Invasive Species: State and Other Nonfederal Perspectives on	 
Challenges to Managing the Problem (05-SEP-03, GAO-03-1089R).	 
                                                                 
Invasive species--harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and	 
microorganisms--are found throughout the United States and cause 
damage to crops, rangelands, waterways, and other ecosystems that
is estimated to cost in the billions of dollars annually. In	 
addition to their economic costs, invasive species can have a	 
devastating effect on natural areas, where they have strangled	 
native plants, taken over wetland habitats, crowded out native	 
species, and deprived waterfowl and other species of food	 
sources. Scientists, academicians, and industry leaders have all 
recognized invasive species as one of the most serious		 
environmental threats of the twenty-first century. More 	 
specifically, conservation biologists ranked invasive species as 
the second most serious threat to endangered species after	 
habitat destruction. In June 2003, GAO testified before the	 
Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water concerning 
invasive species issues reported in our October 2002 report. We  
also provided testimony on the partial results of our spring 2003
survey of state agencies involved in efforts to address invasive 
species and members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee	 
(ISAC). This report provides the final results of our survey and 
focuses on state perspectives on (1) gaps in, or problems with,  
federal legislation addressing invasive species, (2) barriers to 
managing invasive species, (3) effective leadership structures	 
for addressing invasive species, and (4) integrating federal	 
aquatic and terrestrial invasive species legislation and the	 
potential gains and drawbacks of such legislation.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-1089R					        
    ACCNO:   A08357						        
  TITLE:     Invasive Species: State and Other Nonfederal Perspectives
on Challenges to Managing the Problem				 
     DATE:   09/05/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Animals						 
	     Environmental legislation				 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Federal legislation				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Pest control					 
	     Plants (organisms) 				 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Invasive species					 
	     Program coordination				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-03-1089R

GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

September 5, 2003 The Honorable James Inhofe Chairman The Honorable James
Jeffords Ranking Member Committee on Environment and Public Works United
States Senate

The Honorable Michael D. Crapo Chairman The Honorable Bob Graham Ranking
Member Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water Committee on
Environment and Public Works United States Senate

Subject: Invasive Species: State and Other Nonfederal Perspectives on
Challenges to Managing the Problem

Invasive species* harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and microorganisms*
are found throughout the United States and cause damage to crops,
rangelands, waterways, and other ecosystems that is estimated to cost in
the billions of dollars annually. In addition to their economic costs,
invasive species can have a devastating effect on natural areas, where
they have strangled native plants, taken over wetland habitats, crowded
out native species, and deprived waterfowl and other species of food
sources. Scientists, academicians, and industry leaders have all
recognized invasive species as one of the most serious environmental
threats of the twenty- first century. More specifically, conservation
biologists ranked invasive species as the second most serious threat to
endangered species after habitat destruction. In June 2003, we testified
before the Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
concerning invasive species issues reported in our October 2002 report. 1
We also provided testimony on the partial results of our

1 U. S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Federal Efforts and
State Perspectives on Challenges and National Leadership, GAO- 03- 916T
(Washington, D. C.: June 17, 2003). U. S. General Accounting Office,
Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment Needed to

Effectively Manage the Problem, GAO- 03- 1 (Washington, D. C.: October 22,
2002). United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

spring 2003 survey of state agencies involved in efforts to address
invasive species and members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee
(ISAC). 2 This report provides the final results of our survey and focuses
on state

perspectives on (1) gaps in, or problems with, federal legislation
addressing invasive species, (2) barriers to managing invasive species,
(3) effective leadership structures for addressing invasive species, and
(4) integrating federal aquatic and terrestrial invasive species
legislation and the potential gains and drawbacks of such legislation. We
also obtained ISAC members* views on these issues. To obtain these
perspectives for our report, we surveyed the state agencies typically
involved with invasive species* agencies responsible for agriculture and
fish and wildlife* and members of the ISAC. We sent one survey to at least
two agencies in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and
another survey to each of 24 ISAC members. We received 70 responses from
state officials representing a total of 45 states and 16 responses from
ISAC members. See enclosures I and II for state and ISAC surveys with
aggregate responses by question. We also interviewed officials in four
states* California, Florida, Hawaii, and Michigan* chosen because of their
geographic location, active invasive species efforts concerning both
aquatic and terrestrial invasive species, or the number of invasive
species management challenges they face. We conducted our work from April
2003 through September 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Because we did not conduct work at federal
agencies, we did not obtain comments on this report. See enclosure III for
details on our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief

State officials identified several legislative gaps or problems with
existing legislation intended to address invasive species. A key gap noted
in legislation addressing both aquatic and terrestrial invasive species is
the lack of requirements for controlling invasive species that are already
established or widespread. State officials said that if there is no
federal requirement, there is often little money available to combat a
species and that such a requirement would raise the priority for
responding to it. For example, one state official complained about the
lack of a requirement to control Eurasian ruffe, an invasive fish that has
spread throughout several of the Great Lakes and caused great harm to
native fisheries. Also, over one- half of the state officials responding
to our survey said that international trade agreements make it difficult
to regulate products that may introduce invasive species because, for
example, the trade agreements do not consider invasive species. In
addition, over one- half of the state officials who responded to questions
about legislation on aquatic invasive species identified

2 Executive Order 13112 created the National Invasive Species Council,
which is composed of 11 federal departments and agencies, to provide
national leadership on addressing invasive species and to develop a plan
for managing them. It also established the ISAC, a federal advisory
committee established to help the federal government develop and implement
a national management plan.

Page 3 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

gaps with ballast water requirements. For example, many officials cited as
inadequate the current federal standards for ballast water, which impose
requirements on ships entering the Great Lakes but not other U. S. waters.

State officials also identified several barriers that make managing
invasive species difficult. The barrier that state officials identified
most frequently was the lack of federal funding for state invasive species
efforts. For example, states were concerned about not having sufficient
funds to create management plans for addressing invasive species and for
conducting monitoring, detection, inspection, enforcement, and research
activities. In addition, state officials were concerned about insufficient
public education and outreach efforts as well as the lack of control
measures and cost- effective controls for invasive species.

State officials* opinions on effective federal leadership structures for
managing invasive species varied. State officials most frequently
identified the National Invasive Species Council (Council) specifically
authorized in legislation as an effective leadership structure for
managing invasive species, although many state officials thought that
continuing with the Council as currently established by executive order
would also be effective. While the Executive Director of the Council told
us that they have had adequate authority to carry out the responsibilities
set forth in the executive order, she noted that clear legislative
authority would strengthen their efforts. Similarly, officials from the
Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, and Environmental
Protection Agency who are departmental liaisons to the Council, noted that
legislative authority, depending on how it was structured, could be useful
in carrying out the responsibilities of the Council. Fewer state officials
identified having a single federal agency responsible for all invasive
species or separate federal agencies responsible for aquatic and
terrestrial species as effective structures.

State officials* views also varied on whether to integrate federal
legislation on aquatic invasive species with legislation on terrestrial
invasive species. The greatest number of state officials responding to our
survey were in favor of integrating legislation, but the margin compared
with those who did not favor integration was relatively small. Many state
officials indicated that the possible gains of integrated legislative
authority would be an increased focus on invasive species pathways, as
opposed to specific species, and increased coordination between federal
agencies and states. The possible drawbacks most often identified by state
officials included concerns that a single piece of legislation would not
be able to address all possible situations dealing with invasive species,
and that aquatic and terrestrial invasive species programs would have to
compete for scarce resources.

Background

As we have reported in the past, the impact of invasive species in the
United States is widespread, and their consequences for the economy and
the

Page 4 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

environment are profound. 3 Invasive species affect people*s livelihoods
and pose a significant risk to industries such as agriculture, ranching,
and fisheries. The cost to control invasive species and the cost of
damages they inflict, or could inflict, on property and natural resources
are estimated in the billions of dollars annually. For example, according
to the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),

each year invasives such as the Formosan termite causes at least $1
billion in damages and control costs in 11 states; if not managed, fruit
flies could cause more than $1.8 billion in damage each year. 4 Invasive
species continue to be introduced in new locations, with recent examples
including the northern snakehead fish in Maryland, the emerald ash borer
in Michigan, and the monkeypox virus in the Midwest.

Invasive species may arrive unintentionally as contaminants of bulk
commodities, such as food, and in packing materials, shipping containers,
and ships* ballast water. Ballast water is considered a major pathway for
the transfer of aquatic invasive species. Ballast is essential to the safe
operation of ships because it enables them to maintain their stability and
control how high or low they ride in the water. Ships take on or discharge
ballast water over the course of a voyage to counteract the effects of
loading or unloading cargo and in response to sea conditions. The ballast
that ships pump aboard in ports and harbors may be fresh, brackish, or
salt water. These waters could potentially contain organisms that could
then be carried to other ports around the world where they might be
discharged, survive, and become invasive. Other invasive species may be
introduced intentionally; kudzu* a rapidly growing invasive vine that
thrives in the southeastern United States* for example, was intentionally
introduced from Japan as an ornamental plant and was used by USDA in the
1930s to control soil erosion.

Federal agencies implement a variety of invasive species- related programs
and activities pursuant to their specific missions and responsibilities.
USDA, for example, spends significant resources on prevention and control
activities for invasive species that harm agricultural and forest
products. USDA is also responsible for preventing infectious diseases,
some of which are considered invasive, from spreading among livestock.
States also play a major role in addressing invasive species, either
through their own programs or through collaboration with or funding from
federal programs. State programs and the amount of resources expended on
them vary considerably. Typically, state agencies that address agriculture
and fish and wildlife are involved with managing invasive species.

In response to concerns that the United States was losing the battle
against invasive species, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112
in February 1999 to prevent the introduction of invasive species; provide
for their control; and

3 U. S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Federal and Selected
State Funding to Address Harmful Nonnative Species, GAO/ RCED- 00- 219
(Washington, D. C.: August 2000). 4 Estimates are in 2001 dollars.

Page 5 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

minimize their economic, environmental, and human health impacts. This
executive order established the Council, which is now composed of the
heads of 11 federal departments and agencies, to provide national
leadership on invasive species and to ensure, among other things, that
federal efforts are coordinated and effective. The executive order also
required the Secretary of the Interior to establish a federal advisory
committee (the Invasive Species Advisory Committee or ISAC) to provide
information and advice to the Council. To achieve the goals of the
executive order, the Council was to develop a national management plan
that would serve as the blueprint for federal action on invasive species.

State Officials Identified Several Gaps in Federal Invasive Species
Legislation

State officials most often identified the lack of a legal requirement for
controlling already- established or widespread invasive species as a gap
or problem with legislation on terrestrial invasive species and frequently
identified it as a gap or problem with legislation on aquatic invasive
species (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: Percentage of State Officials Who Identified Various Issues As
*Great* or *Very Great* Gaps in Federal Legislation on Aquatic and
Terrestrial Invasive Species

a Forty- eight officials responded to this question. b Fifty- seven
officials responded to this question. c Issue did not apply to this type
of invasive species. Specifically, state officials said lack of a legal
requirement for control is a problem

for species that do not affect a specific commodity or when a species is
not on a federal list of recognized invasive species. Officials noted that
if there is no

Page 6 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

federal requirement, there is often little money available to combat a
species and that such a requirement would raise the priority for
responding to it. For example, one state official complained about the
lack of a requirement to control Eurasian ruffe, an invasive fish that has
spread throughout several of the Great Lakes and caused great harm to
native fisheries. The official compared this with the mandated control
program for the sea lamprey that is funded by the United States and
Canada. In addition, some state officials said that, in the absence of
federal requirements, differences among state laws and priorities also
pose problems for addressing established species. For example, problems
may arise if one state regulates or takes actions to control a species and
an adjacent state does not. Some state officials noted that they believe
they have little authority to control or monitor some species and that
adopting laws or regulations for specific species, such as those for the
sea lamprey, takes time.

Many state officials also noted that there are difficulties regulating
products that may contribute to the introduction of invasive species
because of provisions in international trade agreements. For example, one
state official told us that trucks

carrying commercial goods from Canada and Mexico into the United States
could bring invasive species into the country because sometimes invasive
species issues were not considered when trade agreements governing such
international commerce were negotiated. An official from another state
provided a good illustration of this with roses from Europe that came into
the United States through Canada. The roses were not detained in order to
observe them for potentially harmful species, but would have been detained
had they been shipped directly from the originating country in Europe. As
one state official pointed out, there is an inherent conflict in promoting
international trade and trying to prevent invasive species from coming
into the United States from foreign countries. This official believes that
all trade agreements should address invasive species.

Many state officials that answered questions about aquatic invasive
species identified problems with ballast water. Specifically, some state
officials complained that treatment technologies, standards, regulations,
compliance with reporting requirements, and penalties for noncompliance
are lacking, and said that research and legislation are needed to address
the problem. As we reported in October 2002, federal regulations for
ballast water are not effective at preventing invasive species from
entering our waters. Ballast water exchange is only required for ships
entering the Great Lakes and does not apply to ships with little or no
pumpable ballast water in their tanks. 5 Officials in several states
expressed frustration with the vulnerability to potential invasives
created by a lack of effective standards. In addition, one state in the
southwestern United States said that with no mandatory ballast water
exchange and poor monitoring, invasive species could come into the state
not only from South America and other foreign areas, but also from other
states with less strict invasive species

5 Vessels may also retain their ballast on board or use alternative
ballast water management methods that must be approved by the U. S. Coast
Guard and be as effective as ballast water exchange in preventing and
controlling the influx of aquatic organisms. 33 C. F. R. S: 151.1510

Page 7 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

standards. Some state officials said that federal leadership is essential
to provide coordination among states and fund efforts to address ballast
water. Although some state officials believe solving the ballast water
problem is possible, some pointed to potential difficulties in doing so.
Specifically, they noted that some environmental groups are opposed to
chemical treatments, while industry groups

have objected to the cost of some technologies. We also analyzed state
officials* opinions based on whether they were from a coastal or
noncoastal state. Officials from coastal states identified the same gaps
discussed above. However, noncoastal state officials identified the
inadequacy of biocontrol requirements most often as a barrier for managing
aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. Also, noncoastal states did not
identify issues related to ballast water as a problem to managing aquatic
invasive species.

The lack of a legal requirement for a national rapid response system was
identified most often by members of the ISAC. The discovery of giant
salvinia in the Lower Colorado River in 1999 illustrates some of the
difficulties associated with rapid response. 6 According to one federal
official, achieving a *rapid response* to the problem evaporated in the
face of funding obstacles among the various entities involved and
disagreements over appropriate control strategies and who should be the
lead agency. Had immediate action been taken, eradication of this
infestation would have been possible. Members of the ISAC also frequently
identified the lack of statutory recognition of the Council as a gap in
existing legislation. We discuss this issue in a later section.

State Officials Identified Several Barriers to Managing Invasive Species

Inadequate federal funding for state efforts was the barrier identified
most often by state officials responding to our survey (see fig. 2).

6 U. S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Obstacles Hinder
Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat, GAO- 01- 724 (Washington, D. C.:
July 2001).

Page 8 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

Figure 2: Percentage of State Officials Who Identified Various Factors
That Make Managing Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species Difficult as
*Great* or *Very Great* Problems

a Forty- nine officials responded to this question. b Fifty- six officials
responded to this question. State officials were concerned about having
sufficient funds for inspection and

enforcement activities and to create management plans for addressing
invasive species, particularly as more states begin to develop plans.
State officials also identified the need for additional funds to conduct
monitoring and detection programs. Some state officials noted that
uncertainty in obtaining grant funds from year to year makes it difficult
to manage programs, especially when they rely on grants to fund staff
positions. Officials in several states noted that the need for federal
funds is more important today because their budgets have been tightened,
noting that the lack of funds* federal and state* has contributed to the
spread of such invasive plant species as kudzu, autumn olive, purple
loosestrife, and saltcedar. For example, an official from one state said
that federal funds are needed to address invasive species that cross state
boundaries, such as the saltcedar* a riparian plant that spreads as seeds
float via rivers across state borders. Another state official said that
without adequate federal or state funds, the state has been unable to
adequately deal with an invasive weed (rush skeleton) that was identified
on about six acres in the 1960s. Partly because the state had limited
funds, it only addressed the species one time. The weed now has spread to
about six million acres and controlling it will be very expensive.
Officials said they would use additional federal funds to hire additional
staff to control invasive species, conduct additional research, and
increase coordination and public education. Many state officials
identified a lack of public education and outreach as another

barrier to effectively managing aquatic and terrestrial invasive species.
Public education and outreach activities are important components of the
battle against

Page 9 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

invasive species, as many invasives have been introduced through the
activities of individuals, such as recreational boating, and commercially
through the pet, live seafood, and plant and horticultural trades. For
example, the outbreak of the monkeypox virus that sickened at least 80
people in the Midwest spread from a Gambian rat imported from Africa to be
sold as a pet. In addition, invasive plants that grow fast and kill other
natural vegetation are often sold in nurseries before their harmful
effects are realized. For example, one state official said that plant
nurseries in his state sold purple loosestrife for years until its harmful
effects were recognized. It is now illegal to buy the plant in the state,
but the state does not have funds to educate the public about the harmful
effects of the species or the need to control it. An official from another
state said that because of limited public awareness of the problem of
invasive species, the issue is not on the radar

screen of enough elected representatives to ensure adequate funding. Some
state officials identified how effective public education programs to
increase public awareness of invasive species issues can be. For example,
an official from Idaho told us that the state*s weed awareness campaign,
which was started about 2 years ago, has dramatically increased public
awareness of invasive species through television, radio, and newspaper
publicity. In addition, the state uses other public outreach efforts, such
as setting up information booths at county fairs, and has an active effort
to educate its legislature. A state official in Texas told us that the
Pecos River Ecosystem Project in the southwestern United States has been
successful in educating landowners about saltcedar. As a result, many
landowners have stopped using the plant for landscaping and erosion
control, and some are beginning to remove it.

State officials also frequently identified the lack of control measures
and costeffective controls as barriers to addressing invasive species.
Officials in several states told us that new herbicidal and biological
control measures are needed to

control invasive species and more species- specific research is needed to
identify effective measures, although they recognized that it can be
difficult to adopt the new measures. One successful control effort* the
sea lamprey control program* costs about $15 million per year. However,
similar control programs for all invasive species would be problematic
given the potential cost. Officials in some states noted that it takes a
long time to obtain approval to use some herbicides and biological
measures, and delays can be costly. In the meantime, officials said
invasive species spread* sometimes dramatically. For example, one state
official said that in 1999 the state identified hydrilla covering about 23
acres of a lake and control costs for the aquatic invasive plant were
estimated to be about $17,000 at the time. Local groups protested and
threatened to sue the city if the herbicide proposed to control the
hydrilla was used; the local environmental board did not approve use of
the herbicide. Today, the plant has spread to over 300 acres and control
costs are estimated to have increased tenfold. Another state official said
that because a federal court ruling restricts the use of herbicides near
water without an Environmental Protection Agency permit and such permits
are very difficult to obtain, the state cannot use herbicides to control
Eurasian watermilfoil (an aquatic plant). As a result, control has been
slow and costly because the plant must be pulled by hand by divers at a
cost of about $400 per day, per diver.

Page 10 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

Another state official said that because existing chemicals are
ineffective in controlling kudzu, mechanical control measures, such as
mowing, are currently the best available option. However, because the
plant spreads so rapidly, mechanical measures are very expensive; the
official said that it could cost millions of dollars to remove kudzu in
the state. Officials from several states said that more research is needed
to identify cheaper control measures. Coastal and noncoastal states
identified similar key barriers for managing

invasives. These included inadequate federal funding for state efforts, a
lack of public education and outreach, a lack of control measures, and a
lack of costeffective control measures.

In contrast, ISAC members identified different factors as key barriers.
For example, members most often identified less funding for invasive
species in natural areas than for agricultural land as a barrier to
managing invasive species. As previously reported in August 2000, almost
90 percent of the federal funds spent to manage invasive species were
expended by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. 7 We also found that
species that threaten agricultural crops or livestock are far more likely
to elicit a rapid response than those primarily affecting natural areas. 8
State Officials* Opinions on Effective Leadership Structures for

Addressing Invasive Species Varied

Currently, no single agency oversees the federal invasive species effort.
Instead, the National Invasive Species Council coordinates federal actions
to address the problem. State officials most often identified specifically
authorizing the Council in legislation as an effective leadership
structure for managing invasive species, although almost as many officials
thought that continuing under the current executive order would also be
effective. Some state officials identified the designation of a single
federal agency with responsibility for both aquatic and terrestrial
issues, or the designation of one federal agency for aquatic and one for
terrestrial invasive species issues, as effective leadership structures
(see fig. 3).

7 GAO/ RCED- 00- 219. 8 GAO- 01- 724.

Page 11 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

Figure 3: Number of State Officials* Who Responded as *Great* or *Very
Great* with Regard to the Perceived Effectiveness of Potential Leadership
Structures

During the work for our October 2002 report, the executive director of the
Council noted that legislative authority for the Council, depending on how
it was structured, could be useful in implementing the national management
plan, which called for the Council to conduct an evaluation by January
2002 of the current legal authorities relevant to invasive species. 9
Officials from the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense,
and the Environmental Protection

Agency also told us that legislative authority, if properly written, would
make it easier for Council to implement the management plan.

When we analyzed the results of our survey regarding leadership structure
by the respondents* type of agency or whether they represented a coastal
or noncoastal state, we found some variation with these responses compared
with the overall state responses. Specifically, more state officials
representing fish and wildlife agencies identified legislative recognition
of the Council as an effective leadership structure, while officials from
agriculture agencies were equally split on legislative recognition versus
continuing the Council under the current executive order. More agriculture
officials identified designation of a single agency responsible for all
invasive species issues as an effective leadership structure, while more
fish and wildlife officials identified the need for separate agencies* one
for aquatic invasive species and one for terrestrial invasive species* as
an effective structure. Further, more coastal and noncoastal respondents
identified legislative recognition of the Council rather than continuing
under the current executive order. In addition, more coastal and
noncoastal respondents identified designation of a single agency
responsible for all invasive species rather than separate agencies as an
effective leadership structure.

Almost all of the ISAC members that responded to our survey identified
specifically authorizing the Council in legislation as an effective
leadership

9 U. S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and
Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem, GAO- 03- 1
(Washington, D. C.: October 2002).

Page 12 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

structure for managing invasive species, with half as many identifying
authorizing the Council by continuing with the current executive order as
an effective structure. A smaller number of ISAC members identified the
designation of one federal agency for aquatic issues and another federal
agency for terrestrial invasive species issues as effective structures,
and the designation of a single federal agency with responsibility for
both aquatic and terrestrial issues (see fig. 4).

Figure 4: Number of ISAC Members* Who Responded *Great* or *Very Great*
with Regard to the Perceived Effectiveness of Potential Leadership
Structures

State Officials* Opinions Varied on Whether to Integrate Legislation on
Aquatic Invasive Species with Legislation on Terrestrial Invasive Species

Federal officials responsible for addressing invasive species operate
under a patchwork of laws where aquatic and terrestrial species are
treated separately. Questions have been raised about whether this is the
most efficient and effective approach and whether the federal government*s
ability to manage invasive species would be strengthened if integrated
legal authority addressed both types of invasives. Some believe such an
approach would create more flexibility for addressing invasive species;
others are concerned that such an approach would disrupt existing programs
that are working well.

No clear consensus exists among state officials on whether legislative
authority for addressing aquatic and terrestrial invasive species should
be integrated. Overall, more state officials were in favor of integrating
legislative authority, but the margin over those who did not favor
integration was relatively small. Specifically, 32 of the 70 (46 percent)
state officials we surveyed said they favored integrated legislation,
whereas 26 of the 70 (37 percent) state officials said they did not (see
fig. 5).

Page 13 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

Figure 5: State Officials* Opinions on the Potential Integration of
Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species Legislation

About twice as many of the ISAC members who responded to our survey
favored integrating legislation on aquatic and terrestrial invasive
species compared with those who did not (see fig. 6).

Figure 6: ISAC Members* Opinions on the Potential Integration of Aquatic
and Terrestrial Invasive Species Legislation

We also analyzed state officials* opinions on integrating legislative
authority on aquatic and terrestrial invasive species by the type of
agency the state officials

Page 14 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

represented* agriculture, fish and wildlife, or other* and the respondents
stated area of expertise or knowledge* aquatics only, terrestrial only, or
aquatics and terrestrials. When considering a respondent*s agency
affiliation, differences in opinion varied slightly. State officials
representing agriculture agencies were evenly split on whether they
favored or did not favor integrated legislation while more state officials
from fish and wildlife agencies favored integration than those who did not
(see fig. 7). Figure 7: State Officials* Opinions on the Potential
Integration of Aquatic and Terrestrial

Invasive Species Legislation, by State Agency Type a a Thirty- four of the
state officials that responded were from agriculture agencies, thirty-
three were from fish and wildlife agencies, and three were from other
agencies that manage invasive species.

Differences in opinion became more distinct when we considered a
respondents* area of expertise. A large majority of the state officials
who identified themselves as having expertise solely in aquatic invasive
species were against integrating aquatic and terrestrial authority.
Conversely, officials with expertise in terrestrial invasives slightly
favored integrated authority, but only by a small margin. State officials
who identified themselves as experts or knowledgeable in both aquatic and
terrestrial invasives favored integrated authority by a large majority
(see fig. 8).

Page 15 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

Figure 8: State Officials* Opinions on the Potential Integration of
Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species Legislation, by Area of Expertise
a a Twenty- one of the state officials that responded had aquatic only
expertise, sixteen had terrestrial only, and thirty- three

had both aquatic and terrestrial expertise.

State officials* responses were also analyzed based on whether the
respondent was from a coastal or noncoastal state. More coastal state
officials favored integration than those who did not, while officials in
noncoastal states were split on whether they favored integrating
legislative authority for aquatic and terrestrial invasive species (see
fig. 9).

Page 16 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

Figure 9: State Officials* Opinions on the Potential Integration of
Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species Legislation, by State Location a
a Thirty of the state officials that responded to the questions were from
noncoastal states, and forty were from coastal

states. States bordering the Great Lakes were considered as coastal
states.

We also asked state officials about potential gains and drawbacks of
integrating federal legislation on aquatic invasive species with
legislation on terrestrial invasive species (see table 1).

Table 1: Potential Gains and Drawbacks of Integrating Legislation on
Aquatic Invasive Species with Legislation on Terrestrial Invasive Species
Identified by At Least 50 Percent of State Officials Responding to the
Survey

Potential gains Potential drawbacks

Better ability to prioritize control actions Competition for scarce
resources Greater sense of purpose guiding invasives control Complexity of
implementation Increased federal agency coordination Difficulty addressing
all situations Increased federal/ state agency coordination Reduction in
state authority Increased focus on pathways of transportation Reduction in
state agency flexibility Increased funding flexibility Source: GAO. As
shown, state officials identified a number of different potential gains
and

drawbacks. For example, many state officials believed that integrating
legislative authority could result in increased coordination between
federal agencies and states. Some state officials described the efforts
needed to address invasives as requiring broad, interdisciplinary
coordination and characterized the current

Page 17 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

federal effort as fragmented and ineffective. For example, one state
official told us that dealing with multiple federal agencies and multiple
levels within an agency makes coordination on invasive species issues
difficult, especially when the species cross state boundaries. The
official cited, as an example, delays in controlling saltcedar due to
local federal officials who opposed control because it might threaten
endangered species that were using the plant; regional federal officials
subsequently approved the control measures. Another state official said
that because the state must deal with numerous federal agencies in
managing its invasive species program, communications are sometimes
difficult. An official from another state said that because there is no
clear federal authority for invasive species, the state does not know with
whom it should deal because there are many different agencies and programs
involved. Also, many state officials saw an increased focus on pathways
for invasive species* as opposed to focusing on specific species* as a
possible gain of integrating authority for aquatic and terrestrial
invasive species. Such an approach could facilitate more effective and
efficient efforts to address invasive species. Regarding the perceived
drawbacks of integrating authority for aquatic and

terrestrial invasive species, many state officials said that it could be
difficult to address all possible situations for both types of invasive
species. Some state officials said the two types of invasives should be
handled separately, given the different ecological complexities, pathways
of entry and spread, and control methods and expertise needed. In
addition, some officials stated that combining legislative authority would
result in competition for resources among various invasive species
programs. In particular, one official referred to the *issue of the
moment* phenomenon, where a specific invasive species becomes the focus of
great public attention and receives a large share of resources, while many
other species may get very few resources. Many state officials also
identified reduction in state authority and flexibility and complexity in
implementation as a potential drawback to integrated legislation.

----------- We are sending copies of this report to the Co- Chairs of the
National Invasive Species Council. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at http:// www. gao. gov.

Page 18 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

If you or your staffs have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841. Kevin Bailey, John Delicath, Jill Ann Roth Edelson, Byron S.
Galloway, Curtis Groves, Trish McClure, Judy Pagano, and Amy Webbink were
key contributors to this

report. Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Enclosures

Enclosure I

Page 19 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species United States
General Accounting Office

Survey of State Agencies * Invasive Species Legislative Authority

Introduction The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) is due for
reauthorization by the Congress. The U. S. General Accounting Office
(GAO), an agency of Congress, has been asked to study how states view
federal legislative authority for addressing invasive species. As Congress
considers this reauthorization, questions have been raised concerning
whether providing overarching, integrated legislation for both aquatics
and terrestrial invasive species would be more

effective in addressing the problem, rather than the existing separate
laws. As part of this study, we are querying officials of the relevant
state agencies of all 50 states and the District of Columbia for their
opinions regarding federal legislative authority for invasive species.
This survey is designed to be completed by the agencies in each state that
are responsible for taking the lead in invasive species work.

Your participation is very important and we urge you to complete this
questionnaire. We cannot provide meaningful information to the Congress
for it to use during its deliberations on the reauthorization of NISA
without your responses. Instructions Please complete the survey and return
it to GAO

within 10 days of receipt. We need your responses as soon as possible so
we can report our results to Congress in June 2003.

If you complete the electronic survey using MS Word, please do not change
any of the questions. Please email the completed survey to GAOInvasives@
gao. gov.

If you print out a hard copy of the survey and fill it out manually,
please fax your completed questionnaire to Ilga Semeiks at 202- 512- 4852.
If you have any questions about this survey, please

send an email to GAOInvasives@ gao. gov or call Ilga Semeiks at 202- 512-
6013 or Trish McClure at 202- 512- 6318.

Thank you for your time and assistance.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Please provide the following information in the event we need to clarify a
response. State: Agency: Name: Title: Phone Number: E- mail Address:

Enclosure I

Page 20 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species Please provide the
following information in the event we need to clarify a response. State:

Agency: Name: Title:

Phone Number: E- mail Address: SECTION I: This section focuses on your
responsibilities in invasive species control and management. 1. For what
types of invasive species are you responsible or do you have expertise?

(Check all that apply.)

1. [ 46 ] Terrestrial - plant 2. [ 27 ] Terrestrial - animal 3. [ 54 ]
Aquatic 2. Please briefly explain your role in invasive species
management.

Enclosure I

Page 21 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species SECTION II: This
section focuses on the effects of federal legislative authority on
invasive species management. 3. In your opinion, to what extent is each of
the following a gap in or a problem with federal legislative authority for
managing terrestrial invasive species? Check one box for each row.

[ 20 ] Check here if you are not familiar with terrestrial invasive
species issues and skip to Question 4. [Two additional respondents did not
answer these questions. Total responses equal 48, but answers for each
question may not total 48 because some respondents did not answer all
questions or provided unclear answers.] Gap or problem

Not a gap (1)

Little extent

(2) Some extent

(3) Moderate extent

(4) Great

extent (5)

Very great extent

(6) No basis to judge (7)

a. List of federally prohibited terrestrial invasive species is not as
comprehensive as it should be 1 2 10 15 8 6 6

b. Often no legal requirements for control if a terrestrial invasive
species is already established or widespread 3 3 3 10 15 14 0

c. No single federal agency has overall responsibility for invasive
species 7 6 5 11 13 6 0

d. Lack of statutory recognition of the National Invasive Species Council
6 3 7 10 14 6 2 e. No legal requirement for a national rapid response
system 1 3 5 18 14 6 1 f. No exemptions in environmental laws, such as
ESA,

NEPA, and CWA, to allow for rapid response 2 2 4 15 11 13 1 g. No legal
requirement for early detection 5 2 6 12 14 7 1 h. Federal law provides
limited access to private property

when control measures are needed 4 6 9 13 9 5 2 i. No requirement that
NEPA statements discuss the

potential for introduction or spread of invasive species 4 5 7 10 13 6 3
j. Inadequate legal requirements for the possibility that

species introduced for biocontrol may become invasive 11 10 8 11 2 3 2 k.
Inadequate legal requirements regarding movement of

invasive species across different US ecosystems (i. e., a species native
to one area and invasive to another) 5 5 8 12 11 7 0

l. International trade agreements make it difficult to regulate products
that may introduce invasive species 2 6 5 7 11 11 5 m. Lack of a single
binding international treaty devoted to invasive species 2 3 5 8 17 5 7 n.
Inadequate regional coordination 1 4 11 12 11 7 2 o. Inadequate
coordination between federal and state

agencies 0 5 14 7 15 6 1 p. Lack of a federal research mandate for
invasive species 0 2 7 13 16 10 0 q. Existing authority focuses mostly on
invasive species

affecting agriculture 3 4 10 6 18 7 0 r. Other* please describe and check
appropriate box: 0 0 1 0 2 3 0

s. Other- 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 t. Other- 1 0 0 0 2 2 0

Enclosure I

Page 22 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 4. In your
opinion, to what extent is each of the following a gap in or a problem
with federal legislative authority for managing aquatic invasive species?
Check one box for each row.

[ 13 ] Check here if you are not familiar with aquatic invasive species
issues and skip to Question 5. [Total responses equal 57, but answers for
each question may not total 57 because some respondents did not answer all
questions or provided unclear answers.] Gap or problem

Not a gap (1)

Little extent

(2) Some extent

(3) Moderate extent

(4) Great

extent (5)

Very great extent

(6) No basis to judge (7)

a. List of federally prohibited aquatic invasive species is not as
comprehensive as it should be 2 4 7 16 13 11 4

b. Often no legal requirements for control if an aquatic invasive species
is already established or widespread 3 8 6 7 22 11 0

c. No single federal agency has overall responsibility for invasive
species 5 4 15 13 15 4 2

d. Lack of statutory recognition of the National Invasive Species Council
11 4 9 11 14 3 5

e. No legal requirement for a national rapid response system 2 1 7 22 19 5
1

f. No exemptions in environmental laws, such as ESA, NEPA, and CWA, to
allow for rapid response 0 2 7 17 13 12 6

g. No legal requirement for early detection 4 2 12 12 20 6 1

h. Federal law provides limited access to private property when control
measures are needed 6 11 5 14 12 5 4

i. No requirement that NEPA statements discuss the potential for
introduction or spread of invasive species 3 6 7 19 9 7 6

j. Inadequate legal requirements for the possibility that species
introduced for biocontrol may become invasive 15 8 9 7 7 5 5

k. Inadequate legal requirements regarding movement of invasive species
across different US ecosystems (i. e., a species native to one area and
invasive to another)

8 4 7 12 16 8 2

l. International trade agreements make it difficult to regulate products
that may introduce invasive species 2 3 3 8 16 14 11

m. No single binding international treaty devoted to invasive species 2 4
6 12 18 8 7

n. Inadequate regional coordination 4 9 14 13 11 5 1

o. Inadequate coordination between federal and state agencies 2 11 15 12
12 4 0

p. Lack of a federal research mandate for invasive species 1 4 10 17 17 6
2

q. No regulation of aquatic invasive species brought in on vessels through
means other than ballast water 0 4 4 11 18 11 9

r. Exemption of ballast water from the Clean Water Act 2 2 5 7 14 15 12

s. Ineffective federal standards for ballast water 0 2 2 8 15 19 11

t. Insufficient federal oversight of the aquaculture industry 7 7 7 11 7
14 4

u. Other* please describe and check appropriate box: 0 0 1 1 1 3 0

v. Other- 0 0 1 1 2 7 0 w. Other- 0 0 0 0 1 2 0

Enclosure I

Page 23 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 5. Would you favor
federal legislation that would integrate the authority to manage both
terrestrial and aquatic invasive species rather than the current
collection of separate laws? 1. [ 32 ] Yes 2. [ 26 ] No 3. [ 12 ] No
opinion Please explain your answer:

6. What would you like to see gained if there was an overarching federal
legislative authority that integrated both terrestrial and aquatic
invasive species? (Check all that apply.) 1. [ 53 ] Increased coordination
among federal agencies responsible for invasive species response 2. [ 61 ]
Increased coordination between federal and state agencies 3. [ 29 ]
Clearer division of responsibility among federal agencies 4. [ 47 ] Better
ability to prioritize control actions amongst invasive species risks 5. [
49 ] Greater sense of purpose or overall objective guiding control of
invasive species

6. [ 53 ] Increased focus on pathways or modes of transport of invasive
species (rather than distinction of terrestrial vs. aquatic or plant vs.
animal approach) 7. [ 40 ] Increased flexibility in using funding for
highest priority 8. [ 13 ] Other* please describe: 9. [ 5 ] Other* please
describe: 10. [ 3 ] Other* please describe: 11. [ 1 ] No opinion Using the
numbers from 1- 10 above, what in your opinion are the 3 most important
gains?

(Enter numbers from above categories in the three boxes below.)

66 64 63 1 15 4 3 2 11 15 10 3 2 2 3 4 10 13 7 5 5 11 7 6 13 9 20 7 3 7 9
8 7 0 1 9 0 1 2 10 0 2 1

Enclosure I

Page 24 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 7. What could be
the drawbacks of an overarching federal legislative authority that
integrated both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species? Please check all
that apply.

1. [ 57 ] Difficulty creating integrated legislation that addresses all
situations and all responsible agencies 2. [ 36 ] Reduction in state
authority for controlling invasive species 3. [ 38 ] Reduction of state
agency flexibility in controlling invasive species 4. [ 19 ] Reduction of
federal agency flexibility in controlling invasive species 5. [ 49 ]
Complexity in implementation 6. [ 47 ] Could result in terrestrial and
aquatic programs competing for scarce funds 7. [ 33 ] Could result in less
funding for management of less well- known invasive species 8. [ 34 ]
Could result in loss of specific expertise of the individual agencies that
now have authority over specific

types of invasive species 9. [ 3 ] Other* please describe: 10. [ 0 ]
Other* please describe: 11. [ 0 ] Other* please describe: 12. [ 2 ] No
major drawbacks

Using the numbers from 1- 11 above, what in your opinion are the 3 most
important drawbacks?

(Enter numbers from above categories in the three boxes below.)

65 63 57 1 22 6 5 2 16 11 1 3 8 12 7 4 2 2 2 5 7 12 8 6 7 8 14 7 1 7 6 8 1
5 13 9 1 0 1

Enclosure I

Page 25 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species SECTION III: We
now want your views on different options for organizational authority for
managing and controlling invasive species. 8. Regardless of whether or not
federal legislative authority for terrestrial and aquatic invasive species
was integrated,

to what extent do you think the following would be effective in managing
and controlling invasive species?

(Check one box for each row.)

Options

Not Effective

(1) Little

extent (2)

Some extent (3)

Moderate extent (4)

Great extent

(5) Very great

extent (6)

No basis to judge

(7) a. Continuation of the current National Invasive Species Council as
established by Executive Order

7 10 8 17 15 8 4 b. Legislative recognition of the National Invasive
Species Council

7 5 10 15 17 10 5 c. Designation of one federal agency that is

responsible for all invasive species issues 18 11 8 17 9 7 0

d. Designation of one federal agency responsible for terrestrial invasive
species and another federal agency responsible for aquatic invasive
species

18 13 11 10 12 4 1 e. Other* please describe and check appropriate box: 0
0 0 0 1 6 0 f. Other- 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 g. Other- 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

Enclosure I

Page 26 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species SECTION IV: We
would like your views on invasive species management and implementation
problems. 9. In your opinion, to what extent does each of the following
factors make it difficult to manage terrestrial invasive

species? (Check one box for each row.)

[ 19 ] Check here if you are not familiar with terrestrial invasive
species issues and skip to Question 10. [Two additional respondents did
not answer these questions. Total responses equal 49, but answers for each
question may not total 49 because some respondents did not answer all
questions or provided unclear answers.] Factors

Not a factor (1)

Little extent

(2) Some extent

(3) Moderate extent

(4) Great

extent (5)

Very great extent

(6) No basis to

judge (7)

a. Federal agencies do not do enough under their current legislative
authorities 0 2 9 14 13 7 4 b. Federal agencies do not do enough to
address

terrestrial invasive species on federal lands that affect neighboring
areas 2 3 6 9 11 10 7 c. Inadequate information and technical assistance

from federal government for preventing, detecting, assessing, monitoring,
and controlling invasive species

1 5 14 12 9 5 3 d. Inadequate information and research on terrestrial

invasive species in general 1 2 14 10 15 6 0 e. Lack of control measures
for specific terrestrial

invasive species 1 5 8 17 13 4 0 f. Lack of cost- effective control
measures 1 2 11 7 18 8 1 g. Inadequate coordination among federal agencies
1 2 14 13 7 7 4 h. Inadequate coordination between federal and state

governments 0 4 17 14 8 5 1 i. Inadequate regional coordination 1 4 12 11
9 5 7 j. Inability of federal agencies to share funds with one another to
address invasive species 0 3 7 13 9 3 13

k. Response efforts delayed by conflicts over legal authority 2 3 9 14 9 4
8 l. Less funding for invasive species in natural areas

than for agricultural land 2 4 8 10 10 11 4 m. Federal grant program funds
available only for

specific types of state invasive species efforts 0 5 5 11 14 7 7 n.
Inadequate federal funding for state invasive species efforts 0 0 8 6 10
23 2

o. List approach ineffective in dealing with newlyintroduced terrestrial
invasive species 0 5 12 12 10 7 3 p. Lack of flexibility in NEPA
requirements to allow

for invasive species rapid response and control efforts 1 1 6 10 10 13 8

q. Lack of public awareness outreach and education 0 1 5 9 14 19 0 r.
Other barriers* please describe and check

appropriate box: 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 s. Other- 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 t. Other-

0 0 0 0 1 2 0

Enclosure I

Page 27 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 10. In your
opinion, to what extent does each of the following factors make it
difficult to manage aquatic invasive species? (Check one box for each
row.)

[ 13 ] Check here if you are not familiar with aquatic invasive species
issues and skip to Question 11. [One additional respondent did not answer
these questions. Total responses equal 56, but answers for each question
may not total 56 because some respondents did not answer all questions or
provided unclear answers, and one respondent that checked the above box
answered these questions instead of skipping to Question 11. While this
respondent*s answers are presented below, they were excluded for purposes
of our analyses.] Factors

Not a factor (1)

Little extent

(2) Some extent

(3) Moderate extent

(4) Great

extent (5)

Very great extent

(6) No basis to

judge (7)

a. Federal agencies do not do enough under their current legislative
authorities 2 7 8 16 13 8 3 b. Federal agencies do not do enough to
address

aquatic invasive species on federal lands that affect neighboring areas 3
5 13 7 10 6 13 c. Inadequate information and technical assistance

from federal government for preventing, detecting, assessing, monitoring,
and controlling invasive species

4 5 16 15 8 5 4 d. Inadequate information and research on aquatic invasive
species in general 0 5 11 19 15 6 1 e. Lack of control measures for
specific aquatic

invasive species 0 3 4 13 25 12 0 f. Lack of cost- effective control
measures 0 1 8 8 29 9 1 g. Inadequate coordination among federal agencies
1 3 12 18 9 4 8 h. Inadequate coordination between federal and state

governments 1 5 24 9 12 5 1

i. Inadequate regional coordination 3 7 19 9 12 3 4 j. Inability of
federal agencies to share funds with one another to address invasive
species

1 5 8 15 8 5 14 k. Response efforts delayed by conflicts over legal

authority 4 5 7 12 9 5 15

l. Less funding for invasive species in natural areas than for
agricultural land 5 5 6 9 14 7 8 m. Federal grant program funds available
only for

specific types of state invasive species efforts 2 7 5 13 12 7 9

n. Inadequate federal funding for state invasive species efforts 0 0 6 9
14 27 1 o. List approach ineffective in dealing with newly introduced
aquatic invasive species

3 5 10 16 10 6 6 p. Lack of flexibility in NEPA requirements to allow

for invasive species rapid response and control efforts 0 4 7 13 11 9 12

q. Lack of public awareness outreach and education 0 3 5 14 14 21 0 s.
Other barriers* please describe and check

appropriate box: 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

t. Other- 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 u. Other-

0 0 0 0 4 0 0

Enclosure I

Page 28 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 11. Overall, what
are the top three barriers in implementing programs to manage invasive
species? 68 responses 67 responses

66 responses

SECTION V: General information 12. Does your state have a comprehensive
invasive species council addressing all types of invasive species?

[ 19 ] Yes [ 47 ] No If yes, please identify the following information
about it: Name of council: President/ Chairperson:

Phone number: E- mail address: 13. Does your state have comprehensive,
statewide councils on specific types of invasive species, such as
terrestrials, aquatics, plants, or animals? [ 36 ] Yes [ 30 ] No If yes,
please identify the following information about these councils: Name of
council: President/ Chairperson: Phone number: E- mail address: Name of
council: President/ Chairperson:

Phone number: E- mail address: Name of council: President/ Chairperson:
Phone number: E- mail address:

Enclosure I

Page 29 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species If you have more
than three such councils, please add the same information about them here:

14. Do you have any other comments that you would like to make about these
questions, legislative authorities needed to address invasive species, or
efforts to address invasive species? Thank you for your participation in
this survey. Your comments, along with those from

agencies responsible for controlling and managing invasive species in
other states, will help to inform the Congress in its decision- making on
invasive species legislation.

Enclosure II

Page 30 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species United States
General Accounting Office

Survey of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee on Invasive Species
Legislative Authority

Introduction The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) is due for
reauthorization by the Congress. The U. S. General Accounting Office
(GAO), an agency of Congress, has been asked to study how states and
stakeholders view federal legislative authority for addressing invasive
species. As Congress considers this reauthorization, questions have been
raised concerning whether providing overarching, integrated legislation
for both aquatics and terrestrial invasive species would be more effective
in addressing the problem, rather than the existing separate laws. As part
of this study, we are querying members of the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee (ISAC) and officials of the relevant state

agencies of all 50 states and the District of Columbia for their opinions
regarding federal legislative authority for invasive species. This survey
is designed to be completed by members of the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee.

Your participation is very important and we urge you to complete this
questionnaire. Your responses to this survey will help us to provide
meaningful information to the Congress for it to use during its
deliberations on the reauthorization of NISA. Instructions Please complete
the survey and return it to GAO

within 5 days of receipt. We need your responses as soon as possible so we
can report our results to Congress in June 2003. If you complete the
electronic survey using MS Word, please do not change any of the
questions. Please email the completed survey to GAOInvasives@ gao. gov.

If you print out a hard copy of the survey and fill it out manually,
please fax your completed questionnaire to Ilga Semeiks at 202- 512- 4852.
If you have any questions about this survey, please

send an email to GAOInvasives@ gao. gov or call Ilga Semeiks at 202- 512-
6013 or Trish McClure at 202- 512- 6318.

Thank you for your time and assistance.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Please provide the following information in the event we need to clarify a
response. Name: Affiliation: Title: State: Phone Number: E- mail Address:

Enclosure II

Page 31 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species SECTION I: This
section focuses on your role within the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee (ISAC). 1. For what types of invasive species do you have
knowledge or expertise?

(Check all that apply.)

1. [ 8 ] Terrestrial - plant 2. [ 5 ] Terrestrial - animal 3. [10 ]
Aquatic 2. Please briefly explain your role in invasive species management
and on ISAC.

Enclosure II

Page 32 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species SECTION II: This
section focuses on the effects of federal legislative authority on
invasive species management. 3. In your opinion, to what extent is each of
the following a gap in or a problem with federal legislative authority for
managing terrestrial invasive species? Check one box for each row.

[ 5 ] Check here if you are not familiar with terrestrial invasive species
issues and skip to Question 4. [Total responses equal 11, but answers for
each question may not total 11 because one respondent provided unclear
answers.] Gap or problem

Not a gap (1)

Little extent

(2) Some extent

(3) Moderate extent

(4) Great

extent (5)

Very great extent

(6) No basis to judge (7)

a. List of federally prohibited terrestrial invasive species is not as
comprehensive as it should be 0 0 0 2 3 6 0

b. Often no legal requirements for control if a terrestrial invasive
species is already established or widespread 0 0 1 1 1 7 0

c. No single federal agency has overall responsibility for invasive
species 0 0 2 1 3 5 0

d. Lack of statutory recognition of the National Invasive Species Council
0 0 0 1 5 5 0 e. No legal requirement for a national rapid response system
0 0 0 0 3 8 0 f. No exemptions in environmental laws, such as ESA,

NEPA, and CWA, to allow for rapid response 0 1 1 1 4 3 1 g. No legal
requirement for early detection 0 0 0 2 4 5 0 h. Federal law provides
limited access to private property

when control measures are needed 1 1 0 2 3 2 2 i. No requirement that NEPA
statements discuss the

potential for introduction or spread of invasive species 0 0 1 3 1 5 1 j.
Inadequate legal requirements for the possibility that

species introduced for biocontrol may become invasive 0 0 0 3 6 1 1 k.
Inadequate legal requirements regarding movement of

invasive species across different US ecosystems (i. e., a species native
to one area and invasive to another) 0 0 0 1 3 7 0

l. International trade agreements make it difficult to regulate products
that may introduce invasive species 0 0 0 1 3 6 0 m. Lack of a single
binding international treaty devoted to invasive species 0 0 1 1 2 5 1 n.
Inadequate regional coordination 0 0 0 1 5 4 1 o. Inadequate coordination
between federal and state

agencies 0 0 0 1 7 3 0 p. Lack of a federal research mandate for invasive
species 0 0 0 3 5 3 0 q. Existing authority focuses mostly on invasive
species

affecting agriculture 0 0 1 0 6 3 0 r. Other* please describe and check
appropriate box: 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

s. 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 t. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Enclosure II

Page 33 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 4. In your
opinion, to what extent is each of the following a gap in or a problem
with federal legislative authority for managing aquatic invasive species?
Check one box for each row. [ 5 ] Check here if you are not familiar with
aquatic invasive species issues and skip to Question 5.

[Total responses equal 11, but answers for each question may not total 11
because one respondent provided unclear answers.] Gap or problem

Not a gap (1)

Little extent

(2) Some extent

(3) Moderate extent

(4) Great

extent (5)

Very great extent

(6) No basis to judge (7)

a. List of federally prohibited aquatic invasive species is not as
comprehensive as it should be 1 0 1 1 3 5 0

b. Often no legal requirements for control if an aquatic invasive species
is already established or widespread 1 0 0 1 5 4 0

c. No single federal agency has overall responsibility for invasive
species 1 0 0 1 4 5 0

d. Lack of statutory recognition of the National Invasive Species Council
0 0 1 1 2 7 0

e. No legal requirement for a national rapid response system 0 0 0 2 2 7 0

f. No exemptions in environmental laws, such as ESA, NEPA, and CWA, to
allow for rapid response 0 1 3 2 1 4 0

g. No legal requirement for early detection 0 0 0 3 3 5 0

h. Federal law provides limited access to private property when control
measures are needed 2 1 0 2 4 1 1

i. No requirement that NEPA statements discuss the potential for
introduction or spread of invasive species 1 0 2 1 1 5 1

j. Inadequate legal requirements for the possibility that species
introduced for biocontrol may become invasive 1 0 1 3 3 2 1

k. Inadequate legal requirements regarding movement of invasive species
across different US ecosystems (i. e., a species native to one area and
invasive to another)

1 0 1 3 1 5 0

l. International trade agreements make it difficult to regulate products
that may introduce invasive species 1 1 0 1 4 4 0

m. No single binding international treaty devoted to invasive species 0 1
0 4 3 3 0

n. Inadequate regional coordination 1 1 1 1 3 3 1

o. Inadequate coordination between federal and state agencies 0 1 0 2 6 1
0

p. Lack of a federal research mandate for invasive species 0 1 1 2 3 4 0

q. No regulation of aquatic invasive species brought in on vessels through
means other than ballast water 0 0 1 1 4 4 1

r. Exemption of ballast water from the Clean Water Act 2 0 1 0 2 3 3

s. Ineffective federal standards for ballast water 0 1 0 0 6 4 0

t. Insufficient federal oversight of the aquaculture industry 1 0 0 1 4 4
1

u. Other* please describe and check appropriate box: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

v. 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 w. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enclosure II

Page 34 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 5. Would you favor
federal legislation that would integrate the authority to manage both
terrestrial and aquatic invasive species rather than the current
collection of separate laws? 1. [ 9 ] Yes 2. [ 4 ] No 3. [ 3 ] No opinion
Please explain your answer:

6. What would you like to see gained if there was an overarching federal
legislative authority that integrated both terrestrial and aquatic
invasive species? (Check all that apply.) 1. [ 15 ] Increased coordination
among federal agencies responsible for invasive species response 2. [ 15 ]
Increased coordination between federal and state agencies 3. [ 13 ]
Clearer division of responsibility among federal agencies 4. [ 13 ] Better
ability to prioritize control actions amongst invasive species risks 5. [
14 ] Greater sense of purpose or overall objective guiding control of
invasive species

6. [ 12 ] Increased focus on pathways or modes of transport of invasive
species (rather than distinction of terrestrial vs. aquatic or plant vs.
animal approach) 7. [ 11 ] Increased flexibility in using funding for
highest priority 8. [ 4 ] Other* please describe: 9. [ 2 ] Other* please
describe: 10. [ 0 ] Other* please describe: 11. [ 0 ] No opinion

Using the numbers from 1- 10 above, what in your opinion are the 3 most
important gains?

(Enter numbers from above categories in the three boxes below.)

15 15 14 1 5 2 0 2 2 4 2 3 0 3 1 4 3 0 1 5 1 2 2 6 2 1 4 7 0 2 3 8 2 0 1 9
0 1 0

Enclosure II

Page 35 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 7. What could be
the drawbacks of an overarching federal legislative authority that
integrated both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species? Please check all
that apply.

1. [ 12 ] Difficulty creating integrated legislation that addresses all
situations and all responsible agencies 2. [ 2 ] Reduction in state
authority for controlling invasive species 3. [ 2 ] Reduction of state
agency flexibility in controlling invasive species 4. [ 3 ] Reduction of
federal agency flexibility in controlling invasive species 5. [ 11 ]
Complexity in implementation 6. [ 10 ] Could result in terrestrial and
aquatic programs competing for scarce funds 7. [ 6 ] Could result in less
funding for management of less well- known invasive species 8. [ 8 ] Could
result in loss of specific expertise of the individual agencies that now
have authority over specific

types of invasive species 9. [ 3 ] Other* please describe: 10. [ 0 ]
Other* please describe: 11. [ 0 ] Other* please describe: 12. [ 0 ] No
major drawbacks

Using the numbers from 1- 11 above, what in your opinion are the 3 most
important drawbacks?

(Enter numbers from above categories in the three boxes below.) 15 14 12 1
5 2 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 5 3 4 3 6 3 3 2 7 0 2 1 8 0 2 3 9 2 0 0
SECTION III: We now want your views on different options for
organizational authority for managing and

controlling invasive species. 8. Regardless of whether or not federal
legislative authority for terrestrial and aquatic invasive species was
integrated, to what extent do you think the following would be effective
in managing and controlling invasive species?

(Check one box for each row.)

Options

Not Effective

(1) Little

extent (2)

Some extent (3)

Moderate extent (4)

Great extent

(5) Very great

extent (6)

No basis to judge

(7) a. Continuation of the current National Invasive Species Council as
established by Executive Order

0 2 4 3 3 4 0 b. Legislative recognition of the National Invasive Species
Council

0 0 1 1 5 9 0 c. Designation of one federal agency that is

responsible for all invasive species issues 2 3 4 3 2 2 0

d. Designation of one federal agency responsible for terrestrial invasive
species and another federal agency responsible for aquatic invasive
species

1 3 4 3 5 0 0 e. Other* please describe and check appropriate box: 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 f. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 g. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SECTION IV: We would like your views on invasive species management and
implementation problems.

Enclosure II

Page 36 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 9. In your
opinion, to what extent does each of the following factors make it
difficult to manage terrestrial invasive species? (Check one box for each
row.)

[ 5 ] Check here if you are not familiar with terrestrial invasive species
issues and skip to Question 10. [Total responses equal 11, but answers for
each question may not total 11 because some respondents did not answer all
questions.] Factors

[Note: Some respondents left some factors blank.] Not a factor (1)

Little extent

(2) Some extent

(3) Moderate extent

(4) Great

extent (5)

Very great extent

(6) No basis to

judge (7)

a. Federal agencies do not do enough under their current legislative
authorities 0 0 1 1 5 4 0 b. Federal agencies do not do enough to address

terrestrial invasive species on federal lands that affect neighboring
areas 0 0 1 2 3 5 0 c. Inadequate information and technical assistance

from federal government for preventing, detecting, assessing, monitoring,
and controlling invasive species

0 0 1 3 5 2 0 d. Inadequate information and research on terrestrial

invasive species in general 0 1 2 2 4 2 0 e. Lack of control measures for
specific terrestrial

invasive species 0 1 3 0 6 0 0 f. Lack of cost- effective control measures
0 1 2 2 5 1 0 g. Inadequate coordination among federal agencies 0 0 0 2 4
4 0 h. Inadequate coordination between federal and state

governments 0 0 1 2 5 3 0 i. Inadequate regional coordination 0 0 1 2 4 3
0 j. Inability of federal agencies to share funds with one another to
address invasive species 0 0 1 3 5 2 0

k. Response efforts delayed by conflicts over legal authority 0 0 1 1 6 2
1 l. Less funding for invasive species in natural areas

than for agricultural land 0 0 1 1 3 6 0 m. Federal grant program funds
available only for

specific types of state invasive species efforts 0 0 2 2 2 4 1 n.
Inadequate federal funding for state invasive species efforts 0 0 0 1 3 6
1

o. List approach ineffective in dealing with newly introduced terrestrial
invasive species 0 0 0 1 3 5 1 p. Lack of flexibility in NEPA requirements
to allow

for invasive species rapid response and control efforts 0 1 0 2 4 2 2

q. Lack of public awareness outreach and education 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 r. Other
barriers* please describe and check

appropriate box: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 s. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 t.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enclosure II

Page 37 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 10. In your
opinion, to what extent does each of the following factors make it
difficult to manage aquatic invasive species? (Check one box for each
row.)

[ 5 ] Check here if you are not familiar with aquatic invasive species
issues and skip to Question 11. [Total responses equal 11, but answers for
each question may not total 11 because one respondent provided unclear
answers.] Factors

Not a factor (1)

Little extent

(2) Some extent

(3) Moderate extent

(4) Great

extent (5)

Very great extent

(6) No basis to

judge (7)

a. Federal agencies do not do enough under their current legislative
authorities 0 0 2 0 5 4 0 b. Federal agencies do not do enough to address

aquatic invasive species on federal lands that affect neighboring areas 0
0 0 2 5 2 1 c. Inadequate information and technical assistance

from federal government for preventing, detecting, assessing, monitoring,
and controlling invasive species

0 0 2 3 3 2 1 d. Inadequate information and research on aquatic invasive
species in general 0 0 0 1 5 5 0 e. Lack of control measures for specific
aquatic

invasive species 0 0 2 1 3 5 0 f. Lack of cost- effective control measures
0 0 1 1 5 4 0 g. Inadequate coordination among federal agencies 0 0 0 4 3
4 0 h. Inadequate coordination between federal and state

governments 0 0 0 3 5 3 0

i. Inadequate regional coordination 0 1 1 3 4 2 0 j. Inability of federal
agencies to share funds with one another to address invasive species

0 0 2 2 6 1 0 k. Response efforts delayed by conflicts over legal

authority 0 0 0 0 6 4 1

l. Less funding for invasive species in natural areas than for
agricultural land 0 1 0 0 5 5 0 m. Federal grant program funds available
only for

specific types of state invasive species efforts 0 1 0 3 3 3 1

n. Inadequate federal funding for state invasive species efforts 0 1 0 2 3
5 0 o. List approach ineffective in dealing with newly introduced aquatic
invasive species

0 0 1 1 4 5 0 p. Lack of flexibility in NEPA requirements to allow

for invasive species rapid response and control efforts 0 1 2 3 2 3 0

q. Lack of public awareness outreach and education 0 0 2 2 3 4 0 s. Other
barriers* please describe and check

appropriate box: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

t. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Enclosure II

Page 38 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species 11. Overall, what
are the top three barriers in implementing programs to manage invasive
species? 16 responses 16 responses

16 responses

[Note: No questions 12 and 13.]

SECTION V: General Information 14. Do you have any other comments that you
would like to make about these questions, legislative authorities needed
to address invasive species, or efforts to address invasive species? Thank
you for your participation in this survey. Your comments, along with those
from

other ISAC members and state agencies responsible for controlling and
managing invasive species in other states, will help to inform the
Congress in its decision- making on invasive species legislation.

Page 39 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

Enclosure III Scope and Methodology At the request of the Chairmen and
Ranking Members of the Committee on

Environment and Public Works and its Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
and Water, U. S. Senate, we obtained the perspectives of state officials
responsible for managing terrestrial and aquatic invasive species and
Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) members on the (1) gaps in, or
problems with, federal legislation addressing invasive species, (2)
barriers to managing invasive species, (3) effective federal leadership
structures for addressing invasive species, and (4) integrating federal
aquatic and terrestrial invasive species legislation, and the potential
benefits and drawbacks of such legislation.

To obtain the perspectives of state officials and ISAC members, we
distributed two surveys: one was sent to agencies that manage and control
invasive species in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the
other was sent to 24 ISAC members. An E- mail was sent to each participant
describing the survey and asking them to identify any other agencies that
might manage invasive species. Through information from this introductory
E- mail, prior GAO reports, and ISAC*s Web site, a survey was sent to one
agriculture agency and one wildlife agency and/ or additional agencies
that manage invasive species for each state. Because surveys were sent to
all states and ISAC members, there are no sampling errors. However, the
practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors.
Measurement errors are introduced if difficulties exist in how a
particular question is interpreted or in the sources of information
available to respondents in answering a question. In addition, coding
errors may occur if mistakes are entered into a database.

We took extensive steps in the development of the surveys, the collection
of data, and the editing and analysis of data to minimize total survey
error. To reduce measurement error, we conducted pretests with four states
(California, Florida, Hawaii, and Michigan) and a member of the ISAC to
make sure questions and response categories were interpreted in a
consistent manner. The four states were chosen based on their active
invasive species program consisting of both aquatic and terrestrial
invasive species and their geographic locations. Based on the pretests and
comments received from the states and the ISAC member, we made relevant
changes to the questions. Copies of the state and the ISAC surveys, along
with the results to each question, are in enclosures I and II,
respectively. In addition, we edited all completed surveys for consistency
and, if necessary, contacted respondents to clarify responses. All
questionnaire responses were double- key entered into our database (that
is, the entries were 100 percent verified), and a random sample of the
questionnaires was further verified for completeness and accuracy. In
addition, all computer syntax was peer reviewed and verified by separate
programmers to ensure that the syntax was written and

executed correctly.

Page 40 GAO- 03- 1089R Perspectives on Invasive Species

We made extensive efforts to encourage respondents to complete and return
the questionnaires, including sending up to four electronic reminder E-
mail messages to non- respondents, and calling state agency officials
directly. Our efforts yielded responses from 45 states and 16 of 24 ISAC
members. 1 These groups were analyzed and their results presented
separately. We did not receive a response from any of the agencies that
manage or control invasive species from Connecticut, Maine, Montana, New
Jersey, North Carolina, and the District of

Columbia. 2 In addition to data on state programs obtained through our
survey, we obtained information through interviews with officials from
state agencies that manage and control invasive species. We selected a
nonprobability sample of states to obtain information on programs and
perspectives. We selected these states because of their geographic
location, active invasive species efforts concerning both aquatic and
terrestrial invasive species, or the number of invasive species management
challenges they face. In some cases, we also called survey respondents to
obtain specific examples or explanations for certain responses. We also
discussed the results of our survey with the Executive Director of the
National Invasive Species Council.

We performed our review from April 2003 through September 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

(360379) 1 There were actually 25 members of ISAC, however, one ISAC
member was also a state official. We only sent this person a state survey,
not an ISAC survey. Therefore, we reduced the total number of possible
ISAC responses from 25 to 24. 2 After the delivery of the testimony on
June 17, 2003, we received responses from Montana and

New Jersey. However, we excluded these because of the possibility that the
responses might have been influenced by the testimony.

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies
of GAO documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO s Web site ( www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety,

including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list,
known as Today s Reports, on its Web site daily. The list contains links
to the full- text document files. To have GAO e- mail this list to you
every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select Subscribe to e- mail
alerts under the Order GAO Products heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $ 2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: ( 202) 512- 6000 TDD: ( 202) 512- 2537 Fax: (
202) 512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: ( 800) 424- 5454 or ( 202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov ( 202)
512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548 Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste,
and Abuse in Federal Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***