```

[Senate Report 110-105]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

                                  

```