Invasive Species: Federal Efforts and State Perspectives on	 
Challenges and National Leadership (17-JUN-03, GAO-03-916T).	 
                                                                 
Invasive species--nonnative plants and animals--have caused	 
billions of dollars in damage to natural areas, businesses, and  
consumers. In 2001, the federal government issued a National	 
Management Plan to coordinate a national control effort involving
the 20 or so federal agencies that are responsible for managing  
invasive species. In October 2002, GAO reported on the		 
implementation of the management plan and efforts to manage	 
ballast water, among other things. This testimony discusses some 
of GAO's findings and recommendations in that report. It also	 
presents the results of a subsequent GAO survey of state	 
officials responsible for managing terrestrial and aquatic	 
invasive species. This survey sought state perspectives on (1)	 
the perceived gaps in existing legislation and barriers to	 
addressing terrestrial and aquatic invasive species and (2) the  
federal leadership structure for addressing invasive species, as 
well as the integration of federal legislation on terrestrial	 
invasive species with legislation on aquatic invasives. 	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-916T					        
    ACCNO:   A07227						        
  TITLE:     Invasive Species: Federal Efforts and State Perspectives 
on Challenges and National Leadership				 
     DATE:   06/17/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Animals						 
	     Plants (organisms) 				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Surveys						 
	     Environmental law					 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Environmental policies				 
	     Great Lakes					 
	     National Management Plan				 

******************************************************************
** 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-03-916T

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 9: 30 a. m. EDT Tuesday, June 17,
2003 INVASIVE SPECIES

Federal Efforts and State Perspectives on Challenges and National
Leadership

Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director Natural Resources and Environment

GAO- 03- 916T

In 2002, GAO reported that while the National Management Plan calls for
many actions that are likely to contribute to preventing and controlling
invasive species in the United States, it does not clearly articulate
specific long- term goals toward which the government should strive. For
example, it is not clear how implementing the actions in the plan will
move national efforts toward outcomes such as reducing new invasive
species by a specific number or reducing the spread of established species
by a specific amount. Moreover, GAO found that the federal government had
made little progress in implementing many of the actions called for by the
plan. Reasons for the slow progress included delays in establishing teams
to be responsible for guiding implementation of the planned actions, the
low priority given to implementation by the National Invasive Species
Council and federal agencies, and the lack of funding and staff
responsible for doing the work. In addition, GAO reported that current
federal efforts are not adequate to prevent the introduction of invasive
species into the Great Lakes via the ballast water of ships. Although
federal officials believe more should be done to protect the Great Lakes
from ballast water discharges, their plans for doing so depend on the
development of standards and technologies that will take many years. More
recently, state officials who responded to GAO*s survey, identified a

number of gaps in, or problems with, existing legislation addressing
invasive species and other barriers to managing invasives. Many state
officials identified a lack of legal requirements for controlling invasive
species that are already established or widespread as a key gap in
legislation addressing both aquatic and terrestrial invasive species.
State officials also often

recognized ineffective standards for ballast water as a major problem in
aquatics legislation. Regarding barriers to managing invasive species,
state officials identified a lack of federal funding for state invasive
species efforts, public education and outreach, and cost- effective
control measures as major problems. State officials* opinions varied on
the preferred leadership structure for managing invasive species and
whether to integrate legislative authority on invasive species. Many
officials indicated that specifically authorizing the National Invasive
Species Council would be an effective

management option and favored integrated authority, but in both cases, the
margins were relatively small. State officials indicated that the possible
benefits of integrated legislation would be increased coordination between
federal agencies and states and an increased focus on invasive species
pathways, as opposed to focusing on individual species. The possible
drawbacks identified included concerns that a single piece of legislation
would not be able to address all possible situations dealing with invasive
species and might reduce state flexibility in addressing invasives.
Invasive species* nonnative plants and animals* have caused billions

of dollars in damage to natural areas, businesses, and consumers. In 2001,
the federal government

issued a National Management Plan to coordinate a national control effort
involving the 20 or so federal agencies that are responsible for managing
invasive species. In October 2002, GAO reported on the implementation of
the management plan and efforts to manage ballast water, among other
things. (Invasive Species: Clearer Focus

and Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem) [Oct.
2002, GAO- 03- 1] This testimony discusses some of GAO*s findings and

recommendations in that report. It also presents the results of a
subsequent GAO survey of state officials responsible for managing
terrestrial and aquatic invasive

species. This survey sought state perspectives on (1) the perceived gaps
in existing legislation and barriers to addressing terrestrial

and aquatic invasive species and (2) the federal leadership structure for
addressing invasive species, as well as the integration of federal

legislation on terrestrial invasive species with legislation on aquatic
invasives.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 916T. To view the full product,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Barry T. Hill at (202) 512- 3841 or hillbt@ gao. gov.
Highlights of GAO- 03- 916T, testimony before the Subcommittee on
Fisheries,

Wildlife, and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United
States Senate

June 17, 2003

INVASIVE SPECIES Federal Efforts and State Perspectives on Challenges and
National Leadership

Page 1 GAO- 03- 916T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here
today to discuss the difficult issue of managing invasive species as you
deliberate Senate Bill 525, 1 which would reauthorize the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. 2 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 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. Conservation
biologists rank invasive species as the second most serious threat to
endangered species after habitat destruction.

Overall, scientists, academicians, and industry leaders are recognizing
invasive species as one of the most serious environmental threats of the
21st century. In October 2002, we issued a report on the federal

government*s National Management Plan for managing invasive species,
ballast water management, and other issues. 3 , 4 My testimony today is
based on our October 2002 report as well as new

work that you requested. Specifically, I will discuss the findings and
recommendations of our October 2002 report that address (1) progress made
by federal agencies implementing the National Management Plan and (2) the
current state of ballast water management as a pathway for invasive
species. I will also discuss some of the results of new work we conducted
to obtain state perspectives on (1) the gaps in, or problems with,
existing legislation and barriers to addressing terrestrial and aquatic
invasive species and (2) the federal leadership structure for addressing
invasive species and integration of federal legislation on terrestrial
invasive species with legislation on aquatic invasives. To obtain state
perspectives, we surveyed the state agencies typically most involved with

1 S. 525, 108th Cong. (2003). 2 Pub. L. No. 101- 646, 104 Stat. 4761
(1990) (codified as amended at 16 U. S. C. S:S: 4701- 4751). 3 U. S.
General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater
Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem, GAO- 03- 1
(Washington, DC: Oct. 2002).

4 Executive Order 13112 created a National Invasive Species Council, now
composed of 11 federal departments and agencies, to provide national
leadership on addressing invasive species and to develop a plan for
managing them.

Page 2 GAO- 03- 916T

invasive species* state agencies responsible for agriculture and natural
resources or fish and wildlife* sending surveys to at least two agencies
within each of the 50 states. We received 68 responses from a total of 45
states. We also surveyed the members of the Invasive Species Advisory

Committee, a federal advisory committee established to help the federal
government develop and implement its National Management Plan; we received
responses from about two- thirds of the 24 Committee members. We also
interviewed officials in a few states chosen because of their
wellestablished invasive species programs or the large number of invasive
species present. We conducted our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. We will provide to you the full

results of our survey in a separate product. As we reported in October
2002, the National Management Plan for addressing invasive species lacks a
clear long- term desired outcome and quantifiable measures of performance.
While the actions called for in the plan are likely to contribute to
controlling invasive species in a general sense, it is unclear how
implementing them will move the United States toward a specific outcome,
such as reducing new invasive species by a specific number or reducing the
spread of established species by a specified amount. Federal officials
recognize that the plan has deficiencies and are working on improvements.
Currently, the only performance measure that can be assessed is the
percentage of planned actions that have been completed. By this measure,
implementation has been slow. As of September 2002, federal agencies had
completed less than 20 percent of the actions that the plan called for by
that date, although they had begun

work on others. Reasons for the slow progress included delays in
establishing teams to be responsible for guiding implementation of the
planned actions, the low priority given to implementation by the National
Invasive Species Council and federal agencies, and the lack of funding and
staff responsible for doing the work. Some stakeholders expressed the

view that the low priority given to implementing the plan and associated
limited progress may be due to the fact that the Council and plan were
created by executive order and thus do not receive the same priority as
programs that are legislatively mandated. We made several recommendations
to the Council intended to clarify goals and objectives in the National
Management Plan and to improve reporting on the progress of its
implementation; Council agencies generally agreed with our
recommendations.

We also reported in October 2002 that current federal efforts are not
adequate to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great
Summary

Page 3 GAO- 03- 916T

Lakes via the ballast water of ships. Despite federal regulations
requiring ships that enter the lakes from more than 200 nautical miles off
the U. S. coast to exchange their ballast water in the open ocean (that
is, in waters deeper than 2,000 meters and farther than 200 nautical miles
from the U. S. coast); retain the ballast water on board; or use an
alternative, environmentally sound, method of ballast water management,
aquatic invasive species are still entering the Great Lakes and
establishing

themselves in the ecosystem. According to the experts we consulted, at
least two factors contribute to the failure of the existing regulations to
prevent introductions. First, about 70 percent of the ships that enter the
Great Lakes are classified by the Coast Guard as having no ballast on
board and, are therefore, exempt from open- ocean exchange requirements.
However, these ships may in fact carry thousands of gallons of residual
ballast water and sediment in their drained tanks, and this

water and sediment may contain potentially invasive organisms that may be
mixed with water later taken from, and then discharged into, the Great
Lakes. Second, the open- ocean exchange conducted by ships that have
ballast does not effectively remove or kill all organisms in the ballast
tanks. Although federal officials believe more should be done to protect
the Great Lakes from ballast water discharges, their plans for doing so
depend on the development of standards and technologies that will take
many years. In the meantime, the continued introduction of invasive
species could have major economic and ecological consequences.

According to our new work, state officials identified a number of
legislative gaps or problems, and other barriers related to addressing
invasive species. A key gap noted in both aquatic and terrestrial
legislation is the lack of legal 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 a legal requirement would raise the
priority for responding to it. For example, one state official complained
about the lack of authority to control Eurasian ruffe, an invasive fish
that has spread through several Great Lakes and causes great harm to
native fisheries. He compared this to the authorities available to control
the sea lamprey, which has a mandated control program that is funded by
the U. S. and Canada. 5 In addition, many state officials frequently
cited, as ineffective, the current federal standards for ballast water,
which only impose requirements on ships entering the Great Lakes and not
other U. S. waters.

5 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, Sept. 10, 1954, U. S.- Can., 6 U.
S. T. 2836.

Page 4 GAO- 03- 916T

State officials also identified the lack of federal funding for state
invasive species efforts as another barrier they face. In particular,
states were concerned about not having sufficient funds to create
management plans for addressing invasive species, and to conduct
monitoring and detection, inspection and enforcement, and research
activities. Finally, state officials

were also concerned with the lack of cost- effective control measures and
insufficient public education and outreach efforts.

State officials* opinions on effective federal leadership structures for
addressing invasive species varied. A National Invasive Species Council
specifically authorized in legislation was most often identified as an
effective leadership structure for managing invasive species, although
many officials also thought that continuing with the Council as
established by executive order would also be effective. Several federal
agency officials thought that giving the Council authority in legislation
would make it easier for them to implement the National Management Plan.
Regarding the form legislation on invasive species should take, most state
officials were in favor of integrating legislation on terrestrial invasive
species with legislation on aquatic invasive species, but the margin was
relatively small. Many state officials indicated that the possible
benefits of integrated legislative authority would be increased
coordination between federal agencies and states and an increased focus on
invasive species pathways, as opposed to specific species. The possible
drawbacks identified included concerns that a single piece of legislation
would not be able to address all possible situations dealing with invasive
species and may result in reduced state flexibility in addressing
invasives.

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 environment are profound. 6 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 the Formosan termite
causes at least $1 billion in damages and control costs in 11 states; USDA

6 U. S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Federal and Selected
State Funding to Address Harmful Nonnative Species, GAO/ RCED- 00- 219
(Washington, D. C.: Aug. 24, 2000). Background

Page 5 GAO- 03- 916T

also estimates that, if not managed, fruit flies could cause more than
$1.8 billion in damage each year. 7 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 various 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, for example* a rapidly growing invasive
vine that thrives in the southeastern United States* 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. Such programs and the amount of resources expended on them vary
considerably among the states.

In response to concerns that we were 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 minimize their economic, environmental, and human health
impacts. The executive order established the National Invasive Species
Council, 7 Estimates are in 2001 dollars.

Page 6 GAO- 03- 916T

which is now composed of the heads of 11 federal departments and agencies,
to provide national leadership on invasive species and to ensure that
federal efforts are coordinated and effective, among other things. The

executive order also required the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
federal advisory committee 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. S. 525, if enacted, would call on the
Council to carry out several other activities such as implementing a
strategy to share information collected under the proposed legislation and
to develop a program for educating the public about certain pathways for
invasive species; it would also authorize funds for the Council to carry
out these activities.

The National Invasive Species Council*s management plan, Meeting the
Invasive Species Challenge, issued in January 2001, calls for actions that
are likely to help control invasive species, such as issuing additional
regulations to further reduce the risk of species introductions via solid
wood packing material, developing methods to determine rapid response
measures that are most appropriate for specific situations, and devoting
additional resources to strengthening inspection services at ports of
entry.

However, as we observed in our October 2002 report, the plan lacks a clear
long- term goal and quantifiable performance criteria against which to
evaluate its overall success. For example, the plan does not contain
performance- oriented goals and objectives, such as reducing the
introduction of new species by a certain percentage or reducing the spread
of established species by a specified amount. Instead, the plan contains
an extensive list of actions that, while likely to contribute to
preventing and controlling invasive species, are not clearly part of a
comprehensive

strategy. Similarly, many of the actions in the plan call for federal
agencies to take certain steps rather than to achieve specific results and
do not have measurable outcomes. For example, the plan calls for the
Council to work with relevant organizations to *expand opportunities to
share

information, technologies, and technical capacity on the control and
management of invasive species with other countries.* The plan also calls
for the Council to support international conferences and seminars. These
types of actions are more process- oriented than outcome- oriented; taken
individually, the actions may be useful, but judging whether they are

successful and have contributed to an overall goal, will be difficult.
Federal officials involved in developing the plan told us that they
recognize that it has deficiencies and are working on improvements. The
National Management

Plan Lacks Measurable Goals, and Its Implementation Has Been Slow

Page 7 GAO- 03- 916T

Council acknowledged in the plan itself that many of the details of the
actions called for would require further development in the implementation
phase. The executive director of the Council staff told us that, in her
opinion, given the scope of this first- time effort, it would have been
unrealistic and difficult to agree on specific measurable goals. She also
said that, in many areas, the federal government does not have the data on
invasive species conditions needed to set long- term goals and develop
better performance measures. She said that many of the actions called for
in the management plan are designed to help develop needed data but
pointed out that doing so for some aspects of invasive species management
will be difficult given the comprehensive data needed.

The management plan also called for the Council to establish a transparent
oversight mechanism by April 2001 to report on implementation of the plan
and compliance with the executive order. This mechanism, however, is just
now being set in place. Without this mechanism, the only available measure
that could have be used to assess overall progress in

implementing the plan was the percentage of planned actions that were
completed by the dates set in the plan. By this measure, implementation
has been slow. Specifically, federal agencies had completed less than 20
percent of the 65 actions that were called for by September 2002. Council
agencies had started work on over 60 percent of the remaining planned

actions, however, including some that have a due date beyond September
2002. Several actions in the plan that were completed on time related to
the development of the Council*s Web site, which is found at www.
invasivespecies. gov. In addition, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard, the Department of the
Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had sponsored
research related to ballast water management. Nevertheless, a vast
majority of the members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, which
we surveyed for our October 2002 report, said that the Council was making
inadequate or very inadequate progress.

We found several reasons for the slow progress in implementing the plan.
First, delays occurred in establishing the teams of federal and nonfederal
stakeholders that were intended to guide implementation of various parts
of the plan. Second, our review of agencies* performance plans (prepared
pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act) indicated that
while some agencies* plans described efforts taken to address invasive
species under their own specific programs, none of the plans specifically
identified implementing actions called for by the plan as a performance

measure. Some stakeholders expressed the view that the low priority given
to implementing the plan and associated limited progress may be

Page 8 GAO- 03- 916T

due to the fact that the Council and plan were created by executive order,
and thus do not receive the same priority as programs that are
legislatively mandated. Finally, we also noted a lack of funding and staff
specifically devoted to implementing the plan.

To address these shortcomings, we recommended that the Council cochairs
(the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior)

 ensure that the updated management plan contains performance- oriented
goals and objectives and specific measures of success and  give high
priority to establishing a transparent oversight mechanism for

use by federal agencies complying with the executive order and reporting
on implementation of the management plan.

We also recommended that all member agencies of the National Invasive
Species Council with assigned actions in the current management plan
recognize their responsibilities in either their departmental or agency-
level annual performance plans. The agencies generally agreed with our
recommendations.

Since we issued our report, the Council made significant progress on its
first crosscutting budget* one of the planned actions in the management
plan that should help to develop performance measures and promote better
coordination of actions among agencies. The Office of Management and
Budget is currently reviewing the Council*s proposal for the fiscal year
2004 budget cycle. In addition, according to Council staff, the oversight
mechanism should be finalized in July 2003, and the first revision to the
management plan should be finalized later this summer.

According to experts and agency officials we consulted, current efforts by
the United States are not adequate to prevent the introduction of aquatic
invasive species into the Great Lakes via ballast water of ships, and they
need to be improved. Since 1993, federal regulations have required vessels

entering the Great Lakes from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone* a zone
extending 200 nautical miles from the shore* to exchange their ballast
water in the open ocean (that is, water deeper than 2,000 meters) before
entering the zone. Exchanging ballast water before arriving in the Great
Lakes is intended to serve two purposes: to flush aquatic species taken on
in foreign ports from the ballast tanks and to kill with salt water any
remaining organisms that happen to require fresh or brackish water. If a
ship bound for the Great Lakes has not exchanged its ballast water in the
Current Regulations

Concerning Ballast Water Management Are Not Keeping Invasive Species out
of the Great Lakes

Page 9 GAO- 03- 916T

open ocean it must hold the ballast in its tanks for the duration of the
voyage through the lakes or conduct an exchange in a different approved
location. Data from the Coast Guard show that the percentage of ships
entering the Great Lakes after exchanging their ballast water has steadily
increased since the regulations took effect in 1993 and averaged over 93
percent from 1998 through 2001. Despite this, numerous aquatic invasive
species have entered the Great Lakes via ballast water and have
established populations since the regulations were promulgated.

Experts have cited several reasons for the continued introductions of
aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes despite the ballast water
regulations. In particular, the Coast Guard*s ballast water exchange
regulations do not apply to ships with little or no pumpable ballast water

in their tanks, which account for approximately 70 percent of ships
entering the Great Lakes from 1999 through 2001. These ships, however, may
still have thousands of gallons of residual ballast and sediment in their
tanks that could harbor potentially invasive organisms from previous ports
of call and then be discharged to the Great Lakes during subsequent
ballast discharges. There are also concerns that open- ocean ballast water
exchange is not an effective method of removing all potentially invasive
organisms from a ship*s ballast tank. Federal officials believe that they
should do more to develop treatment

standards and technologies to protect the Great Lakes from ballast water
discharges. The Coast Guard is now working to develop new regulations that
would include a performance standard for ballast water* that is, a
measurement of how *clean* ballast water should be before discharge within
U. S. waters. The Coast Guard is expecting to have a final rule ready for
interdepartmental review by the fall of 2004 that will contain ballast
water treatment goals and a standard that would apply not only to ships
entering the Great Lakes but to all ships entering U. S. ports from
outside the Exclusive Economic Zone. Once the Coast Guard sets a
performance standard, firms and other entities will be able to use this as
a goal as they develop ballast water treatment technologies. While several
technologies are being investigated, such as filtration and using physical
biocides such as ultraviolet radiation and heat treatment, a major hurdle
to be overcome in developing technological solutions is how to treat large
volumes of

water being pumped at very high flow rates. In addition, small container
vessels and cruise ships, which carry a smaller volume of ballast water,
may require different technologies than larger container vessels. As a
result, it is likely that no single technology will address the problem
adequately. Consequently, it could be many years before the world*s
commercial fleet is equipped with effective treatment technologies.

Page 10 GAO- 03- 916T

Without more effective ballast water standards, the continued introduction
of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes and other aquatic systems
around the country is likely to cause potentially significant economic and
ecological impacts.

We reported in October 2002 that the Coast Guard and the Department of
Transportation*s Maritime Administration are developing programs to
facilitate technology development. In addition, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service have
funded 20 ballast water technology demonstration projects at a total cost
of $3.5 million since 1998 under a research program authorized under the

National Invasive Species Act. Other programs also support research, and
the Maritime Administration expects to make available several ships of its
Ready Reserve Force Fleet to act as test platforms for ballast water
technology demonstration projects. Once effective technologies are
developed, another hurdle will be installing the technologies on the world
fleet. 8 New ships can be designed to incorporate a treatment system, but
existing ships were not designed to carry ballast water technologies and
may have to go through an expensive retrofitting process. With each
passing year without an effective technology, every new ship put into
service is one more that may need to be retrofitted in the future.

Public and private interests in the Great Lakes have expressed
dissatisfaction with the progress in developing a solution to the problem
of aquatic invasive species introduced through ballast water. An industry
representative told us that she and other stakeholders were frustrated
with the slow progress being made by the Coast Guard in developing a
treatment standard. More broadly, in the absence of stricter federal
standards for ballast water, several Great Lakes states have considered
adopting legislation that would be more stringent than current federal
regulations. In addition, in a July 6, 2001, letter to the U. S. Secretary
of State and the Canadian Minster of Foreign Affairs, the International
Joint Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission stated their
belief

that the two governments were not adequately protecting the Great Lakes 8
A recent study analyzing the market for future treatment technologies
reported that there are over 47, 000 vessels in the world fleet for which
ballast water treatment technologies could be applicable.

Page 11 GAO- 03- 916T

from further introductions of aquatic invasive species. 9 They also noted
a growing sense of frustration within all levels of government, the
public, academia, industry, and environmental groups throughout the Great
Lakes

basin and a consensus that the ballast water issue must be addressed now.
The two commissions believe that the reauthorization of the National
Invasive Species Act is a clear opportunity to provide funding for
research aimed at developing binational ballast water standards.

S. 525 sets forth a more aggressive program against the introduction of
aquatic invasive species through ballast water and related pathways. In
particular, it would require ballast water standards for ships in all
waters of the U. S., instead of the current voluntary program for waters
outside of the Great Lakes. It also specifically authorizes significantly
more funding in the form of grants to states, and federal funding and
grants for research, including research on pathways, likely aquatic
invaders, and development of cost- effective control methods.

Now let me turn to our most recent work gathering state perspectives on
invasive species legislation and management.

State officials who responded to our survey identified several gaps in, or
problems with, existing federal legislation on aquatic and terrestrial
invasive species, as well as other barriers to their efforts to manage
invasive species.

9 The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 established the International Joint
Commission to, among other things, advise the U. S. and Canadian
governments concerning transboundary water quality issues. The Commission
has six members: three appointed by the President of the United States,
with the advice and approval of the Senate, and three appointed by the
Governor in Council of Canada, on the advice of the Prime Minister. The
Great Lakes Fishery Commission was created in 1955 by a convention on
Great Lakes fisheries between the U. S. and Canada. State Officials Cited
Several Gaps in

Existing Federal Legislation and Identified Other Barriers to Addressing
Invasive Species

Page 12 GAO- 03- 916T

According to our new work, the lack of legal requirements for controlling
already- established or widespread invasive species was the gap in
existing legislation on aquatic and terrestrial species most frequently
identified by state officials. Specifically, they said that this is a
problem for species that

do not affect a specific commodity or when a species is not on a federal
list of recognized invasives. Officials noted that if there is no federal
requirement, there is often little money available to combat a species and
that a legal requirement would raise the priority for responding to it.
For example, one state official complained about the lack of authority to
control Eurasian ruffe, an invasive fish that has spread through several
Great Lakes and causes great harm to native fisheries. He compared this to
the authorities available to control the sea lamprey, which has a mandated
control program that is funded by the U. S. 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, when one state may regulate
or take actions to control a species and an adjacent state does not. Some
state officials noted that they have little authority to control or
monitor some species and that getting laws or regulations for specific
species, such as

those for the sea lamprey, takes time. Many state officials also
identified ineffective federal standards for ballast water as a problem
for addressing invasive species. Specifically, some state officials
complained that standards and treatment technologies,

regulations, compliance with reporting requirements, and penalties for
noncompliance are lacking and say 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 and are only required for ships entering
the Great Lakes. Some state officials also said that federal leadership is
essential to fund efforts in these areas and to provide coordination among
states. As I have already noted, S. 525 would authorize a more aggressive
program for developing standards and technologies for regulating ballast
water. Although some state officials believe solving the ballast water
problem is possible, some officials pointed to difficulties in doing so
with some methods. Specifically, these officials noted that some
environmentalists are opposed to chemical treatments, while industry

groups have objected to the cost of some technologies. S. 525 would revise
the definition of *environmentally sound* (as in environmentally sound
control measures) to delete the emphasis on nonchemical measures.
Perceived Gaps in or

Problems with Existing Legislation

Page 13 GAO- 03- 916T

State officials reported that inadequate federal funding for state efforts
was the key barrier to addressing invasive species* both aquatic and
terrestrial. In particular, state officials were concerned about having
sufficient funds to create management plans for addressing invasive
species, particularly as more states begin to develop plans, and for
inspection and enforcement activities. State officials also identified the
need for additional funds to conduct monitoring and detection programs,
research, and staffing. In particular, some state officials noted that
uncertainty in obtaining grant funds from year to year makes it difficult
to manage programs, especially when funding staff positions relies on
grants. S. 525 would specifically authorize significantly more funding in
grants to address invasive species than is specifically authorized under
the current

legislation. Many state officials also identified a lack of public
education and outreach as a barrier to managing terrestrial invasive
species. Public education and outreach activities are important components
of the battle against invasive species, as many invasives have been
introduced through the activities of individuals, such as recreational
boating, and the pet, live seafood, and

plant and horticultural trades. For example, the outbreak of the monkeypox
virus that has sickened at least 80 people in the Midwest is thought to
have spread from a Gambian rat imported from Africa to be sold as a pet.
S. 525 includes efforts intended to provide better outreach and education
to industry, including the horticulture, aquarium, aquaculture, and pet
trades, and to recreational boaters and marina operators, about invasive
species and steps to take to reduce their spread.

State officials identified a lack of cost- effective control measures as a
key barrier to addressing aquatic invasive species. Some officials
commented that there is a need for more species- specific research to
identify effective measures. For example, 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 and officials told us that targeted research on control
methods is needed, particularly for aquatic invasive species. S. 525 would
authorize a grant

program for research, development, demonstration, and verification of
environmentally sound, cost- effective technologies and methods to control
and eradicate aquatic invasive species. Other Barriers to

Addressing Invasive Species

Page 14 GAO- 03- 916T

State officials* opinions varied on the preferred leadership structure for
managing invasive species and whether to integrate legislative authority
on invasive species. Many state officials indicated that specifically
authorizing the National Invasive Species Council would be an effective
management option and favored integrated authority, but in both cases, the
margins were relatively small.

Currently, no single agency oversees the federal invasive species effort.
Instead, the National Invasive Species Council, which was created by
executive order and is composed of the heads of 11 federal departments and
agencies, is intended to coordinate federal actions addressing the
problem. State officials most often identified specifically authorizing
the Council in legislation as an effective leadership structure for
managing invasive species. Almost all of the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee members that responded to our survey agreed with this approach.
During our 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 for invasive species by giving the Council more authority
and, presumably, authorizing more resources. Officials from USDA, the
Department of Defense, and EPA also told us that legislative

authority, if properly written, would make it easier for Council agencies
to implement the management plan, as implementing actions under the
executive order are perceived to be lower in priority than are programs
that have been legislatively mandated. Many state officials, however, also
believed that keeping the current Council authority as established by

executive order is an effective option. As you know, federal authorities
for addressing invasive species are scattered across a patchwork of laws
under which aquatic and terrestrial species are treated separately.
Questions have been raised about whether this is the most effective and
efficient approach and whether the federal government*s ability to manage
invasive species would be strengthened if State Officials* Opinions Varied
on

Effective Leadership Structures for Managing Invasive Species and Whether
to Integrate Legislative Authority on Invasive Species

Federal Leadership Structure for Invasive Species

Integration of Federal Laws Addressing Invasive Species

Page 15 GAO- 03- 916T

integrated legal authority addressed both types of invasives. Some believe
such an approach would provide for more flexibility in addressing invasive
species; others are concerned that such an approach would disrupt existing
programs that are working well.

On the basis of the responses from state officials, no clear consensus
exists on whether legislative authority for addressing aquatic and
terrestrial invasive species should be integrated. Overall, state
officials were in favor of integrating legislative authority, but the
margin was relatively small. Differences were more distinct, however, when
we considered the state officials* expertise. Specifically, we asked
officials whether they considered themselves experts or knowledgeable in
aquatic invasive species, terrestrials, or both. 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. The terrestrial experts were also against integrated authority,
but with a smaller majority. These positions contrast with those of the
state officials who said they were experts or knowledgeable in both
aquatic and terrestrial invasives; these officials favored integrated
authority by a large majority. About twice as many members of the Invasive
Species Advisory Committee who responded to our survey favored integrating
legislation on aquatic and terrestrial invasive species compared to those
who did not.

Regarding the drawbacks of integrating authority for aquatic and
terrestrial invasive species, many state officials said that it could be
difficult to address all possible situations with invasive species and
some species or pathways may get overlooked, and were concerned that it
may reduce state flexibility implementing invasive species programs. Some
state officials said that the two types of invasives should be handled
separately, since the ecological complexities of aquatics and terrestrials
are very different* different pathways of entry and spread, and different
requirements for control methods and expertise. In addition, some
officials stated that combining legislative authority would result in
competition among various invasive species programs for scarce resources.
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.

On the other hand, many state officials saw an increased focus on pathways
for invasive species* as opposed to on specific species* as a possible
benefit of integrating authority for aquatic and terrestrial invasive
species. Such an approach could facilitate more effective and efficient

Page 16 GAO- 03- 916T

efforts to address invasive species. Many state officials also believed
that integration of 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 federal
effort as fragmented and ineffective. In addition, some state officials
said that the classification of species into aquatic or terrestrial types
might not be clear- cut and that the current separation between them is
*an artificial federal construct,* citing, for example, the difficulty of
classifying amphibians.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. We would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202)
512- 3841. Mark Bondo, Mark Braza, Kate Cardamone, Curtis Groves, Trish
McClure, Judy Pagano, Ilga Semeiks, and Amy Webbink also made key
contributions to this statement. GAO Contacts and

Staff Acknowledgments

(360334)

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.

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 fulltext 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 daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports 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 GAO*s Mission 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. ***