Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State Funding to Address Harmful,
Nonnative Species (Letter Report, 08/24/2000, GAO/RCED-00-219).
Eight federal agencies on the Invasive Species Council--Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Interior, State, Treasury, Transportation, and the
Environmental Protection Agency--as well as the Smithsonian and the
National Science Foundation spent $513.9 million fiscal year 1999 and
$631.5 million in fiscal year 2000 to combat invasive species. The
Department of Agriculture spent 89 percent of this money. Activities to
prevent the introduction of invasive species received the largest
percentage of funding--about 51 percent and 49 percent in fiscal years
1999 and 2000, respectively. Of the seven states surveyed--California,
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, and New York--Florida spent
$94.5 million and $127.6 million in 1999 and 2000 and California spent
$82.6 million and $87.2 million in 1999 and 2000. For both years, most
funding went toward control of invasive species. The Invasive Species
Council is in the final stages of staffing the organizational
infrastructure, has drafted and is receiving comments on its management
plan, has established an advisory committee and six working groups, and
is in the process of developing a Web site. This report includes
appendixes on GAO survey responses of 10 federal departments and seven
states, including expenditures for invasive species activities.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-00-219
TITLE: Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State Funding to
Address Harmful, Nonnative Species
DATE: 08/24/2000
SUBJECT: Executive orders
Pest control
Agricultural pests
Plants (organisms)
Federal/state relations
Federal funds
State programs
IDENTIFIER: California
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Maryland
Michigan
New York
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/RCED-00-219
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
30
Appendix II: Federal Invasive Species Activities
33
Appendix III: Seven States' Invasive Species Activities
37
Appendix IV: Federal and State Comments on Changes
Needed in Executive Order 13112
43
Appendix V: Responses to GAO's Survey of 10 Federal
Departments On Budget Obligations for
Invasive Species
44
Appendix VI: Responses to GAO's Survey of Seven States On
Expenditures for Invasive Species Activities
52
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
63
Table 1: Major Invasive Species Activities 10
Table 2: Obligations for Invasive Species Activities, by
Federal Department, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 a 13
Table 3: Federal Funding for Categories of Invasive Species,
Fiscal Year 1999 15
Table 4: Federal Departments' Views on Coordination Between
a Variety of Entities 17
Table 5: Invasive Species Activities Receiving the Greatest
Funding from Each State, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 20
Table 6: Invasive Species Receiving the Greatest Funding from
Each State, Fiscal Year 1999 21
Table 7: States' Views on Coordination Between Several Entities 23
Table 8: Federal Involvement in Invasive Species Activities 33
Table 9: Seven States' Invasive Species Activities 37
Figure 1: Worker Removing Zebra Mussels From Water Intake
Pipes, Purple Loosestrife, and Destruction of Trees
Caused by Asian Long-Horned Beetles 9
Figure 2: Federal Obligations by Invasive Species Activity,
Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 14
Figure 3: Seven States' Expenditures for Invasive Species
Activities, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 19
Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division
B-285902
August 24, 2000
Congressional Requesters
Invasive species--harmful nonnative plants, animals, and
microorganisms1--pose a serious threat to U.S. agriculture and the
environment, with estimated damages exceeding billions of dollars annually.
Invasive species are found in all 50 states, with some states, such as
Florida and Hawaii, more seriously affected than others. Examples of
well-known invasive species include the zebra mussel (a mollusk that clogs
water intake pipes and filtration equipment), the Asian long-horned beetle
(an insect that bores into the trunk of a tree, outside the reach of
pesticides), and purple loosestrife (a wetland plant that crowds out native
plants and animals).
In February 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13112 to help
prevent the introduction of invasive species; provide for their control; and
minimize their impact on the economy, the environment, and human health. The
order established the Invasive Species Council, made up of the heads of
eight federal departments with various responsibilities for addressing
invasive species, to provide for national leadership and coordination in
federal invasive species activities. Inadequate coordination between various
departments and other entities was identified by organizations such as the
Office of Technology Assessment and the Congressional Research Service as a
weakness hindering efforts in the past. The order calls for the Council to
carry out a number of duties, including issuing a National Invasive Species
Management Plan by August 3, 2000, that, among other things, recommends
performance-oriented goals, objectives, and specific measures of success for
federal departments' invasive species programs.
To obtain a better understanding of the amount of government resources
directed at the invasive species problem, you asked us to provide
information on federal and selected state funding of invasive species
activities. Specifically, you asked that we identify (1) federal funding, by
department2 and activity (such as prevention and control), for invasive
species activities in fiscal years 1999 and 20003 and obtain the
departments' views on the effectiveness of coordination efforts with states
and other entities; (2) funding by selected states for invasive species
activities in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and obtain the states' views on the
effectiveness of coordination with federal departments and other entities;
and (3) actions taken by the Invasive Species Council to implement Executive
Order 13112.
To identify federal funding for invasive species activities, we surveyed 10
federal departments--the 8 Council members (the departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, the Interior, State, the Treasury, and Transportation,
and the Environmental Protection Agency), as well as the Smithsonian
Institution and the National Science Foundation. Combined, these departments
account for the vast majority of federal resources spent on invasive species
activities. Although all 10 federal departments and 7 states responded to
our survey, Treasury was unable to provide information on the amount of
funding it obligated for invasive species activities and Defense provided a
partial response.4
To identify invasive species funding by selected states, we surveyed
California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, and New York--seven
states that have experienced serious problems with invasive species, are
regarded as having strong invasive species programs, and/or provided
geographical representation for our survey. Because the total amount of
funding for all 50 states is unknown, we could not determine the extent to
which the funding reported by these 7 states is representative of all 50
states. To address the actions taken by the Invasive Species Council, we
interviewed Council representatives and reviewed Council documents. Appendix
I details our scope and methodology.
The federal departments responding to our survey reported obligating over
half a billion dollars--$513.9 million and $631.5 million in fiscal years
1999 and 2000, respectively--for activities related to invasive species. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture provided far and away the largest percentage
of these funds, 89 percent ($459 million) in fiscal year 1999 and 88 percent
($556.4 million) in fiscal year 2000. The eight other federal departments
that reported funding information provided between 0.2 percent and about 5
percent of the federal funding directed toward invasive species over the 2
years. Activities to prevent the introduction of invasive species received
the greatest percentage of federal funding--about 51 percent and 49 percent
in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, respectively. Most federal departments rated
coordination with state governments as either "good" or "fair."
The seven states we surveyed reported spending between $1.6 million and
$94.5 million in fiscal year 1999 (for a total of $195.3 million) and
between $1.8 million and $127.6 million in fiscal year 2000 (for a total of
$232.6 million) on invasive species activities. In both years, Florida spent
the greatest amount of funds, $94.5 million and $127.6 million, followed by
California, $82.6 million and $87.2 million. Most of the seven states
directed the largest percentage of their funding in both years toward
activities to control invasive species. Most of the seven states rated
coordination with federal departments as "good."
The Invasive Species Council has been slow in getting off the ground,
although it has initiated several actions to implement Executive Order
13112. As of August 18, 2000, 18 months after the executive order was
issued, the Council had filled two of its four permanent staff positions and
had nearly completed filling the remaining two positions; when it does, it
will have an organizational infrastructure to oversee implementation. The
Council has also drafted and is receiving comments on its National Invasive
Species Management Plan, which is expected to be issued later in the
year--several months after the date stipulated in the executive order. In
addition, it has established an advisory committee and six working groups
that have provided information and advice to the Council. Further, it is in
the process of developing a Web site to provide a broad range of information
on invasive species and is sponsoring workshops to promote information
sharing.
The impact of invasive species in the United States is widespread, and their
consequences for the economy and the environment profound. They affect
peoples' livelihoods, placing sustainable development and industries such as
agriculture, ranching, and fisheries at significant risk: Depending on the
species, they have increased pest control costs, contaminated grain, reduced
the grazing capacity of rangelands, lowered water tables, and displaced
native plants and wildlife habitats. Invasive species are ubiquitous.
Hundreds and perhaps thousands have established populations in the United
States, with almost every area of the country having at least one highly
damaging invasive species.
Most invasive species arrive in conjunction with human activity, transport,
or habitat modification that provides new opportunities for species'
establishment. They may arrive as contaminants of bulk commodities, packing
materials, shipping containers, or ships' ballast. While many invasive
species have been introduced into the United States unintentionally, others
have been brought in by design. For example, kudzu--a rapidly growing
invasive vine that thrives in the southeastern United States--was brought in
from Japan as an ornamental plant and was used by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in the 1930s to control soil erosion. Other invasive species are
imported as crops, livestock, pets, or aquaculture species and later escape
or are released into the environment. Not all nonnative species are
invasive, however. Many nonnative species, such as cattle, wheat and
soybeans, many fruits, and ornamentals (such as tulips and chrysanthemums),
have been largely beneficial and their propagation controllable.
While invasive species have caused considerable damage, their precise
economic impact has been poorly documented. No single organization
accumulates comprehensive data on all types of invasive species, and
assessing the dollar impacts on habitat--such as forests, wildlands, hay and
pasturelands, and aquatic sites--is very difficult. According to a 1993
study by the Office of Technology Assessment, the number and impact of
invasive species are chronically underestimated, especially for species that
do not damage agriculture, industry, or human health.5 The office estimated
that damage from 79 invasive species totaled about $97 billion from 1906
through 1991. It noted that this figure is likely only a fraction of the
total costs during the period because the figure includes only a small
percentage of invasive species; estimates for the economic effects of most
invasive species--including agricultural weeds, one of the most costly
groups--were unavailable. More recently, in 2000, Cornell University
scientists put total economic losses and associated control costs at
approximately $137 billion a year.6 They noted that this estimate was
greater than the Office of Technology Assessment's because it included over
10 times the number of species and found higher costs reported in the
literature for some of the same species identified by the office.
Although the precise total costs of invasive species are uncertain, there is
little question that some cause serious damage. For example, about 400 of
the 958 species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act are considered at risk, primarily because of competition with
and/or predation by invasive species inhabiting the same areas, according to
the Cornell scientists. A variety of ecological factors can enable a
nonnative species to become ubiquitous: a lack of natural enemies,
artificial or disturbed habitats that provide favorable conditions for
propagation, and/or the introduction of a highly adaptable species or a
species that is a very effective colonizer in its new ecosystem. The
following are examples of some well-known invasive species:
� The zebra mussel most likely entered the United States as mussel larvae in
ballast water that was released into the Great Lakes by ships traveling from
Europe. Zebra mussels invade and clog water intake pipes and water
filtration and electric generating plants. Furthermore, large zebra mussel
populations reduce food and oxygen for native fauna: They have been observed
to completely cover native mussels, clams, and snails, thereby further
threatening these species. The cost of zebra mussel prevention and
remediation for electrical generation, water treatment, and industrial
facilities is estimated at $100 million a year, according to the Cornell
University study.7
� The Asian long-horned beetle is a recent arrival. It came to the United
States about 4 years ago, most likely in packing material or pallet wood
from China. According to Agriculture's Forest Service, the spread of this
insect could have a significant economic, social, and ecological impact on
urban, rural, and forest areas in North America. This beetle is particularly
troublesome because it bores deep within a tree, where it cannot by reached
by pesticides. The only known treatment is to destroy the infected tree, as
well as other trees nearby that often show no signs of infestation.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, damages from an infestation
in New York State in 1996 resulted in the removal of many trees and cost the
state and federal government over $5 million.
� Purple loosestrife is attractive in appearance (it has showy purple
flowers and is sold as an ornamental in some areas), but can have
devastating consequences. Arriving from Europe in the early 1800s, it has
infested wetlands in at least 42 states. It crowds out native wetland plants
that are an important source of food for waterfowl and has spread through
irrigation and river systems in the West. Once it gains a foothold, it is
almost impossible to eradicate. The Cornell study estimated that this plant
cost the U.S. economy $45 million a year.
Figure 1 shows the impact of these three species on the environment.
Sources: Cluster of zebra mussels, J. Ellen Marsden, Lake Michigan
Biological Station; Worker removing zebra mussels from water intake pipes,
Ron Peplowski, Detroit Edison, Monroe Michigan Power Station; Purple
loosestrife and Asian long-horned beetle and resulting damage, U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Species Activities
The federal departments and states we surveyed are involved, to varying
degrees, in eight key activities that address various aspects of the
invasive species problem.8 (See table 1 for a description of these
activities.) The U.S. Department of Agriculture has the largest federal role
in combating invasive species as a result of its (1) authority to quarantine
and conduct port-of-entry inspections, (2) management of over 190 million
acres of public lands, and (3) large control projects related to
agricultural pests.
Because invasive species often cross territorial and governmental
boundaries, federal, state, and local governments and other entities
sometimes cooperate in implementing invasive species programs. For example,
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service works with state
and local agencies, as well as with private landowners, to eradicate newly
introduced weeds on private lands. Table 1 outlines the major invasive
species activities, and appendixes II and III provide further information on
federal and state invasive species activities.
Activity Definition
Activities to prevent the introduction of
invasive species. Includes monitoring the
international and domestic movement of
Prevention invasive species, evaluating individual
species for invasiveness prior to
introduction, and identifying and
interdicting pathways for introduction.
Surveillance for the existence and
Detection location of an invasive species that may
have been introduced.
Measures to eliminate or reduce the
effects of invasive species, including
Control (management) eradicating infestations, reducing
populations of invasive species,
preventing their spread, and/or mitigating
their impact on the economy.
Ongoing research and surveys to track the
presence and status of invasive species
over time and at varying geographic
Monitoring locales to evaluate the impact of such
species on ecosystems and to evaluate the
effectiveness of prevention, control, and
restoration activities.
Activities to reinstate ecosystem
structure and function that have been
Restoration affected by invasive species, using native
species or noninvasive, nonnative species
where possible.
Developing scientific knowledge, methods,
Research and development and technologies to prevent, detect,
control, and monitor invasive species or
to restore native species and habitat.
Actions to support public education
Education, outreach, programs and cooperative efforts with
partnerships, and cooperative stakeholders. Includes actions in support
activities of international agreements with foreign
nations and international organizations.
Activities to facilitate access to and
exchange of information on invasive
species, including information on the
distribution and amount of invasive
species; life histories of such species
and invasive characteristics; economic,
Information management environmental, and human health impacts;
management techniques; and laws and
programs for management, research, and
public education. Includes storage of data
and information-sharing activities, such
as providing access to databases or other
forms of information.
Invasive Species Activities
Executive Order 13112--signed by President Clinton on February 3,
1999--highlights invasive species as a serious problem and creates a
structure and process for identifying federal gaps in managing it.9 The
order established an Invasive Species Council, co-chaired by the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior. Major duties of the Council are
to issue, by August 3, 2000, a National Invasive Species Management Plan;
evaluate its progress in achieving the plan's goals; and update the plan
every other year.
Other Council responsibilities include (1) ensuring that federal
departments' invasive species activities are coordinated, complementary,
cost-efficient, and effective, and rely, as appropriate, on existing
invasive species-related organizations (including the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force, Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious
and Exotic Weeds, and Committee on Environment and Natural Resources); (2)
encouraging planning and action to achieve the plan's goals and objectives;
(3) developing recommendations for international cooperation; (4) developing
guidance for federal agencies on preventing and controlling invasive
species; (5) helping to develop a coordinated network among federal agencies
to document, evaluate, and monitor impacts from invasive species; and (6)
helping to establish an up-to-date information-sharing system that uses the
Internet. Appendix IV provides comments by federal and state officials on
changes needed in the executive order were the Congress to enact legislation
incorporating its provisions.
Billion Dollars in Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000
The federal departments we surveyed reported that they obligated a total of
$513.9 million in fiscal year 1999 for invasive species activities; for
fiscal year 2000, reported obligations were $631.5 million. Agriculture was
the greatest source of federal funding for these activities, accounting for
89 and 88 percent of the total, respectively--$459 million in fiscal year
1999 and $556.4 million in fiscal year 2000. The eight other federal
departments reporting funding information provided between 0.2 percent and
about 5 percent of the federal funding directed toward invasive species over
the 2 years. As shown in table 2, Interior and Defense provided the second
and third largest amounts of funding--Interior accounting for 4 percent and
5 percent in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, respectively, and Defense
accounting for 2 percent in both years.10 See appendix V for a summary of
department responses to the survey.
Dollars in millions
Federal department Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000
Agriculture $459.0 $556.4
Interior 18.1 31.1
Defense 12.5 14.5
State 7.5 9.2
Commerce 5.4 5.1
National Science Foundation 4.7 5.2
Transportation 3.5 4.0
Smithsonian Institution 2.1 1.9
1.1 4.1
Environmental Protection Agency
a Treasury was unable to provide information on its obligations for invasive
species activities.
Source: GAO's survey of 10 federal departments.
In addition to direct appropriations, Agriculture, the Smithsonian
Institution, and Defense reported receiving user fees11 to support their
fiscal year 1999 invasive species obligations. User fees provided about 14
percent of Agriculture's, 4 percent of the Smithsonian Institution's, and 2
percent of Defense's invasive species obligations for that year.
for Invasive Species Activities
In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, about half (51 percent and 49 percent,
respectively) of the total federal obligations for invasive species were
directed toward prevention activities. Activities to control invasive
species received the next highest percentage of funding--about 19 percent
and 23 percent, respectively, in the 2 fiscal years--followed by research
and development, which received about 18 percent of the total funding in
fiscal year 1999 and about 17 percent in the following year. (See fig. 2 for
the total amount of federal funding obligated for each invasive species
activity for fiscal years 1999 and 2000.)
Source: GAO's survey of 10 federal departments.
Regarding which invasive species activity most needed additional attention
from the respondent's department, half of the departments (four of eight
respondents) chose control activities; two chose prevention; and two chose
research and development.
Received the Most Federal Funding
In fiscal year 1999, about 55 percent ($284.5 million) of the $513.9 million
in reported federal obligations for invasive species were directed toward
specific categories of invasive species, rather than toward activities
addressing multiple categories of species. Over half ($154.5 million) of the
funding for specific categories of invasive species went to terrestrial
arthropods (a category of invertebrates--primarily insects--that includes
fruit flies and Asian long-horned beetles). The plant category, which
includes terrestrial noncrop (such as purple loosestrife), terrestrial crop
(crop weeds such as johnsongrass), and aquatic plants, received the second
greatest amount of funding--$70.7 million, or about 25 percent of the
funding for specific categories of invasive species. As shown in table 3,
microorganisms and diseases was the third highest category, receiving about
12 percent ($33.1 million) of the funding for specific categories.
Dollars in millions
Category of invasive species Total federal funding
Terrestrial arthropods $154.5
Plants 70.7
Animal and plant microorganisms/diseases 33.1
Fish and aquatic invertebrates 20.4
Reptiles and amphibians 4.8
Mammals 0.8
Birds 0.2
Source: GAO's survey of 10 federal departments.
Regarding which individual invasive species received the greatest amount of
funding in fiscal year 1999, five species were cited by the seven
departments that responded to this question. Agriculture directed its
greatest funding for a single invasive species--$36.2 million--toward fruit
flies. Defense and Commerce cited zebra mussels (funded at $2.7 million and
$1.0 million, respectively); the Interior and the Smithsonian Institution
reported that brown tree snakes12 received the greatest amount of their
funds ($1.9 million and $0.2 million, respectively). State directed the
largest amount of its funding ($7.5 million) toward sea lampreys (an
eel-like ocean fish that fastens onto other fish and eats until sated). See
appendix V for the complete responses to this question.
Federal departments provided invasive species funding to a variety of
entities, including other federal departments; state and local governments;
universities or colleges; private nonprofit organizations; individual
researchers; international organizations (e.g., the Great Lakes Fisheries
Commission--United States and Canada); and private landowners. Four of the
10 departments reported that individual researchers received the greatest
amount of their funds for invasive species activities. The other six
departments spread their responses among five categories: other federal
departments, state governments, universities or colleges, international
organizations, and private landowners.
States as Either Good or Fair
Most federal departments rated coordination with state governments on
invasive species issues as good or fair; at the same time, most respondents
rated coordination within their own department, between departments, and
between their department and universities/colleges as either good or
excellent. As shown in table 4, coordination between departments and local
governments received one of the lowest ratings. One department stated that
improved coordination was needed at local levels. It noted, for example,
that weed eradication projects may need to involve several federal
departments, state and county governments, and private landowners, and that
failure to involve any one of these entities could result in failure.
Number of department responsesa
Coordinating entities Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Not
poor applicable
Between governmental
entities
Units within own department 3 4 2
Federal departments 1 6 2
Federal departments and
state governments 1 4 4
Federal departments and
local governments 1 2 2 2 2
Between federal departments
and nongovernmental entities
Federal departments and
universities/colleges 2 5 1 1
Federal departments and the
private sector 1 3 3 1 1
Between federal departments
and other reported entities
International organizations 1 1
Interest groups 1
Irrigation districts 1
Tribal governments 1
Foreign governments 1
Other governments 1
aNine federal departments responded to this question.
Source: GAO's survey of 10 federal departments.
States
In fiscal year 1999, the state governments we surveyed reported expenditures
for invasive species activities ranging from $1.6 million to $94.5 million
(for a total of $195.3 million); in fiscal year 2000, the range was $1.8
million to $127.6 million (for a total of $232.6 million). Appendix VI
provides a summary of state responses to the survey.
Florida and California each spent considerably more than the other five
states on invasive species activities. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000,
Florida reported spending $94.5 million13 and $127.6 million, respectively;
California's reported spending for those years was $82.6 million and $87.2
million. The expenditures for Hawaii, Michigan, Idaho, New York, and
Maryland ranged from $1.6 million to $7.6 million for the 2 years, as shown
in figure 3.
Source: GAO's survey of seven states.
In addition to state government expenditures, several other government
entities provided invasive species funding to many of the seven states.
(This funding was not included in the funding reported by the states.) The
largest nonstate funding source was the federal government, which provided
about $0.3 million to $31.5 million to each of the seven states in fiscal
years 1999 and 2000.14 Counties were a source of government funding for
three states--Idaho received $3.8 million and $4.9 million; Florida, $1.3
million and $1.5 million; and Maryland, $0.3 million in each of the 2 years.
Of the eight major activities, those directed toward controlling invasive
species received the most funding from every state except California (and
Michigan in fiscal year 2000), as shown in table 5.
Dollars in millions
Fiscal Year 1999 Fiscal Year 2000
Expenditure Percent of Expenditure Percent of
State Largest for state's total Largest for state's total
activity activity
activity expendituresa activity expendituresa
CaliforniaPrevention $33.8 41 Prevention $33.7 39
Florida Control 71.0 75 Control 100.9 79
Hawaii Control 2.1 34 Control 2.2 29
Idaho Control 1.9 52 Control 1.3 35
Michigan Control 3.4 81 Monitoring 0.6 32
Maryland Control 0.7 41 Control 0.8 42
New York Control 0.7 30 Control 0.8 31
aThis represents the percentage of each state's total expenditures for
invasive species activities.
Source: GAO's survey of seven states.
Four of the states reported that preventing the introduction of new invasive
species was the activity in greatest need of more attention from their
states. Control, detection, and monitoring were each reported by one state
as the primary activity needing more attention.
Species Receiving the Greatest Amounts of State Funding
In fiscal year 1999, plants--terrestrial noncrop, terrestrial crop, and
aquatic--was the category of invasive species that received the most funding
from three states, with Florida providing the single greatest amount--$54.2
million. In three other states, terrestrial arthropods was the
highest-funded category, with California providing the greatest funding
($43.7 million) for this category. Table 6 shows the categories of invasive
species that received the greatest funding from each state in fiscal year
1999.
Dollars in millions
State Category of invasive species with the greatest State funding
funding
Florida Plants $54.2
California Terrestrial arthropods 43.7
Idaho Plants 3.7
Michigan Fish and aquatic invertebrates 3.1
Hawaii Plants 1.7
New York Terrestrial arthropods 1.1
Maryland Terrestrial arthropods 0.6
Source: GAO's survey of seven states.
For individual invasive species, no two states reported giving the greatest
amount of their funding to the same species--for example, citrus canker (a
highly contagious bacterial disease that infects citrus crops) received the
greatest amount of funding ($29.1 million) in Florida, and the medfly (the
Mediterranean fruit fly--a serious pest that attacks over 250 types of
fruits, vegetables, and nuts) was the top recipient of funds ($9.4 million)
in California.
Within the plant category, terrestrial noncrop plants (such as purple
loosestrife) were selected by Florida, Hawaii, and Maryland as the primary
category of invasive species needing more attention from their state
governments; aquatic plants (such as hydrilla--an aggressive submerged plant
that can choke lakes and water supplies) were selected by three other states
(California, Idaho, and New York). The seventh state--Michigan--selected
microorganisms and diseases.
States provided invasive species funds to a variety of entities to carry out
invasive species activities within their states: Two states reported that
multi-stakeholder organizations (such as the Chesapeake Bay Program)
received the greatest amount of funding for invasive species activities; two
others reported universities or colleges; and local governments, private
nonprofit organizations, and lake associations were each reported by one
state.
Good
The states rated coordination with the federal government on invasive
species issues most frequently as good. Coordination within states, between
states and universities/colleges, and between states and local governments
was also rated good by most states, as shown in table 7. Some states had
suggestions for improving coordination. For example, one state thought that
the primary federal responsibility and direction for invasive species
programs should reside with one federal department; another noted that
interstate regional planning councils were needed to coordinate responses to
new invasions.
Number of state responses
Coordinating entities Excellent Good Fair Poor Very
poor
Between governmental entities
Between this state's government
entities (e.g., departments within 4 3
the state)
Between this state government and
other state governments 3 4
Between this state government and the
federal government 4 3
Between this state government and
local governments 4 1 2
Between state governments and
nongovernmental entities
Between this state government and
universities and colleges 5 1 1
Between this state government and the
private sector 2 4 1
Between state governments and other
reported entities
Nonprofit organizations 1
Exotic Pest Plant Council 1
Regional water management districts 1
Tribes 1
The Nature Conservancy 1
Source: GAO's survey of seven states.
Order 13112
Although the Invasive Species Council has been slow in getting off the
ground, it has initiated several actions in its first 18 months.
Specifically, as of August 18, 2000, the Council
� was in the final stages of staffing the organizational infrastructure that
will oversee the implementation of the executive order;
� had drafted and was receiving comments on its National Invasive Species
Management Plan--which the executive order stipulated was to be issued by
August 3, 2000;
� had established an advisory committee, which has held three meetings, and
six working groups, which have provided information and advice to the
Council; and
� was in the process of developing a Web site and sponsoring workshops to
promote information sharing.
As of August 18, 2000, the Council had filled two of its four permanent
positions (the executive director and one program assistant) and was close
to filling its two remaining positions (two assistant directors--one for
domestic and one for international policy). Until August, the Council's
activities were conducted primarily by three persons detailed from
Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior who work part-time on Council
activities and part-time on their other job duties. The Council is also
assisted part-time by a scientist on detail from Agriculture and by a
full-time program assistant who has been on-board since March 2000.15
In addition, each of the eight department heads who serve on the Council
have appointed technical liaisons. These liaisons represent an
interdepartmental group that works directly with the Council to facilitate
the flow and exchange of information between the Council and the federal
departments represented on the Council.
The Council has drafted a National Invasive Species Management Plan--one of
its major responsibilities--and is obtaining comments on the plan from
stakeholders, including representatives from state governments, industry,
academia, and the public. Council staff anticipate that notice of the plan
and a 60-day comment period will be published in the Federal Register in
September 2000. The draft plan provides recommendations on the following
issues: federal coordination; communication, education, and outreach;
prevention; early detection and rapid response; control; restoration;
research, database management, and monitoring; information management; and
international cooperation and capacity building. The Council staff expect
that the final plan will be issued later in the year--several months after
the date stipulated in the executive order.
To meet the order's requirement that the Council encourage planning at
regional, state, local, tribal, and ecosystem-based levels, the Council
involved these and other parties in developing the national plan. For
example, an advisory committee and six working groups made up of federal and
nonfederal members have played key roles in the plan's development. After
drafting its plan, the Council obtained comments from the eight departmental
Council members and held public meetings to discuss the plan in Oakland,
California; Denver, Colorado; West Palm Beach, Florida; Chicago, Illinois;
and Albany, New York.
Groups
Since its inception, the Council has held two meetings. In addition, to
assist it in carrying out its responsibilities, the Council has established
an advisory committee of 32 members from universities, state governments,
associations, and other entities. The advisory committee--selected from
nominations received in response to a Federal Register notice--has met three
times. Also, the Council has established six working groups--a total of more
than 250 members from various levels of government as well as industry--to
address issues such as policy, regulations, and international activities.
Promote Information Sharing
The Council is developing a Web site--www.invasivespecies.gov--and holding
workshops to promote information sharing. The Web site now contains
information about the Council's activities, the draft management plan, and
links to the Web sites of governmental and nongovernmental entities that are
engaged in invasive species activities. In addition, the Web site provides
an e-mail address for comments on the draft plan. The Council plans to add
additional information, such as the invasive species that are regulated by
its department members, on an ongoing basis. The Council is also developing
a capability that will enable Web site visitors to click on a state or
county to learn about the invasive species in that area, efforts to control
those species, and ways they can help with those activities.
In addition, Council members have sponsored workshops and other meetings to
obtain input from a variety of stakeholders on the integration and sharing
of databases.16 The next workshop, scheduled for September 2000, on western
rangeland weed management will examine and provide suggestions regarding (1)
better use of existing databases and (2) future data collection and sharing.
We provided the Invasive Species Council co-chairs with a draft of this
report for their review and comment. The Executive Director and
representatives of the co-chairs, in commenting on the section on Council
actions, agreed with the facts presented in the section and provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In addition, we
provided appendix II to the officials who responded to GAO's survey for the
10 federal departments. These officials agreed with the facts in this
appendix on federal programs and provided clarifying comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate.
We conducted our work from April through July 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees
and members; the Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture; the
Honorable Norman Y. Minetta, Secretary of Commerce; the Honorable William S.
Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the
Interior; the Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State; the
Honorable Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary of the Treasury; the Honorable
Rodney E. Slater, Secretary of Transportation; the Honorable Carol M.
Browner, Administrator, the Environmental Protection Agency; the Honorable
Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; and the Honorable
Lawrence M. Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Copies are also
being sent to the Governors of California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland,
Michigan, and New York. We will also make copies available to others upon
request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
on (202) 512-5138. The key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VII.
Lawrence J. Dyckman
Director, Food and
Agriculture Issues
List of Congressional Requesters
The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest
Chairman, Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
The Honorable Richard Pombo
Chairman, Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture
Committee on Agriculture
House of Representatives
The Honorable Jim Saxton
Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives
Scope and Methodology
To address the first and second objectives of our review--federal and
selected state funding information for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for
invasive species activities and information on coordination efforts--we
mailed surveys to federal departments and selected states.
The survey to 10 federal departments requested information on federal
obligations for fiscal years 1999 (actual) and 2000 (estimated) and their
views on the effectiveness of coordination efforts with states and other
entities. The term "departments" refers to the following entities: the
departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, the Interior, State,
Transportation, the Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency (all
of which are members of the Invasive Species Council); and the National
Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution. The latter two entities
were identified by officials of Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce as
providing significant funding for various invasive species activities.
The survey to seven states requested information on state expenditures for
fiscal years 1999 (actual) and 2000 (estimated) and the states' views on the
effectiveness of coordination efforts with federal departments and other
entities. The seven states surveyed--California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,
Maryland, Michigan, and New York--were selected on the basis of
recommendations from Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce officials with
expertise on invasive species. They recommended these states for one or more
of the following reasons: the state has significant problems with invasive
species, has implemented strong and/or innovative programs, and/or provides
geographical representation.
We did not independently verify the accuracy of the federal department or
state government officials' responses to our surveys. However, we pretested
drafts of our surveys to obtain comments from federal and state government
officials and incorporated their comments where appropriate. We also
reviewed each survey response to identify internal data inconsistencies and
other issues needing clarification, followed up with survey respondents to
resolve questions, and made agreed-upon changes to their responses as
appropriate.
The federal and state surveys requested information on
obligations/expenditures for eight invasive species activities: prevention,
detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and
development, information management, and
education/outreach/partnerships/cooperative activities. We coordinated with
staff from the Invasive Species Council in developing the survey instruments
and used definitions for invasive species-related terms that the Council
developed. In addition, to put the magnitude of the invasive species problem
into perspective, we reviewed several studies that addressed environmental
and economic costs as well as other harmful effects associated with invasive
species. We did not, however, analyze or verify the information contained in
these studies.
In completing the survey, we asked federal departments to obtain information
from appropriate staff (that is, their staff with responsibilities or
knowledge of their department's invasive species programs). Similarly, we
asked state officials to obtain information from all their
departments/agencies that conducted invasive species activities and to
incorporate the information into one state response. Federal obligations
were based on the federal fiscal year, which runs between October 1 and
September 30. However, the state expenditures were based on the states'
fiscal years, which generally run from July 1 through June 30.
We recognize that the total funding amount reported for invasive species
could be under- or over-estimated because of differences in both federal and
state departments' and agencies' reporting, budgeting, and accounting
practices. Also, in some cases, funding for invasive species activities
could not be separated from other activities. Some federal and state
officials sent in several individual responses from their various
departmental or state entities, which we consolidated into a single
department or state response. In these instances, we returned the
consolidated survey to the respondent for review and approval.
We received survey responses from all respondents--10 federal departments
and 7 states. However, two responses were missing significant information.
While Treasury's Customs Service engages in some invasive species-related
activities, it does not track obligations for these activities separately
from its other enforcement activities. The Department of Defense submitted
only a partial response, which included the Navy, Army Corps of Engineers,
and the Marine Corps. The Army and the Air Force did not provide
information.
To address our third objective--the actions taken by the Invasive Species
Council to implement Executive Order 13112--we met with representatives from
(1) Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior and (2) the Invasive Species
Council's three co-chairs and attended several public meetings held by the
Invasive Species Advisory Committee and the Council. In addition, we
reviewed documents, memos, reports, and working draft policy papers
developed by the advisory committee working groups. Finally, we reviewed a
draft of the National Invasive Species Management Plan, which the Council
prepared as directed by Executive Order 13112. We did not, however, evaluate
the extent to which the draft plan meets the requirements of the executive
order.
We performed our work from April through July 2000, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Federal Invasive Species Activities
The federal government sponsors numerous invasive species activities carried
out by many departments with various unique, complex, and integrated
missions. These activities span waterways, wetlands, U.S. ports of entry,
public and private lands, the environment, roadsides, and farmland. The 10
federal departments that we surveyed--Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, the
Interior, State, Transportation, the Treasury; the Environmental Protection
Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Smithsonian
Institution--work with each other, state agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and private citizens to prevent, detect, control, and
eradicate a variety of invasive species. Table 8 describes the federal
departments' and their component agencies' involvement in invasive species
programs and activities.
Department and agency Activities
Involved in all invasive species
activities: prevention, detection, control
Department of Agriculture (management), monitoring, restoration,
research and development, information
management, and education, outreach,
partnerships, and cooperative activities.
Provides scientific and technical support
for Agriculture and other federal agencies
focusing on detection technology for ports
of entry; systematics (i.e., the study of
natural patterns and processes relating to
the history of a species and the factors
responsible for its origin and evolution)
Agricultural Research Service for rapid identification of invading
species; and pesticide application
technology. Also develops biologically
based controls and helps monitor target
pests of integrated pest management
programs (such as ground, aerial, and
satellite monitoring of leafy spurge and
other weed species).
Through its agriculture quarantine
inspection and regulatory enforcement
programs at 172 U.S. ports of entry,
conducts preclearance activities, risk
analysis and permit decisions, treatment
efforts, detection surveys, and
eradication efforts to prevent the
introduction of foreign pests that would
Animal and Plant Health threaten U.S. agricultural production and
Inspection Service natural ecosystems. Foreign pests include
insects, plant and animal diseases,
mollusks, mites, and invasive plants.
Cooperates with federal and state agencies
and nongovernmental organizations to
detect, contain, and eradicate
infestations of quarantined significant
foreign pests before they become well
established and spread.
Funds integrated projects and
competitively based research relevant to
improving public understanding of invasive
species; funds research on cost-effective
management, environmentally safe control
Cooperative State Research, of invasive species using biological,
Education, and Extension chemical, cultural, and mechanical
Service practices and supports invasive species
management to maximize effective and
economical pest control and exclusion.
Also provides linkages to address invasive
species problems with local, state, and
regional stakeholders.
Develops decision-making tools for
comparing the consequences of invasive
plant species with possible control costs.
Economic Research Service Considers both direct and indirect human
costs of ecosystem disruptions and costs
and potential adverse consequences of
alternative weed treatments.
Requires all of its program participants
Farm Service Agency to control weeds (including noxious
weeds), insects, pests, and other
undesirable species on enrolled lands.
Manages 191 million acres of federal lands
for many purposes, including protection
from invasive weeds, and is Agriculture's
lead agency for nuisance weed control.
Conducts research on invasive plant
species, including ecological studies to
support restoration of sites after
treatment of exotic weeds and control of
invasive plants, such as kudzu in the
southern United States and yellow
starthistle, spotted knapweed, and leafy
spurge in Idaho. Seeks to control and
Forest Service mitigate the impact of invasive species,
such as the Asian long-horned beetle,
gypsy moth, hemlock woolly, and browntail
moth. Conducts disease research, such as
the control of butternut canker and
selection of trees that are genetically
resistant to Dutch elm disease, pitch
canker, chestnut blight, and white pine
blister rust. Works closely with state
agencies, private landowners, and tribal
governments through its regulatory and
enforcement programs to prevent and
control invasive species and provides
funding and technical assistance through
its state and private forestry programs.
Provides technical assistance to
cooperating landowners on managing
invasive species that inhabit lands used
for agricultural production--has a
significant program for range management
Natural Resources Conservation and restoration, which includes an
Service invasive species control element.
Maintains a database that includes
extensive information on invasive plant
species and operates plant materials
centers that promote the use of native
species for soil erosion control.
Involved in all invasive species
activities: prevention, detection, control
Department of Commerce (management), monitoring, restoration,
research and development, information
management, and education, outreach,
partnerships, and cooperative activities.
Funds research, education and outreach,
and control activities primarily through
the National Sea Grant Program, with some
activities funded through the National
Ocean Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service. Efforts focus on marine
systems and the Great Lakes. Research
efforts include monitoring the impacts of
invasive species on coastal and other
ecosystems, developing control and
mitigation options, and preventing new
National Oceanic and introductions by, among other things,
Atmospheric Administration developing new technologies for ballast
water management. Performs economic
evaluations of the costs of aquatic
invasive species and conducts control
programs to eradicate and prevent their
spread. Has regulatory authority to
prevent the introduction of invasive
species that may affect marine
sanctuaries, such as the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary; endangered or
threatened species; coastal areas; and
essential fish habitats.
Involved in all invasive species
activities: prevention, detection, control
(management), monitoring, restoration,
research and development, information
management, and education, outreach,
partnerships, and cooperative activities.
Engages in management and control of
invasive species: (1) prevents the entry
of invasive species in the United States,
(2) controls invasive species on Defense
Department of Defense installations, and (3) restores Defense
lands using native plants. Developed and
implemented the Navy's ballast water
management policy and set discharge
standards for vessel ballast water to
address the environmental impact of
invasive species in ballast water. Other
efforts include partnerships to control
brown tree snakes, prevent the spread of
invasive plants, and maintain a noxious
and nuisance plant management information
system.
Supports aquatic plant control, which
primarily involves invasive species in
non-Corps waters. Spends several million
Army Corps of Engineers dollars annually on removal of aquatic
growth, predominantly for invasive
species, and supports zebra mussel
research efforts.
Involved in all invasive species
activities: prevention, detection, control
(management), monitoring, restoration,
research and development, information
management, and education, outreach,
partnerships, and cooperative activities.
Environmental Protection Agency Deals with invasive species in three
general areas--(1) eliminating ballast
water as a pathway for plants, animals, or
microbial species not native to the United
States, (2) regulating pesticides that may
be used to control invasive species, and
(3) conducting research on the ecological
impacts of invasive species.
Involved in all invasive species
activities: prevention, detection, control
Department of the Interior (management), monitoring, restoration,
research and development, information
management, and education, outreach,
partnerships, and cooperative activities.
Helps support the management of invasive
Bureau of Indian Affairs species on Indian lands through exotic
weed eradication and other programs.
Focuses primarily on controlling invasive
plants on the 264 million acres it
manages, primarily in western states and
Alaska. Initiated strategy to prevent and
control the spread of noxious weeds on
Bureau of Land Management public lands by using biological,
chemical, and physical treatment for
invasive plants. Responsible for
protecting and managing wild horses and
burros that, although not native, have a
legally protected status.
Focuses on invasive species infestation of
water systems, including reservoirs,
rivers, thousands of miles of distribution
canals, rights-of-way, wetlands, and
recreational areas. Invasive species of
concern include zebra mussels, Chinese
Bureau of Reclamation mitten crabs, hydrilla, water hyacinth,
purple loosestrife, saltcedar and leafy
spurge. These species can obstruct water
flow, hinder access for maintenance and
recreation, cause structural damage, and
negatively affect water system operations,
water quality, wildlife habitat and public
use.
Protects and conserves fish and wildlife
resources; controls invasive plants and
animals, such as feral pigs, melaleuca,
salt cedar, purple loosestrife, in the
93-million acre National Wildlife Refuge
System; works with private landowners to
implement on-the-ground restoration
projects that eradicate and control and
manage invasive species; regulates imports
Fish and Wildlife Service of injurious wildlife; evaluates imported
animals to determine injurious status;
conducts activities to prevent, control
and monitor aquatic nuisance species such
as zebra mussel, Asian swamp eel, Chinese
mitten crab, brown tree snake and others
that threaten native species and the
aquatic ecosystems; and provides
cost-share grants to implement approved
state aquatic nuisance species management
plans.
Focuses on researching factors influencing
the invasion by invasive species and the
effects of invasive species on ecosystem
processes, native species, and landscape
dynamics, especially on Department of the
Interior land; facilitates documentation,
dissemination and integration of invasive
species information; focuses on small
Geological Survey number of highly invasive species, with
emphasis on the Great Lakes and eastern
waterways and wetlands, riparian
ecosystems, and Hawaii, as well as
invasive plants on western rangelands.
Also, manages the national Nonindigenous
Aquatic Species Database and several
regional databases (such as Hawaii,
Colorado plateau, and northern prairie).
Routinely conducts ecological monitoring
projects to measure potential or actual
impacts of outer continental shelf oil and
gas development on marine, coastal, and
human lives. Invasive species level
Minerals Management Service taxonomic identifications conducted during
these monitoring efforts provide useful
information for documenting occurrences
and geographic extensions of marine
invasive species in near-shore and
offshore waters.
About 190 of the 300 National Park Service
units have identified exotic species as a
significant resource management concern in
their management plans. When managing
invasive species, relies on an integrated
pest management approach that permits the
use of biological and other types of
National Park Service controls. Some parks, such as Hawaii
Volcanoes, Everglades, and Big Cypress,
have programs to address specific invasive
species such as melaleuca, goats, pigs or
invasive plants. In addition, a number of
parks work collaboratively with neighbors
or other groups to manage invasive
species.
Created a brown tree snake program
supporting a number of operational,
Office of Insular Affairs research, and education activities in
accordance with a long-term brown tree
snake control plan.
Involved in the following invasive species
activities: research and development; and
education, outreach, partnerships, and
cooperative activities. Funds basic and
National Science Foundation applied research on invasive species,
including their roles in population and
ecological processes, their relationship
to biological conservation activities, and
their role as a disturbance agent in the
ecosystem.
Involved in the following invasive species
activities: prevention, detection, control
(management), monitoring, research and
development, information management, and
education, outreach, partnerships, and
cooperative activities. Research addresses
the pattern, impact, and management of
invasive species. Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center programs
measure the pattern of transfer, invasion,
and impact of invasive species on coastal
Smithsonian Institution marine and estuarine systems. Conducts
specific projects to test methods to
reduce the risk of species transfer in
ship ballast water; documents the history
of invasive species invasions in the
Chesapeake Bay. In cooperation with Coast
Guard, established the National Ballast
Water Information Clearinghouse to measure
the changing patterns of ballast water
delivery, manages vessels arriving in U.S.
ports, and synthesizes national data on
patterns and impacts of alien species in
coastal ecosystems.
Involved in the following invasive species
activities: information management; and
education, outreach, partnerships, and
cooperative activities. Engages in
negotiations, international treaty
activities, and cooperative
intergovernmental efforts to address
invasive species issues--e.g., catalyzes
formation of a voluntary intergovernmental
initiative to address the problem,
negotiates in the International Maritime
Department of State Organization to develop a treaty to
address the introduction of invasive
species in ballast water, and works with
South Pacific countries to raise awareness
of the need to control brown tree snakes.
These international efforts focus on
safeguarding biodiversity, reducing
negative ecological and economic impacts
from invasive species, and reconciling the
need to identify and manage invasive
species pathways with the need to continue
globalization and increase trade and
travel.
Involved in the following invasive species
activities: prevention, research and
Department of Transportation development, information management, and
education, outreach, partnerships, and
cooperative activities.
Responsible for developing and
implementing a ballast water management
U.S. Coast Guard program to minimize the likelihood that
invasive species can be transported to the
United States in the ballast water of
long-distance ocean vessels.
Focuses primarily on vegetation
Federal Highway Administration management, including developing
guidelines for combating roadside invasive
species.
Involved in the following invasive species
activities: prevention, detection,
information management, and education,
outreach, partnerships, and cooperative
activities. The U.S. Customs Service has a
major operational role in preventing or
restricting the entry of imported
merchandise and its containers that could
Department of the Treasury potentially be or are infested with
invasive species. Customs personnel
inspect passengers, baggage, and cargo at
U.S. ports of entry to enforce or
cooperate, as appropriate, in enforcing
regulations/procedures of other federal
agencies. Customs selectively inspects
incoming passengers, baggage, and cargo
based on risk management criteria, such as
country-of-origin and other factors.
Source: GAO's survey of 10 federal departments; Harmful Non-Native Species:
Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Sept. 1999; and Harmful
Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, Office of Technology
Assessment, OTA-F-656, Sept. 1993.
Seven States' Invasive Species Activities
The seven states we surveyed conduct a variety of invasive species
activities through many of their departments and entities. Table 9 presents
the edited responses from the seven states. The table is followed by
descriptions of three states' innovative invasive species programs.
State and responsible
department or other entity Reported invasive species activities
Involved in prevention, detection, control
(management), monitoring, research and
California development, information management,
environmental compliance, planning, program
supervision, and education, outreach,
partnerships, and cooperative activities.
Maintains open waterways in some areas
through control of water hyacinths and
Department of Boating and Egeria densa (a plant used in home
Waterways aquariums--it forms dense mats that choke
out native plants when introduced into
lakes).
Department of Food and Conducts pest prevention programs that
Agriculture focus on species problematic to
agriculture.
Manages a variety of wildlife and game
Department of Fish and Game preserves (and vegetation in preserves),
and controls nondesirable vertebrates.
Department of Forestry and Assists landowners with forest pest
Fire Protection problems.
Department of Transportation Conducts vegetation management of roadways,
although this is not a discrete mission.
Focuses on water supply issues and controls
Department of Water Resources Spartina (an aggressive, deep-rooted
cordgrass that has invaded open mud-flat
estuaries and displaced native vegetation).
Department of Parks and Focuses on vegetation management of parks,
Recreation although this is not a discrete mission.
State Lands Commission Manages ballast water management programs.
Involved in prevention, detection, control
(management), monitoring, restoration,
research and development, information
Florida management, field testing of new chemicals
and treatments from companies, and
education, outreach, partnerships, and
cooperative activities.
Maintains the largest invasive plant
Department of Environmental management program in the United States;
Protection manages invasive plants throughout the
state park system; and controls invasive
plants on its managed lands.
Monitors invasive species, including Perna
viridis (i.e., a green mussel that can
restrict water flow in pipes and increase
Fish and Wildlife Conservation drag on structures such as boat hulls).
Commission Monitors such invasive species by (1)
examining known or potential areas of
infestation and (2) providing posters to
power plants, marinas, and tackle shops in
known or potentially infested areas.
Detects, controls, and monitors invasive
species on district-owned lands; conducts
restoration projects to improve water
quality and wildlife habitat; provides a
potential source of matching funds for
local governments to complete water
Water management districts management projects; provides clearinghouse
for documents and information; maintains an
Aquatic Wetland and Invasive Plant
Information Retrieval System database
online; and retains an invasive plant
control section that conducts the largest
field application studies using both
biological and chemical methods.
Involved in prevention, detection, control
(management), monitoring, restoration,
Hawaii research and development, information
management, and education, outreach,
partnerships, and cooperative activities.
Protects Hawaii's agricultural industries,
natural resources, and the public from the
entry and establishment of detrimental
insects, weeds, and other pests; protects
Department of Agriculture livestock and poultry industries through
the control and prevention of pests and
diseases; and conducts animal disease
surveillance and epidemiology, laboratory
diagnosis, rabies quarantine, and animal
and bird importation inspection.
Implements and enforces vector-control
activities to minimize the dangers and
annoyances caused by mosquitoes, rats, and
Department of Health other vectors; supports investigations to
suppress vector-borne diseases; and
develops control techniques to prevent the
establishment of new vector and
vector-borne diseases from abroad.
Manages approximately 800,000 acres of
state lands for mixed uses, including
hunting, forestry, recreation, and native
species preservation. Ensures enforcement
Department of Land and of relevant laws on department-managed
Natural Resources lands and on marine waters. Provides
important participation in state- and
community-based efforts to control alien
species through early detection, rapid
response, and public education.
Complies with all applicable state and
Department of Transportation federal regulations to ensure the
protection of Hawaii's environmental and
natural resources.
Involved in prevention, detection, control
(management), monitoring, restoration,
Idaho research and development, information
management, mapping/remote sensing, and
education, outreach, partnerships, and
cooperative activities.
Designates a state noxious weed coordinator
and determines what weeds are to be
declared "noxious;" establishes and
supports cooperative weed management areas;
establishes minimum requirements and
proficiency training for county weed
superintendents; enters into agreements
Department of Agriculture with and coordinates and cooperates with
federal agencies in planning and applying
weed management and control; ensures that
county commissioners carry out the duties
and powers ascribed to counties in the
Idaho Weed Law; and administers cost-share
funds provided by the legislature for
counties, cooperative weed management
areas, and other cooperators.
Owns and manages about 118,000 acres,
Department of Fish and Game located primarily in several wildlife
management areas.
Department of Lands Manages about 2,474,000 acres of state
endowment lands.
Department of Parks and Manages over 38,000 acres of mostly scenic
Recreation and high-quality recreation areas.
Allocates around $3.5 million annually to
Department of Transportation vegetation management. Treats weeds along
roads and highways with herbicides.
Performs research and technology transfer
directed at weeds and diseases of important
University of Idaho Idaho crops; provides diagnostic and weed
identification services and research on
remote sensing to locate and map invasive
species.
Involved in prevention, detection, control
(management), monitoring, restoration,
Maryland research and development, information
management, and education, outreach,
partnerships, and cooperative activities.
Carries out noxious weed control program;
plant pest/disease survey; nursery
inspection; and integrated pest management
programs for crop pests, including the
Mexican bean beetle, corn earworm, and
Department of Agriculture Colorado potato beetle. Also conducts
survey program for pests of quarantine
significance; maintains integrated pest
management of the gypsy moth; and detects
and monitors several other invasive forest
pests, insects, and diseases.
Monitors and controls aquatic plants, such
as hydrilla and water chestnut; nutria (a
beaver-like rodent that forages the root
Department of Natural stalks of native wetland vegetation);
Resources phragmites (a perennial reed that grows in
and along wetlands and displaces species
that provide food for wildlife); and mute
swans.
Involved in prevention, detection, control
(management), monitoring, restoration,
Michigan research and development, information
management, and education, outreach,
partnerships, and cooperative activities.
Conducts research and policy analysis, with
an emphasis on prevention activities, and
Department of Environmental coordinates statewide program relating to
Quality the unintentional introduction of
nonnative, aquatic species. Works to
control zebra mussels, Eurasian
watermilfoil, and curlyleaf pondweed.
Works to manage sea lampreys in the Great
Lakes. Performs control and education
Department of Natural activities on gypsy moths; monitors pine
Resources shoot beetles; monitors and provides
education on beech scale (an insect that
contributes to beech bark disease), and
Asian long-horned beetles.
Provides education on gypsy moths, pine
Michigan State University shoot beetles, Japanese beetles, beech
scale, and Asian long-horned beetles.
Involved in detection, control
(management), monitoring, restoration,
New York research and development, information
management, technology transfer, and
education, outreach, partnerships, and
cooperative activities.
Department of Agriculture and Manages and controls all nonnative plants
Markets and insects.
Department of Environmental Surveys and monitors for aquatic species;
Conservation controls sea lampreys; and manages purple
loosestrife programs.
Great Lakes Research In addition to research, conducts
Consortium education/outreach programs and some
detection and prevention work.
Nature Conservancy/ Invasive Monitors terrestrial invasive plant
Plants Council education, research, and control programs.
Sea Grant Performs education and outreach and funds
research on aquatic nuisance species.
State museum Conducts education and outreach and
original zebra mussel research.
Source: GAO's survey of seven states.
California, Florida, and Idaho described programs within their states that
used what they considered to be innovative approaches to invasive species
problems.
� The Regional Yellow Starthistle17 Control Project is a weed control
program that began as a community's battle to preserve its quality of life
and property values. A program task force--made up of local government
representatives and volunteers?was established in 1996. The program's goals
include (1) mapping infested areas throughout the Tehachapi region, (2)
exploring available integrated control options, and (3) soliciting community
support through an educational outreach campaign. Since the program's
inception, volunteers have mapped the yellow starthistle and implemented
mechanical control of the weed in selected areas, and the task force has
implemented a landowner assistance program that has provided low-cost,
subsidized weed treatments for over 200 sites.
� The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is the focus of restoration and
weed control programs that rely heavily on short- and long-term volunteer
efforts. The programs have different teams that carry out different
functions. For example, volunteers in the Invasive Plant Patrol detect, map,
and control new infestations of invasive plant species. The Golden Gate
National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore recently received
$601,000 from the National Park Service for a joint 3-year Cape ivy
(Delairea odoranta)18 control project. The project's objectives include
containing and reducing the size of all infestations in the parks, sharing
knowledge with other resource management agencies, and increasing public
awareness and involvement in controlling Cape ivy.
� The Ballast Water Management for Control of Non-Indigenous Species Act,
which took effect on January 1, 2000, specified responsibilities and tasks
to address nonindigenous aquatic species in California's waters. Under the
act, the State Lands Commission was given responsibility for ballast water
inspection and monitoring. In the first 3 months after establishing its
program, the Commission succeeded in getting 67 percent of regulated ships
to report to them using the U.S. Coast Guard Ballast Report form, and
program staff directly inspected the ballast water of 25 percent of the
ships. Educating the regulated vessel community is also a large part of the
Commission's effort. In addition to ballast water inspection, the act
requires California's Department of Fish and Game to determine the location
and extent of aquatic nuisance species in California, the State Water
Resources Control Board to evaluate alternatives for managing ballast water,
and the Board of Equalization to collect inspection fees.
� California's Department of Agriculture has run a Weed Detection and
Eradication Program for over 40 years in cooperation with county agriculture
departments. Through their efforts, 14 weed species have been eradicated
statewide and several others are close to being eradicated. The program
employs 8 to 10 biologists, located in districts across the state, who
maintain contact with county and other biologists knowledgeable about the
lands, weeds, and botany of the district. The program biologists travel
throughout their districts looking for target weed species--their goal is to
find an infestation when it is small and easily controlled. These early
finds often result in the complete destruction of weed populations with a
single visit. Biologists generally visit other, more established
infestations at least twice each year, applying treatments whenever
possible.
� Since 1997, the state's upland plant program has completed or initiated
over 150 invasive plant removal projects on federal, state, and local
conservation lands. To provide an infrastructure for planning and
implementing plant-related invasive species activities, Florida established
11 regional invasive upland plant working groups?made up of local, city,
county, state, and federal land managers?covering all of Florida. These
groups identify and set priorities for invasive plant management needs
within their areas and can choose from several control operation methods,
including regional contractors, independent subcontractors, or in-house
staff. In addition, the groups can obtain funding from Florida's Department
of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Invasive Plant Management Upland
Program.
� The state implemented a statewide, systematic, coordinated planning
process for managing noxious weeds. It convened a Governor's Idaho Weed
Summit, which set the framework for its strategic plan. The plan proposed
several actions to be carried out at all levels and by all agencies and
organizations that have a stake in managing invasive species. In August
1999, Idaho established a Statewide Weed Coordinating Committee to implement
the plan. As an indication of the importance placed on the plan, Idaho's
governor recently participated in a ceremony at which
participants--including representatives from state and federal agencies, a
university, an Indian tribe, and others?signed a Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the plan.
� The state has created 21 geographically oriented or watershed-based
cooperative weed management areas, which are locally led and include all
partners in the designated area. The areas cover about 75 percent of the
state and include private, state, and federal lands. Each area will have a
steering committee to oversee the development of an integrated weed
management plan for its area. To encourage this effort, Idaho's Department
of Agriculture offers cost-share grants to supplement local resources in
implementing the local plans. To qualify for cost-share grants, area
steering committees are required to develop an annual operating plan and an
annual accomplishment report.
Federal and State Comments on Changes Needed in Executive Order 13112
In response to GAO's survey, officials in four federal departments and four
states provided their views on changes they believed were needed in
Executive Order 13112 should the Congress enact legislation incorporating
the order's language. Many comments on the executive order focused on
concerns regarding definitions and the roles of various entities.
Officials from two departments and one state raised concerns over
definitions in the executive order. They indicated that the definitions
should be (1) expanded to facilitate consistent identification of invasive
species and (2) clarified to exclude domesticated animals--such as cattle,
sheep, and horses--and domesticated grasses. In addition, one official
indicated that the terms "control" and "management" should be defined
differently.
Officials from three departments and two states reported concerns regarding
the roles of various entities with regard to invasive species. For example,
several officials stated that the respective roles of federal, state, and
local government need to be more clearly defined. One official said that a
national center is needed to (1) help bridge environmental and agricultural
interests and (2) enhance information exchange among affected federal,
state, and local governments and the private sector. Another official stated
that a network of expert centers should be established and authorized to
provide information, research, and technical assistance. This official added
that the Invasive Species Council and the Federal Interagency Committee for
the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds should be established through
legislation.
Responses to GAO's Survey of 10 Federal Departments On Budget Obligations
for Invasive Species
Responses to GAO's Survey of Seven States On Expenditures for Invasive
Species Activities
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Lawrence J. Dyckman, (202) 512-5138
Jerilynn B. Hoy, (202) 512-5138
In addition to those named above, Beverly Peterson, Diana Cheng, Jacqueline
A. Cook, Judith Kordahl, and Luann Moy made key contributions to this
report.
(150179)
Table 1: Major Invasive Species Activities 10
Table 2: Obligations for Invasive Species Activities, by
Federal Department, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 a 13
Table 3: Federal Funding for Categories of Invasive Species,
Fiscal Year 1999 15
Table 4: Federal Departments' Views on Coordination Between
a Variety of Entities 17
Table 5: Invasive Species Activities Receiving the Greatest
Funding from Each State, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 20
Table 6: Invasive Species Receiving the Greatest Funding from
Each State, Fiscal Year 1999 21
Table 7: States' Views on Coordination Between Several Entities 23
Table 8: Federal Involvement in Invasive Species Activities 33
Table 9: Seven States' Invasive Species Activities 37
Figure 1: Worker Removing Zebra Mussels From Water Intake
Pipes, Purple Loosestrife, and Destruction of Trees
Caused by Asian Long-Horned Beetles 9
Figure 2: Federal Obligations by Invasive Species Activity,
Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 14
Figure 3: Seven States' Expenditures for Invasive Species
Activities, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 19
1. More specifically, invasive species are plant, animal, or microbial
species that are not native to the United States or to the affected area
(i.e., an ecosystem--a community of organisms and their environment) and
whose introduction causes harm to the economy, the environment, or human
health. This definition is largely based on the definition in Executive
Order 13112.
2. In this report and in our survey of federal departments, we use the term
"department" to refer to the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
the Interior, State, Transportation, and the Treasury; the Environmental
Protection Agency; the National Science Foundation; and the Smithsonian
Institution.
3. Funding data for fiscal year 1999 are actual obligations (federal) and
actual expenditures (states); data for fiscal year 2000 are estimated
obligations (federal) and estimated expenditures (states). Also, although
the fiscal year of the federal government and many states covers different
periods (beginning in October for the federal government and July for many
states), in this report we use the term "fiscal year" for each entity's
fiscal year--whatever that period may be.
4. While Treasury's Customs Service engages in some invasive species-related
activities, it does not track obligations for these activities separately
from its other enforcement activities. Also, Defense provided only a partial
response because two of its components (the Air Force and the Army) did not
provide information. According to a Defense official, these components are
responsible for the largest amount of lands under Defense stewardship.
5. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, Office of Technology
Assessment, OTA-F-565, Sept. 1993.
6. David Pimentel, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs of
Nonindigenous Species in the United States," BioScience, Jan. 2000, pp.
53-65.
7. David Pimentel, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs of
Nonindigenous Species in the United States," pp. 53-65.
8. A ninth activity was a miscellaneous category: "other invasive species
activities."
9. Executive Order 13112 replaces Executive Order 11987 (1977).
10. Defense provided only a partial response to this question because two of
its components (the Air Force and the Army) did not provide information.
11. For example, Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
collects user fees for agricultural quarantine inspection and enforcement
activities--activities that are key in preventing the introduction of new
invasive species into the United States.
12. A snake that has caused major disruptions to power transmission,
telephone service, computers, tourism, and military operations in Guam.
Hawaii and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are also
believed to be at particular risk of introduction of this invasive species.
13. Florida's fiscal year 1999 expenditures were overstated by up to $3.7
million because the precise amount of invasive species funding by activity
could not be separated out for several programs that covered areas other
than invasive species.
14. This refers to funding that federal departments provided to states to
carry out state invasive species programs.
15. In addition, the Council has generally had a summer intern.
16. These meetings are part of a project conducted by the Charles Valentine
Riley Memorial Foundation and sponsored by Agriculture, the Interior, the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and industry.
17. The yellow starthistle is an annual herb that grows up to 3 feet--it
infests over 9 million acres of rangeland in the western United States.
18. Cape ivy, native to South Africa, is a twining, succulent climber and
scrambler. It has the ability to root at every leaf node and along the stem.
*** End of document ***