[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.

                                
