288 on November 15, 2005
(S. Hrg. 109-355). S. 1288 was ordered reported by the
Committee with amendments on March 8, 2006 (S. Rept. 109-233)
and passed the Senate, by unanimous consent, on September 29,
2006. No further action occurred prior to the sine die
adjournment of the 109th Congress.
At its business meeting on January 31, 2007, the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 241 to be favorably
reported.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on January 31, 2007, by voice vote of a quorum
present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 241.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 entitles the bill the ``Natural Resource
Protection Cooperative Agreement Act.''
Section 2(a) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
enter into cooperative agreements with State, local, or tribal
governments, other public entities, educational institutions,
private nonprofit organizations, or willing private landowners
to protect natural resource units of the National Park System
inside and outside of their boundaries through collaborative
efforts.
Subsection (b) sets forth terms and conditions for the
cooperative agreements. The cooperative agreements must provide
clear and direct benefits to resources of a unit of the
National Park System and provide for the control of invasive
species, the restoration or protection of water resources, or
the restoration of wildlife habitat. The agreements must
specify the contributions made by each party and how the
agreement would benefit each party.
Subsection (c) provides that the Secretary shall not use
any amounts associated with an agreement for land acquisition,
regulatory activity, or the development, maintenance, or
operation of buildings or infrastructure, except for ancillary
support facilities as determined necessary by the Secretary to
complete projects specified in the agreement.
Subsection (d) authorizes the appropriation of such sums as
are necessary to carry out the Act.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
S. 241--Natural Resources Protection Cooperation Agreement Act
S. 241 would authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to
enter into cooperative agreements with nonfederal partners to
protect natural resources inside and outside of units of the
National Park System. Currently, the agency may only execute
such agreements for resource protection on nonfederal property
if specifically authorized by the Congress to do so. Potential
partners would include Federal, State, local, and Tribal
government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private
landowners.
CBO estimates that funding cooperative agreements on
nonfederal land would add a few million dollars to the NPS
operating budget of around $1.7 billion annually. The NPS has
identified over 60 parks units that could benefit from projects
carried out under cooperative agreements, but CBO expects that
few such projects would cost more than $50,000. Typical
projects could involve weed control on State or private
property outside park boundaries, fence construction on shared
borders, or joint surveys of local wetlands or habitat. In all
cases, spending under cooperative agreements would depend on
the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting S. 241 would
not affect revenues or direct spending.
S. 241 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on State, local, or Tribal governments.
Any participation by nonfederal partners under cooperative
agreements would be voluntary.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
This estimate was 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. 241. 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. 241, as ordered reported.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
Because S. 241 is identical to legislation considered
during the 109th Congress, the Committee did not request
Executive Agency views on S. 241. The testimony provided by the
National Park Service at the Subcommittee hearing on S. 1288
during the 109th Congress follows:
Statement of Donald W. Murphy, Deputy Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before your committee to present the views of the Department of
the Interior on S. 1288, a bill to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect
park natural resources through collaborative efforts on land
inside and outside of units of the National Park System.
The Department supports enactment of this bill with
amendments to make it consistent with the language contained in
the Administration proposal transmitted to Congress on August
5, 2005.
S. 1288 would authorize the Secretary to enter into
cooperative agreements with willing State, local, or tribal
governments, other public entities, educational institutions,
private nonprofit organizations, and private landowners to
protect natural resources of units of the National Park System.
These cooperative agreements would benefit the partners and
enhance science-based natural resource stewardship through such
projects as preservation and restoration of coastal and
riparian watersheds, prevention and control of invasive
species, and restoration of natural systems including wildlife
habitat. The scope of the cooperative agreements would cover
projects that include management of the natural resources, as
well as inventory, monitoring, and restoration activities for
preserving park natural resources.
The bill would prohibit the use of appropriated funds for
land acquisition, regulatory activity, or the development,
maintenance, or operation of infrastructure, except for
ancillary support facilities that the Secretary determines to
be necessary for the completion of projects or activities
identified in the cooperative agreements. All cooperative
agreements authorized by this bill would be voluntary.
According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report from
February 2005, the National Park Service is the only major
Federal land management agency that does not have authority to
expend resources outside its boundaries when there is a benefit
to the natural resources within the boundaries of these lands.
This lack of consistency among Federal agencies was cited by
GAO as a barrier to effective control of invasive species on
Federal and non-Federal lands. This bill would provide
authority to the National Park Service (NPS), similar to that
already held by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
Forest Service, to use appropriated funds to enter into
cooperative agreements with various partners when such
activities provide clear and direct benefits to park natural
resources through collaborative efforts on lands inside and
outside of National Park System units. For example, at the
Grand Canyon National Park, if NPS had this authority, resource
managers could work with the Hulapai Indian Tribe to control
tamarisk, an invasive tree, to mutually protect the reservation
and the park from further infestation.
Of the 83 million acres managed by NPS, 2.6 million acres
are infested by invasive plants such as mile-a-minute, kudzu,
and knapweed, reducing the natural diversity of these areas.
When populations of native plants are decreased, the animals
that depend upon them lack the food and shelter needed for
survival. This is especially a concern for threatened and
endangered species found on parklands. In the case of plants,
these single species stands are also more vulnerable to disease
and can serve as fuel for wildfires. Because invasive plants
and animals cross geographic and jurisdictional boundaries, it
is more efficient to control these invasive species through
collaborative efforts both inside and outside of park
boundaries. If the NPS can rapidly respond and prevent invasive
species from entering our parks instead of trying to control
and eradicate them once they are within our borders, we can
better protect our park natural resources and in many cases,
avoid the problem altogether. In addition, by partnering with
willing private landowners, local entities, universities and
nonprofit organizations, we can recognize a cost savings
through shared inventory, monitoring and control activities,
The authority in S. 1288 would also benefit the NPS in
areas beyond invasive species. For example, at Cape Cod
National Seashore in Massachusetts, three large wetlands within
the park have been impaired from salt marsh levees on adjacent
lands causing a restricted tidal flow to these systems; some of
these impairments date back 100 years. With no fresh water
entering the wetlands, the water quality has been degraded
resulting in large fish kills and the production of nuisance
insects, as well as the loss of storm surge protection. Using
this authority, the NPS would be able to assist local towns in
improving water control structures outside the park, which in
turn would help improve the park's wetlands.
The GAO report also found that collaboration and
coordination among Federal agencies, and between Federal and
non-Federal entities, is critical to battling invasive species.
Treating invasive plants in one area, but not on neighboring
lands, can limit its effectiveness. Because the NPS does not
have the authority to work outside of its boundaries, the NPS
is often perceived as unwilling to be a partner in grassroots
efforts to address shared natural resource management issues at
the local or regional level. In many of our parks, the NPS
manages only the downstream portion of a river. By working with
upstream communities to improve water quality and to decrease
sedimentation and runoff, the entire watershed can benefit from
these partnerships. For example, at Morristown National
Historical Park, Primrose Brook contains a genetically pure
strain of brook trout. Ninety five percent of the watershed
outside the park is protected. Through cooperative agreements
with private landowners, best management practices could be
implemented to protect the entire watershed.
An informal survey conducted by NPS of our parks indicates
that the natural resources in at least 63 parks in 28 states
would benefit as a result of having this authority. Potential
projects would include working with the Montana Fish, Wildlife
and Parks and the U.S. Forest Service to put up fencing along
the border of Glacier National Park to restore white and limber
pine and conduct wetlands surveys; at Hagerman Fossil Beds
National Monument in Idaho, the NPS could work with adjacent
private landowners to prevent irrigation canal seepage that
negatively impacts the Snake River; at Yellowstone National
Park, the NPS could partner with the State of Wyoming to
initiate groundwater studies in the larger Yellowstone
groundwater area that is located north of the park; and at the
Ozark National Scenic Riverways in Missouri, the NPS could
undertake an educational program on the importance and
protection of the karst environment.
Although the bill focuses on the benefits to natural
resources within parks from collaborative efforts, there are
also economic benefits that could be realized through this
authority. Many of our recreation, lakeshore and seashore parks
attract visitors for water- based activities such as boating,
canoeing, and fishing. If NPS can improve the water quality in
these parks by working with nearby landowners and communities
to protect the larger watersheds, then visitors will have a
more positive experience that includes a variety of
recreational activities. Other visitors enjoy the diverse plant
and animal species living in our parklands and spend their time
watching and photographing wildlife in their native habitat.
With this authority, the NPS can restore riparian areas,
replant native grasses, shrubs and trees, and eliminate
invasive species that compete and replace native wildlife. In
addition, communities surrounding our parks depend upon the
dollars that visitors pump into the local economies while
visiting these areas. Having a diverse natural system of
resources within parks draws larger numbers of tourists to
these communities.
Currently, there are some narrowly defined activities for
which the Secretary has the authority to expend NPS resources
beyond those lands owned by the NPS. These limited authorities
include cooperative agreements for work on national trails;
work with state and local parks that either adjoin or are in
the vicinity of units of the National Park System; or
assistance to nearby law enforcement and fire prevention
agencies for emergency situations related to law enforcement,
fire fighting and rescue.
In the short time since this bill was introduced, the North
American Weed Management Association, a network of public and
private professional weed managers who are involved in
implementing county, municipal, district, state, provincial or
Federal noxious weed laws, has voiced their support for this
authority. Other organizations are currently reviewing the
legislation, and we anticipate similar support from these
groups.
Finally, we propose amendments, mostly of a technical
nature only, to ensure that S. 1288 is consistent with the
language contained in our Administration proposal.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to
answer any questions you or other committee members might have.
proposed amendment to s. 1288
On p. 2, line 12, strike ``shall--'' insert ``shall provide
clear and direct benefits to park natural resources and--''.
On p. 2, lines 14-15, strike subparagraph (A) and renumber
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
On p. 4, line 6, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``( a)''.
On p. 4, lines 12-14, strike ``There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act''
and insert ``Funds available to carry out the provisions of
this Act shall be limited to programs and amounts specified in
statute for such use in the annual appropriation act for the
National Park Service.''.
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. 241, as ordered
reported.