```

[Senate Report 109-233]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 395
109th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     109-233

======================================================================

 
         NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

                 April 20, 2006.--Ordered to be printed

   Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of April 7, 2006

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1288]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 1288) 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 with amendments and recommends that the bill, 
as amended, do pass.
    The amendments are as follows:
    1. On page 2, line 6, insert ``other Federal agencies,'' 
before ``other public entities''.
    2. On page 2, strike lines 14 and 15 and insert the 
following:

                  (A) clear and direct benefits to natural 
                resources of a unit of the National Park 
                System;

    3. On page 4, line 6, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(a)''.

                         PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

    The purpose of S. 1288 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 our parks and 
neighboring lands used for production. 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 
allows 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 documented that the National Park 
Service is the only Federal land management agency that lacks 
this authority. Private landowners and other agencies have 
remarked that this lack of authority makes it very difficult to 
control invasive plants in and around national parks.
    S. 1288 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. 1288 was introduced by Senators Wyden and Akaka on June 
22, 2005. The Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on 
S. 1288 on November 15, 2005. At its business meeting on March 
8, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered 
S. 1288 favorably reported as amended.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open 
business session on March 8, 2006, by unanimous voice vote of a 
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 1288, if 
amended as described herein.

                          COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

    During consideration of S. 1288, the Committee adopted an 
amendment to require that the terms of the cooperative 
agreement provide clear and direct benefits to resources of a 
unit of the National Park System. The amendment also authorizes 
the National Park Service to enter into agreements with other 
Federal agencies.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    Section 1 entitles the bill the ``Natural Resource 
Protection Cooperative Agreement Act.''
    Section 2(a) grants the Secretary of the Interior authority 
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) sets forth limitations such that any 
resources contributed by the Secretary of the Interior shall 
not be used 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 appropriations as necessary to 
carry out this Act.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of 
this measure has been requested butwas not received at the time 
the report was filed. When the report is available, the Chairman will 
request it to be printed in the Congressional Record for the advice of 
the Senate.

                      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. 1288. 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. 1288, as ordered reported.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    The views of the Administration on S. 1288 were included in 
testimony received by the Committee at a hearing on the bill on 
November 15, 2005. This testimony follows:

   Statement of Don 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 Government Accountability 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 amendments 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. 1288, as 
ordered reported.

                                  

```