59–010 

Calendar No. 235 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–105 

NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION COOPERATIVE 

AGREEMENT ACT 

JUNE 26, 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 H.R. 658] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the Act (H.R. 658) 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, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 

favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the 

Act do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of H.R. 658 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 parks units and neighboring nonFederal 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. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
2 

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. 

H.R. 658 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

H.R. 658, sponsored by Representative Porter, passed the House 

of Representatives by a voice vote on March 19, 2007. The bill is 

a companion measure to S. 241, which was ordered reported by the 

Committee on January 31, 2007 (S. Rept. 110–10). 

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 reported by the Committee with amendments on March 8, 

2006 (S. Rept. 109–233) and passed the Senate by a voice vote on 

September 29, 2006. No further action occurred prior to the sine 

die adjournment of the 109th Congress. 

At its business meeting on May 23, 2007, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered H.R. 658 to be favorably reported. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open business session on May 23, 2007, by voice vote of a quorum present, 

recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 658. 

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. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
3 

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) states that funds available to carry out this Act 

shall be limited to programs and amounts specified in the annual 

Appropriations Act for the National Park Service. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided 

by the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 25, 2007. 

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 H.R. 658, the Natural Resources Protection Cooperative Agreement Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 658—Natural Resources Protection Cooperation Agreement Act 

H.R. 658 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 park 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 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
4 

would depend on the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting 

H.R. 658 would not affect revenues or direct spending. 

H.R. 658 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. 

On February 7, 2007, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 

241, the Natural Resources Protection Cooperation Agreement Act, 

as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on January 31, 2007. S. 241 and H.R. 658 are very 

similar, and the cost estimates for the two bills are identical. 

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 

H.R. 658. The Act 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 H.R. 658, as ordered reported. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

Because H.R. 658 is similar to legislation reported by the Committee previously this Congress, and similar to one considered during the 109th Congress, the Committee did not request Executive 

Agency views on H.R. 658. 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 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
5 

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-aminute, 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 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
6 

partnering with willing private landowners, local entities, 

universities and nonprofit organizations, we can recognize 

a cost savings through shard 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 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
7 

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 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
8 

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 Act H.R. 658, as ordered reported. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS