29–010

Calendar No. 445

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 2d Session 108–235

SALT CEDAR CONTROL DEMONSTRATION ACT 

MARCH 9, 2004.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1516]

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 1516) to further the purposes of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 by directing the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner 

of Reclamation, to carry out an assessment and demonstration program to assess potential increases in water availability for Bureau 

of Reclamation projects and other uses through control of salt cedar 

and Russian olive, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon with an amendment and an amendment to the title and 

recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

1. 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 ‘‘Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act’’. 

SEC. 2. SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE CONTROL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this Act as the 

‘‘Secretary’’), acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation and in cooperation 

with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Defense, shall carry out a 

salt cedar (Tamarix spp) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) assessment and 

demonstration program—

(1) to assess the extent of the infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive trees 

in the western United States; 

(2) to demonstrate strategic solutions for—

(A) the long-term management of salt cedar and Russian olive trees; and 

(B) the reestablishment of native vegetation; and 

(3) to assess economic means to dispose of biomass created as a result of removal of salt cedar and Russian olive trees. 

(b) ASSESSMENT.—

2

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date on which funds are 

made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary shall complete an assessment of the extent of salt cedar and Russian olive infestation on public and private land in the western United States. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In addition to describing the acreage of and severity of 

infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive trees in the western United States, 

the assessment shall— (A) consider existing research on methods to control salt cedar and Russian olive trees; 

(B) consider the feasibility of reducing water consumption by salt cedar 

and Russian olive trees; 

(C) consider methods of and challenges associated with the revegetation 

or restoration of infested land; and 

(D) estimate the costs of destruction of salt cedar and Russian olive trees, 

related biomass removal, and revegetation or restoration and maintenance 

of the infested land. 

(c) LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall identify and document long-term management and funding strategies that— (A) could be implemented by Federal, State, and private land managers 

in addressing infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive trees; and 

(B) should be tested as components of demonstration projects under subsection (d). 

(2) GRANTS.—The Secretary shall provide grants to institutions of higher education to develop public policy expertise in, and assist in developing a long-term 

strategy to address, infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive trees. 

(d) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which funds are 

made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary shall establish a program 

that selects and funds not less than 5 projects proposed by and implemented 

in collaboration with Federal agencies, units of State and local government, national laboratories, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education, individuals, 

organizations, or soil and water conservation districts to demonstrate and 

evaluate the most effective methods of controlling salt cedar and Russian olive 

trees. 

(2) PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.—The demonstration projects under paragraph (1) 

shall—

(A) be carried out over a time period and to a scale designed to fully assess long-term management strategies; 

(B) implement salt cedar or Russian olive tree control using 1 or more 

methods for each project in order to assess the full range of control methods, including—

(i) airborne application of herbicides; 

(ii) mechanical removal; and 

(iii) biocontrol methods, such as the use of goats or insects; 

(C) individually or in conjunction with other demonstration projects, assess the effects of and obstacles to combining multiple control methods and 

determine optimal combinations of control methods; 

(D) assess soil conditions resulting from salt cedar and Russian olive tree 

infestation and means to revitalize soils; 

(E) define and implement appropriate final vegetative states and optimal 

revegetation methods, with preference for self-maintaining vegetative states 

and native vegetation, and taking into consideration downstream impacts, 

wildfire potential, and water savings; 

(F) identify methods for preventing the regrowth and reintroduction of 

salt cedar and Russian olive trees; 

(G) monitor and document any water savings from the control of salt 

cedar and Russian olive trees, including impacts to both groundwater and 

surface water; 

(H) assess wildfire activity and management strategies; 

(I) assess changes in wildlife habitat; 

(J) determine conditions under which removal of biomass is appropriate 

(including optimal methods for the disposal or use of biomass); and 

(K) assess economic and other impacts associated with control methods 

and the restoration and maintenance of land. 

(e) DISPOSITION OF BIOMASS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date on which funds are 

made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall complete an analysis of economic means to use or 

3

dispose of biomass created as a result of removal of salt cedar and Russian olive 

trees. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The analysis shall— (A) determine conditions under which removal of biomass is economically 

viable; 

(B) consider and build upon existing research by the Department of Agriculture and other agencies on beneficial uses of salt cedar and Russian olive 

tree fiber; and 

(C) consider economic development opportunities, including manufacture 

of wood products using biomass resulting from demonstration projects 

under subsection (d) as a means of defraying costs of control. 

(f) COSTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to projects and activities carried out under this 

Act— (A) the assessment under subsection (b) shall be carried out at a cost of 

not more than $4,000,000; 

(B) the identification and documentation of long-term management strategies under subsection (c) shall be carried out at a cost of not more than 

$2,000,000; 

(C) each demonstration project under subsection (d) shall be carried out at a Federal cost of not more than $7,000,000 (including costs of planning, 

design, implementation, maintenance, and monitoring); and 

(D) the analysis under subsection (e) shall be carried out at a cost of not more than $3,000,000. 

(2) COST-SHARING.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The assessment under subsection (b), the identification 

and documentation of long-term management strategies under subsection 

(c), a demonstration project or portion of a demonstration project under subsection (d) that is carried out on Federal land, and the analysis under subsection (e) shall be carried out at full Federal expense. 

(B) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS CARRIED OUT ON NON-FEDERAL LAND.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the costs of any demonstration 

project funded under subsection (d) that is not carried out on Federal 

land shall not exceed— (I) 75 percent for each of the first 5 years of the demonstration 

project; and 

(II) for the purpose of long-term monitoring, 100 percent for each 

of such 5-year extensions as the Secretary may grant. 

(ii) FORM OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the 

costs of a demonstration project that is not carried out on Federal land 

may be provided in the form of in-kind contributions, including services 

provided by a State agency or any other public or private partner. 

(g) COOPERATION.—In carrying out the assessment under subsection (b), the demonstration projects under subsection (d), and the analysis under subsection (e), the 

Secretary shall cooperate with and use the expertise of Federal agencies and the 

other entities specified in subsection (d)(1) that are actively conducting research on 

or implementing salt cedar and Russian olive tree control activities. 

(h) INDEPENDENT REVIEW.—The Secretary shall subject to independent review— (1) the assessment under subsection (b); 

(2) the identification and documentation of long-term management strategies 

under subsection (c); 

(3) the demonstration projects under subsection (d); and 

(4) the analysis under subsection (e). 

(i) REPORTING.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall submit to Congress an annual report 

that describes the results of carrying out this Act, including a synopsis of any 

independent review under subsection (h) and details of the manner and purposes for which funds are expended. 

(2) PUBLIC ACCESS.—The Secretary shall facilitate public access to all information that results from carrying out this Act. 

(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this Act—

(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and 

(2) $15,000,000 for each subsequent fiscal year.

2. Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to further the purposes 

of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 

1992 by directing the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 

Commissioner of Reclamation, to carry out an assessment and demVerDate jul 14 2003 02:07 Mar 13, 2004 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR235.XXX SR235
4

onstration program to control salt cedar and Russian olive, and for 

other purposes.’’.

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 1516 is to direct the Secretary of the Interior, 

through the Commissioner of Reclamation and in cooperation with 

the Secretaries of Agriculture and Defense, to assess the degree of 

infestation of salt cedar (Tamarix spp) and Russian olive (Eleagnus 

angustifolia), to document long-term management and funding 

strategies for addressing the infestation, to develop demonstration 

projects for effective management and control of salt cedar and 

Russian olive, and to analyze economical methods to use or dispose 

of the biomass resulting from their removal. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Salt cedar and Russian olive are non-indigenous species that 

have aggressively invaded a significant portion of the American 

West. These species have caused dramatic changes in the composition and function of the natural communities they invade, most 

particularly the important riparian ecosystems of this arid region. 

These changes can adversely influence water flows, fire regimes, 

and sensitive species. For example, there is particular interest in 

documenting whether any particular management strategies result 

in accessible water savings. 

There is no current national assessment of either management 

approaches and assessments of the extent of infestation are incomplete. While there are several existing salt cedar and Russian olive 

control programs—including programs managed by or funded 

through the Bureau of Reclamation—the focus of these programs is 

to remove or kill salt cedar, with relatively little attention given to 

long-term management strategies including re-vegetation and their 

potential impacts on water, soils, wildfire activity, and wildlife. 

Large-scale demonstration projects that test different control mechanisms and measure the effectiveness and affects of these projects, 

as well as their cumulative costs, can be a key to formulating effective regional strategies to deal with the infestation. 

One important challenge to controlling the invasion of salt cedar 

and Russian olive has been dealing with the biomass of the vegetation that is removed. Finding economical means of using or disposing of this biomass is another key to formulating an effective regional strategy for dealing with the infestation. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1516 was introduced by Senator Domenici and Senator Campbell on July 31, 2003 and referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Senators Allard, Baucus and Burns are 

co-sponsors of the measure. The Subcommittee on Water and 

Power held a hearing on the bill on September 23, 2003. S. Hrg. 

108–211. At the business meeting on February 11, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 1516 favorably 

reported, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

5

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTES

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 

open business session on February 11, 2004, by a unanimous vote 

of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 1516, if 

amended as described herein. 

The rollcall vote on reporting the measure was 23 yeas, 0 nays 

as follows: 

YEAS NAYS 

Mr. Domenici 

Mr. Nickles 

Mr. Craig 

Mr. Campbell* 

Mr. Thomas 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Talent 

Mr. Burns 

Mr. Smith* 

Mr. Bunning 

Mr. Kyl*

Mr. Bingaman 

Mr. Akaka 

Mr. Dorgan* 

Mr. Graham of Florida* 

Mr. Wyden* 

Mr. Johnson* 

Ms. Landrieu* 

Mr. Bayh* 

Mrs. Feinstein* 

Mr. Schumer* 

Ms. Cantwell

*Indicates voted by proxy. 

COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

During consideration of S. 1516, the Committee adopted an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. Changes to the bill include requiring the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the 

Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Defense in all aspects 

of the program. The development of long-term management and 

funding strategies is emphasized. Grants are provided to institutions of higher education to assist in developing long-term strategies. The Secretary of the Interior is given 180 days after funds are 

made available to establish the demonstration program. Participation in demonstration projects is expanded to include other Federal 

agencies, units of State and local government, national laboratories, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education, individuals, 

organizations, or soil and water conservation districts. Demonstration projects are required to assess a broader set of potential 

changes including soil conditions, final vegetative states, wildfire 

activity, wildlife habitat, and economic impacts. A provision to assess economic means for disposal of biomass created as a result of 

removal of vegetation was added. Limits on the authorization of 

funding are specified for the assessment of infestation, the identiVerDate jul 14 2003 02:07 Mar 13, 2004 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR235.XXX SR235
6

fication of strategies and the assessment of biomass. A cost-sharing 

structure is provided for Federal and non-Federal lands. A provision requiring all components of the program to be peer reviewed 

was added. Congressional reporting requirements were added. The 

total authorization of appropriations was reduced from $50,000,000 

for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as are necessary for each fiscal 

year thereafter to $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $15,000,000 

each subsequent fiscal year. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 states the short title. 

Section 2 (a) directs the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a 

salt cedar and Russian olive assessment and demonstration program with three major components: an assessment of the extent of 

infestation, the creation of demonstration projects, and an assessment of economic options for biomass disposal. 

Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to assess the extent of salt 

cedar and Russian olive infestation and lists the requirements for 

conducting the assessment. 

Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to identify and document 

long-term management and funding strategies to address the infestation, and directs the Secretary to provide grants to institutions 

of higher learning to support the development of these strategies. 

Subsection (d) provides for the establishment of a demonstration 

program where a minimum of 5 demonstration projects will be initiated and lists the requirements for the demonstration projects. 

Subsection (e) directs the Secretary to analyze economic methods 

for the use and disposal of biomass created as a result of removal 

of salt cedar and Russian olive, and lists the requirements of the 

analysis. 

Subsection (f) establishes cost limitations and formulas for carrying out the legislation. The infestation assessment is limited to 

$4,000,000; the identification and documentation of long-term management strategies is limited to $2,000,000; the demonstration 

projects are limited to $7,000,000 per project; and the biomass 

analysis is limited to $3,000,000. It establishes that the infestation 

assessment, identification and documentation of long-term management strategies, and biomass analysis, along with any portions of 

the demonstration projects carried out on Federal lands be fully 

funded with Federal appropriations; demonstration projects carried 

out on non-Federal lands are to receive no more than 75 percent 

Federal funding for the first five years, but may reach 100 percent 

Federal funding for the purposes of long-term monitoring in subsequent years. Non-Federal cost-share may take the form of in-kind 

contributions, including services. 

Subsection (g) requires the Secretary to cooperate with Federal 

agencies and others engaged in relevant research in carrying out 

the specific provisions of the legislation. 

Subsection (h) directs the Secretary to subject the infestation assessment, identification and documentation of long-term strategies, 

demonstration projects, and biomass analysis to independent review. 

Subsection (i) directs the Secretary to submit an annual report 

to Congress on the implementation of the legislation and to facilitate public access to the information resulting from carrying it out. 

7

Subsection (j) authorizes $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and 

$15,000,000 per year thereafter. 

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, February 24, 2004. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, 

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. 1516, the Salt Cedar and 

Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie Middleton. 

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH ROBINSON

(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director). 

Enclosure. 

S.1516—Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act 

Summary: S. 1516 would authorize the appropriation of $20 million for 2005 and $15 million for each subsequent fiscal year for a 

program to address the infestation of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive 

trees in the West. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 

Bureau of Reclamation, would provide grants to institutions of 

higher education to develop public policy expertise in long-term 

management strategies for these invasive species. In addition, the 

Secretary would fund at least five demonstration projects to assess 

methods for controlling Salt Cedar and Russian Olive trees. Finally, the Secretary would work with the Secretary of Agriculture 

to analyze methods of disposing of the biomass created as a result 

of the removal of these invasive species. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1516 would cost $39 million over the 

2005–2009 period. Enacting S. 1516 would not affect direct spending or revenues. S. 1516 contains no intergovernmental or privatesector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1516 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—

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level ....................................................................... 0 20 15 15 15 15 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................ 0 2 5 8 11 13 

8

For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 1516 will be enacted before the end of fiscal year 2004 and that the necessary amounts 

will be appropriated in each fiscal year, starting in 2005. Based on 

information from the Bureau of Reclamation and historical spending patterns for similar programs, CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost $39 million over the 2005–2009 period. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1516 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Previous CBO estimate: On December 30, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2707, a similar bill that was ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on October 

29, 2003. The differences in the cost estimates for these two bills 

are the result of different authorized levels of funding. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller; and Impact 

on the Private Sector: Selena Caldera. 

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. 1516. The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. Participation 

in the programs authorized by the bill by private individuals and 

businesses is strictly voluntary. 

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. 1516, as ordered reported. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The testimony provided by the Department of the Interior at the 

Subcommittee hearing follows:

STATEMENT OF JIM TATE, SCIENCE ADVISOR TO SECRETARY

OF THE INTERIOR GALE NORTON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Jim 

Tate, Science Advisor to Secretary of the Interior Gale 

Norton. I want to thank you for providing the Department 

of the Interior (Department) the opportunity to testify before you regarding these bills which seek to promote the 

control and management of the invasive species like 

saltcedar, or tamarisk, and Russian olive. The Department 

supports the goals of both S. 1236, the Tamarisk Control 

and Riparian Restoration Act, and S. 1516, the Salt Cedar 

Control Demonstration Act. As discussed below, the Department is currently working with our partners to develop an integrated approach to management of tamarisk, 

and we are committed to working with you to ensure that 

tamarisk control efforts are efficient and effective. We are 

9

also concerned about the cost of the proposed programs, 

and note that they would have to compete with existing 

programs for limited resources. 

Let me begin by providing you with some background on 

this issue, followed by brief comments on the legislation. 

BACKGROUND

In the late 19th century, importation of several species 

of the genus Tamarix, commonly called tamarisk, and Russian olive came just as the Department began efforts to 

mediate land speculation and work closely with western 

governors and Indian tribes during the settlement of the 

West. The scientific expeditions of John Wesley Powell 

(which carried out the Geographical and Geological Survey 

of the Rocky Mountain region in 1874) set in motion the 

still-evolving paradigm that wise development informed by 

science provides the best hope for conservation and future 

use of our Nation’s natural resources. 

The Department is one of the Nation’s principal conservation agencies, charged with protecting and providing 

access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage. 

Today, Departmental authorities provide for the management and protection of resources in an area of the West 

now increasingly under pressure as population densities 

mushroom and water resources are increasingly stressed. 

This region of the country also has seen the greatest impact from the species addressed in this legislation. 

SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

Russian olive is a hardy, fast-growing tree native to Europe and western Asia. It was introduced into the United 

States in the 19th century and was promoted as window 

and ornamental plantings. It grows along streams, in 

fields, and in open areas. It is shade-tolerant, and it grows 

well in a variety of soil and moisture conditions. While 

Russian olive is primarily found in the West, it also is 

present in the Eastern United States. 

Tamarisk comprises a suite of several species also imported to the United States in the 19th century for use as 

windbreaks and erosion control plantings. Several species 

of tamarisk and their hybrids now cover approximately 1.6 

million acres of riparian lands within all the seventeen 

western states (as far north as Montana). The spread of 

tamarisk is often supported by its extreme flammability. It 

rapidly produces dense biomass and, absent flooding or 

heavy rains, causes deposits of salt on the soil sufficient to 

suppress native plant seed germination and seedling 

growth. 

Limited studies suggest that dense tamarisk stands can 

utilize more water on an annual basis than native cottonwood-willow plant communities. There can be more total 

surface area on the leaves of tamarisk plants than on cottonwood and native shrubs growing in a given area, and 

tamarisk continues to release water through the pores in 

its leaves during mid-day, whereas native cottonwoods 

10

shut this process down to conserve water. In addition, 

tamarisk growing in the streambed can also slow the 

water flow, allowing additional time for percolation of the 

water into the alluvium. Water released for irrigation purposes from an upstream reservoir may thus not get to its 

intended destination when tamarisk is blocking the channel. 

The growing abundance of tamarisk along western rivers 

has led resource managers to seek to control it in order to: 

(1) increase the flow of water in streams that might otherwise be lost to evapotranspiration and percolation; (2) restore native vegetation along the banks and floodplains of 

rivers and shorelines of reservoirs or lakes; (3) reduce hazardous fuels; and (4) improve wildlife habitat. 

As you know, the Department, through the Bureau of 

Reclamation, has a significant role in the distribution of 

water throughout much of the West and Southwest. Because of its significant impact on water resources alone, 

the Department has a strong interest in the control of 

tamarisk as part of its management efforts. For this reason, much of the remainder of my statement will focus on 

control efforts for this species. 

CURRENT DEPARTMENTAL TAMARISK MANAGEMENT EFFORTS

Current Departmental programs and activities focus 

control and management efforts for tamarisk on areas with 

resources at risk. Some areas are so heavily infested that 

expert ‘‘strike’’ teams have been used to remove the dense 

vegetation. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is in the process of establishing such ‘‘strike 

teams,’’ modeled after the National Park Service’s (NPS) 

Exotic Plant Management Teams (EPMT), to combat 

invasive species, including tamarisk, in the Southwest. 

Areas vital to wildlife resources are cleared using mechanical, chemical, and physical means. Comprehensive conservation plans are used to guide these efforts and to indicate the areas of highest priority for waterfowl, endangered species, or other wildlife habitat values. In some 

cases, resources potentially at risk from tamarisk incursion are spot-treated early enough to keep the plants 

away, thus avoiding costly control efforts. This early detection and rapid response model is receiving increased attention as a means of preventing the spread and establishment of tamarisk.

PLACE-BASED RESEARCH AND TESTING

Departmental land management operations focus significant funding for tamarisk control on refuges, national 

parks and monuments, and along irrigation canals under 

the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation. Bosque del 

Apache National Wildlife Refuge has served as a demonstration laboratory for control and management of 

tamarisk, including research and development of innovative methods for restoring native riparian vegetation and 

working with nearby private landowners and Indian 

11

Tribes to implement them. Biomass removal, intermittent 

flooding, chemical treatments, and other mechanical methods have all been tested and measured for effectiveness 

and efficiency. Cooperating with researchers from nearby 

universities and other research institutions, such as the 

Los Alamos National Laboratory, scientists and land managers have also tested methods to reduce the likelihood of 

later re-infestation by tamarisk. 

Because of our role in the management of Western 

lands, we recognize the need for on the ground management of invasive species like tamarisk. However, we also 

recognize that there are areas where our control and restoration efforts will benefit from targeted research and development projects. More information is needed regarding 

the identification of areas or situations that would most 

likely respond to vegetative restoration projects once 

tamarisk removal has begun. Such information will also 

assist in the development of an integrated control and restoration plan—a ‘‘best practices’’ plan that will provide 

land managers at all levels of government with options for 

removal, control, and restoration of lands infested with 

tamarisk. 

PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Various programs within the Department seek to promote partnerships with private landowners to address 

problem species like tamarisk. One initiative that addresses these issues is the cooperative conservation component 

of the challenge cost share programs in the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), NPS and FWS. These programs 

emphasize building partnerships for the conservation of 

natural resources and provide expanded opportunities for 

land managers to work with landowners and others to 

form creative conservation partnerships. This initiative 

recognizes that nature knows no jurisdictional boundaries 

and that, through these partnerships, the Department’s 

land managers can work with landowners and other citizen stewards to tackle invasive species, reduce erosion 

along stream banks, or enhance habitat for threatened and 

endangered species. Among other things, in FY 2003 we 

have funded through this initiative projects that are aimed 

at the eradication and control of tamarisk, Russian olive, 

and other invasive plants, and reclamation of impacted 

lands. 

Another program is the FWS’s Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife, which promotes private landowner cost-share 

projects for habitat restoration, including funds targeted 

for control of invasive plants and subsequent restoration. 

The Partners Program has worked with private landowners across the Nation to remove, burn, biologically control, and otherwise combat invasive plants on thousands of 

acres of wetlands and upland. Tamarisk control is a focus 

of technical and financial assistance in the Southwest. 

The control and management of tamarisk is part of the 

BLM’s Partners Against Weeds Strategy Plan, BLM’s StraVerDate jul 14 2003 02:07 Mar 13, 2004 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR235.XXX SR235
12

tegic Plan, and the National Fire Plan. The Partners 

Against Weeds program funds cooperative efforts with 

landowners to control invasive species. It also funds cooperative outreach and education projects with schools and 

local and county governments. In one important project, 

the BLM plans to work with several groups, including 

Clark County and the communities of Bunkerville and 

Mesquite in southern Nevada, to remove tamarisk along 

portions of the Virgin River floodplain. As I noted above, 

because of its properties, tamarisk poses a potential fire 

risk to homes, ranches, farms, and recreational facilities in 

the wildland-urban interface. 

This project involves mechanical removal of tamarisk in 

the project area. The goal of the project is to move away 

from the tamarisk-fueled, high intensity fires that are now 

typical of the area concerned and to restore native vegetation, such as the relatively inflammable grasses, sedges, 

shrub communities, cottonwoods, and willows: Current 

planning calls for 95 acres of treatment in FY 2004, with 

an additional 100 acres per year during the following 7–

8 years. 

The NPS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Bureau of Reclamation partner with the Agriculture Research 

Service and the U.S. Forest Service, both within the Department of Agriculture, and university scientists to develop and test biological control agents, including the beetles used for biological control of tamarisk in the West, to 

conduct studies of stream flow management for vegetation 

control, and on studies of hybridization and environmental 

tolerances to better predict the potential future spread of 

tamarisk. 

USGS scientists can help identify site potential for water 

salvage, revegetation, and wildlife value, and develop protocols and measures for prioritizing sites for control or revegetation. The USGS also has partnerships with stateand county weed departments, the National Aeronautics 

and Space Agency (NASA), and the Tamarisk Coalition 

aimed at mapping currently invaded sites and identifying 

new invasions. The USGS also has ongoing studies mapping tamarisk in Western Colorado and Southern Utah, relating its distribution to environmental factors at USGS 

stream gauging stations throughout the West, assessing 

vegetation changes over time in tamarisk habitat on the 

lower Colorado River, and promoting restoration of native 

vegetation through water management. 

The Bureau of Reclamation leads, along with USDA’s 

Agricultural Research Service, the Saltcedar Biological 

Control Consortium, a task force comprised of over 40 

agencies. The Bureau of Reclamation, in collaboration with 

Los Alamos National Laboratory, also develops new technologies for determining the amount of water lost from the 

Rio Grande River due to tamarisk.

13

CROSSCUT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

The Administration is also working toward an interagency approach to invasive species control. The President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 contains 

a performance budget crosscut on tamarisk. Agencies 

would work together to develop common performance 

measures. Under this performance umbrella, new and base 

funds will be applied in the Departments of Interior and 

Agriculture to control and manage the spread of tamarisk 

in the Southwest. Within the Department, the BLM proposes to control 2,750 acres of tamarisk with a $500,000 

funding increase. The Bureau of Reclamation, utilizing 

$600,000 in new funding, proposes to control 22,000 acres 

of tamarisk. The FWS has proposed an increase of 

$640,000 for treatment of tamarisk and other species on 

refuge lands, and the NPS, utilizing $200,000 in base 

funding, proposes to treat 1,000 additional acres. A proposed funding increase of $100,000 will help the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs control tamarisk on 4,000 acres. Finally, 

USGS proposes an increase of $300,000 for two additional 

research projects in direct support of land management efforts, including the development of protocols and measures 

to prioritize sites for control and revegetation efforts. 

In addition, both Interior and Agriculture agencies are 

working together with our state and local partners to develop and implement control technologies as part of an integrated approach to pest and weed management. New 

chemical and biological control methods for tamarisk are 

being tested under strictly controlled conditions because 

the endangered southwest willow flycatcher occupies areas 

now infested with tamarisk that were once occupied by 

stands of native willows and cottonwoods. The federal 

agencies are providing support for a multi-pronged approach to tamarisk control utilizing prevention, early detection and rapid response, and other control and management activities to limit the introduction and spread of 

tamarisk into new areas of the Southwest. 

COORDINATED TAMARISK CONTROL AND REVEGETATION

WORKSHOP

As a means of deciding how to spend the FY 2004 funds 

proposed in the President’s Budget for tamarisk control, 

the Department is considering a strategy workshop to be 

held in the West sometime this fall. The purpose would be 

to gain stakeholder input for a roadmap containing common protocols (decision criteria) and best practices for 

tamarisk control and management. The roadmap would 

provide guidance for selecting on-the-ground projects and 

research efforts with the twin goals of generating increased water supply and restoring ecosystems through 

long-term tamarisk control, revegetation, and habitat recovery. 

14

DEPARTMENTAL VIEWS ON S. 1236 AND S. 1516

I hope that this overview has provided you with a picture of what the Department is doing to manage the control of tamarisk and other harmful exotic species. With the 

above discussion in mind, let me briefly turn to the legislation. 

S. 1236 would require the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), through the Bureau of Reclamation, to complete 

an assessment of the extent of tamarisk invasion in the 

western United States. In addition to identifying the states 

affected by tamarisk, including a gross-scale estimation of 

acreage within the identified states, the assessment would 

include both past and ongoing research on tamarisk control methods, and the estimated costs of destruction, biomass removal, and restoration and maintenance. 

The Secretary would also establish a State Tamarisk Assistance Program to provide grants to affected states. 

Grants would be awarded to states in amounts to be determined by the Secretary based on infestation in a particular 

state. Those states would then be responsible for designating a lead state agency to administer the program and 

to work with listed entities, including the National 

Invasive Species Council, the Invasive Species Advisory 

Committee, representatives from relevant tribes, and others in the state, to establish priorities for awarding costshare grants to projects to control or eradicate tamarisk. 

Tile bill carries a limitation (10 percent) on the use of 

grant monies for administrative expenses, and would require the lead state agency to provide the Secretary with 

a report at the completion of funded projects. 

S. 1516, the ‘‘Salt Cedar Control Demonstration Act,’’

would also establish a two-pronged approach. First, it 

would require the Secretary, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to complete a detailed assessment of the extent 

of infestation by salt cedar and Russian Olive in western 

states. The assessment would include past and present assessments and management options to control these species; the feasibility of reducing water consumption; methods and challenges in land restoration; and the estimated 

costs of destruction, biomass removal, and restoration and 

maintenance. Finally, the assessment is to identify longterm funding strategies that could be implemented by federal, state, and private land managers. Second, S. 1516 

would also require the Secretary to initiate demonstration 

projects to determine the most effective control methods 

for these species, and it provides criteria to be included in 

the project designs. 

We fully support the concepts advanced by these bills. In 

general, we view a comprehensive assessment positively, 

and believe such an approach helps federal land managers 

develop a more coordinated, long-term approach to addressing the problems associated with these species. We 

also recognize the importance of carrying out strictly controlled projects that will quickly provide us with practical 

15

control methods that can be used by land managers on the 

ground. 

As noted above, however, the Department is already 

working with our partners to develop and implement an 

integrated approach to management of tamarisk. Moreover, we have a concern about the overall cost of the proposed legislation. S. 1236 would authorize $20 million for 

fiscal year 2004, with additional necessary sums thereafter, while S. 1516 would authorize $50 million on the 

same terms. While the Administration’s cross cut budget 

evidences our commitment to control invasive species like 

those addressed here, the program established under this 

legislation would have to compete with other priority activities within the context of the President’s Budget. Finally, the Department notes that the demonstration 

projects called for in S. 1516 can be achieved within existing authorities. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, I want to assure the Committee that the Department is prepared and committed to identifying, assessing, and acting to curb the economic and ecological impacts 

of tamarisk and Russian olive in the West. We will continue to work with our partners, and we agree with the intentions of both bills to more systematically develop an effective control strategy. Our goal is to ensure the protection of our water resources and the restoration of important wildlife habitat. 

We share the Committee’s concerns and interest in this 

issue, and offer to work with the Committee to ensure that 

any legislation promotes an efficient and effective control 

strategy. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and 

1 am happy to answer any questions that you might have.

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. 1516, as ordered reported.

Æ