Invasive Species: Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to	 
Growing Threat (24-JUL-01, GAO-01-724). 			 
								 
Invasive species--harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and	 
microorganisms--are widespread throughout the United States,	 
causing billions of dollars of damage annually to crops,	 
rangelands, and waterways. An important part of pest control is  
quick action to eradicate or contain a potentially damaging	 
invasive species. Federal rapid response to invasive species	 
varies: species that threaten agricultural crops or livestock are
far more likely to elicit a rapid response than those primarily  
affecting forestry or other natural areas, including rangelands  
and water areas. A major obstacle to rapid response is the lack  
of a national system to address invasive species. Other obstacles
to rapid response include the need for additional detection	 
systems to identify new species; improved partnerships among	 
federal, state, and local agencies; and better technologies to	 
eradicate invasive species. The Invasive Species Council's	 
Management Plan makes several recommendations for improving rapid
response, including developing a program of coordinated rapid	 
response and pursuing increases in discretionary spending to	 
support the program. A concerted effort to improve the rapid	 
response is clearly needed, and, if properly implemented, the	 
Council's recommendations will go a long way toward developing a 
national system to address this pressing need.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-724 					        
    ACCNO:   A01152						        
  TITLE:     Invasive Species: Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response
             to Growing Threat                                                
     DATE:   07/24/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Agricultural pests 				 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Environmental policies				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Pest control					 
	     Pesticides 					 
	     Pests						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-724
     
A

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2001 INVASIVE SPECIES Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to
Growing Threat

GAO- 01- 724

Letter 3 Results in Brief 5 Background 7 Federal Rapid Response to Invasive
Species That Threaten Natural

Areas Has Been Minimal 12 Lack of a National System Is a Major Obstacle to
Rapid Response 20 Conclusions 33 Recommendations 34 Agency Comments 35

Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 38 Appendix II: Invasive
Species Rapidly Responded to by Federal

Agencies 41 Appendix III: Management Plan?s Recommendations on Rapid

Response 43 Appendix IV: Summary of Agency Comments and Our Response 45
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 48

Tables Table 1: Estimated Federal Obligations for Rapid Responses to
Invasive Species 13

Figures Figure 1: Leafy Spurge, Asian Long- Horned Beetle, Zebra Mussels,
and Green Crab 9

Figure 2: Two Serious Threats to Aquatic Areas: Caulerpa Taxifolia and Asian
Swamp Eel 16 Figure 3: Ruffe, an Aggressive Eurasian Fish 19 Figure 4: Giant
Salvinia Covering a Pond in Texas 31

Abbreviations

APHIS Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service ARS Agricultural Research
Service CCC Commodity Credit Corporation GAO General Accounting Office USDA
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Lett er

July 24, 2001 The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert The Honorable Wayne T.
Gilchrest The Honorable Richard Pombo The Honorable Jim Saxton House of
Representatives

Invasive species- harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and microorganisms-
are found throughout the United States, causing billions of dollars of
damage annually to crops, rangelands, and waterways. 1 For example, zebra
mussels are a widely known aquatic invasive. Transported into the Great
Lakes in ships? ballast water, zebra mussels have clogged the water pipes of
electric companies and other industries; infestations in the Midwest and
Northeast have cost power plants and industrial facilities almost $70
million between 1989 and 1995. Invasive species have also had a devastating
effect on natural areas, where they have strangled native flora,

taken over wetland habitats, and deprived waterfowl and other species of
food sources. Scientists, academicians, and industry leaders are recognizing
invasive species to be one of the most serious environmental

threats of the 21st century. Sometimes invasive species enter the United
States accidentally; for example, as weed seeds in commodities, in ballast
water from ships, or in untreated wood- packing material. In other
instances, invasive species are brought in deliberately as ornamental
plants, as pets, or for purposes such as erosion control. Increased travel
and global trade have resulted in growing numbers of invasive species
gaining entry into the United States.

Species from countries such as China and Russia with habitats similar to our
own are especially likely to gain a foothold in the United States. Expanded
trade within North America has also increased the risk of spreading
established invaders from one country to another.

Over 20 federal agencies- including the U. S. Departments of Agriculture
(USDA), Commerce, Defense, and the Interior- have responsibility for some
aspect of invasive species management. States also have a significant

management role, but the extent of their involvement varies considerably. 1
A concept basic to invasiveness is that these species have been introduced
into an environment in which they did not evolve; thus, they usually have no
natural enemies to limit their spread.

USDA, and primarily its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
has the largest federal role. In fiscal year 2000, USDA spent about $556
million on a wide range of invasive species- related activities- almost 90
percent of the total federal funding directed toward these activities.
Interior and Defense accounted for another 5 percent and 2 percent,
respectively. Federal invasive species activities include prevention
(efforts to keep invasive species from entering the country), detection
(surveillance for invasive species), and control (measures to eradicate or
limit the spread of invasive species). 2

An important part of these activities is rapid response- a response
conducted in time to eradicate or contain a potentially damaging invasive
species. Invasive species can be new to the United States or to an ecosystem
(a community of organisms and their environment) within the United States.
The time required for rapid response varies depending on the species and its
habitat. A response within days may be needed to eradicate many newly
detected invasive species that reproduce and spread rapidly; however, months
or even years may be sufficient for some weeds

and pests that take a long time to proliferate. Since time, however, is
often of the essence, effective detection systems are integral to rapid
response. Without early detection, a rapid response may be infeasible.
Efforts to eradicate or control invasive species may involve, among other
things, pesticides, handpicking, and biological controls (that is, the
introduction of a natural enemy, predator, parasite, or disease, often from
the pest?s native range). Because invasive species do not respect
jurisdictional boundaries,

rapid response often requires cooperation among federal, state, and local
government agencies, private land managers/ owners, and tribal governments.

In February 1999, invasive species received heightened attention with the
issuance of Executive Order 13112. The order was intended to help prevent
the introduction of invasive species, control their spread, and minimize
their impact on the U. S. economy, the environment, and human health. The

order established a National Invasive Species Council, comprising the heads
of eight federal departments and agencies, 3 to provide national leadership
and coordination in federal invasive species activities.

2 Other major activities include monitoring; restoration; research and
development; education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities;
and information management. 3 The U. S. Agency for International Development
and the Department of Health and Human Services joined the Council in
February 2001, according to Council staff.

The Council was charged with issuing a National Invasive Species Management
Plan. Among other things, the plan was to (1) recommend performance-
oriented goals and objectives, (2) recommend measures to minimize the risk
of new introductions of invasive species, and (3) review existing and
prospective authorities for preventing the introduction and spread of
invasive species. The plan, issued January 18, 2001, contained 57
recommendations, including 3 aimed at improving the nation?s ability to
respond rapidly to invasive species.

Concerned about the growing threat of invasive species, you asked us to
conduct two reviews. Our first report- Invasive Species: Federal and
Selected State Funding to Address Harmful, Nonnative Species (GAO/ RCED- 00-
219, Aug. 24, 2000)- addressed federal and selected state

funding for eight activities relating to invasive species. This report
responds to your request that we review federal efforts to provide rapid
response to invasive species. Specifically, we examined the extent to which
the federal government rapidly responds to new invasive species, the
obstacles that impede rapid response, and how rapid response can be
improved.

Among the steps taken as part of our review, we collected funding data 4 on
the rapid responses of federal agencies with invasive species
responsibilities, including those within the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, and the Interior. Since many agency officials were uncertain

about what activities should be considered rapid response and their agencies
did not routinely track rapid response funding, their estimates of rapid
response funding may be somewhat over- or understated. At the same time,
however, the officials believe that their estimates are a fairly accurate
representation of their rapid response activities. Thus, any unreported

amounts should not significantly affect the relative magnitude of agency
funding described in this report. Our scope and methodology is more fully
discussed in appendix I.

Results in Brief Federal rapid response to invasive species varies: species
that threaten agricultural crops or livestock are far more likely to elicit
a rapid response than those primarily affecting forestry or other natural
areas, including rangelands and aquatic areas. USDA?s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection

4 We collected data on obligations, which are also referred to as ?funding?
in this report.

Service provided the preponderance of rapid response funding- about $126
million of the estimated $149 million in federal rapid response funding in
fiscal year 2000. About 90 percent of this funding was for invasive species
(such as citrus canker) that primarily threaten agricultural crops or
livestock. Interior officials estimated that they spent about $1. 4 million
on rapid response activities directed at invasive species (such as giant
salvinia) whose primary threat was to natural areas. USDA and Interior

officials, among others, said there are many unmet rapid response needs,
particularly in natural areas. For example, response to invasive weeds in
many national parks is inadequate, according to National Park Service
officials. The Park Service has four teams that conduct rapid response. The
teams cover 38 parks, even though over 150 additional parks that are

seriously infested with invasive weeds have requested teams. When rapid
response does not occur, the consequences can be costly. Some researchers,
for example, believe that the ruffe (a Eurasian fish introduced

into North America through ballast water) could have been contained in the
early1990s shortly after it was first detected. However, disagreement on
whether to use chemical controls hampered the rapid response and the ruffe
has spread. Major damage to commercial fisheries could occur if, as
expected, the ruffe reaches the warmer waters of the lower Great Lakes.

A major obstacle to rapid response is the lack of a national system to
address invasive species. Such a system could provide (1) integrated
planning to encourage partnerships, coordinate funding, and develop response
priorities; (2) technical assistance and other resources; and (3) guidance
on effective response measures. Without such a system, obstacles to rapid
response are less likely to be addressed and invasive species will continue
to fall through the cracks. Obstacles to rapid response include the

need for additional detection systems to identify new species; improved
partnerships among federal, state, and local agencies; and enhanced
technologies to eradicate invasive species. A national system would also
help ensure that invasive species affecting natural areas receive a level of
attention commensurate with their risks. Currently, federal rapid response

depends largely on whether invasive species are central to an agency?s
mission. For example, safeguarding agriculture from invasive species is an
integral part of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service?s mission.
In an emergency, the Service also has access to funds transferred from the

government- owned and -operated Commodity Credit Corporation, which resides
within USDA. On the other hand, invasive species are not specifically
identified in the missions of other agencies, such as those in Interior,
that have responsibilities for natural areas. These agencies have

many priorities that compete for scarce resources.

The Invasive Species Council?s Management Plan has several recommendations
for improving rapid response, including developing a program of coordinated
rapid response and pursuing increases in discretionary spending to support
the program. We believe a concerted

effort to improve rapid response is clearly needed, and if properly
implemented, the Council?s recommendations will go a long way toward
developing a national system to address this pressing need. However, to
develop a sound basis for determining future resource needs, the Council
must first provide clarity on several fundamental issues. To this end, we
are

recommending that the Council, among other things, develop criteria for what
constitutes a rapid response and work with its member agencies to develop
information on current federal rapid response funding. In providing comments
on a draft of this report, 11 agencies within the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior (the Council cochairs) and the
Council staff generally agreed with the substance of the report and with our
recommendations. A major theme running throughout their comments was the
impact of inadequate resources on the ability of

agencies to rapidly respond to new infestations. Background Invasive Species
Pose a Scientists, industry officials, and land managers are recognizing
that Serious Threat to the

invasive species are one of the most serious, yet least appreciated, Economy
and the

environmental threats of the 21st century. Expanding global trade and
Environment

travel with countries such as Russia, China, and South Africa have resulted
in rapid increases in the rate of introduction and number of newly
established invasive species in the United States. While most of the plants
and animals that make their way here are benign or even beneficial (for
example, cattle, wheat, and tulips are all non- native species), the small
proportion that become highly invasive have had huge economic and biological
impacts. Damages resulting from invasive species may include power outages;
loss of farmland property values; increased operating costs; and loss of
sport, game, or endangered species. While the damages caused by these
species

have been considerable, their precise economic impacts- particularly those
that do not damage agriculture, industry, or human health- are not well
documented.

However, a recent study by Cornell University scientists 5 estimated the
total annual economic losses and associated control costs to be about $137
billion a year- more than double the annual economic damage caused by all
natural disasters in the United States.

Because invasive species encompass plants, animals, and microbes, the
problems they cause vary. The following examples demonstrate some of their
impacts:

 On rangelands, leafy spurge, an invasive plant from Eurasia, crowds out
desirable and nutritious forage, reduces land values, and degrades wildlife
habitat. Annual damages from this weed are estimated to exceed $100 million
in the Great Plains states.

 In U. S. forests, 19 of the 70 major insect pests are invasive species.
Also, over the past several years, over 6,700 trees were destroyed in New
York and Chicago after the discovery of the Asian long- horned beetle, an
insect that most likely arrived in packing material or wood from China.
According to USDA?s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), if this beetle and
other wood- boring pests become fully established in the United

States, they could damage industries that generate combined annual revenues
of $138 billion.

 In freshwater habitats, aquatic invasive species, such as the zebra
mussel, clog lakes and waterways and adversely affect fisheries, public
water supplies, irrigation, water treatment systems, and recreational
activities. Great Lakes water users spend tens of millions of dollars
annually to control zebra mussels.

 In saltwater habitats, the European green crab has been associated with
the demise of the soft- shell clam industry in New England. The green crab
has recently been introduced to the West Coast where there is serious
concern that it could affect shellfish aquaculture and Dungeness

crab populations. In 1996, the most recent estimate, researchers calculated
that the potential economic damage to shellfish production there could be as
high as $44 million a year.

 A threat to humans and animals, the West Nile virus, commonly found in
Africa, West Asia, and the Middle East, is an invasive virus now present in
12 eastern states and the District of Columbia. Birds are the natural hosts
for this microbe, which mosquitoes transmit from infected birds to humans
and other animals.

5 David Pimentel, et al. ?Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous
Species in the United States,? Bioscience, Jan. 2000.

Figure 1: Leafy Spurge, Asian Long- Horned Beetle, Zebra Mussels, and Green
Crab

Leafy spurge, an invasive plant from Eurasia, crowds out desirable and
nutritious forage, reduces land values, and degrades wildlife habitat.

Before After Asian long- horned beetle infestations in New York and Chicago
have resulted in the destruction of thousands of trees in residential areas.

Zebra mussels clogging a pipe. The European green crab, an invasive predator
that feeds voraciously on shellfish, may seriously affect shellfish
aquaculture and Dungeness crab populations on the West Coast.

Source: Leafy spurge, ARS Photo Library; Asian long- horned beetle and
resulting damage, APHIS; zebra mussels, Craig Czarnecki, Michigan Sea Grant;
green crab, Paul G. Olin, University of California Sea Grant Program.

While the ecological impacts of invasive species can be devastating, they
are hard to quantify. However, many scientists believe that invasive species
are a significant threat to biodiversity- second only to habitat loss and
degradation. Further, they are a major or contributing cause of declines for
almost half the endangered species in the United States. 6

Invasive Species Council On February 3, 1999, President Clinton issued
Executive Order 13112 on Established to Provide

invasive species. Among other things, the order requires federal agencies to
Leadership and

(1) prevent the introduction of invasive species and (2) detect, respond
rapidly to, and control them in a cost- effective, environmentally sound
Coordination

manner. 7 The order established a National Invasive Species Council- chaired
by the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce and the Interior- with members
including the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, and Transportation,
and the Environmental Protection Agency. The order directs the Council to
provide national leadership on invasive species and to see that federal
agency efforts are coordinated and effective. The Secretary of the Interior

was also directed to form an advisory committee (the Invasive Species
Advisory Committee) to provide information and advice to the Council. The
order emphasizes the need for federal and state cooperation, as the states
have a key role in managing invasive species within their borders. For
example, in fiscal year 2000, Florida- which has a strong invasive species
program- spent over $127 million on invasive species activities. States also
retain general control over state lands and determine how they will address
invasive species on their lands. The order also states that the Council
shall develop recommendations for international cooperation. An

effort already underway before the Council was established is the joint U.
S./ Canadian effort to combat the sea lamprey- an eel- like ocean fish that
fastens onto other fish and eats until sated. Since 1956, the two 6 William
Gregg and Randy Westbrooks, ?Super Invaders Spreading Fast,? Trio- The
Newsletter of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation,
Winter 2000- 2001.

7 A full description of the executive order can be found at http:// www.
invasivespecies. gov/ laws/ main. shtml.

governments have worked jointly through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
to control the spread of this invasive aquatic, which has had a detrimental
impact on the Great Lakes fishery. The Council was also directed to prepare
a National Invasive Species Management Plan. The plan, issued in January
2001, provides a general blueprint for dealing with invasive species and
contains 57 recommendations- 3 of which focus on rapid response.

Federal Agency Funding The Council?s member agencies obligated about $631.5
million in fiscal year

and Authorities Vary 2000 on invasive species- related activities; USDA
provided almost 90 percent of this amount. USDA?s and particularly APHIS?
programs are

significant in their breadth and scope. For example, APHIS has jurisdiction
over plant pests, certain biological control organisms, the import and
export of plant species, and animals and animal diseases considered harmful
or a threat to livestock or poultry health. In addition, the Forest Service,
which manages about 191 million acres of federal land, has authority for
forest and rangeland pest and plant control.

Interior provided the second largest amount of federal invasive species
funding, $31.1 million in fiscal year 2000, or 5 percent of the federal
invasive species funding. Interior agencies- such as the Fish and Wildlife

Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Bureau of
Reclamation- are involved in regulating the import of animals found
injurious under the Lacey Act, enforcing laws and regulations governing the
import and export of wildlife into the United States, implementing actions
to address aquatic invasive species, and managing invasive species

on various publicly owned lands. Defense provided the third largest amount
of funding, about 2 percent. As the fifth largest federal land manager,
Defense is responsible for controlling invasive species infestations on its
installations and uses native plants to restore Defense lands. In addition,
the Army Corps of Engineers spends

several million dollars annually for controlling invasive aquatic plants and
zebra mussels and for supporting research to develop control technologies
for managing these invasive species.

All told, at least 20 different federal agencies share responsibility and
authority over some facet of invasive species management. In addition,
several interagency groups help coordinate activities in this area.
Executive Order 13112 directs the Council to work with the:

 Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, which coordinates activities relating
to aquatic invasive species;

 Federal Interagency Committee on the Management of Noxious and Exotic
Weeds, which coordinates weed management efforts primarily on federal lands;
and

 Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and
Technology Council, which coordinates research efforts.

Invasive species management covers such activities as prevention, detection,
control, restoration, research and development, information management, and
public education. Prevention- the exclusion of invasive species from the
country or from specified regions or ecosystems- is the first line of
defense. When this fails, successful management often hinges

on early detection and rapid response to an invasion. Eradication or
containment of invasive species is most efficient, and sometimes only
possible, at an invasion?s earliest stages. Once an area becomes altered,
control activities, which may be costly, are needed to restore the habitat.
Federal Rapid

Invasive species that threaten agricultural crops or livestock are far more
likely to elicit a rapid response than those affecting mainly natural areas.
8 Response to Invasive As shown in table 1, APHIS provided most federal
rapid response Species That Threaten

funding- an estimated $125.8 million out of a total $148. 7 million reported
Natural Areas Has

for fiscal year 2000. About 90 percent of APHIS? funding was directed at
Been Minimal invasive species that primarily threaten agricultural crops or
livestock; another 9 percent was spent on the Asian long- horned beetle,
which primarily threatens forestry. Interior, second among federal
departments in total funding for invasive species, estimated that its
agencies provided

about $1. 4 million for rapid response activities. Its rapid responses were
directed at species that threaten natural areas. Many rapid response needs
are not being met, according to agency officials and others, particularly
for invasive species that threaten natural areas. When these needs are not
met, the consequences- to the economy and the environment- can be costly.

8 Some invasive species harm more than one type of resource. For example,
noxious weeds that invade rangelands affect both agricultural grazing and
the biodiversity of natural areas. We have placed invasive species in their
category of primary or most immediate impact.

Table 1: Estimated Federal Obligations for Rapid Responses to Invasive
Species

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year 2000 obligations Agricultural Forestry crops and

and other Department/ agency

livestock natural areas Total a Examples of invasive species addressed

Department of Agriculture

Animal & Plant Health $113.7 $12. 1 $125.8 Citrus canker, glassy- winged
sharpshooter, Mediterranean Inspection Service fruit fly, Asian long- horned
beetle, plum pox virus. Agricultural Research 4.5 0. 7 5.3 Glassy- winged
sharpshooter, brown citrus aphid, citrus Service psylla, papaya mealybug,
pink hibiscus mealybug.

Forest Service 16. 1 16. 1 European gypsy moth, Asian long- horned beetle,
hemlock woolly adelgid, Port- Orford- cedar disease, Miconia.

Agriculture subtotal $118.2 $28. 9 $147.1 Department of the Interior

Fish & Wildlife Service $0. 4 $0. 4 Caulerpa taxifolia, Asian swamp eel,
zebra mussel, brown (aquatic species) tree snake, round goby.

Bureau of Indian Affairs 0. 2 0.2 Cogongrass, purple loosestrife, Russian
knapweed. Bureau of Land

0. 6 0.6 Giant salvinia, yellow starthistle, purple loosestrife, Dyers
Management woad, squarrose knapweed. Geological Survey 0. 1 0.1 Asian swamp
eel; giant salvinia; garlic mustard; round goby; black, silver, and bighead
carp. Bureau of Reclamation 0. 1 0.1 Giant salvinia.

Interior subtotal $1. 4 $1. 4 Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and $0. 1 $0. 1 Caulerpa taxifolia.

Atmospheric Administration

Commerce subtotal $0. 1 $0. 1 Federal Total $118.2 $30. 4 $148.7

Notes: 1. The reported obligations may be under- or overestimated because
many agency officials do not routinely track rapid response obligations and
were uncertain as to which obligations to include. For example, the
distinction between control and rapid response activities is sometimes
ambiguous. However, to the extent possible, agencies identified those
activities that corresponded to the rapid response definition that we
provided. We did not independently verify the accuracy of the agencies?
data. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

2. For Agriculture?s APHIS and ARS and Interior?s Fish and Wildlife Service
and Bureau of Land Management, invasive species are listed by the amount
obligated, from largest to smallest. The

information provided by Agriculture?s Forest Service and Interior?s Bureau
of Indian Affairs and U. S. Geological Survey did not allow for such
ordering. See app. II for a more complete list. a Several other agencies
performed rapid response, but did not provide funding estimates. Source:
GAO?s analysis of agencies? data.

APHIS Does Most Rapid Invasive species that threaten crops or livestock are
the most likely to be

Response, Focusing on quickly addressed since APHIS, which is responsible
for protecting Species That Threaten

agriculture from invasive species, does the lion?s share of federal rapid
Crops or Livestock

response. In fiscal year 2000, APHIS estimated that it spent $125.8 million
for rapid response- about 85 percent of the estimated $148. 7 million
federal agencies spent on this activity. About $113.7 million of APHIS?
funding went toward species that primarily threaten crops or livestock. All
told, total federal rapid response funding for species that primarily affect
agriculture was reported to be about $118 million.

Most of APHIS? rapid response funding was spent on relatively few invasive
species. APHIS? biggest expenditure, almost $81 million, was for citrus
canker, a highly contagious bacterial disease that affects Florida?s citrus
crops. This effort entailed tree removal, destruction, and replacement.
Another $15 million went toward combating the glassy- winged sharpshooter,
an insect that transmits Pierce?s disease, a disease of grapevines that
threatens California?s grape and wine industry.

While APHIS has lead responsibility for responding to invasive species that
threaten agriculture, ARS funds research to support these activities. In
fiscal year 2000, ARS spent $4. 5 million on projects that involved, among
other things, developing control methods and identifying species. 9 For
example, it spent $900,000 on research to support APHIS? response to the
glassy- winged sharpshooter.

Invasive Species That As shown in table 1, reported federal funding for
invasive species that

Threaten Natural Areas threaten forestry and other natural areas was about
$30 million, compared Receive Considerably Less to the $118 million spent on
agriculturally related invasive species. A

Funding Than Those That further breakdown of the $30 million shows that 80
percent of this amount

was spent on two species that threaten forestry and related industries- the
Threaten Crops or Livestock Asian long- horned beetle and the European gypsy
moth. In total, federal 9 ARS spent another $0. 7 million on research to
support rapid response efforts toward species that threatened forestry and
other natural areas.

rapid response funding for infestations affecting natural areas other than
forests (for example, rangelands and aquatic areas) was estimated at $2.9
million for this period. The Forest Service was the chief contributor to
efforts to protect forests (federal and nonfederal) from invasive species,
obligating an estimated $15.1 million 10 for rapid response and associated
research for these activities. Its rapid responses included about $1.8
million for the Asian long- horned beetle and about $10.4 million for the
European gypsy moth- an insect that has defoliated, and sometimes killed,
hardwood trees in eastern forests. In addition, APHIS spent $11.8 million
(about 9 percent of its rapid response funding) on species that primarily
threatened forests.

Almost all of this funding- about $11.5 million- was spent on efforts to
eradicate the Asian long- horned beetle. ARS spent $660,000 on research to
support rapid response to this beetle. Finally, rapid response funding for
invasive species affecting natural areas other than forestry, such as
rangelands or aquatic areas, was about $2. 9 million. Interior estimated
that it spent about $1.4 million for rapid response aimed at these
activities. The Interior agencies that funded rapid

response activities included the:

 Bureau of Land Management, which funded efforts directed at invasive
plants that affect grazing, wildlife, and recreation on rangelands;

 Fish and Wildlife Service, which funded efforts directed at aquatic
invasive species, such as Caulerpa taxifolia, an invasive aquatic plant that
threatens native species and fishing in coastal waters, and the round goby,
a Eurasian fish that has displaced native fish in parts of the Great Lakes;

 Bureau of Indian Affairs, which funded efforts directed at invasive plants
on lands under its jurisdiction;

 Bureau of Reclamation, which funded efforts against giant salvinia, an
aquatic plant from South America that degrades water quality, kills fish,
and chokes out other plants; and

 U. S. Geological Survey, which funded research supporting rapid response
directed at various species, such as the Asian swamp eel, a potential threat
to native fish, frogs, and aquatic invertebrates in the Florida Everglades.

10 The Forest Service also obligated almost $1 million for invasive plants
affecting rangelands.

Figure 2: Two Serious Threats to Aquatic Areas: Caulerpa Taxifolia and Asian
Swamp Eel

Sources: Caulerpa taxifolia, Rachel Woodfield, Merkel and Associates, Inc.;
Asian swamp eel, U. S. Geological Survey.

The remaining funding for natural area infestations came from the Forest
Service (for invasive plants on rangelands), APHIS (for noxious weeds in an
Idaho wilderness area and for giant salvinia), ARS (for giant salvinia and
three other species), and Commerce?s National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, which spent $100,000 to support a rapid response to Caulerpa
taxifolia.

In interpreting these funding estimates, it should be noted that many agency
officials were uncertain as to which activities should be included in rapid
response. For example, invasive species, such as leafy spurge, may exist in
one area for a long time (where they are subject to control

activities) and then appear in a new area where rapid response is required
to eradicate them or prevent their spread. For our report, to the extent
possible, agencies identified those activities that corresponded to the
rapid

response definition that we provided. In addition, agencies did not
routinely track funding for these activities. 11 The officials, however,
believe that their estimates are a fairly accurate representation of their
rapid responses. Some agencies could not provide estimates of their rapid
response funding. For example, Defense officials said that while the

Department probably does minimal rapid response, it does not track these
responses and could not estimate the associated funding. The National Park
Service; 12 the Fish and Wildlife Service division that manages National

Wildlife Refuges; and USDA?s Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service also said they perform or support some rapid response.
While these agencies could not estimate their rapid response funding,

officials generally stated that it was minimal. Thus, while agency estimates
may be somewhat over- or understated, any unreported amounts should not
significantly affect the relative magnitude of funding described in this
report. (See app. 1 for further discussion of agencies? funding estimates.)

Many Rapid Response Officials from USDA, Interior, Commerce, and Defense
have reported that Needs Have Not Been Met,

many rapid response needs have not been and are not being adequately With
Costly Consequences met. Many unmet needs stem from inadequate resources or
attention to the problem. In other instances, rapid response may not have
occurred

because the infestation was not detected early on, technologies were not
available to combat the invasive species, or there was insufficient
understanding about the risk of the threat. The following examples
demonstrate some of these unmet rapid response needs:

 According to Park Service officials, rapid response to invasive weeds in
many national parks is inadequate. The Service has 4 invasive plant 11 To
facilitate consistency, we provided a working definition of rapid response
as ?a

response carried out in time to contain or eliminate a potentially damaging
invasive species- the actual time required for rapid response varies
depending on the species.? 12 In commenting on a draft of this report, the
Park Service said that it obligated an estimated $1. 2 million for the 4
teams that conduct control and rapid response.

teams that, among other things, conduct rapid response in 38 parks. However,
over 150 additional parks with serious weed infestations have requested
coverage by invasive plant teams.

 A Fish and Wildlife Service official said there is minimal rapid response
on its over 500 national wildlife refuges, although invasive species are
estimated to affect over a third of the refuge lands in the continental
United States. Moreover, a recent National Audubon Society study 13 assessed
10 wildlife refuges, described as ?in crisis,? and found that invasive
species were damaging biological values in 4 of them. The

Service estimates that over $120 million a year is needed to combat invasive
species on wildlife refuges.

 A USDA inventory of the nations? private rangelands concluded that at
least 69 million acres (about 17 percent) were adversely affected by
invasive plants, including unwanted brush. 14  APHIS? fiscal year 2001
budget request for $8.8 million for an invasive species program to protect
agricultural and nonagricultural resources was not funded. The agency also
requested a $1. 7 million increase (from $424,000 to $2. 1 million) for a
noxious weed program that was viewed as an initial step toward a national
rapid response system for invasive plants. The program received an increase
of about $700,000. When newly detected invasive species are not addressed in
time, the results can be greater federal and state expenditures to control
the infestation. In agriculture, invasive species, such as the Mediterranean
fruit fly and citrus canker, are significant pests in terms of control
costs. Examples of costly control programs for invasive species that affect

natural areas also abound. Commonly cited programs include those aimed at
reducing populations of leafy spurge, sea lampreys, hydrilla, zebra mussels,
purple loosestrife, and brown tree snakes.

The response to the ruffe, a perch- like Eurasian fish, illustrates the
difficulties in mounting rapid response efforts and the economic
consequences of not doing so. The ruffe invaded North America in the 1980s
through ballast water and soon colonized bays and tributaries along parts of
Lake Superior. A rapid response among federal, state, Canadian, and other
entities to contain the ruffe foundered because of a dispute over 13 Refuges
in Crisis, National Audubon Society, Feb. 2001.

14 America?s Private Land: A Geography of Hope, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Dec. 1996.

whether to use chemical controls. Although subsequent control efforts have
slowed the ruffe?s spread, it is expected to reach the warmer waters of the
lower Great Lakes fisheries where its economic consequences may be
devastating. For example, the Ohio Great Lakes fishery alone is worth

about $600 million a year.

Figure 3: Ruffe, an Aggressive Eurasian Fish

Source: Michigan Sea Grant Archives.

Several federal land managers considered the lack of adequate funding and
resources to manage noxious weeds on federal agencies? land as shortsighted,
a ?penny wise, pound foolish? approach. Although 90 percent of the 350
million acres of federal western land are not yet significantly infested,
invasive weeds increase on average about 14 percent a year. When

a rangeland infestation becomes severe, the costs of weed control often
exceed the land?s market value. In 1991, for instance, a 3,200 acre ranch in
North Dakota sold at 60 percent below market value because it was

infested with leafy spurge. Even when land values deteriorate, weed

control is still needed to keep weeds from spreading to nearby areas. The
need to deal with invasive species was succinctly summarized by a Bureau of
Land Management official, who said ?you can pay now or later, but you will
eventually pay sometime.? Lack of a National A major obstacle to rapid
response is that there is no national system that

System Is a Major addresses all types of invasive species infestations-
those affecting aquatic

areas, rangelands, and forests as well as crops and livestock. Without such
Obstacle to Rapid a system, problems that have hampered past rapid response
efforts are less Response likely to be resolved. Further, a national system
would help assure that invasive species that affect natural areas receive a
level of attention

commensurate with their risks. APHIS is the only federal agency with a
systematic rapid response process. 15 However, its coverage has primarily
been limited to pests affecting crops and livestock. Other agencies with
responsibilities for

natural areas, such as those in Interior, face competing demands for their
resources and often respond to infestations in an ad hoc manner. National
System Is Needed

The United States lacks a comprehensive national system for rapidly to
Address Problems That

responding to newly detected invasive species. Among other things, such a
Have Stymied Past Rapid

system could provide (1) integrated planning to encourage partnerships,
Response Efforts

coordinate funding, and develop response priorities; (2) technical
assistance and other resources; and (3) guidance on effective response
measures.

Without a national system, recurring problems are less likely to be
uniformly addressed. Several problems that we identified- the need for more
detection systems; better mechanisms for developing federal, state, and
local government partnerships; and improved technologies to eradicate and
contain invasive species- are described below.

15 We did not assess APHIS? implementation of its rapid response system.
However, a review of APHIS? system, Safeguarding American Plant Resources: A
Stakeholder Review of the APHIS- PPQ Safeguarding System, July 1, 1999,
conducted by the National Plant Board (an organization of state plant
regulatory agencies) included several recommendations for improving APHIS?
response activities.

Additional Detection Systems Rapid response has been significantly hindered
by the lack of early Are Needed for Earlier

detection systems to identify infestations when they are small and most
Identification of New easily addressed. Without early detection, years may
pass before an Infestations

invasive species is discovered or recognized as harmful. Detection of new
infestations falls short in several areas. First, surveillance and
monitoring for new invasive species are inadequate. Visual surveys, traps,
physical inspection, and water sampling can locate infestations so that they
can be mapped and responded to. However, many species are not easily
detected because they are microscopic, aquatic, or difficult to recognize as
new or invasive. Surveillance is particularly important near high- risk
areas (e. g., major shipping ports, airports, and

warehouses) where species are most likely to be introduced. For example,
some USDA officials believe that the Asian long- horned beetle was in the
United States up to 10 years before it was discovered in New York in 1996.
As of May 2001, this infestation (the first of five in New York) has
resulted in the destruction of over 2,500 trees. Late detection and
insufficient surveying of early infestations have made eradication efforts
more difficult. Whether the beetle can be totally eradicated is still
uncertain. The Caulerpa taxifolia, or ?killer algae? infestation near San

Diego, is another example of a belated detection. Experts believe that this
aggressive aquatic plant was likely introduced about 4 years before it was
officially reported in June 2000. It is expected to have a devastating
economic impact on California coastal communities and significant ecological
consequences if it becomes permanently established and spreads.

Surveillance efforts for new infestations vary among agencies, with APHIS
having the most extensive federal system. APHIS systematically monitors for
several agricultural pests, including gypsy moths, fruit flies, and cotton

boll weevils. 16 In other agencies, surveillance is more limited. For
example, Park Service officials said that their four invasive plant teams
systematically survey for invasive plants; however, the teams cover only
about one- tenth of the parks. Officials from the Fish and Wildlife Service
and Bureau of Land Management said they periodically surveyed only a

small percentage of their lands for new infestations. (In commenting on our
draft report, the Bureau noted that it has an inventory program that
monitors and detects weed infestations.) An official from Commerce?s

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that few marine or
estuarine areas have baseline monitoring data. Second, increased knowledge
is needed about the biology of invasive species to detect and identify new
species and assess their potential threats. For example, information on
insects? lifecycles can help detect

pests at various stages of their development. Similarly, risk assessments of
potentially invasive species are needed to prioritize response actions and
develop contingency plans. Agencies need to know, for example, whether

the species was invasive in other areas, what conditions (e. g., native
range, rate of population growth, ability to disperse within a new area) are
conducive to its invasiveness, and whether it is a threat to native species.
17 APHIS is working with several scientific organizations (e. g., the Weed
Science Society of America) to develop a list of the most potentially
serious invasive plant pests for use in targeting detection efforts and
developing contingency plans. Stronger Federal, State, and

Since invasive species ignore boundaries, rapid response often involves
Local Partnerships Can Help coordination among multiple government agencies.
The complex interplay Address Common Problems

among federal, state, and local agencies adds to the potential for
inefficiencies in these efforts. In the past, issues concerning leadership,
funding, and other organizational responsibilities have hampered such
efforts.

16 ?Safeguarding American Plant Resources: A Stakeholder Review of the
APHIS- PPQ Safeguarding System,? found problems with APHIS? detection
efforts and made several recommendations to address them. 17 Even changes
within an ecosystem can cause a previously benign non- native species to
become invasive. For example, a ficus tree in Florida, harmless for decades,
became invasive when its pollinator wasp was introduced.

The discovery of giant salvinia in the Lower Colorado River in 1999
illustrates some of the pitfalls of rapid response involving multiple
jurisdictions. The infestation, found on a river bordering Arizona and

California, affected state, tribal, private, and federally managed land.
Interior agencies- the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and
Bureau of Land Management- Arizona and California state agencies,

local water districts, and other affected parties quickly formed a task
force to coordinate action. According to an Interior representative, the
goal of rapid response evaporated in the face of funding obstacles and
disagreements over who should be the lead agency and appropriate control

strategies. Had immediate action been taken, eradication of this infestation
would have been possible, according to a science advisory panel and
California officials.

Disagreements over funding reportedly contributed to delays in responding to
the Asian long- horned beetle. Although the beetle was first reported in New
York in August 1996, the removal of the first several hundred infested trees
was not completed until June 1997, nearly a year later. New York State
officials said that their response was delayed because the federal and state
officials initially involved in the effort lacked the authority to make
funding commitments. Additional delays occurred because of state and local
concerns regarding the sufficiency of federal funding available for tree

removal and restoration costs. On the other hand, officials cited several
response efforts that exemplified effective partnerships, one being the
response to Caulerpa taxifolia. 18 Federal and state participants said the
response was effective largely because of the (1) early involvement of a
public- private action team that

recognized the urgent need for rapid response and (2) active involvement of
several key players, including the consulting firm that discovered and
treated the infestation, the regional water quality control board, and the
state agriculture department. The regional water board was instrumental in
obtaining state emergency cleanup and abatement funding, enabling

eradication efforts to quickly begin. Surveying began a day after the
infestation was identified; within 2 weeks, an action team was formed and
initiated response measures. Initial treatment was completed in 3 months.

18 Other efforts include the (1) Maui Invasive Species Committee, a
partnership of federal, state, and county agencies, and (2) National Park
Service?s Exotic Plant Management Teams. Even exemplary responses, however,
do not necessarily result in the eradication of an infestation.

Periodic monitoring and treatment are ongoing, but it will take years to
know whether complete eradication can be achieved.

Executive Order 13112 emphasizes the need for federal agencies to cooperate
with states. Many state officials are concerned about what role they will
play in a national rapid response system and have differing views on what
their roles should be. For example, in commenting on recommendations in the
draft invasive species management plan, some states emphasized the need to
respect the sovereignty of state, local, and tribal authorities,
particularly in managing fish and wildlife within their borders. Others
emphasized the importance of a strong national effort to address invasive
species given their limited ability to address interstate problems. The
rapid response capabilities of states also vary. For example, a 1993 Office
of Technology Assessment study reported that most state

agencies rated their invasive species implementation and enforcement
resources as ?less? or ?much less? than adequate. 19 Finally, some states,
such as Minnesota and Hawaii, have substantial legal structures in place,
while others have barely addressed the issue.

To develop partnerships in areas relating to agriculture, APHIS has
established memorandums of understanding with state departments of
agriculture in all 50 states. These agreements define, among other things,
federal and state rapid response duties.

Enhanced Technologies and An effective rapid response to invasive species
requires having sufficient Additional Research Are Needed information on and
access to environmentally sound, cost- effective control to Facilitate Rapid
Response

methods. 20 Many responses fail or are only partially successful because
they lack information on how best to control the species or because control
methods are unavailable or politically infeasible to use.

19 Harmful Non- Indigenous Species in the United States, Office of
Technology Assessment, OTA- F- 565, Sept. 1993. 20 Control methods include
cultural practices (e. g., crop rotation, revegetation), physical restraints
(e. g., electrical barriers), removal (e. g., hand removal, burning), use of
chemical or biopesticides, biological control (e. g., release of predator/
herbivore organisms), and interference with reproduction (e. g., release of
sterile males).

Agencies? inability to fund accelerated research on emerging threats has
limited the availability of effective control methods. For example,
according to Forest Service scientists, research to develop control methods
and basic knowledge about sudden oak death, a new destructive invasive
forest disease in California, was delayed by the time- consuming process
used to obtain funding. The scientists noted that although $3. 5 million was
needed to do the research, it took 7 months, from late June 2000 until late
January 2001, for the Forest Service to obtain about one- third ($ 1.1
million) of the requested amount from Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). 21
Consequently, the Forest Service was unable to develop basic knowledge about
this little known disease as quickly as it would have had the research

been fully funded immediately. Furthermore, the Service estimated that it
needed an additional $875, 000 in fiscal year 2001 for immediate research
and development in connection with other emerging invasive threats, such as
the exotic spruce aphid which has caused severe damage to forests in the
Southwest.

Likewise, a Geological Survey scientist said that his agency does little
rapid research relating to newly detected species because funding is not
readily available. He said that research managers must often seek resources
from

other agencies if they want to initiate research and surveys to support
rapid response. However, according to this scientist, whether the funding
comes from within the Survey or without, the amount of time spent in
obtaining it frequently makes rapid response infeasible.

For certain invasive species, particularly those affecting aquatic areas,
environmentally sound control methods are not available. According to a
Commerce official, control methods in aquatic areas are much less developed
than those in terrestrial settings because (1) awareness of the need for
aquatic control methods is relatively recent and (2) industry has little
incentive to develop control methods for aquatic areas. Unlike

controls used in terrestrial settings, those developed for aquatic areas
have few commercial applications; thus, the return on investment tends to be
low. This official added that no feasible methods currently exist for

21 CCC, located within USDA, is the government?s financing arm for an array
of domestic and international agriculture programs. According to a Forest
Service official, at the time the CCC funds were made available, there was
an understanding between the Forest Service and the Deputy Secretary of
Agriculture that the Service would provide $1 million for this effort. In
March 2001, the Forest Service provided $500, 000, which could be used for
surveys and technology development, but not for basic research. As of July
2001, the remaining $500, 000 had not been provided.

controlling some invasive species, such as the spotted jellyfish, which was
detected in the Gulf of Mexico in 2000. In other instances, effective
chemical pesticides may be available, but have not been registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for use in aquatic
settings. 22 A number of aquatic species- including the zebra mussel, round
goby, and ruffe- continue to spread, in part because of the lack of
environmentally sound control methods. Moreover, the number of pesticides
available for invasive species control is declining. The Environmental
Protection Agency has ruled that methyl bromide- the major fumigant option
used in food and fiber quarantine pest treatments- is scheduled to be phased
out by 2005. Reassessment of

important pesticides, including malathion and guthion, may result in these
being phased out as well.

Finally, control methods are sometimes too costly. For example, in assessing
controls to prevent the Asian swamp eel 23 from moving into the Everglades
National Park, an interagency task force considered installing an electrical
barrier. Although this was regarded as the most effective control method
available, it was rejected due to its high cost. Instead the task force
chose to test physical removal, which cost less but, according to some task
force members, is likely to be less effective.

Rapid Response Depends A federal agency is more likely to respond rapidly to
infestations if Largely on the Centrality of

eradication or containment of invasive species is central to the agency?s
Invasive Species to an

core mission. An activity that is central to an agency?s mission is more
Agency?s Mission likely to have ready access to resources than one that must
compete with other important activities. While safeguarding agriculture from
invasive

pests is a primary mission of APHIS, safeguarding natural areas from
invasive species is not specified in other agencies? missions and competes
with other important activities for scarce resources. For the most part,

responses to such infestations (if they are responded to at all) occur on an
ad hoc basis. 22 The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(1947), as amended (7 U. S. C. 136) provides for federal control of
pesticide distribution, sale, and use. Pesticides used in the United States
generally must be registered by the Environmental Protection Agency. 23 The
Asian swamp eel is an aquatic invasive species that has been detected in
canals near the Everglades.

A Primary Mission of APHIS is to APHIS? mission statement specifically
identifies safeguarding agriculture Safeguard Agriculture From from invasive
pests; it has clear responsibilities and authorities to rapidly Invasive
Pests respond to infestations viewed as significant threats to that sector.
APHIS? activities in this area have strong constituency backing and receive
the majority of rapid response funding. APHIS has authority to take various
steps to deal with an emerging

invasion. It has the authority to seize, quarantine, treat, and/ or dispose
of plants and animals and their products to prevent the importation or
interstate movement of plant and animal diseases, pests, and noxious weeds
that are new to or not known to be widely prevalent or distributed within
and throughout the United States. In the event of a severe disease or pest
outbreak which threatens U. S. agricultural production, the Secretary

of Agriculture can declare an emergency that, among other things, allows the
Secretary to transfer CCC funds to APHIS to pay for eradication activities
and to indemnify producers. 24 USDA can also declare, under certain
circumstances, an ?extraordinary emergency,? triggering intrastate

authority to address situations in which measures being taken by a state are
inadequate to eradicate a plant pest or noxious weeds.

In conjunction with its core mission of safeguarding agriculture from
invasive species, APHIS has implemented a systematic process for responding
to newly detected plant pests. Its rapid response system includes guidance
and procedures, a process for evaluating the risks posed by new plant pests,
the ability to take some initial actions within 72 hours, and access to
resources and funds for emergency response. Its New Pest Advisory Group,
which includes experts within and outside of APHIS, is responsible for
evaluating new or reintroduced plant pests and

recommending response actions to a Deputy Administrator. To date, APHIS is
the only federal agency to implement such a systematic rapid response
process.

USDA?s response to karnal bunt illustrates its ability to react quickly to
invasive species. On March 7, 1996, ARS scientists confirmed that the spores
on a wheat sample from Arizona were karnal bunt, a fungal disease

of wheat first reported in India. Within 4 days, APHIS officials activated a
24 In an emergency that threatens agricultural production, the Secretary of
Agriculture has authority to transfer funds from other appropriations or
funds available to the agencies or corporations of USDA for the (1) arrest,
control, eradication, and prevention of the spread of a plant pest or
noxious weed and for related expenses and (2) arrest and eradication of
contagious or infectious diseases of animals or poultry. 7 U. S. C. 147b; 7
U. S. C. 7772.

rapid response team to begin quarantine and survey work. On March 21, 1996,
the Secretary of Agriculture announced that he had signed a Declaration of
Extraordinary Emergency, which allowed USDA to take a wide range of actions
to control and eradicate the fungus, including compensating farmers for
losses and imposing quarantines in Arizona and several counties in New
Mexico and Texas.

While the Plant Protection Act of 2000 expanded APHIS? authority to address
invasive species that threaten natural resources and the environment, APHIS
has done relatively little in this area. APHIS has recently revised its
mission statement to specifically identify safeguarding natural areas from
invasive species; however, APHIS officials said that the agency has been
reluctant to rapidly respond to natural area infestations, in large part
because it lacks the funding to do so. They noted that the

Congress has not responded favorably to APHIS? requests for additional funds
to expand its traditional mission. Some USDA and Interior officials said
that in the absence of strong constituency or industry backing, there has
been little impetus for the Congress to support an expanded USDA role.

Invasive Species That Threaten Invasive species that threaten natural areas
are generally not subject to Natural Areas Are Less Likely to processes
equivalent to those applicable for agricultural pests. An Receive a Rapid
Response

important reason for this is that while Interior and the Forest Service and,
to a lesser extent, entities such as Commerce and Defense have
responsibilities for protecting the environment, invasive species are a
small part of the activities conducted under their missions. As a result,
competing

priorities and other factors have limited their ability to respond to
natural area infestations.

The Department of the Interior?s management of invasive species is limited
by several factors that are detailed below:

 If an invasive species affects Interior lands, Interior can use its land
management authorities to address the situation as quickly as funding and
staffing allow. There are, however, many other environmental issues that
compete for Interior?s resources, so there is little assurance they will be
available for responding to invasive species.

 Unlike USDA, Interior lacks access to another funding source for rapid
response. Also, unlike APHIS, Interior agencies rarely receive
appropriations from the Congress directing them to address specific
infestations. Therefore, Interior?s invasive species programs tend to focus
on control and restoration rather than rapid response. For

example, a National Wildlife Refuge official noted that invasive species
funding on refuge lands is used for projects identified in previous annual
budget cycles. As a result, funds are directed toward recurring or
wellestablished

problems rather than toward rapid response.

 Although Interior has authority to conduct control and eradication
programs on its lands, its authorities are not nearly as specific as APHIS?
invasive species authorities- even in natural areas. APHIS? authorities
cover movement into the United States and interstate movement of insects,
plant pathogens, exotic plants, and aquatic organisms that might threaten
natural ecosystems. In contrast, rather than preventing the

spread of invasive species overall, many of Interior?s statutes are general
land management statutes or protect a particular species or group of
species. For example, according to an Interior attorney, the Endangered
Species Act may result in actions against invasive species, but they would
be a byproduct of protecting listed endangered species.

Competing priorities have also limited other agencies? abilities to obtain
the resources needed to rapidly respond. For example, the Forest Service has
authority and responsibility for promoting environmental protection of
forests and rangelands, including protection against invasive species.
However, this particular environmental objective must compete with others
for funding, including programs aimed at improving and protecting water
quality and quantity and reducing fire hazards near urban areas. Moreover,
the Service has additional priorities relating to the human use of these
natural resources, such as improving the capability of forests and
rangelands to provide products (water, timber, and minerals) and services
(recreational opportunities) and improving Service roads and facilities.

According to Forest Service officials, a lack of resources for accelerated
research, management, and technical assistance has impeded their efforts to
be more actively involved in rapid responses. 25 At the same time, they
emphasized that the agency works actively with APHIS and other partners

to perform risk assessments and surveys critical to eradication and control
of invasive species in national forests and in partnership on other lands.
In commenting on a draft of our report, the Forest Service said that when
given adequate resources, it has successfully implemented rapid response
actions in full cooperation with its partners. 25 We note, however, that the
Secretary of Agriculture-- in an emergency that threatens agricultural
production-- can declare an emergency and can transfer funds to any agency
within USDA, including the Forest Service.

A Defense official said that Defense?s response to invasive species has been
minimal because it does not consider the activity to be directly related to
its mission. Although Defense is responsible for managing invasive species
on military installations, the manager acknowledged that some invasive
species are not being addressed. With many competing funding priorities,

only the most invasive plants have become rapid response priorities. The U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers also has invasive species responsibilities; it
helps manage and remove aquatic nuisance species. For example, the Corps is
authorized to implement cost sharing arrangements with state and local
governments for managing nuisance aquatic plants in waterways not under the
control of the Corps or other federal agencies. A Corps official said that
the lengthy planning studies required for these grants virtually preclude
assisting states with rapid response, and this program has not been funded
since 1996.

Commerce- through its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration- has,
as a peripheral part of its mission, responsibility for managing aquatic
invasive species. However, according to a Commerce official, only a few of
its activities involve rapid response. For example, Commerce resources
helped support the rapid response effort to eradicate Caulerpa taxifolia.

Since invasive species that threaten natural areas are not central to any
agency?s mission, they are more likely to fall through the cracks. A good
example of this is giant salvinia, widely regarded as one of the most
devastating aquatic weeds in the world. Although APHIS listed giant salvinia
as a Federal Noxious Weed in 1983, this aquatic nuisance continues to be
sold at commercial nurseries, even in states where its sale is prohibited.
Giant salvinia was first reported in the United States outside of

cultivation in South Carolina in 1995. According to a retired APHIS
official, APHIS was asked to fund this eradication effort but declined.
South Carolina?s Department of Natural Resources cobbled together sufficient
funding to eradicate this infestation. A similar response was absent in
Texas, however, where the plant was discovered in 1998. As of March 2001, it
has been confirmed in 4 public reservoirs, 7 rivers or streams, 6 river

basins, and 27 private lakes in that state. In addition, giant salvinia now
occurs in water bodies in Arizona, California, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Hawaii.

Figure 4: Giant Salvinia Covering a Pond in Texas Source: Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and U. S. Geological Survey. The Council?s Management
The Invasive Species Council?s management plan, issued in January 2001, Plan
Has Recommendations provides a broad plan of action with 57 recommendations
covering 9 key for Addressing Obstacles to areas of invasive species
management. Three of the recommendations Rapid Response

specifically address rapid response; a number of others address related
areas including early detection. In general, the plan?s rapid response
recommendations call for developing a coordinated rapid response program;
developing draft legislation for rapid response, with the possibility of
permanent funding; and expanding regional networks of invasive species
databases. At the same time, the Council acknowledges that many of the
recommendations lack specificity and will require further development before
they can be implemented. (See app. III for details on the rapid response
recommendations and the Council?s actions and

planned actions to address them.)

Taken in their entirety, the plan?s recommendations would appear to address
the obstacles to rapid response described in our report. These include,
first and foremost, the need for a national rapid response system to provide
guidance, technical assistance and other resources, and integrated planning.
Other obstacles that we identified in this report include the need for (1)
additional detection systems; (2) improved partnerships among federal,
state, and local agencies; and (3) enhanced technologies for eradicating
invasive species.

Specifically, the Council?s plan calls for:

 A national system. The plan recognizes the need for a system that would
provide, among other things, for rapid response to new invasions. It
recommends that by July 2003, the Council develop a program of coordinated
rapid response to new invasions of natural and agricultural areas and pursue
increases in discretionary efforts to support the program. The Council is to
coordinate with other federal, state, local, and tribal agencies in
developing the program. According to Council staff, a working group of
representatives from the Council?s member

agencies will be responsible for implementing this recommendation in
cooperation with other stakeholders. The working group is to be established
before the end of August 2001.

 Developing additional early detection systems. The plan has one
recommendation aimed at improving the detection and identification of new
invasive species. The recommendation contains a series of steps,

including (1) compiling a list of taxonomic experts; (2) developing new
methods for detecting pathogens and parasites; (3) instituting systematic
surveys of high- risk locations; (4) developing a more userfriendly approach
to identifying and reporting invasive species; and (5) developing- for use
on the Internet- an early detection module that will provide information on
invasive plants.

 Developing stronger partnerships. The plan emphasizes the need to build
partnerships with state and local entities, improving coordination, and
resolving jurisdictional issues. Moreover, many recommendations incorporate
consultations with states and other affected parties as part of the
implementation process. For example, regarding rapid response,

the plan calls for the Council to develop- in consultation with the states-
draft legislation, including the possibility of a permanent funding
mechanism and matching grants to states to develop strong partnerships.
Other recommendations call for developing (1) clearly defined processes and
procedures to help resolve jurisdictional and other disputes regarding
invasive species and (2) a national public

awareness campaign, emphasizing public and private partnerships. These are
only a few examples of the initiatives aimed at developing stronger
partnerships.

 Improving technologies for use in rapid response. The plan calls for
developing and testing methods to determine which rapid response measures
are most appropriate for specific situations. In addition, the plan
recommends (1) preparing a catalog of existing aquatic and terrestrial
control methods and proposing strategies to determine their effectiveness in
different U. S. habitats; (2) establishing and coordinating a long- and
short- term research capacity (ranging from basic to applied

research) on invasive species; and (3) as part of a cross- cutting budget
proposal for fiscal year 2003, including an initiative to adequately fund
federal invasive species research programs. Since the plan is relatively
new, implementation of its recommendations is just getting underway. The
Council has, however, taken steps to establish priority areas for
implementation, rapid response being one of these areas, according to its
executive director.

Conclusions Some non- native species arrive in the United States as
accidental tourists; others are brought in purposely- for example, to
beautify gardens or as

fish or game for sportsmen. However, one thing invasive species have in
common is that their numbers are increasing dramatically. The explosive
growth of invasive species has been accompanied by an increased awareness of
the threat they pose and damages they cause. However, heightened awareness
has not yet resulted in a systematic national approach to rapid response. As
a result, opportunities for eradicating potentially devastating invasive
species continue to be lost.

Currently, if an invasive species is a serious threat to agricultural crops
or livestock there is a good chance that APHIS will address it in some way.
APHIS has a process in place for evaluating new invasive species and
obtaining resources for responding to serious threats. On the other hand, if
an infestation threatens primarily natural areas, the odds of it being
rapidly responded to are significantly less. For these infestations, it is
sometimes uncertain which, if any, agency will take the lead; ready access
to funds is often a problem; and generally no one agency is held accountable
if the infestation spreads.

At this point, it is unlikely that a single agency, such as Agriculture or
Interior, will unilaterally develop a systematic process for evaluating and

rapidly responding to invasive species that threaten natural areas. Without
specific responsibility for rapidly responding to natural area infestations
and resources to implement such a program, agencies have little impetus to
take on this responsibility. Thus, we believe that a coordinated approach
for dealing with rapid response nationwide offers the best opportunity for
ensuring that invasive species of all types will get a level of attention
commensurate with their risks. Such a system would bring federal agencies
and other stakeholders to the table to address invasive species as a
national

problem- one that requires integrated planning, resources, and guidance. The
Invasive Species Council?s management plan provides a structured framework
for dealing with the threat of invasive species nationwide. The plan covers
activities on many fronts- from prevention to educational outreach- and will
likely take many years to fully implement. As a result, the plan?s
recommendations will need to be implemented incrementally. In this regard,
we agree with the Council?s decision to treat rapid response as an area
requiring priority attention. Rapid response provides an excellent target of
opportunity, offering the potential to save millions of dollars in damages
and control costs and for preserving natural habitats and native

species. We believe that if the recommendations are properly implemented,
they will go a long way toward developing a systematic national approach
toward rapid response. At the same time, while a concerted effort is clearly

needed to slow the onslaught of invasive species, we believe that before
drafting rapid response legislation and requesting increases in funding, the
Council needs to clarify several fundamental issues. In particular, many
agency officials are uncertain as to what types of activities should be
considered rapid response and, consequently, how much funding their

agencies devote to that activity. In order to make a convincing case for
additional legislation or resources, the Council must first define rapid
response and obtain a solid understanding of how much federal funding is
already being directed toward this activity. Only then will the Council have
a sound basis for determining future needs.

Recommendations We recommend that the co- chairs of the Invasive Species
Council- the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior- direct
the Council members to:

 Develop criteria for what constitutes a rapid response, including examples
of activities that fall into that category.

 Based on the criteria established above, develop information on their
Departments? rapid response funding and the programs and activities that
receive funding.

 In consultation with the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, establish
rapid response priorities to help identify resource needs and guide the
discretionary actions of agencies in addressing invasive species.

Agency Comments We provided a draft copy of this report for review and
comment to the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior and to
the

Invasive Species Council. We met with the Council?s staff and the three
departmental liaisons who provided comments from their respective
Departments and agencies: Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service, Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, Forest Service, and Natural Resources
Conservation Service); Commerce (National Atmospheric and Oceanic
Administration); and Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Minerals Management Service,
National Park Service, and U. S. Geological Survey). The Departments,
agencies, and the Council?s staff generally agreed with the substance of our
report and with our recommendations. A major theme running throughout the
comments was the impact of inadequate resources on their ability to rapidly
respond to new infestations and the need for additional funding to develop
an effective rapid response capability. They

also provided technical comments that we incorporated throughout our report
as appropriate. Appendix IV provides a summary of the major points raised in
the comments and our response, as appropriate. As agreed with your offices,
unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 7 days from the date on this letter. At
that time, we will send copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and members; the Executive Director of the National Invasive
Species Council; the co- chairs of the National Invasive Species Council
(the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior); and to the
other Council members. We will also make copies available to others upon
request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
on (202) 512- 3814. The key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V.

Lawrence J. Dyckman Director, Natural Resources and

the Environment

Appendi Appendi xes x I

Scope and Methodology To determine the extent of federal rapid response to
new invasive species, we reviewed the activities of the federal agencies
responsible for invasive species activities and asked the agencies that
conducted rapid response for data on which species they rapidly responded to
and the related obligations for fiscal year 2000.

The following agencies provided funding estimates for their rapid response
efforts:

 U. S. Department of Agriculture: the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the Forest Service;

 Department of the Interior: the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of
Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the U. S. Geological Survey; and

 Department of Commerce: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

The following agencies did not provide funding estimates on rapid response:

 Department of Defense; Agriculture?s Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service; APHIS? Wildlife Services program; and
Interior?s National Wildlife Refuge System, Coastal Program, and National
Park Service do not track budget information on their rapid

response activities and could not estimate funding for these activities.

 Officials from Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency,
Agriculture?s Natural Resources Conservation Service, Interior?s Minerals
Management Service, and Defense?s Army Corps of Engineers said that although
their respective organizations conducted invasive species activities, they
did not perform rapid response in fiscal year 2000.

Agencies? reported obligations may be under- or overstated for several
reasons. First, officials said that rather than using a specific fund for
rapid response activities, their agencies rely, at least in part, on
programmatic

and contingency funds that fund many activities. Agencies do not routinely
track the rapid response portion of this funding. While much of APHIS?
funding for rapid response is transferred from CCC, it also relies on

programmatic and contingency funds. The basis for agencies? funding
estimates ranged from analyses of funding records to an agency official?s
informed opinion. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation,
Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, and U. S. Geological Survey listed the rapid
response activities that they funded; the Fish and Wildlife Service provided
funding information on its rapid responses to aquatic nuisance species; and

the Bureau of Land Management estimated that its rapid response funding was
8 percent of its total invasive species obligations.

Further, the agencies were somewhat uncertain as to which activities to
include in rapid response. To facilitate consistency among the agencies, we
provided a definition of rapid response as being ?a response carried out in
time to contain or eliminate potentially damaging invasive species- the
actual time required for rapid response varies depending on the species.? We
also worked with the agencies while they prepared their data to further
ensure consistency. We did not verify the accuracy of the agencies? data.

However, we did compare their data with other available data in an effort to
identify inconsistencies. We resolved all substantive inconsistencies with
agency budget and program officials. To determine the obstacles to rapid
response, we interviewed officials and scientists and obtained plans, status
reports, budget requests, and other documents from the agencies cited above
and from the Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency,
Smithsonian Institution, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Invasive Species
Council staff. We also interviewed representatives and reviewed documents
from two

interagency groups: the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the Federal
Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. In
addition, we obtained views on obstacles from representatives of state
agricultural or natural resource agencies in California, Florida,

Hawaii, Minnesota, and Texas and with nonprofit organizations involved with
invasive species efforts, including the American Lands Alliance, Nature
Conservancy, and Charles Valentine Riley Memorial Foundation. We selected
the states cited above because agency officials stated that they have
significant invasive species problems and/ or strong and innovative

invasive species programs. In addition, we analyzed studies, reports, the
National Invasive Species Management Plan and public comments on the plan,
and other documents describing invasive species response systems, problems,
and obstacles to

more timely rapid response. To review the actions of federal agencies in
greater detail, we analyzed four invasive species threats- the Asian
longhorned beetle, Asian swamp eel, Caulerpa taxifolia, and giant salvinia.
Agency officials identified these invasive species as being serious threats
and relatively recent introductions into the United States. Furthermore,

these infestations have received varying levels of rapid response from
federal agencies.

To determine how federal agencies can improve rapid response, we interviewed
officials from the entities cited above to obtain their views on solutions
to obstacles impeding rapid response. In addition, we interviewed invasive
species experts at several universities. We analyzed and synthesized
recommendations obtained in interviews and from reports, plans, documents,
and literature relating to rapid response. We also reviewed invasive species
legislation and Executive Order 13112 and

analyzed the rapid response recommendations in the National Invasive Species
Management Plan. We performed our work from October 2000 through May 2001,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Invasive Species Rapidly Responded to by

Appendi x II

Federal Agencies The federal Departments that provided estimates of their
rapid response obligations for fiscal year 2000- Agriculture, Interior, and
Commerce- also provided information on the invasive species that they
rapidly responded to in that period. For Agriculture?s APHIS and ARS and
Interior?s Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management, the
invasive species listed are ordered by the amount obligated, from largest to
smallest. The information provided by Agriculture?s Forest Service and
Interior?s Bureau of Indian Affairs and U. S. Geological Survey did not
allow for such ordering.

Department of

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Citrus bacterial canker,
Agriculture glassy- winged sharpshooter/ Pierce?s disease, Mediterranean
fruit fly, Asian long- horned beetle, plum pox virus, West Nile virus,
transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in sheep, olive fruit fly, Asian
gypsy moth, giant salvinia, pink hibiscus mealybug, federally listed noxious
weeds, rabbit calcivirus disease, screwworm.

Agricultural Research Service: Glassy- winged sharpshooter/ Pierce?s
disease, brown citrus aphid, citrus psylla, papaya mealybug, pink hibiscus
mealybug, Asian long- horned beetle, plum pox virus, karnal bunt, sorghum

ergot, tropical soda apple, giant salvinia, West Nile virus, Caulerpa
taxifolia, yellow unicorn plant, elongate mustard, blissid cinchbug,
waterlettuce.

Forest Service: European gypsy moth, Asian long- horned beetle, hemlock
woolly adelgid, Port- Orford- cedar disease, Asian gypsy moth, pine shoot
beetle, sudden oak death, pink hibiscus mealybug, giant salvinia, yellow
starthistle, purple loosestrife, Dyers woad, leafy spurge, spotted knapweed,
Canada thistle, orange hawkweed, Dalmatian toadflax, rush skeletonweed,
whitetop, Miconia, banana poka, cheatgrass, Scotch broom.

Department of the

Fish and Wildlife Service (aquatic species): Caulerpa taxifolia, Asian
Interior

swamp eel, zebra mussel, brown tree snake, round goby, New Zealand mud
snail, ruffe.

Bureau of Indian Affairs: Cogongrass, purple loosestrife, Russian knapweed,
musk thistle.

Bureau of Land Management: Giant salvinia, yellow starthistle, purple
loosestrife, Dyers woad, squarrose knapweed, salt cedar, leafy spurge,
spotted knapweed, Canada thistle, Scotch thistle, and others.

U. S. Geological Survey: Asian swamp eel; giant salvinia; garlic mustard;
round goby; black, silver, and bighead carp; green mussel; zebra mussel;
other aquatic invasive species.

Bureau of Reclamation: Giant salvinia. Department of

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Caulerpa Commerce

taxifolia.

Management Plan?s Recommendations on

Appendi x II I Rapid Response The Invasive Species Council?s management plan
contains three recommendations that specifically address rapid response. The
recommendations and the Council?s stated and planned actions to address them
are as follows:

1. Starting in January 2001, Interior (especially U. S. Geological Survey/
Biological Resources Division) and USDA, in cooperation with the National
Science Foundation and Smithsonian Institution, will expand regional
networks of invasive species databases (e. g., the InterAmerican
Biodiversity Information Network) and produce associated database products,
to cooperate with the Global Invasive Species Programme and other partners
to establish a global invasive species

surveillance and rapid response system.

Actions Taken to Address Recommendation:

Interior?s U. S. Geological Survey received a grant in September 2000 from
the U. S. Department of State to (1) provide technical assistance in
implementing the Inter- American Biodiversity Information Network and

(2) convene a meeting in conjunction with the Global Invasive Species
Programme and provide seed funding for regional hubs in Mexico and South
Africa. The meeting, a workshop on developing regional invasive species
information hubs, was held in February 2001. It brought together scientists
from Africa, North America, and international organizations who are working
on ways to facilitate invasive species efforts by strengthening taxonomic
services and/ or information networks.

2. By July 2003, the Council, in coordination with other federal, state,
local, and tribal agencies, will develop a program for coordinated rapid
response to incipient invasions of both natural and agricultural areas and
pursue increases in discretionary spending to support this program. Actions
Planned to Address Recommendation:  Establish interagency invasive species
"rapid response" teams that include management and scientific expertise.
Teams will focus on

taxonomic, ecosystem, and regional priorities, and coordinate with local and
state governmental and non- governmental efforts, including standing and ad
hoc state invasive species councils.

 Develop and test methods to determine which rapid response measures are
most appropriate for a situation.

 Review and propose revisions of policies and procedures (i. e., advance
approval for quarantine actions, pesticide applications, and other specific
control techniques, and interagency agreements that address jurisdictional
and budget issues) concerning compliance with federal (e. g., Clean Water
Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act) and non-
federal laws that apply to invasive species response actions. The proposed
revisions will be

made available for public comment and will take into account local and state
requirements.

 Prepare a guide to assist rapid response teams and others that will
incorporate the methodology developed for response measures and guidance on
(1) regulatory compliance and (2) jurisdictional and budget issues.

3. Within fiscal year 2003 budget development, the Council, in consultation
with the states, will develop and recommend to the President draft
legislation for rapid responses to incipient invasions, including the
possibility of permanent funding for rapid response efforts as well as
matching grants to states in order to encourage partnerships. The
recommended legislation will augment existing rapid response mechanisms.

Action Taken to Address Recommendation: The Council is seeking
recommendations from its member agencies for nominees to a working group
that will draft legislation.

Summary of Agency Comments and Our

Appendi x V I Response The following summarizes the key points raised in the
comments provided on a draft of our report by the Departments, agencies, and
Council staff and our response, as appropriate. Agriculture?s APHIS agreed
with the need to develop criteria for what constitutes a rapid response. The
Forest Service noted that (1) it has full authority to respond to invasive
species on national forests and in partnership on other lands and that its
response has been limited by inadequate resources, not by lack of authority,
as suggested in our report; (2) our report does not discuss the impediments
to rapid response resulting from compliance with the National Environmental
Protection Act; and (3) regarding the statement in our conclusions that ?a
national rapid response system offers the best opportunity for ensuring that
invasive species ... lgets a level of attention commensurate with their
risks,? Executive Order 13112 and the National Invasive Species Management
Plan endorse building on

existing strengths, not creating new structures, to enhance coordination and
program response to invasive species. First, we agree that the Forest
Service has the authority to rapidly respond

to invasive species under the conditions it described. However, having
authority and having resources to carry out that authority are not the same
thing. In particular, we believe that the ability to obtain resources for
rapid response is related to the centrality of invasive species to an
agency?s mission. Invasive species is one of many important Forest Service
responsibilities; however, it is not specifically identified in the Forest
Service?s mission as it is for APHIS. Second, regarding the National
Environmental Protection Act, agency officials that we interviewed during
our review had differing views on the extent to which compliance with the

act hindered rapid response, with some believing that adequate planning
could minimize the impediments and others maintaining that the act was a
major hindrance. While we agree that compliance with the act may slow rapid
response in some circumstances, we believe that any impediments it creates
are not of the magnitude of those described in our report. Finally, we agree
with the Forest Service that a national system for rapid response

should be built on existing strengths and we do not mean to imply otherwise.
In fact, our conclusions note that the Council?s plan provides a structured
framework for dealing with the treatment of invasive species nationwide and
that if its recommendations are properly implemented,

they will go a long way toward developing a systematic national approach
toward rapid response.

Commerce said that the report was well written and accurate in its
discussion of the difficulties in rapidly responding to invasive species.
Commerce also commented on the problems posed by resource shortages. It
noted that rapid response needs in aquatic ecosystems are unpredictable; in
some years there may be no need to mount a rapid response effort and in

others, several seriously invasive species may be introduced. Given this
variability, most of Commerce?s invasive species funding is directed toward
preventing and controlling invasive species that have been identified in
advance. Commerce further noted that a rapid response to a new, potentially
serious, infestation may require large amounts of money and

extensive reprogramming of funds committed to other priority areas. Interior
said the report was well written and generally precise in its observation of
Interior?s program efforts to support rapid response. Interior also said
that the report will focus congressional attention on the opportunity to
clarify authorities (particularly in interjurisdictional response efforts)
and consider multi- year emergency response funding for such harmful,
unpredictable invasions. Interior also noted that (1) the shortage of
resources in the land and water management activities of the bureaus
continue to be exacerbated by broadening mission goals; (2) there is an
increasing need for technological improvements to enhance monitoring and
rapid assessment of priorities for action; (3) planning processes have not
yet been fully integrated with state and local

stakeholders into regional or statewide rapid response contingency plans;
and (4) an important aspect of assessing the true risk and cost of invasive
species on natural areas is the ability to assess economic value for
wildlife habitat and recreational losses resulting from plant infestations.
This is an area that lags well behind agronomic assessment.

The Invasive Species Council staff said that the report covered a
highpriority area for the Council. They further noted that the key issue
concerning rapid response is readiness and that a consistent and universal
agency complaint is that even when an infestation is detected early, the
lack of coordination and a contingency fund or funds- transfer mechanism
were major obstacles to quick action. They added that our report?s
recommendations did not reflect the need for a flexible contingency funding
mechanism.

Regarding our first recommendation (developing criteria for what constitutes
a rapid response), the Council staff agreed that the definitions for rapid
response vary even among the Departments surveyed in our review. They also
said that while this recommendation can be done

relatively quickly, it should not be the primary focus for the Council
action put forth in our report. Regarding the second recommendation
(developing information on Departments? rapid response funding and the
programs that are receiving funding), the Council staff said that work on
this effort is already underway. Finally, they suggested that we recommend
that the

Council fully implement the National Invasive Species Management Plan?s
recommendations regarding early detection and rapid response. We appreciate
the need that the Council staff and many agencies expressed

for additional funding and a flexible funding mechanism to rapidly address
new invasions. Our report documents some of the consequences of the lack of
resources in addressing some invasive species. At the same time, we believe
that the funding issue is ultimately a policy concern that is best addressed
by congressional decisionmakers in their deliberations on

national spending priorities. Thus, we are not making a recommendation or
endorsing recommendations in the Invasive Species Management Plan regarding
the adequacy of rapid response funding or the need for a flexible funding
mechanism. Finally, we continue to believe that before the Council requests
additional legislation or resources it must first develop criteria for

what constitutes a rapid response. The considerable confusion regarding this
term makes it critical that Council members reach consensus on what a rapid
response is before they undertake activities to strengthen it.

Appendi x V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Lawrence J. Dyckman,
(202) 512- 3841 Jerilynn B. Hoy, (202) 512- 3841 Acknowledgments In addition
to those named above, Gary Brown, Jacqueline Cook, Judith

Kordahl, Beverly Peterson, and Amy Webbink made key contributions to this
report.

(360004) Lett er

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single
address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
lists.

Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
Internet, send an e- mail message with ?info? in the body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

To Report Fraud, Contact one:

Waste, or Abuse in  Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet.
htm

Federal Programs

 e- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system)

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page 1 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Contents

Page 2 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 3 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 3 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 4 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 5 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 6 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 7 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 8 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 9 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 10 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 11 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 12 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 13 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 14 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 15 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 16 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 17 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 18 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 19 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 20 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 21 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 22 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 23 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 24 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 25 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 26 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 27 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 28 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 29 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 30 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 31 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 32 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 33 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 34 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 35 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 36 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 37 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 38 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Appendix I

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 39 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 40 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 41 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Appendix II

Appendix II Invasive Species Rapidly Responded to by Federal Agencies

Page 42 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 43 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Appendix III

Appendix III Management Plan?s Recommendations on Rapid Response

Page 44 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 45 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Summary of Agency Comments and Our Response

Page 46 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Appendix IV Summary of Agency Comments and Our Response

Page 47 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Page 48 GAO- 01- 724 Invasive Species

Appendix V

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***