[Senate Report 108-235]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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.--
(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 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 demonstration 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.
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 identification 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.
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
private-sector 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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 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 Strategic 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 state-and
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.
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.
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 cost-share 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 long-term 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 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.