Background

As we have reported in the past, the impact of all types of invasive species  in the United States is widespread, and their consequences for the  economy and the environment are profound. Invasive species are found on  agricultural cropland and in natural and urban areas, and can be either  terrestrial or aquatic. Invasive species represent all taxonomic groups— plants, animals, and microorganisms—and cause harm by multiplying  rapidly, crowding out native species, damaging agricultural and industrial  resources, and generally altering natural systems. For example, they can  alter entire ecosystems by disrupting food chains, preying on critical native  species such as pollinators, increasing the frequency of fires, or—as in the  case of some plants—simply overshadowing and outcompeting native  plants. As such, many scientists believe that invasive species are a  significant threat to biodiversity and many endangered species in the  United States. The cost to control invasive species and the cost of damages  they inflict, or could inflict, on property or natural resources are estimated  to total billions of dollars annually. Once they have arrived, invasive species  are hard to eradicate. As the Fish and Wildlife Service noted, “Invasive  species management is a never-ending activity because of the insidious and  explosive nature of the species themselves. Elimination of established  populations of multiple invasive species has not yet been demonstrated in  the 100-year history of the Refuge System.”
The Plant Conservation Alliance—an organization created in 1994 to  protect native plants by ensuring that their populations and communities  are maintained, enhanced, and restored—estimates that about 4,000  foreign plant species have been introduced into the United States since  European settlement began, and as many as 1,000 of these have been  identified as a threat to our native flora and fauna as a result of their  aggressive, invasive characteristics. All 50 states have been affected,  although certain states are particularly hard hit. California, Florida, and  Hawaii are hosts to an estimated 2,000 nonnative plants, or half of the 4,000  that exist nationwide.
Some of the 4,000 introduced plant species were brought as food crops and  do not display invasive or harmful characteristics. Others arrived by  accident, perhaps germinated from seeds either contaminating otherwise  beneficial commodities such as grain or in the soil once used as ships’  ballast. Other plant species were introduced intentionally to serve some  purpose or as an ornamentally desirable plant. Kudzu, for example—a  rapidly growing vine that thrives in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic  United States—was intentionally introduced from Japan by USDA in the  1930s to control soil erosion but has now overtaken many natural areas.  Similarly, multiflora rose was promoted for use as a living fence, like  hedgerows on pastureland, but has spread far beyond its original purpose.  Ornamentally pleasing but also invasive plants include English ivy, autumn  olive, Japanese honeysuckle, and purple loosestrife. Some species that are  considered invasive—autumn olive, for example—are still advertised as  beneficial to the environment because they are a food source for wildlife.  However, once established, the seeds of invasive plants can spread through  wind, water, and animals, and by hitching a ride on people or their vehicles.  Invasive weeds may also take hold or spread as a result of disturbances in  ecological systems. Disturbances could include deforestation, road  building, or changes in water quality or quantity.
Historically, weed control has been practiced primarily in agricultural  areas. However, there is a growing recognition that invasive weeds’ effects  are felt throughout natural areas as well. For example, sagebrush-grassland  ecosystems such as those in the Great Basin states, including Idaho,  Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, are degraded by cheatgrass, introduced  from Eurasia. This grass, along with other nonnative grasses such as  medusahead, are now the dominant plant species on tens of millions of  acres in the West. Because cheatgrass tolerates wildfire and adds to fuel  loads, it has increased the frequency of major fires in these grasslands— ecosystems that cannot handle frequent, intense fires—thereby causing a  near extirpation of native flora and fauna. In the Northeast and Midwest,  purple loosestrife is rapidly degrading wetlands by filling in open waters  with dense stands—some thousands of acres in size. In the Southwest,  tamarisk—also known as salt cedar—proliferates along streams in  otherwise arid landscapes, ousting native trees and shrubs upon which  native animals depend while also lowering water tables. This report  focuses on efforts to manage terrestrial invasive weeds in nonagricultural  areas, including forests, rangelands, parks, and urban areas.

	Government Agencies at All Levels and Nongovernmental Entities Manage Invasive Weeds

A wide range of organizations and individuals manage and control invasive  weeds on nonagricultural lands across the United States, including federal,  state and local agencies; large and small nongovernmental organizations;  and private landowners. The weed management activities of these entities  are guided by federal and state laws, agency policies and regulations,  executive initiatives, or natural resource management principles.

		Four Federal Agencies Are Extensively Involved in Managing Invasive Weeds on Federal Land

The four major land management agencies we examined are responsible  for the vast majority of federal lands in the United States—over 630 million  acres out of a total of over 700 million acres (BLM, 261 million; Forest  Service, 193 million; FWS, 96 million; NPS, 84 million). As directed by the  various statutes that they implement, these agencies are to ensure they  manage the lands under their jurisdiction for a variety of important  economic, recreation, and conservation purposes. While the laws do not  specifically require the agencies to control invasive weeds, they give the  agencies broad authority to guard against threats to the resources they are  responsible for protecting. For example, invasive weeds such as leafy  spurge and yellow star thistle, which degrade western rangelands, hamper  BLM’s ability to ensure adequate forage for grazing; some rangeland weed  species are actually toxic or fatal if consumed by livestock, while others  displace desirable native grasses. Invasive weeds are also crowding out  some native species on national wildlife refuges and other federal lands,  harming threatened or endangered species or other protected wildlife. The  Fish and Wildlife Service reported that invasive weeds interfere  significantly with meeting wildlife objectives on nearly 50 percent of its  refuges. In addition, invasive weeds that increase fuels can feed high- intensity fires and crowd out seedlings, thereby hindering the Forest  Service’s ability to manage forests for sustainable timber harvests. Three of  the four agencies—BLM, the Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife  Service—are authorized to expend funds to protect resources outside of  lands they manage, which is important in battling invasive weeds as the  weeds do not respect jurisdictional borders. The National Park Service  does not have this authority.
While the federal agencies may use these broad authorities for natural  resource management to control weeds, section 15 of the Federal Noxious  Weed Act requires federal agencies to have a management program for the  control of some invasive plant species. As authorized under the Plant  Protection Act, USDA’s APHIS maintains a list of noxious weeds—plants or  plant products that can cause certain harms, including damage to  agricultural or natural resources. The current list contains 96 plant taxa,  about one-half of which are known to be in the United States, according to  USDA. This represents a small percentage of the overall number of plants  that have invaded the country. USDA’s APHIS is authorized to take a  number of actions to prevent the introduction or spread of these listed  weeds and may cooperate with other federal agencies. In addition,  Executive Order 13112 directs federal agencies to take actions against  invasive species, including preventing their introduction, providing for  their control, and conducting relevant research. The order, issued in 1999,  established a National Invasive Species Council, comprising the heads of  certain federal departments and agencies, and directed the council to  develop a national management plan for invasive species; the resulting plan  contains action items for the land management agencies (and others). For  example, the plan called upon agencies to request additional funding  through the annual appropriation process, to reduce the spread of invasive  species from federal lands to neighboring areas, and to lessen the impact of  invasive species on natural areas.
To help carry out their responsibilities, the four land management agencies  have either strategic plans or other policy or management guidance for  addressing invasive species. In addition, the agencies have done some  assessments of the extent of weed infestations on federal lands. All have  identified significant infestations and taken actions to treat weeds,  although officials noted to us that, because the agencies have only recently  used standardized methods of measuring infestations or areas treated,  comparisons over time must be done with caution. They also cautioned us  that treating an acre of weeds does not necessarily mean controlling the  weeds on that acre; subsequent treatments are likely to be necessary. (See  table 1 for agency estimates.)
According to most federal officials we spoke with (15 of 18), weed  infestations are getting worse. The Forest Service estimated in 1998 that  weed infestations were increasing on its lands by approximately 8 percent  to 12 percent annually. Recognizing the threat that infestations pose,  federal agencies try to control weeds by pulling them out by hand, mowing,  applying herbicides, and using biological control agents, among other  methods. For example, in 2002, the National Park Service distributed  approximately 5 million flea beetles in three parks in North Dakota, South  Dakota, and Wyoming in an attempt to biologically control leafy spurge. In  the Washington, D.C., area, National Park Service staff members have  manually removed Japanese stiltgrass to protect sensitive native species.  Often, a combination of methods, known as integrated pest management, is  needed. For example, federal agencies have used a combination of  chemical and mechanical methods—including burning and plowing—to  manage tamarisk in the West. They are also experimenting with biological  control. In Hawaii, USDA and Interior have supported efforts to suppress  an invasive tree (miconia) by uprooting it, spraying herbicide from  helicopters, and using a fungal biological control agent.
Such actions, though, are resource intensive, and agencies often do not  have enough staff to carry out many projects. In 2000, to address the issue  of a lack of on-site staff, the National Park Service created Exotic Plant  Management Teams, which move among the parks to control harmful  plants. The Park Service has found these teams to be an effective tool and  expanded the program to 16 teams that cover 209 of the 388 units in the  national park system (see fig. 1).
The Fish and Wildlife Service also began to use this approach in fiscal year  2004 with three so-called “strike teams” that work at refuges in the  Everglades, the Lower Colorado River, and the Columbia-Yellowstone- Missouri River areas. In light of staffing limitations, all four land  management agencies also seek volunteers to help control invasive weeds.  For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service is using trained volunteers to  help with early detection at six refuges. In general, the agency reports that  volunteers conduct about 20 percent of all work on refuges, which now  includes assisting with noxious weed activities.
Sixteen federal agencies—including the 4 federal land management  agencies we reviewed—also work toward better weed control by  participating in the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of  Noxious and Exotic Weeds, which was established in 1994 through a  memorandum of understanding. According to the committee’s charter, the  committee is to coordinate (1) information on the identification and extent  of invasive weeds in the United States and (2) federal agency management  of these species. Since it began, the committee made recommendations  that led federal agencies to create a grant program for managing weeds  known as the Pulling Together Initiative, published a nontechnical  overview of invasive weeds to increase public awareness, and developed a  conceptual design for a national early detection and rapid response system  for invasive weeds. The committee has also encouraged the development  of state and regional invasive species teams and councils.

		State and Local Governments We Reviewed Vary in the Extent to Which They Manage Weeds

We found similarities and differences in the state and local agencies that  manage invasive weeds among the five states we examined. These states— California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, and Mississippi—all have laws to  address the management of noxious weeds. In four states, the laws require  a state agency to designate or list noxious weeds, but they define what is  considered noxious differently (app. II discusses states’ definitions in  detail). The number of listed weeds varied widely across the five states,  from a low of 3 in Maryland to a high of 133 in California.
All five states’ weed laws authorize certain management efforts for noxious  weeds. For example, states’ laws typically discuss control steps that can be  taken, agency responsibilities, provisions regarding sale and transport of  listed weeds, and taxes or other steps that can be taken to raise revenue to  implement management programs. The weed lists can also limit the  specific weeds that state agencies are able to work on; some laws limit  agencies’ use of state funds to efforts that address only listed weeds or  stipulate that they must use state funds on listed weeds before addressing  other weeds. In addition, four of the five states—Mississippi is the  exception—require private landowners to control or eradicate listed weeds  on their property. Most of the laws provide for assessing misdemeanor  charges or fines for noncompliance.
Each of the five states has infrastructure in place to address noxious  weeds, although the infrastructure varies from informal to formal. In all  five states, the state agriculture department is responsible for  implementing the state weed law. Agencies responsible for parks, natural  resources, and transportation were also involved in invasive species  management. Some states also have laws or other directives that establish  additional organizational responsibilities. For example, in Idaho, state law  established a statewide weed coordinator, and a gubernatorial executive  order created an invasive species council. Colorado law created a  statewide weed coordinator and a statewide noxious weed advisory  committee. Also, in Colorado, the state agency for higher education plays a  key role in implementing the state’s strategic plan for managing invasive  species by providing research, education, and outreach. California law  provides for a weed coordinator and a weed mapping specialist. Maryland  and Mississippi have much less formal infrastructures. The five states have  other mechanisms to help manage invasive weeds. Each has an invasive  species or plant pest council or committee, which is primarily intended to  share information among the entities involved in weed management. Three  of the five states—California, Colorado, and Idaho—also have strategic  plans for addressing noxious weeds. Appendix III provides detailed  information on weed management in the five states.
Some of the state laws also impose infrastructure requirements on  counties. For example, in Colorado and Idaho, state law requires each  county to have a weed coordinator and weed advisory council. In  California, county agriculture commissioners carry out most of the work  on noxious weed eradication and control in the state. In Maryland and  Mississippi, weed management programs are at the discretion of the  county. In Maryland, almost all counties have some programs addressing  invasive weeds that were initiated in cooperation with the state’s  agriculture agency. We found very little activity at the county level in  Mississippi.

		Other Types of Entities Play an Important Role in Weed Management

A growing number of areas in the country—particularly in the western  states—participate in multijurisdictional organizations known as “weed  management areas” or “cooperative weed management areas.” These  areas—which typically include federal, state, and local agencies;  nongovernmental organizations and businesses; and citizens—coordinate  and collaborate on weed management issues among neighboring  landowners. The areas are considered important grassroots efforts that  garner local support and enthusiasm for controlling noxious weeds.  Federal agencies—BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Park  Service, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, and others—are  often partners in weed management areas. Participating state agencies  include departments of transportation, agriculture, fish and game, forestry,  and parks. Other typical partners include county weed agencies, soil and  water conservation districts, community groups, railroads, irrigation  districts, and private landowners.
For the five states we reviewed, California, Colorado, and Idaho had weed  management areas while Maryland and Mississippi did not. According to  the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the state has 40 weed  management areas representing over 50 of the state’s 58 counties. Idaho’s  Department of Agriculture lists 30 areas that cover nearly the entire state.  In Colorado, weed management areas encompass one-half of the state,  according to the state weed coordinator. Officials in these three states have  stated that the management areas have had a positive impact on weed  control by increasing coordination or leveraging limited resources.  Maryland and Mississippi officials, as well as other stakeholders,  speculated that weed management areas might not be as common in the  East because of differences in typical land ownership patterns. Eastern  states are less likely to be dominated by a large landowner, such as the  federal government, which often provides needed leadership. Figure 2  describes the activities of one weed management area in the Pacific  Northwest.
Another type of multijurisdictional organization—exotic plant pest  councils—allows government and nongovernmental organizations and  academic experts to collaborate and share information on weed  management. The councils—typically nonprofit organizations formed  voluntarily by interested parties—obtain funding from membership dues,  grants, donations, and other sources. Three regional councils cover  portions of the United States in the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and New  England. Similarly, the Western Weed Coordinating Committee is a  voluntary organization designed to help coordinate noxious weed  management programs and efforts among state and federal agencies.
Many nongovernmental organizations—often voluntary “friends” groups— also provide services at national wildlife refuges and national parks or for  state or local governments. For example, in 2003, the Fish and Wildlife  Service and the National Wildlife Refuge Association began an initiative  involving “friends” groups and volunteers to assist in combating invasive  species. Similarly, the National Park Service has entered into an  agreement with the Student Conservation Association to collaborate on  weed control in national parks. In California, chapters of the California  Native Plant Society organize members to volunteer for weed removal,  sometimes in collaboration with government agencies and other  nongovernmental organizations. In Montgomery County, Maryland,  volunteers through the “weed warrior” program donated nearly 3,000 hours  of labor in 2004. In addition, BLM’s volunteer services program reports  many instances of weed control done by volunteers brought together  through other nongovernmental organizations or as individuals. Weed  management areas also engage volunteers in the war on weeds (see fig. 3).
With regard to national nongovernmental organizations, we found The  Nature Conservancy was active in weed management—both as a  landowner and as a partner with other landowners—in all five states we  reviewed. In these states, the Conservancy owns lands on which it  conducts weed management activities, and it assists government agencies  on weed management projects on public lands. For example, in Mississippi,  the Conservancy is under contract to the Department of Defense to help it  protect threatened and endangered species by controlling invasive weeds  at Camp Shelby, a National Guard training facility. Because the camp is  partly within national forest boundaries, the Conservancy also coordinates  weed control work with the Forest Service. Figure 4 provides detailed  information on a weed management project The Nature Conservancy led in  Colorado.

	Funding for Weed Management Comes from a Variety of Sources

Efforts to manage invasive weeds rely on a web of federal, state, and local  government funding as well as nongovernmental funding sources. Some  entities use general operating funds, while others rely on grant programs  administered by numerous federal agencies. Often, funding from one  source is used to leverage funding from other sources.

		Federal Agencies Often Use General Resource Management Funds to Address Invasive Weeds on Federal Lands

Federal land management agencies generally do not receive specific  appropriations for weed management but typically fund weed and other  invasive species management out of appropriations for broad budget line  items, such as vegetation management or refuge operations and  maintenance. However, the agencies do not all track expenditures on weed  management activities and therefore cannot comprehensively describe the  amount of funding devoted to weed management or the sources of that  funding. Overall, as can be seen in the following examples, agencies fund  a mix of activities to help them determine the extent of their weed  problems, control particularly bad infestations and eradicate them where  possible, and conduct research and education:  The Forest Service’s rangeland management program—with an  estimated budget of about $15.7 million for invasive weeds in fiscal year  2004—uses resources from its vegetation and watershed management  appropriation. Its most significant expenditures are for prevention, early  detection and eradication, and control of terrestrial weeds; its 2004 plan  called for treating weeds on over 67,000 acres. Forest Service officials  told us that the agency also manages invasive weeds through fire  management and other programs, but that it cannot easily quantify those  expenditures.
The National Park Service funds its weed management activities from  its resource stewardship account. While individual park units draw from  this appropriation, the Park Service also uses it to fund its exotic plant  management teams. The agency spends about $5.2 million annually out  of its natural resource stewardship budget on 16 teams that serve many  park units.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, it funds invasive weed work  out of its refuge operations and maintenance budget. From this budget,  the agency estimates that it spent $4.7 million in fiscal year 2004 to  prevent, manage, and control invasive weeds. Included in this total are  the Fish and Wildlife Service’s three invasive species “strike teams” that  are similar to the National Park Service’s exotic plant management  teams.
BLM funds weed management activities primarily through its range  management program, which in fiscal year 2004 provided about $7.2  million for weed control. However, other BLM activities, such as fire or  wildlife management, can also be used to fund weed management.
On occasion, Congress uses appropriations legislation to direct activities  on weed management or invasive species. For example, the conference  committee for Interior’s fiscal year 2004 appropriations directed the Forest  Service to spend $300,000 from its vegetation and watershed management  account on leafy spurge control. It also directed the Secretary of the  Interior to transfer $5 million to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s resource  management account to fund, among other things, water quality monitoring  and eradication of invasive plants at the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National  Wildlife Refuge in Florida.

		Federal Programs Provide Funding for Weed Control Work by Other Entities

Interior and USDA manage at least eight programs that provide hundreds of  millions of dollars through grants and cooperative agreements to other  federal agencies, state and local governments, nongovernmental  organizations, and private landowners to support resource conservation  efforts, including weed control.
Most of these programs award grants to support a variety of conservation  activities, and agencies do not consistently track how much these  programs spend directly on weed control. Table 2 shows the major  programs that have been used to support weed control, the estimated  amount of funding provided for weed control, and the total funding that the  programs provided for conservation. More information on these and other  programs is in appendix IV.
The federal programs have specific purposes and eligibility criteria that  guide what type of projects will receive funds or cooperative agreements  (see app. IV for program descriptions). The programs vary in how funding  decisions are made, although most of them receive input from other  agencies and stakeholders. For example, USDA makes funding decisions at  the state level for relevant farm bill conservation programs, such as the  Environmental Quality Incentives Program. While USDA issues a national  announcement about funding availability and describes the types of  conservation activities that are eligible for funding, a state technical  committee—made up of a variety of public and private sector  stakeholders—determines which of those activities will receive the highest  priority. This may mean that some state committees may emphasize  funding weed control projects while others may not. Funding decisions for  grants provided under the Pulling Together Initiative are made at a national  level by a steering committee of weed management experts from  government, industry, professional societies, and nonprofit organizations.  The committee reviews all applications together and makes award  decisions once a year. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Private Stewardship  grant program also draws upon a diverse panel of representatives from  federal and state governments and other organizations to assess proposals.
Among the programs listed in table 2, two are dedicated solely to weed  management—the Pulling Together Initiative and the Center for Invasive  Plant Management’s grant program. Under the Pulling Together Initiative,  the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation distributes federal grant funds to  state, county, and local agencies, and private nonprofit organizations,  among others. The grants are designed to build capacity at the local level to  manage invasive weeds by supporting the creation of weed management  areas. According to the foundation, local partners will match the grants in  2004 with over $3.3 million in nonfederal contributions. Among the states  we reviewed, in 2004 the Pulling Together Initiative awarded five grants to  Colorado, four California, two each to Idaho and Maryland, and one to  Mississippi, for a total of $396,300. Two of those grants include the  following:  Larimer County Weed District in Colorado received $25,000 to  coordinate a cooperative effort to manage and, where possible,  eradicate leafy spurge from the riparian areas of the Poudre River and  its tributaries using chemical, biological, and mechanical weed control  methods. The local matching contribution was about $60,000.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture received a $20,000  grant to continue to survey, map, and implement integrated pest  management practices to control and eradicate purple loosestrife in  Humboldt, Kern, Mendocino, San Mateo, Siskiyou, and Sonoma  counties. The local matching contribution was $40,000.
The other program devoted solely to weed management is administered by  the Center for Invasive Plant Management at Montana State University. The  university created the center following discussions among public and  private stakeholders. From fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the center  received about $3.3 million in federal funds specifically for weed  management. The center supports the efforts of weed management areas  in the West by offering them small, competitive grants. From fiscal years  2002 through 2004, the center made 58 grants to weed management areas in  14 states, for a total of about $282,000. For instance, the center awarded  $4,937 in 2003 to the Mojave Weed Management Area in San Bernardino  County, California, to develop a comprehensive weed management plan for  the Mojave River; tamarisk is the primary target species of this project. The  center has also used funding from BLM to create an online course in  ecological land management, provide grants for weed management  research and for synthesizing research libraries, establish restoration  projects for weed-dominated lands, and publish numerous public  education and outreach documents, among other things.
The Forest Service’s cooperative forest health management program is also  heavily focused on weed management. This program supports cooperation  among state, private, and tribal land jurisdictions and develops weed  management programs using integrated pest strategies. Since fiscal year  2002, the program has provided funding to Forest Service regions for  invasive plant activities on state and private forested lands. In fiscal year  2004, the program distributed $5.2 million—an increase of $2 million  compared with 2003—to its regions.
APHIS enters into cooperative agreements with state agencies and  universities and others to conduct surveys, develop biological control  methods, and implement weed management. Data from APHIS show that in  fiscal year 2004, the agency provided at least $3.2 million through  cooperative agreements for agricultural and nonagricultural weed projects.  APHIS’s total budget for pest and disease management in fiscal year 2004  was $331 million, most of which is devoted to agricultural pests and  diseases.
In addition to the federal natural resource conservation programs in table 2  that are known to provide support for weed management, others have the  potential to be used for that purpose. For example, USDA reports that the  Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Grassland Reserve Program could  be used to address tamarisk, an invasive tree species, or other invasive  plants. These programs that agencies could potentially use to support weed  control provide billions of dollars for conservation efforts in general (see  app. IV for more detail on these programs).
After we completed our interviews of weed management officials,  Congress enacted the Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004,  calling for the establishment of a new source of funds for weed  management. This law amends the Plant Protection Act and requires the  Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program to support weed control  efforts by weed management entities on BLM, Forest Service, and  nonfederal lands. The law authorizes USDA to provide grants to and enter  into cooperative agreements with weed management entities. Eligible  activities include education, inventories and mapping, management,  monitoring, methods development, and other activities to control or  eradicate noxious weeds. In addition, USDA may enter into cooperative  agreements at the request of a state’s governor for rapid response to  outbreaks of noxious weeds. The law authorizes appropriations of $7.5  million for grants and $7.5 million for cooperative agreements for each of 5  years beginning in fiscal year 2005. It is not yet clear what agency within  USDA will administer this new program.
If the law were fully funded, it would represent a significant source of  funds for weed management. The authorized amount is about 40 percent of  all federal grant funding identified by our review as devoted to  nonagricultural invasive weed management in fiscal year 2004. However, it  is not yet clear what portion of the new program’s funds will be used to  address noxious weeds in nonagricultural settings. The law authorizes that  funds may be used on natural area lands that BLM, the Forest Service, and  nonfederal entities manage—but not on national parks or refuges—but it  does not limit weed control support to nonagricultural lands. In the 108th  Congress, Members of Congress introduced two other legislative proposals  calling for additional resources for weed management—one addressed  invasive species in general, while the other was limited to two western  weed species.

		Federal Agencies Conduct or Support Weed Management Research

Much of the federal funding already discussed deals with the management  of invasive weed infestations; however, federal agencies also conduct or  support weed management research. We identified four federal agencies  within Agriculture and Interior that provide funding and other support to  federal and nonfederal researchers. The types of research range from  studies of the natural history of weeds (such as their life cycles and  methods of spread) to evaluations of the effectiveness of control  techniques. This research, however, primarily addresses weeds in  agricultural settings.
USDA agencies fund several research efforts. The Agricultural Research  Service has funded research on several key weeds in natural areas,  including tamarisk, leafy spurge, and melaleuca, as part of its overall weed  and invasive species program. The Cooperative State Research, Education,  and Extension Service is making an estimated $3.6 million available in  fiscal year 2005 through its National Research Initiative to a wide range of  educational institutions, local governments, nonprofit organizations,  individuals, and others to study the biology of weedy and invasive plants.  For example, the initiative has funded research on the causes and  consequences of weed plant invasions in forestlands and on the effects of  nitrogen supply on Japanese barberry and Japanese stiltgrass. The Forest  Service also supports research related to invasive weeds such as in  developing new guides for identifying and controlling for invasive plants  using mechanical and biological control methods. According to the Forest  Service, in fiscal year 2004 it allocated more than $3.5 million for weed  research.
In fiscal year 2004, Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) budgeted $9.3  million for invasive species research. USGS reports that it spends about  half of its invasive species research funds on weeds—about $4.7 million. It  develops its research agenda in consultation with its client agencies in  Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of  Land Management), which determine their research needs, in part, based  on the National Invasive Species Council’s National Management Plan for  Invasive Species, departmental priorities, and congressional interests. For  example, the survey has been researching nutria, ballast water, and  tamarisk because of recent congressional actions on these issues.

		States Rely on Various Sources of Funding for Weed Management

The states we reviewed primarily use funds from a variety of state agencies’  general appropriations to undertake weed management. Typically, state  agencies responsible for agriculture, natural resources, and transportation  are most active in weed management and have either dedicated weed  funding or utilize funds from general maintenance accounts. State agencies  also rely on federal grant programs to assist in their weed management  efforts. For example, as discussed previously, all five states received funds  through the Pulling Together Initiative for weed management activities.
The five states we reviewed differed in the level of resources devoted to  controlling weeds. The disparity in resources no doubt reflects differences  in the size and geography of the states and the nature and extent of the  invasive species problem. We believe that it also reflects differences in the  priority that certain states have assigned to the problem and their capacity  for allocating resources. For this report, while we obtained information on  expenditures, we did not attempt to precisely determine how much the five  states are spending on weed management on nonagricultural lands. As with  the federal agencies, it is often difficult to distinguish state agency  expenditures on agricultural weeds from those on nonagricultural weeds,  and between general maintenance work and weed control. In 2000, we  reported on similar issues with regard to state expenditures on all types of  invasive species (not just weeds), including three of the states we reviewed  for this report.
California: Several state agencies spend funds on weed management. The  Department of Food and Agriculture, the lead agency for weed  management in California, receives approximately $2 million and the  Department of Transportation about $1 million annually for weed control  from state appropriations. The Department of Parks and Recreation’s  funding fluctuates based on available funds, including general  appropriations, ongoing maintenance funds, and specially funded projects.  The Coastal Conservancy (a state agency focused on protecting coastal  resources) has spent approximately $800,000 per year of grant money and  $300,000 per year for in-kind, staff, and direct expenses over the last 3 years  on management of a specific invasive weed (Spartina alternifolia, a  wetlands grass).
Colorado: The state weed coordinator estimated that state funding for  invasive weeds was approximately $3.6 million for fiscal year 2002. This  amount included the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s noxious weed  program, the Department of Natural Resources’ program for controlling  weeds on state lands, and the Department of Transportation’s work along  roadsides. In the past, the state provided additional resources for  addressing invasive weeds. From fiscal years 1998 through 2002, the  Colorado legislature provided about $1.3 million through the Colorado  Noxious Weed Management Fund to support communities, weed control  districts, or other entities engaged in cooperative noxious weed  management efforts. On average, private, local, other state, and federal  entities matched every dollar of the state’s investment with more than a 5- to-1 ratio. However, the state legislature discontinued funding for the  program in 2003 because of concerns about the state’s overall financial  situation.
Idaho: Congressional appropriation committees have directed land  resource appropriation funds for noxious weed control in Idaho. Since  2000, the state has received a total of about $5.6 million in federal funds  through BLM and the Forest Service. Over that same period, the state’s  general fund has provided about $2.2 million. The Idaho Department of  Agriculture manages these funds. Other state departments, including Fish  and Game, Lands, Transportation, and Parks and Recreation, are also  responsible for weed management on the lands they oversee and for  determining what portion of their general operating budgets will be  devoted to weed management on a yearly basis.
Maryland: The Maryland Department of Agriculture had a 2004 budget of  $310,000 for weed management for salaries, equipment, enforcement, and  other expenses; also included was $80,000 in grants to 20 county weed  programs. The state’s highway administration spent about $2 million on  vegetation management in 2004, of which less than $50,000 was for control  of two state-listed noxious weeds (Canada thistle and Johnsongrass) and  phragmites. The Maryland Department of Natural Resource’s associate  director for habitat conservation told us that funding for weed control  efforts on departmental lands, including state parks, comes from general  operating budgets and is difficult to estimate.
Mississippi: The lead agency for weed management, the Mississippi  Department of Agriculture and Commerce, spent about $100,000 from its  general budget for weed management in fiscal year 2004. It also received  funding from other sources, including a $25,000 Pulling Together Initiative  grant and $250,000 from USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service in fiscal year 2004. Those funds have been used to support  landowners’ weed control efforts through a cost-share program. The  Mississippi Department of Transportation spent about $2.5 million from its  general operating budget in fiscal year 2003 for chemical weed control on  over 27,000 miles of state-owned roadways. Private landowners also  reimbursed the Mississippi Forestry Commission about $177,000 for weed  management work it did that year on private lands. The conference  committee for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies  Appropriations Act of 2004 directed $1 million of the U.S. Geological  Survey’s water resources appropriation to go to the GeoResources Institute  of Mississippi State University to develop remote sensing techniques and  monitoring strategies for early detection of invasive weeds in the  Southeast, control techniques for invasive aquatic plants, and an  assessment of new invaders.

		Local Governments Rely on a Range of Funding Sources for Weed Management

Counties that we reviewed receive funding for weed management from the  federal government, state agencies, their own general operating funds, and  special tax levies. County agriculture departments or weed management  districts are the primary recipients of this funding but other departments  may include those responsible for roads, parks, or public works. The  counties we contacted illustrated a wide range of funding available for  weed control, from a few thousand dollars per county to more than $1  million.
For example, in Idaho, we identified two counties with significantly  different funding levels. Ada County, Idaho, provided almost $1 million for  weed management in fiscal year 2004 and budgeted over $1.3 million for  fiscal year 2005. In 2004, the funding sources were a weed management mill  levy, weed control fees charged to residents when the county treats their  weeds, and the reimbursements from government agencies for weed  treatment on federal lands (BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, and the National  Guard). Ada County’s weed superintendent told us that because the county  has these sources of funding, and because it recognizes that other counties  have fewer resources, he does not apply for grants and funding from other  sources that may be the primary source of funding for some counties. In  contrast to Ada County’s situation, Idaho’s Adams County spent about  $67,000 for weed management in 2003, including a $49,085 Resource  Advisory Council grant, $12,356 from the state, and $6,000 from the county.  However, according to a county official, because the funding is not  sufficient to meet existing needs, the county recently established a weed  levy to help fund its limited program. In total, the county agriculture  departments in California devoted an estimated $4 million from their  general operating funds to weed control in fiscal year 2004. In Maryland,  the Department of Agriculture provided a total of $80,000 in grants in 2004  to 20 counties that the counties matched or exceeded. We did not identify  Mississippi counties engaged in weed control.

	Federal and Nonfederal Officials Identified Funding, Cooperation, and Public Education as Key to Effective Weed Management

The majority of the officials we interviewed cited insufficient funding as  the primary barrier to dealing effectively with invasive weeds (39 of 48 and  37 of 41 officials responding to questions about managing weeds on  nonfederal land and federal land, respectively). Many of these officials  highlighted the magnitude of the task at hand to control invasive weeds in  discussing their funding situations. For example, Fish and Wildlife Service  refuge managers have identified invasive plant management projects  estimated to cost approximately $70 million, compared with estimated  agency expenditures of $4.7 million on weed control in fiscal year 2004. The  California Department of Food and Agriculture’s annual weed management  budget is approximately $2 million, but it has identified about $5 million in  necessary management projects per year. Similarly, the Forest Service  region responsible for California had a weed management budget of about  $600,000 in fiscal year 2004 but estimated that it needed about $1.8 million  to control weeds.
Officials we interviewed also identified specific issues related to funding.  First, federal and nonfederal officials said that project funding needs to be  consistent and predictable from year to year, because, to be effective, weed  eradication actions need to be done regularly until the weed population is  under control—which in some cases may take several years. Currently,  officials submit new funding requests each year with no guarantee that  projects started will be funded through to completion—potentially losing  the investment made in weed reduction in prior years. The Fish and  Wildlife Service’s national strategy recognized the difficulty of addressing  invasive species and its funding implications commenting, “Like an  out-of-control wildfire, the cost of fighting invasive species increases each  year.” The agency also noted that, according to experts, the cost to control  invasive species increases two- to threefold each year that control efforts  are delayed. The National Park Service noted that, in some cases, parks do  not have funds for routine maintenance to ensure that treated areas do not  become reinfested. Second, some officials responsible for both federal and  nonfederal lands noted that funding often arrives late in the year, which  may limit their ability to begin weed control in the spring, when many types  of weeds can be attacked most effectively. In addition, in many northern  communities, the window of opportunity for weed treatment is small  because of weather conditions. Third, some officials identified what they  described as an often burdensome grant application process as a  disincentive to pursuing needed funds for work on nonfederal lands. For  example, one large nongovernmental organization said it would not apply  for grants of less than $25,000 because the benefits would not outweigh the  costs associated with applying. In addition, county and municipal  governments often do not have the time or the expertise to identify and  apply for grants. One county parks department official commented that she  was reluctant to apply for grants because the likelihood of receiving one  did not warrant the time and effort required to apply. And lastly, some of  our respondents said that local communities sometimes have difficulty  meeting requirements to provide matching funds for federal grants to work  on nonfederal lands.
Officials identified additional barriers to addressing invasive weeds on  federal lands, although not nearly as frequently as funding. More than one- third of the officials (15 of 41), including 6 federal and 9 nonfederal  officials, cited compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act as  an impediment, although they were generally supportive of the goals of the  act. Officials said that the time it takes to conduct required analyses of the  potential impacts of treatment, such as applying herbicides, could make it  difficult to respond rapidly to new infestations. The Forest Service director  of rangeland management told us that she believes that agency personnel  should be able to routinely use registered herbicides—without going  through an impact analysis—as long as they follow label directions.  Similarly, one Fish and Wildlife official told us he does not believe the  agency should need to extensively analyze the potential impacts of using  certain herbicides that any homeowner could legally purchase and use.  Some agencies seek to or have tried to streamline the process for  complying with the act, including the following:   The Forest Service’s National Strategy and Implementation Plan for  Invasive Species Management calls for pursuing use of National  Environmental Policy Act regulations’ categorical exclusions and the  agency’s emergency authorities to ensure environmental analysis does  not inhibit environmentally sound rapid response or control efforts.  Under a categorical exclusion, certain activities that are deemed not to  have a significant effect on the environment can be conducted without  the need for an environmental assessment or environmental impact  statement.
In Mississippi, the Forest Service has completed a programmatic  environmental assessment of cogongrass control using herbicides.  According to the Forest Service, the programmatic assessment enables  the service to use an environmental impact analysis of herbicide use at  one location to satisfy the requirements of the act at other locations, if  certain circumstances are met. This enables forest managers to act more  quickly to invasive weed outbreaks, in some cases.
BLM prepared a series of environmental impact statements on  vegetation management—including noxious weeds—for the entire  western United States in the 1980s and early 1990s that has helped to  streamline analytical processes by providing an overview of the possible  impacts of different treatment methods based on the broad regional  characteristics of the 13 western states. The agency still has to conduct  site-specific analysis of the potential impacts of treatment methods, but  the extent of that analysis is reduced. BLM is in the process of  developing an updated programmatic environmental impact statement  to address pesticide use and general vegetation management on its  lands.
In terms of nonfederal lands, in addition to funding barriers, more than one- third of officials responding (19 of 48) identified a lack of cooperation as  problematic for effective weed management. State and county officials told  us that successful weed control depends on the efforts of neighboring  landowners to do their part, since weeds pay no attention to property lines.  However, officials said that some landowners are uncooperative with weed  control efforts. In addition, because some people do not understand the  long-lasting damage that can be caused by invasive weeds, they often  oppose the use of herbicides, which may have more intense short-term  effects on the environment but are needed to eradicate invasive weeds.  National Park Service officials noted that, in contrast with other land  management agencies, the park service is not authorized to conduct work  outside its boundaries and this has hampered them in cooperating with  adjacent landowners. Also for nonfederal lands, about one-third of officials  (14 of 48) identified a lack of awareness or education as a barrier. Some  officials said that because people are unaware of the harmful effects of  invasive weeds, they sometimes neglect weeds on their property, thereby  reducing the effectiveness of other control efforts. In addition, some  officials noted that greater public awareness could lead to higher  government priority for the issue and could help prevent the introduction  and spread of invasive species by making the public aware of the risks of  such activities as spreading seeds through recreational activities.
We also asked officials to identify the factors contributing to effective  management of invasive weeds. About 83 percent (44 of 53 officials  responding) identified cooperation and coordination as important for  successful management on both federal and nonfederal lands. Officials  noted that cooperation among numerous landowners and government  agencies allows for the sharing of resources that are often in short supply  and an ability to address weeds over a larger geographic area than if  tackled alone. This sentiment is most evident in the strong support and  momentum that has been building for the creation of weed management  areas. Officials routinely highlighted such major benefits of these areas as  improved coordination among the participating entities and the resulting  collaboration on weed management projects. (Fig. 5 discusses a successful  collaborative project in Mississippi addressing invasive cogongrass.)

	Clear Consensus Does Not Exist among Weed Management Stakeholders on How Additional Resources for Weed Control Should Be Distributed

The officials we interviewed offered wide-ranging views on how the federal  government could best provide additional resources to weed management  entities. In some instances, these views were consistent with the approach  called for in the newly enacted Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act  of 2004; in others they were not. (We conducted our interviews before this  law was passed.)
Most officials responding to the issue (33 of 38) stated that the federal  government should expand an existing program or programs rather than  create a new one to distribute additional weed management funds. Some  officials told us that they preferred using existing programs because they  know the application procedures, the types of projects the programs  typically fund, and the agency officials that run the programs. The creation  of a new program—which the newly passed law requires—will add another  set of application procedures to learn and a new set of officials who may or  may not be familiar with state and local weed management entities and  their respective needs. One official noted that there was no need to  “reinvent the wheel.”
The act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the new  program, but does not designate a responsible agency within USDA. The  act amended the Plant Protection Act, which USDA has delegated to APHIS  for implementation. About two-thirds of officials responding to our  question (20 of 31) also identified USDA or one of its agencies as the best fit  to lead a new program. Officials we interviewed did not agree on which  agency within USDA should lead a new program, but the Forest Service  was identified most often (by 13 officials). Four officials named APHIS as  an appropriate agency to manage the program. Officials noted that the  various USDA agencies have different focuses that could affect how they  would implement the program. For example, while the Forest Service was  cited as having knowledgeable staff, established relationships with local  land managers, and experience in delivering funding, one official expressed  concern that the service might fund weed management projects on forested  lands only, and not in other nonagricultural settings. Similarly, while some  officials said that USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service would  be a good fit because of its extensive contacts at the local level and funding  expertise, others were concerned that it does not have much experience  with weed management on nonagricultural lands.
Officials’ views on the types of activities that should be eligible for funding  are consistent with the activities and projects eligible for funding under the  act. The act includes a broad range of activities and projects that can be  funded, including education, methods development, control, and  monitoring. Eighteen officials (of 40) said that all of these activities should  be eligible and everyone agreed that at least a subset of these should be  eligible. As noted earlier, public education is important because citizens  and businesses may be the unintentional carriers of invasive weeds, and  improved awareness can help garner additional support for addressing the  problem. Research and monitoring are essential to identifying ways to  prevent invasive weed introductions and cost-effectively control or  eradicate them, and to ensure that treated areas do not become reinfested.  Some officials also identified inventorying and mapping, and early  detection and rapid response as important activities that should be funded.  Inventorying and mapping of weed infestations is important so that the  extent of the problem can be determined and tracked over time, while early  detection and rapid response help avoid future costs by addressing weed  infestations before they become unmanageable. (See fig. 6 for an example  of the value of early detection and rapid response in Maryland.)
With regard to the method of awarding grant funds to weed management  entities, the act specifies some selection considerations and states that the  grants should be awarded competitively, but leaves the development of the  program to the Secretary. The act states that the Secretary shall, to the  maximum extent practicable, rely on technical and merit reviews provided  by regional, state, or local weed management experts in making funding  decisions. However, 24 of 39 officials stated that funding should be  provided directly to the states, which would then distribute the funds to  local weed management entities. Officials supportive of this approach said  that states best know their weed problems and therefore would make  better-informed funding decisions. This approach is similar to the way in  which Idaho currently receives federal funding and then distributes it to  state and local weed management entities. Until USDA’s new program is  developed, however, it is not clear how much influence these nonfederal  experts will have in the funding decisions. It is also unclear how the  Secretary will delegate implementation authority and which other federal  officials will be involved in the decision making. About one-quarter of those  who commented on this issue (8 of 39) expressed a preference for federal  officials deciding about project-specific grants to state and local entities  based on a review of proposals. A few officials cited the Pulling Together  Initiative as a model that could be followed, in which representatives from  relevant federal agencies and nonfederal stakeholders consider the merits  of grant applications and jointly make funding decisions. Such an approach  could provide a balance in federal and nonfederal influence in deciding  how to allocate funds for weed management.

	Conclusions

Clearly the attack on invasive weeds in the United States is a massive effort  that will continue far into the future. This effort involving a multitude of  entities is needed, however, because invasive weeds pervade the landscape  and affect virtually every type of ecosystem. Certainly, an additional source  of funds to address invasive weeds, as authorized in recent legislation, will  be welcomed by those involved in the battle. However, given the magnitude  of the problem in relation to the resources devoted to it, identifying  priorities and deciding how those resources should be allocated is  important. As officials pointed out to us during our work, many types of  weed management activities are needed, and different areas of the country  are plagued by different weed problems and have varying levels of  infrastructure in place to deal with them. In addition, when it comes to  providing federal assistance to deal with invasive weeds, federal agencies  have specific strengths and weaknesses with regard to their connection to,  and understanding the needs of, weed management entities. While the  newly enacted Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act recognizes the  importance of drawing upon the expertise of others by requiring reliance  on information provided by regional, state, or local weed management  experts, it does not specifically require consultation with other federal  entities. Nonetheless, we believe it is important for the Secretary of  Agriculture to direct the implementing agency of the new program to  collaborate with other federal entities with relevant weed management  experience to (1) benefit from lessons learned in administering grant  programs and cooperative agreements and (2) identify priorities that  should receive funding from this new source so as to complement other  federal assistance to on-the-ground weed management activities.

	Recommendation for Executive Action

To help ensure that the new program under the Noxious Weed Control and  Eradication Act is implemented effectively, we recommend that the  Secretary of Agriculture direct the implementing agency to collaborate  with other USDA and Interior agencies that have experience managing  invasive weeds (1) in developing the mechanisms for allocating funds to  weed management entities, and (2) in determining what entities should  receive such funding, using the agencies—along with other regional, state,  and local experts—as technical advisers, as appropriate.

	Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of the Interior  and Agriculture. The Department of the Interior provided written  comments (see app. V). The Department of Agriculture did not provide  comments, although the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and  Forest Service provided technical comments and clarifications. We have  incorporated those where appropriate.
The Department of the Interior concurred with our findings. Specifically,  the department stated that the report contributes to the call for  cooperation and collaboration across all government levels to control and  eradicate invasive plants, and agrees with the attention it places on natural  or nonproduction areas as significant contributors to our nation’s  biological and natural resources heritage. The department supported our  recommendation regarding implementation of the Noxious Weed Control  and Eradication Act of 2004. In addition, the department suggested that the  issue be approached through the National Invasive Species Council and  that council’s advisory committee. Four Interior bureaus (the National Park  Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the  U.S. Geological Survey) also reviewed the report and provided technical  comments relating to funding data, the number of acres infested with  weeds, and other issues. We have incorporated those comments where  appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we will plan no further distribution until 30 days from  the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other  interested congressional committees and the Secretaries of Agriculture and  the Interior. We also will make copies available to others upon request. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report are to determine (1) the federal and  nonfederal entities that implement projects to address harmful  nonagricultural weeds, (2) the sources of funding that these entities use,  (3) the views of federal and nonfederal officials on the barriers that limit  the effectiveness of weed control efforts, (4) these officials’ observations  on specific aspects of how to implement a new program—or to infuse new  resources into an existing program—to support weed management and  control, and (5) the legal ramifications, if any, of the use of certain terms— such as invasive, noxious, and nonnative—and their associated definitions  on control efforts. As called for in the objectives, we focused on weed  control programs that address problems in nonagricultural areas, such as  parks, forests, rangeland, and other types of land. As agreed with the  requester, we focused on terrestrial weeds.
While a large number of departments and agencies are in some way  responsible for weed management, as agreed with the requester, we limited  our focus on the federal entities engaged in weed management to the  Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). (We  therefore excluded other federal departments engaged in weed  management, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of  Transportation.)
To determine what federal entities implement projects to address harmful  nonagricultural weeds and what sources of funding these entities use, we  interviewed relevant officials at Interior, USDA, and the National Invasive  Species Council, and reviewed weed management literature and Web sites.  Within Interior and USDA, we limited our scope to the four agencies that  manage the most public land—Bureau of Land Management (BLM),  National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Forest  Service; other agencies administering programs that can provide funding to  landowners and other partners (Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Farm Services  Agency); and agencies engaged in research into the use of weed control  methods (Agricultural Research Service; Cooperative State Research,  Education, and Extension Service; and U.S. Geological Survey). This scope  excluded several Interior and USDA agencies that are less involved in weed  management or research, including Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and  Bureau of Indian Affairs and USDA’s Economic Research Service.
To learn more about the role of state and local governments and other  nonfederal entities in weed management, we interviewed officials from  several national organizations, including the National Association of  Counties, the National Association of Conservation Districts, the Weed  Science Society of America, and the Environmental Law Institute. On the  basis of these interviews, we determined that the number of state and local  agencies engaged in weed management was large. We also decided that it  was not feasible or necessary to attempt to identify all such entities.  Therefore, we selected a nonprobability sample of states to review in detail  to provide illustrations of the types of weed management structures and  entities that are at work across the country. The states we selected were  California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, and Mississippi. We selected them  to provide a range of characteristics, using criteria that included geography,  federal land ownership, and maturity of weed management programs.  While these states are not representative of all states, they illustrate some  of the types of weed management entities and activities that exist within  states. For these five states, we determined whether there was a lead  official—such as a state weed coordinator or invasive species  coordinator—who would be able to direct us to other officials working on  weed control in the state on behalf of federal, state, local, and  nongovernmental organizations. We used those recommendations and  other means to generate a list of entities to contact.
To gather information on the activities of federal and nonfederal weed  control entities, determine what factors could improve the effectiveness of  weed control efforts, and obtain opinions on specific aspects of how to  implement a new federal weed control support program, we administered  two structured interview guides. We designed the first interview guide to  gather information from officials connected with weed control efforts at  federal, state, and local government agencies and nongovernmental  organizations. We administered that guide to 52 officials. We designed the  second interview guide to gather information from officials connected with  federal grant and cooperative agreement programs that can be used to fund  the weed control work of a variety of entities and stakeholders. We  administered that interview guide to 5 federal officials.
The interview guides contained common questions regarding the officials’  opinions about the top three barriers to effective weed management, the  top three factors contributing to success, and their views on certain  aspects related to providing additional financial support to weed  management entities. The guides also contained unique questions tailored  to the different types of respondents. For example, the interview guide for  weed managers contained questions about the sources of funding the  entities use, while the interview guide for federal grant program managers  contained questions about the extent to which those programs support  weed control.
We gathered information about weed control expenditures by federal and  nonfederal entities from a variety of sources. These include the structured  interview guides, agency budget documents, and other agency reports and  databases. In the instances where officials provided us with information  through the interview guide, we asked if their answer was an estimate. We  sought other documentation where practicable. We independently  corroborated the data the officials provided in answer to our questions, to  the extent possible, using other documentation. In some instances, we  verified that expenditures agencies reported to have made for weed control  were consistent with expenditures reported for recent years. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report.
Similarly, we obtained information on federal and other grant resources  directed to weed control from a variety of sources, including structured  interviews, and agency or organizational documents. In some instances,  agency officials were only able to provide estimates of the resources  directed to weed control, while in other cases the data were more  definitive. We independently corroborated the funding estimates provided  by federal officials in response to our questions, to the extent possible, by  comparing it with overall agency budgets for those programs. With respect  to federally funded programs that are administered by other organizations  (the Pulling Together Initiative and Center for Invasive Plant Management),  we compared reported expenditures on weed projects with prior years’  expenditures. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report.
Some of the questions in the guides asked for open-ended opinions  regarding how to provide new federal funding for weed control. At times, in  answering one question, a respondent would also provide an answer to a  subsequent question. In our analysis, we assigned their answers to the  appropriate question. In some instances, respondents did not give clear  answers to specific questions. For example, in response to a question about  which federal agency should be responsible for administering a new  program to support weed management agencies, one official said “any land  management agency.” In a situation like that, we classified the response as  “unclear” rather than adding to the tallies of each land management agency.  We analyzed the responses to these questions in light of the provisions of  the newly enacted Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004.
Within the five states we reviewed, we contacted officials at federal, state,  and local government agencies, as well as at nongovernmental  organizations. We did not attempt to identify or contact all federal, state,  and local agencies engaged in weed management in each state. For the five  states, we set as a target contacting representatives from the federal land  management agencies’ regional or state offices, as well as representatives  from one federal land management unit—such as a national park or wildlife  refuge—within each state. We also sought to contact representatives from  at least four counties, municipalities, or nongovernmental organizations in  each state. To accomplish this, we asked state weed coordinators or other  knowledgeable officials to recommend appropriate entities, and we  conducted Internet research.
In addition to using the interview guides, we also interviewed 36 officials in  a less formal way. We conducted some of these interviews prior to  preparing the interview guides. In other instances, we used an informal  interview method because we did not believe that either of the guides was  appropriate for the interviewee. In our report, we present information  obtained from the informal interviews, but do so separately from our  presentation of information we obtained through the interview guides. In  all, we spoke with over 90 officials representing 58 federal and nonfederal  organizations.
Table 3 shows the number of organizations from different levels of  government we contacted within each state. We did not contact  representatives from all of the categories in each state; for example, in  Mississippi we learned that county and municipal agencies are not actively  involved in weed management.
We made site visits in Maryland, Idaho, and Colorado to observe weed  control entities in action. For example, in Maryland we observed National  Park Service staff hand pulling and mechanically removing Japanese stilt  grass to protect native plant species, and in Idaho we observed the use of  goats to graze leafy spurge.
To provide information on issues related to the terminology of invasive  weeds, we researched the use and definitions of relevant terms in federal  and state laws. This included analysis of the Plant Protection Act and  section 15 of the Federal Noxious Weed Act, Executive Order 13112, and  relevant statutes and regulations concerning invasive weeds in all 50 states.  We also reviewed testimony provided to Congress by stakeholders to gain a  better understanding of some of the concerns associated with the use a  certain terminology.
We conducted our review from May 2004 through December 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Legal Ramifications of the Terms Used in Federal and State Law for Invasive Weeds

Based on our review of the statutes and regulations of the federal  government and the fifty states, federal and state laws use many different  terms to describe harmful weeds, including invasive, noxious, and exotic.  In federal law, three different terms are used for, or encompass, invasive  weeds—invasive species, noxious weeds, and undesirable plants. At the  state level, almost all states use the term noxious weed, but define it  differently. The states’ lists of noxious weeds and the manner in which  states determine whether to categorize a weed as noxious, also differ  among the states. The noxious weed definitions, noxious weed lists, and  other legal provisions affect control efforts by federal and state officials.

	Terms Used in Federal Law for Invasive Weeds

In the United States, three terms are used at the federal level for invasive  weeds: invasive species, noxious weeds, and undesirable plants. The  common element of all of these different terms is the concept of harm.  However, the definitions and scope of these different terms vary.
Executive Order 13112 uses the term invasive species and defines such  species broadly as an alien species whose introduction does or is likely  to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.    Alien species are defined as a species (including its seeds, eggs, spores,  or other biological material capable of propagating that species) that is  not native to a particular ecosystem.
The Plant Protection Act uses the term noxious weed, which it defines  as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or  cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products),  livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation,  the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the  environment.” This definition expanded upon an earlier definition of  noxious weed that only included plants of a foreign origin posing a  threat to agricultural interests that were new to or not widely spread in  the United States.
Section 15 of the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended, uses  the term undesirable plants and defines them as “plant species that are  classified as undesirable, noxious, harmful, exotic, injurious, or  poisonous, pursuant to State or Federal law.” This provision prohibits  the designation of endangered species or plants indigenous to the area  where control measures are taken as undesirable plants.
There are several important distinctions in these definitions. One  distinction is whether a species is native or nonnative. The Executive Order  defines invasive species as those that are not native to any particular  identifiable ecosystem within the United States. Section 15 of the Federal  Noxious Weed Act limits control activity to those undesirable plants that  are not indigenous to the area where control efforts are to be taken. The  Plant Protection Act’s definition of a noxious weed, however, does not limit  work on invasive weeds to those that are not native, authorizing control  efforts to address native species that may be harmful. Another distinction  relates to a definitional issue that the International Union for Conservation  of Nature and Natural Resources-World Conservation Union (IUCN) has  identified as important with regard to management of invasive species.  Specifically, because lower taxonomic units of species can be harmful, the  IUCN has recommended that the term “species” include subspecies, lower  taxa, and any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagule of the species that  could survive and reproduce. Both the Plant Protection Act’s definition of  noxious weed and the Executive Order’s definition of invasive species  include plant products or parts. However, the definition of an undesirable  plant, while including species identified as noxious by state or federal law,  does not specifically indicate that subspecies or plant parts are included.
In addition to these definitional distinctions, some plant species have both  beneficial uses for some purposes but also demonstrate harmful  characteristics—spurring debate over how these species should be  characterized and managed. For example, a number of invasive plants have  been intentionally introduced into the United States because of their  beneficial uses, but later turned out to be harmful. Crownvetch has been  useful in slope stabilization, beautification and erosion control on  highways, and as a living mulch for no-till corn. Some officials in the  agriculture industry have testified that it should not be considered an  invasive species. However, the Wisconsin Department of Natural  Resources and others have found crownvetch to be a serious management  threat to natural areas and native plants because of its rapid spread by  creeping roots and seeds. Similarly, kudzu and salt cedar were promoted  for erosion control, but these weeds have overgrown native vegetation and  are now the subject of significant eradication efforts. A somewhat similar  debate has arisen with respect to genetically modified organisms and  crops, which may provide benefits to humans but may also pose a threat to  natural systems or other crops by introducing certain genetic  characteristics.
Federal agencies have various authorities under which they can control  invasive weeds. Under the Plant Protection Act, USDA’s APHIS has listed 96  noxious weeds that are prohibited or restricted from entering the United  States or that are subject to restrictions on interstate movement within the  United States. While the Plant Protection Act’s definition of a noxious weed  no longer requires a plant to be new to or not widely spread in the United  States, USDA continues to state that candidates for the federal noxious  weed list should be either not yet present in the United States or of limited  distribution. According to an APHIS official, the rule of thumb APHIS uses  for determining whether a plant is new is whether it has been in the United  States for three years or less. Since the enactment of the Plant Protection  Act in 2000, no additional weeds have been added to the federal noxious  weed list. For those noxious weeds that are listed, the Secretary of  Agriculture has authority to control these noxious weeds, including their  parts, moving into or through the United States or interstate. If the  Secretary considers it necessary in order to prevent the spread of a noxious  weed that is new to or not known to be widely prevalent or distributed in  the United States, the Secretary may take certain control actions, including  destroying or quarantining the noxious weed and ordering an owner of one  of these noxious weeds to take control actions.
All federal agencies are required, under section 15 of the Federal Noxious  Weed Act, to undertake a number of control efforts for undesirable plants.  Every federal agency must  designate an office or person adequately trained in the management of  undesirable plant species to develop and coordinate an undesirable  plants management program for control of undesirable plants on federal  lands under the agency’s jurisdiction;  establish and adequately fund an undesirable plants management  program through the agency’s budgetary process;  complete and implement cooperative agreements with state agencies  regarding the management of undesirable plant species on federal lands  under the agency’s jurisdiction; and  establish integrated management systems to control or contain  undesirable plant species targeted under cooperative agreements.
However, as discussed above, undesirable plants are not defined by section  15 beyond the species level to include plant parts; rather, undesirable  plants are defined as “plant species that are classified as undesirable,  noxious, harmful, exotic, injurious, or poisonous, pursuant to State or  Federal law.” Thus—even though the definition of an undesirable plant  would include a weed designated as noxious either under the Plant  Protection Act or under state law and even though these other laws may  extend to subspecies, lower taxa, or plant parts—the control requirements  under section 15 could technically be limited to just noxious weeds and  other designated plants that are at the species level. While this is a potential  definitional issue, we have not found any evidence, from federal agencies  or others, identifying this issue as a barrier to control efforts.
In addition to these required control efforts, the heads of federal  departments or agencies are authorized and directed to permit officials  from any state in which there is in effect a control program for noxious  plants to enter upon any federal lands under their control or jurisdiction  and destroy noxious plants if certain conditions are met. Federal agencies  also have a number of other statutory authorities under which they can  undertake control efforts for invasive weeds. For example, under the  Endangered Species Act, federal agencies are required to establish and  implement a program to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants. Conservation  can include habitat maintenance and thus invasive weed control efforts.  Finally, the Executive Order directs agencies, as permitted by law, to  detect, respond rapidly to, and control invasive species in a cost-effective  and environmentally sound manner.

	Terms Used by States for Invasive Weeds

All of the states but Alaska use the term “noxious weed,” but the states vary  in the manner in which they define a noxious weed (see table 5 at the end  of this appendix for a complete listing of the states’ noxious weed  definitions). Twenty-nine states define noxious weeds either in statute or in  regulation (26 and 3 states, respectively). Thirteen states do not have a  general definition of what a noxious weed is, but rather list particular  weeds as noxious in statute (11 states) or in regulation (2 states). Eight  states use the term noxious weed, but only with regard to their weed seed  laws.
For the 26 states that statutorily define a “noxious weed,” the specificity  and scope of their definitions, and thus, the regulatory authority delegated  to state agencies in designating noxious weeds varies (see table 4). Some  states’ noxious weed definitions are so focused on agricultural harm that  invasive weeds that cause harm to the natural environment could be  statutorily excluded from being regulated as a noxious weed. Although  definitions that include harm to land or other property could potentially  cover weeds that cause harm to natural resources or the environment, it is  only clear that such weeds would be covered under the states’ definitions  that specifically include the concept of harm caused to natural resources or  the environment.
The 24 states that do not have statutory definitions define or identify  noxious weeds in a variety of ways:  Regulatory definitions. Three states provide general definitions for  noxious weeds in regulations. South Dakota defines a noxious weed in  regulation as “a weed which the  commission has  designated as sufficiently detrimental to the state to warrant  enforcement of control measures” and possesses some specific invasive  characteristics. A North Carolina regulation defines a noxious weed as  “any plant in any stage of development, including parasitic plants whose  presence whether direct or indirect, is detrimental to crops or other  desirable plants, livestock, land, or other property, or is injurious to the  public health.” Vermont defines a “noxious weed” in regulation almost  identically to North Carolina, but also includes plants that are  detrimental to the environment.
Statutory lists. Eleven states (Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,  Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and  Wisconsin) do not provide a definition for a noxious weed in either  statute or regulation, but instead have statutes that list specific plants  considered to be noxious weeds. Kentucky uses the term “noxious  weed” but does not provide a definition for the term, stating only that it  includes Johnsongrass and pests.
Regulatory lists. Ohio and Oregon do not define noxious weeds in  statute or regulation, but instead list specific noxious weeds in  regulations.
Weed seed laws. Eight states (Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine,  Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) only  use the term noxious weed with respect to their noxious weed seed  laws. Noxious weed seed laws generally restrict or prohibit the sale of  the seeds of noxious weeds, either as a product in their own right or as  contaminants of other seeds or agricultural products. Alaska has a law  providing for the eradication of “obnoxious weeds” in addition to its  weed seed law, but has no statutory or regulatory list of such weeds.
In addition to the states identified above as having statutory or regulatory  lists rather than definitions of noxious weeds, most of the other states also  have noxious weed lists. As detailed in state statutes or regulations, the  states’ noxious weed lists differ greatly in length, from one noxious weed in  Louisiana and Kentucky to 133 noxious weeds in California (see table 5). It  is important to note, however, that the number of noxious weeds listed may  not portray the complete picture of a state’s efforts to control invasive  weeds for several reasons. First, one state may list an entire genus as a  noxious weed (which could include numerous individual species or taxa of  weeds), while another state may list only particular species or varieties of  plants within that genus but list them as separate entries on a noxious weed  list. For example, Iowa lists all species within the Carduus genus as a  single entry on its noxious weed list, while California lists certain Carduus  species separately. Second, some states take control actions against  invasive weeds in addition to those identified as noxious weeds in their  statutes and regulations. For example, in addition to its list of noxious  weeds, Illinois lists 10 exotic weeds that are subject to control efforts.  Department of Natural Resources officials in Maryland also told us that  they have authority to manage any weed species that threaten the lands  they manage, regardless of whether it is listed as noxious. Lastly, localities  may have their own noxious weed lists or undertake control efforts for  weeds that do not appear on the states’ lists.
In addition, the states may categorize or use their noxious weed lists in  various ways that can affect state control efforts. Ten states’ statutes and  regulations categorize listed noxious weeds into particular definitional  classifications. In further classifying noxious weeds, the states may make  a distinction in the types of control efforts that are authorized. For  example, Colorado has three classes of noxious weeds—List A, List B, and  List C—defined as follows:  List A noxious weeds are rare noxious weed species that are subject to  eradication wherever detected statewide in order to protect neighboring  lands and the state as a whole.
List B noxious weeds are species with discrete statewide distributions  that are subject to eradication, containment, or suppression in portions  of the state designated by the commissioner in order to stop the  continued spread of these species.
List C noxious weeds are widespread and well-established noxious  weed species for which control is recommended but not required by the  state, although local governing bodies may require management.
Thus, in Colorado, List C noxious weeds are not subject to the same control  requirements as List A and B noxious weeds. States also use their noxious  weed lists and implement the noxious weed definitions in a variety of ways.  For example, noxious weed lists can represent weeds under quarantine,  weeds subject to import or sale restrictions, weeds for which control is  required, or weeds for which control is authorized.
Aside from the definitions or lists that stipulate what a noxious weed is,  other legal provisions may detail how, where, and by whom control efforts  can be carried out.
Some states have laws that specifically restrict control efforts to certain  noxious weeds. For example:     In Hawaii, a number of regulatory criteria must be met. To be designated  as a noxious weed for eradication and control projects, a plant species  must be one that (1) is not effectively controlled by present day  technology or by available herbicides currently registered for use under  Hawaii law; (2) is effectively controlled only by extraordinary efforts  such as repeated herbicidal applications at high dosage rates; or (3) is  effectively controlled only by additional effort over and beyond the  normal weed maintenance effort required for the production or  management of certain crops and pasturelands, recreation areas, forest  lands, or conservation areas. In addition, the plant species must meet  certain criteria regarding distribution and spread, growth  characteristics, reproduction, and detrimental effects.
Nevada is divided into weed control districts, and the weeds subject to  control vary by these districts. For example, all state-designated  noxious weeds are subject to control in Nevada’s Ruby Weed Control  District, but only four weeds are subject to control in the Lovelock  Valley Weed Control District. While in some cases the control districts  restrict which weeds on the noxious weed list can be controlled, in  other cases some weeds that are not listed on the Nevada designated  noxious weed list are nonetheless subject to control in Nevada’s control  districts.
Some states must take particular actions before undertaking control or  eradication projects on noxious or invasive weeds. For example, the  Maryland Secretary of Agriculture may declare a quarantine to control or  eradicate exotic plants, but a public hearing must first be held. In Illinois,  governing bodies of each county are required to establish coordinated  programs and to publish notices for the control and eradication of noxious  weeds.
Moreover, some state laws define “control,” providing for the scope of  control or eradication efforts authorized in the state. For example,  Nebraska defines “control” in a fairly broad manner as “the prevention,  suppression, or limitation of the growth, spread, propagation, or  development or the eradication of weeds.” Controlling a noxious weed in  Hawaii, however, is defined in a more limited manner as “limit the  spread of a specific noxious weed and . . . reduc its density to a degree  where its injurious, harmful, or deleterious effect is reduced to a tolerable  level.”

Weed Management in the Five States Reviewed

This appendix provides detailed information on the weed management in  the five states we reviewed: California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, and  Mississippi. It describes the weed species posing serious threats in the  states; the legal framework for invasive weeds; federal agencies’ activities  on lands they manage in the states; state, county, and municipal  governments’ responsibilities; and cooperative and private entities’  activities.

	California

California has a state weed coordinator, an invasive plant council, and a  strategic plan that addresses weeds.
Weed species posing serious threats in the state. According to the state’s  weed action plan, noxious and invasive weeds infest over 20 million acres  in California and result in hundreds of millions of dollars in control costs  and lost productivity. California’s noxious weed list includes 133 species.  According to the state weed coordinator, the weeds that pose the biggest  problems in the state include yellow star thistle, Arundo donax (also  known as giant reed), perennial pepperweed, and several species of broom.  Perennial pepperweed (also known as tall white top) has infested about 10  million acres in central California. Several species of broom—French,  Spanish, Portuguese, and Scotch—invaded California more than 70 years  ago. Broom crowds out other habitat and damages agriculture, timber,  livestock, and other industries. It also increases fire susceptibility because  it contains volatile organic compounds that allow it to burn when either  green or dry.
Legal framework relevant to invasive and noxious weeds. California  administers a pest prevention system designed to protect agriculture from  damaging agricultural pests—including weeds—and protect natural  environments. Key implementers of the system include the California  Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), county departments of  agriculture, and USDA. State law defines noxious weeds and gives the  Department of Food and Agriculture primary responsibility for their  control. CDFA has established through regulation a noxious weed list that  includes over 130 plant species. In addition, CDFA policy is to classify  those weeds on the basis of how widespread they are. The classification  determines the extent to which the department undertakes control or other  action on the weeds. The California Seed Law also gives the CDFA  authority to regulate noxious weed seeds found in agricultural or vegetable  seed.
In 1999, the Noxious Weed Subcommittee of the state’s California Range  Management Advisory Committee published the Strategic Plan for the  Coordinated Management of Noxious Weeds in California. This plan was  focused on cooperative weed management areas; following the plan, the  state legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1168 in 1999 and Senate Bill 1740 in  2000, to provide funding for development of such areas. In 2002, the  California Invasive Weed Awareness Coalition, a consortium of businesses  and nongovernmental organizations that works to increase awareness of  noxious and invasive weeds and resources for weed prevention and  control, asked the CDFA to take the lead in developing a statewide plan  that would be focused more broadly on invasive weed management. In  2004, the department published the California Noxious and Invasive Weed  Action Plan. The ultimate goal of this plan is to protect and enhance the  economy, natural environment, and safety of the citizens of California  through greater awareness, cooperation, and action in the prevention and  control of noxious and invasive weeds.
Federal weed management infrastructure in the state. Three of the  federal land management agencies we reviewed are active in weed  management. The Forest Service manages approximately 20 million acres  in California and estimates that approximately 300,000 acres are infested  with weeds. The regional office in California and each forest unit have a  designated weed coordinator. Forest Service budgeted about $600,000 in  fiscal year 2004 to treat invasive weeds. The Bureau of Land Management  (BLM) is responsible for 17 million acres of land and estimates that about  1.8 million acres are infested with noxious or priority weeds (priority  weeds are not on the state’s list of noxious weeds but are of concern). BLM  has a management plan for weeds and an agency weed coordinator for  California. Its current weed budget is about $625,000. The National Park  Service deploys the California Exotic Plant Management Team to control  weeds on 12 parks encompassing almost 2.4 million acres.
State, county, and municipal governments’ weed management  infrastructure. The California Department of Food and Agriculture is the  state’s lead agency in noxious weed control. It is responsible for  maintaining the list of officially designated noxious weeds and regulating  their movement in commerce. It also implements the state’s pest  prevention system, which it coordinates with county departments of  agriculture and USDA. Furthermore, the CDFA coordinates with counties’  eradication efforts for high-priority noxious weeds and provides partial  funding, oversight, and guidance to county-based weed management areas.  The current CDFA expenditure for targeted noxious and invasive weed  management in California is approximately $2 million annually. At least five  other state agencies also control for invasive weeds. The Department of  Parks and Recreation manages 1.4 million acres. According to a 2004  inventory, approximately 100,000 acres of these are infested with invasive  weeds. In addition, the Department of Fish and Game manages almost  970,000 acres of fish and wildlife habitat. In 2003, state department  personnel worked to control 68 invasive weed species on their lands. The  California Bay-Delta Authority distributed over $2.6 million for weed  control, management and research activities during fiscal year 2004.  Species addressed included Arundo donax, purple loosestrife, Brazilian  elodea, and perennial pepperweed. Since 1999, the state’s Wildlife  Conservation Board has also provided over $5 million to restore riparian  areas in 11 counties, particularly by removing invasive weeds. The state is  spending about $10 million annually to treat Arundo donax in Orange  County and $100,000 to study the agricultural productivity lost because of  yellow star thistle.
Many county agricultural commissioners carry out regulatory and other  weed eradication and control programs, generally in coordination with  CDFA and the local weed management area. County programs typically  focus on high priority weeds (those rated “A”), such as musk thistle and  spotted knapweed. Lower priority weeds (those rated “B” and “C” because  they are more widespread) may also be subject to local control, especially  when they are just beginning to invade a county. Counties have increased  their efforts in recent years to detect and inventory using electronic  systems, which has led to the discovery of new populations of listed weeds.  Counties also manage biological control programs in cooperation with  CDFA, and some counties participate in weed management areas, roadside  weed control, and weed control for fire abatement purposes. Estimated  funding for weed programs in county agriculture departments was about $4  million last year, putting the statewide expenditure at about $6 million.
According to the state’s 2004 weed action plan, not many cities have weed  control programs that can be thought of as dealing with targeted noxious or  invasive weeds. The plan does note that some municipalities do have strict  mandatory abatement programs to control weeds, but they are designed to  alleviate fire risk and unsightliness.
Cooperative and private entities. At least 50 of the 58 counties in  California are involved in weed management areas. These areas focus on  education and local outreach, including workshops and demonstration  projects; detecting, surveying and mapping weeds; setting priorities for  weed management and conducting strategic planning; fostering  cooperative weed control projects; and writing grants. Personnel from  county agricultural departments most commonly lead weed management  areas, although resource conservation districts and state or federal agency  employees also take the primary leadership role in many counties. Each  weed management area received approximately $80,000 in state funding  from 1999 through 2004, for a total of about $4.5 million. However, the state  funding for the program ended in June 2004. The weed management areas  raised over $5 million in grants, local matches, and in-kind donations.
In 1998, Mendocino County officials helped found the International Broom  Initiative, which includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington,  Australia, New Zealand, and France. In California, both public and private  sectors have joined to fund this initiative. Additionally, the initiative has  recently obtained federal funds because of the problems broom is causing,  especially along the coasts.

	Colorado

Colorado has a state weed coordinator, a noxious weed advisory  committee, and a state strategic plan for weeds.
Weed species posing serious threats. Regulations under Colorado’s  Noxious Weed Act designate 71 weed species as state noxious weeds. For  example, yellow star thistle is listed because it causes chewing disease and  death in horses. Purple loosestrife is listed because it rapidly displaces  habitat and feed for wildlife; spawning fish, ducks, cranes, and turtles leave  when loosestrife invades an area. Whitetop, also known as hoary cress, is  another major noxious weed threat. Its deep and creeping rootstalks make  it difficult to control because cultivation tends to spread root pieces that  start new plants.
Legal framework for invasive and noxious weeds. Until the enactment of  the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act, weed management focused  almost entirely on controlling weeds in agricultural areas. This act,  however, broadly addresses the effect of nonnative plants on the economy  and environment. The state law classifies weeds depending upon how  widespread they are, among other things, and tailors its management of  them accordingly. It also required each county to have a weed advisory  board. A 1996 amendment to the act created a statewide weed coordinator  and established the Colorado Noxious Weed Management Fund to provide  financial resources to communities, weed control districts, or other entities  engaged in cooperative noxious weed management efforts. An amendment  to the act in 2003 created a statewide noxious weed advisory committee.
The Department of Agriculture, in coordination with over 40 other state,  local, and federal agencies, as well as private entities, formulated a  strategic plan to address the spread of noxious weeds. According to the  plan, during the 21st century, the state seeks to stop the spread of noxious  weed species and restore degraded lands that have exceptional agricultural  and environmental value.
Federal weed control infrastructure within the state. BLM and the Forest  Service manage 94 percent of all the federal land in Colorado. These lands  are generally not used for agriculture but are often used for grazing  livestock. The Fish and Wildlife Service also manages six refuges  throughout the state. All three agencies have active weed management  programs to control weeds on their own lands and to support the weed  control efforts of nonfederal agencies and organizations. They plan and  implement weed control projects on public lands in a decentralized  manner; most units conduct weed management as part of another program,  such as range or vegetation management. In fiscal year 2004, BLM, Forest  Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service provided an estimated $537,000,  $500,000, and $564,000, respectively, to weed control on federal lands  within Colorado.
State, county, and municipal governments’ weed control infrastructure.  The Departments of Agriculture and of Natural Resources are the states’  primary weed control agencies. They work on state-owned lands and help  coordinate the activities of other state entities involved in weed  management. Between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, the state’s Noxious Weed  Management Fund provided approximately $1.3 million for noxious weed  management, education, and mapping. On average, every dollar of the  state’s investment was matched more than 5 to 1 with private, local, other  state, and federal resources. Because requests for funding always exceeded  the resources available, the Department of Agriculture, which administers  the fund, made awards on a competitive basis, following the  recommendations of a committee of weed management professionals. The  applications were scored on such factors as the nature of partnerships  formed, urgency of the problem, projected impact of the project, and use of  sensible and integrated pest management strategies. However, in 2003, the  state discontinued its contributions to the fund because of state budget  shortfalls.
The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for weed management  on some state lands and is also the lead state agency for controlling  tamarisk—a state executive order establishes tamarisk eradication as a  priority. The department recently published the state’s strategic plan for the  eradication of tamarisk by 2013. In addition, the department oversees weed  management on state lands managed by the Division of Parks and Outdoor  Recreation and the Division of Wildlife.
In addition to the Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the  state’s Department of Higher Education plays a major role in the  implementation of the state’s strategic weed management plans by  supporting education, research, and outreach. Colorado State University’s  agricultural research station and cooperative extension service play a  major role in research and outreach. Also, the state Department of  Transportation incorporates weed management principles into the  construction, operation, and maintenance programs on the state highways.  For fiscal year 2002, the Colorado Department of Transportation’s weed  control funding was estimated to be $3 million.
Other weed management activities are organized along county lines. Most  of Colorado’s counties have a weed board and weed supervisor. The  counties maintain most of the state’s transportation corridors and also  work with private landowners to manage their own weeds. We did not  attempt to obtain information on funding in all of the state’s counties.
Few municipal governments have dedicated weed control programs,  according to the state weed coordinator. To the extent that cities own and  manage parks and other public lands, weed control is part of general  maintenance. For example, the city of Steamboat Springs employs an open  space supervisor who manages weeds part time.
Cooperative and private entities. Cooperative weed management areas  now cover about half the state; state funding has supported these areas.  For example, in 1998, the Colorado Noxious Weed Management Fund  provided a $5,000 grant to organizations in the Upper Arkansas River  Valley, located in the south central part of the state, as an incentive to  create a watershedwide partnership to coordinate weed management  planning. As a result, a weed management area representing eight counties  was formed. The area received about $92,000 between 1999 and 2002 to,  among other things, purchase equipment and supplies to control such  weeds as leafy spurge and knapweed.

	Idaho

Idaho has a state weed coordinator, an invasive species council, and a  strategic plan that addresses weeds.
Weed species posing serious threats in the state. Idaho lists 36 noxious  weeds, and the state is in the process of ranking them in order of priority  for treatment. Some of the most serious threats are yellow star thistle,  which is now found throughout the state, and several species of  hawkweeds, knapweeds, and knotweeds, all of which diminish the health  of rangeland. Recent invaders that could have a serious impact on Idaho  lands are Japanese knotweed and tamarisk, both aggressive weeds capable  of crowding out other vegetation and animal habitat. Neither is on the  state’s noxious weed list.
Legal framework relevant for invasive and noxious weeds. The state’s  noxious weed law gives the Idaho Department of Agriculture the authority  to designate noxious weeds and devise rules and regulations to carry out  the provisions of the law. The law also establishes a state weed  coordinator to carry out these duties and responsibilities for the director of  the Department of Agriculture. The law places the responsibility for  controlling weeds upon all landowners, and requires county weed  superintendents to inspect lands for weeds and take enforcement actions,  when necessary. Idaho also has a seed law that authorizes the Department  of Agriculture to regulate and control the spread of noxious weed seeds  through inspection, testing, and stopping the sale of contaminated  agricultural seeds.
In 1996, the Department of Agriculture sponsored a workshop that resulted  in an agreement between the public and private sector to develop a  statewide strategic plan and noxious weed list, and to cooperate in  identifying problems and better ways to use resources. In February 1999,  Idaho published its strategic plan to heighten the general public’s  awareness about the damage nonnative weeds were causing to state lands  and to establish statewide cooperation to halt their spread and restore  infested lands and waters. The plan also recommended the statewide  formation of cooperative weed management areas. Through a 2001  gubernatorial executive order, Idaho established an invasive species  council to provide statewide policy direction and planning.
Federal weed management infrastructure within the state. The Forest  Service and BLM own 20.5 million and 11.8 million acres, respectively, of  noncultivated forest and rangeland. In addition to conducting work on their  own lands, both agencies distribute federal funds to state agencies and  cooperative weed management areas in Idaho. Since 1999, Idaho has  received about $500,000 per year in federal funds through BLM’s land  resources appropriation account at the direction of House and Senate  appropriations committees. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the Forest  Service’s State and Private Forestry Program also started providing funds  to the state Department of Agriculture for weed management, including  $812,578 in fiscal year 2004. Over the past 5 years, federal funds have  constituted about 72 percent of the total funds state agencies have used for  weed management. Forest Service and BLM staff also assist state weed  officials in designing their yearly weed management programs.  Additionally, federal staff make in-kind contributions by donating  equipment, volunteer labor, and other services. For example, federal  employees volunteer during weed workdays conducted on both federal and  nonfederal lands.
State, county, and municipal governments’ weed management  infrastructure. The director of the Department of Agriculture is  responsible for enforcing the state’s noxious weed law and distributing  federal funds. In fiscal year 2004, the department spent about $388,000 on  weed management. The director has a state noxious weed advisory  committee to assist in developing, modifying, and directing a statewide  noxious weed management strategy, and in helping evaluate cost-share  projects and research proposals. The director also can call for annual weed  plans and end-of-year reports from each county, cooperative weed  management area, and other state departments. In addition to working with  weed management areas and counties, state agencies participate in other  multijurisdictional efforts. For example, state agencies belong to the  Hawkweed Biological Control Consortium, along with BLM, Forest  Service, and government agencies in Montana, Washington, and British  Columbia, Canada.
At the county level, weed management usually consists of a board of  county commissioners and weed management area volunteers. The  commissioners allot county departments their general budget, and the  departments in turn determine the amount of funds they will use to treat  weeds as part of their general property maintenance. The commissioners  also contribute to local weed management areas and work with them to  obtain federal weed management cost-share funds. Additionally, counties  usually support weed management by providing herbicides during “weed  workdays,” when volunteers from public and private entities come together  to treat infested areas across jurisdictional boundaries.
In the three counties we reviewed, infrastructure and funding for weeds  varied depending on the tax base. For example, Ada County’s tax base is  large enough to support seven full-time employees. Since the county does  not require external funds, it does not belong to a cooperative weed  management area. In contrast, Adams County has found it difficult to  establish and maintain a weed management infrastructure because it has  fewer tax dollars. (Adams’s tax base is smaller because the federal  government owns about 65 percent of the county and it has a smaller  population.) It hired a weed superintendent in 2003, when it obtained  federal and state dollars to fund the position. Washington County has three  full-time employees devoted to weed control. One project the county has  managed with federal funds uses goats to graze on leafy spurge, although  officials commented to us that the county had to provide all initial funding  because the federal funds arrived about 8 months after they were  committed.
Idaho municipalities do not have active weed management programs or  full-time weed managers. Instead, municipalities generally have  agreements with either counties or weed management areas to treat  noxious weeds on municipal property not covered by their own  departments as part of general maintenance. Municipalities have nuisance  ordinances that restrict the height of weeds and require weed cleanup to  avoid fire hazards on private property. Additionally, they sponsor  community cleanup days in which federal, county, and local government  employees and volunteers participate.
Cooperative and private entities. Cooperative weed management areas  are the key component of Idaho’s strategic weed plan. The Department of  Agriculture uses the areas to distribute federal and state weed funds based  on the quality of their grant proposals. Each weed management area has its  own steering committee to advise members on developing and  implementing integrated weed management plans and strategies. A few  Idaho counties are not part of a weed management area either because they  do not require external funds or because they do not have the grassroots  support to form one. According to officials, a few counties have refused to  participate because the federal government will not commit to a  partnership and provide consistent financial assistance.
The Nature Conservancy is a nongovernmental organization active in weed  management in Idaho. It has worked with weed managers from all sectors  on both private and public lands and has emerged as a principal in  providing leadership and resources in the state. Conservancy staff chair the  Idaho Weed Awareness Campaign and the Idaho Weed Coordinating  Committee. On the ground, The Nature Conservancy is using new  technologies such as the Global Positioning System and geographic  information systems, as well as partnerships and public awareness  campaigns, to detect, prevent, and control weeds.

	Maryland

Maryland has an invasive species council but not a state weed coordinator  or a strategic plan that addresses weeds.
Weed species posing serious threats. The invasive species council names  34 invasive plant species of concern in Maryland. Several of these species  stand out as being particularly harmful. For example, according to state  estimates, thistles (five species), Johnsongrass and shattercane cause $15  million in agricultural losses annually. Other weeds, such as garlic mustard,  kudzu, and mile-a-minute, are problems in forests and other natural areas.
Legal framework for invasive and noxious weeds. Maryland has had a  noxious weed law since 1969, which lists Johnsongrass, shatttercane, and  thistles (including musk, nodding, Canada, bull, and plumeless thistle) as  noxious weeds that are regulated by the Department of Agriculture. The  law emphasizes protecting agricultural lands from harmful weeds. It  requires landowners to control or eradicate any infestations of listed weeds  and prohibits the transport of noxious weeds in any form capable of  growth. In 2004, owing to control costs, the Departments of Agriculture and  Natural Resources opposed an attempt in the state legislature to add mile- a-minute weed to the noxious weed list. According to an analysis of the  proposal, adding the weed to the list—it grows in every county—would  cost the state government an estimated $1.5 million per year to assist  counties and private landowners with control efforts.
Federal weed control infrastructure in the state. Of the four land  management agencies we reviewed, the National Park Service and the Fish  and Wildlife Service have the most significant land holdings in Maryland.  The National Park Service’s National Capital Region Exotic Plant  Management Team carries out weed control on five national parks that  total about 42,000 acres. In addition to scheduling activities based on the  needs of individual parks, the team can quickly respond to infestations,  thus filling a rapid response role. Individual park units, however, are  responsible for general maintenance on invasive weeds on a routine basis.  To do so, these units use funding from their vegetation management fund.
The Fish and Wildlife Service manages five national wildlife refuges in  Maryland totaling about 44,000 acres. The refuges are responsible for  managing weed infestations found on their lands. For example, the  Patuxent Research Refuge uses its biological resources staff and its  facilities management staff to conduct weed control activities on its more  than 12,000 acres. Because weed efforts are part of general refuge  maintenance, refuge officials were unable to estimate how much they  spend on weed management.
State, county, and municipal governments’ weed control infrastructure.  Three departments engage in weed control. The Department of Agriculture  has a staff of six weed supervisors who work with 20 of the state’s 23  counties to manage weeds—primarily those on the noxious weed list—on  agricultural and nonagricultural lands. The department provides grants that  the counties match or exceed—about $80,000 in fiscal year 2004, with  counties contributing about $200,000. For example, the department granted  $3,500 in 2004 to Carroll County, while the county contributed $18,000 for  weed management. The county weed coordinators look for infestations in  their counties and work with landowners to remove them. Some of the 20  counties also have a spraying program to conduct weed control for private  or public landowners in return for a fee, as well as to treat weeds on county  lands. The Department of Agriculture’s fiscal year 2004 budget for weed  control, including the county grant programs, was $310,000.
In the Department of Natural Resources, individual natural resource land  units—including forests, wildlife areas, and state parks—conduct weed  management as part of general operations. Funding for these efforts comes  from general operating budgets; the department was not able to estimate  how much it spends. The department is currently exploring the creation of  “weed teams” similar to ones used by the National Park Service.
At the Department of Transportation, the highway administration is  responsible for weed control on 5,700 miles of state-managed roads.  According to an administration official responsible for vegetation  management, an estimated 40 percent of those roads are infested with  state-listed noxious weeds. In addition, the administration conducts  control efforts for weeds that are not on the state list. In fiscal year 2004,  the administration spent $2 million on vegetation management, of which  less than $50,000 was for control of thistles, Johnsongrass, and phragmites  (the latter of which is not on the state’s noxious weed list).
In addition to joint efforts with the Department of Agriculture, some  counties have their own weed management programs. For example,  Montgomery County has a voluntary “Weed Warriors” program to control  weeds on about 32,500 acres of county parklands. The park system has a  few natural resources staff who work part time on weeds, as well as  maintenance crews, but it does not set aside any funding specifically for  weed management.
According to state officials we spoke with, municipalities in Maryland are  generally not active in weed management. In Baltimore, however, the city’s  Department of Recreation and Parks recently began work to control weeds  in city parks, and in 2004 received a Pulling Together Initiative grant for  $39,500. The city will, as a result of that grant, conduct weed control on six  different sites. Weed efforts in the city are otherwise few in number. The  city of Frederick requires landowners to cut down weeds that the city  determines to be a nuisance. If the owner does not comply with such an  order, the city can perform that work and charge the landowner for it.
Cooperative and private entities. The Maryland Invasive Species Council,  begun in 2000, includes members representing state, federal and private  interests. The council shares ideas and knowledge and helps increase  public awareness of invasive species issues, but is not statutorily  established. According to state officials, however, Maryland does not have  any cooperative weed management areas and the high degree of  urbanization and fragmented land ownership makes the creation of these  types of collaborative entities difficult.
Private landowners can receive support for weed management from  various sources. For example, the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation  Service and the state’s Department of Natural Resources provide cost-share  funds to landowners for phragmites control. Nongovernmental landowner  organizations such as The Nature Conservancy manage noxious and other  weeds on their lands. The conservancy owns 31 preserves in the state  totaling 62,000 acres; it uses its own resources, as well as volunteer labor,  to control weeds. Other groups, such as the Maryland Native Plant Society,  run volunteer efforts to control weeds on public lands throughout the state.

	Mississippi

Mississippi does not have a state weed coordinator, an invasive species  council, or a strategic plan for addressing weeds.
Weed species posing serious threats. The state lists eight species of  noxious weeds: Brazilian satintail, Chinese tallow tree, cogongrass, giant  salvinia, hydrilla, itchgrass, kudzu, and tropical soda apple. Six of these  weeds are also on the federal noxious weed list (Chinese tallow tree and  kudzu are not). Cogongrass, which has been named the seventh worst  weed in the world, is found in more than half of Mississippi’s counties, and  kudzu is a major problem primarily in the northern part of the state. Other  weeds of concern harm agricultural and natural areas in Mississippi, such  as Chinese tallow tree, smutgrass, and tropical soda apple, but most of the  weed control work concerns either cogongrass or kudzu.
Legal framework for invasive and noxious weeds. In 2004, Mississippi  amended its Plant Pest Act regulations to list the eight noxious weeds. The  Department of Agriculture and Commerce regulates the transportation of  the listed weeds and inspects for them at nurseries. However, the law does  not require Mississippi landowners to manage any infestations of listed  noxious weeds on their property.
Federal weed control infrastructure within the state. Mississippi is host to  federal lands managed by three of the land management agencies we  reviewed. The Forest Service manages about 1.1 million acres in six  national forests. Its Southeastern regional office provides advice and  guidance to individual forests and districts. The Forest Service funds weed  management out of general vegetation management funds. For example,  the Holly Springs National Forest’s major weed problem is kudzu, which  infests about 22,500 of its 150,000 acres. Holly Springs used about $42,000  from its overall vegetation management budget to treat 185 acres of kudzu  in fiscal year 2004. According to forest officials, they are limited in their  ability to treat kudzu because they have not analyzed the potential impact  of treating the kudzu with herbicides, as the National Environmental Policy  Act requires.
In contrast to the efforts on kudzu, the national forests in Mississippi have  worked together to create a “programmatic” environmental assessment to  use herbicides on cogongrass. While the forests still have to conduct site- specific assessments in certain areas, the programmatic assessment  streamlines the process for cogongrass treatment in many areas of the  Mississippi National Forest. According to the Forest Service, this means  that infestations, when found, can be controlled in a timely manner.  According to the environmental assessment, it can take up to three years to  conduct the analysis and public notification to comply with the  environmental requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act,  during which time an infestation is likely to spread further.
The National Park Service’s Gulf Coast Exotic Plant Management Team is  responsible for conducting weed control on three national park units in  Mississippi covering about 88,000 acres. The team has targeted kudzu  infestations for control along the Natchez Trace Parkway and in Vicksburg  National Military Park. Additionally, the team has targeted Chinese tallow  tree, Chinese privet, and Japanese honeysuckle for control on Gulf Islands  National Seashore.
The Fish and Wildlife Service manages 14 national wildlife refuges in  Mississippi. Individual refuges are responsible for managing weeds on their  own land and use funds from refuge operations and invasive species funds.  The regional office assists refuges in developing long-term comprehensive  conservation plans and provides other guidance to refuges. As an example  of a conservation plan, the plan for the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge  discusses efforts to control exotic and invasive plants, including its use of  monitoring and integrated pest management.
State, county, and municipal governments’ weed control infrastructure.  Three state entities engage in weed control. The Department of Agriculture  and Commerce is in charge of implementing the state’s noxious weed law  and is the lead agency in the state’s cogongrass task force. Its regulatory  activities include restricting the transportation of listed weeds and  conducting nursery inspections to look for seeds of the listed weeds. While  the department provided close to $100,000 from its own budget in fiscal  year 2004 for weed management efforts, it has also relied on federal grants  to help control cogongrass. For example, it received a $25,000 grant from  the Pulling Together Initiative in 2004 to supply private landowners with  herbicides for spraying cogongrass. The department also has received  about $220,000 from USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to  control cogongrass. With this funding, it provided cost-share funds to a  total of 218 landowners in 2004 (the department received applications from  600 landowners).
The Department of Transportation controls weeds along state-owned  roadways—of which there are 27,270 miles—and spent about $2.5 million  on chemical weed control in fiscal year 2003 out of its general operating  budget.
The Forestry Commission in Mississippi conducts weed control on about  500,000 acres of state-managed forests, as well as on privately owned  nonindustrial forests in exchange for fees. Since the commission is mostly  concerned about timber production, it focuses on controlling weeds that  affect timber harvests. The Forest Service’s State and Private Forestry  program provides much of the commission’s funding for weed  management, including about $25,000 in fiscal year 2004. Private  landowners reimbursed the commission about $177,000 for weed  management work its crews did in fiscal year 2004.
State officials said that neither counties nor municipalities are active in  weed management in Mississippi.
Cooperative and private entities. The Mississippi Exotic Plant Pest  Council, which consists of over 30 organizations, was formed to raise  awareness about invasive weeds and share knowledge. While the state  does not have weed management areas, it does have species-specific  groups. For example, a group of 17 federal, state, and local entities formed  a cogongrass task force in 2002 to cooperatively fight the weed. In addition,  the district ranger at Holly Springs National Forest took the initiative to  form a kudzu-specific group. Though this group is not formal, members are  interested in educating the public and sharing knowledge about kudzu  control. In addition, some federal, state, and nongovernmental entities have  formed an alliance to more effectively share information and coordinate  invasive species management activities in Mississippi.
Private landowners, including nongovernmental organizations, are also  involved in weed management. The Nature Conservancy, for example,  manages weeds on about 10,000 acres of land it owns. Its wetland  mitigation program, in which developers pay a fee for wetland restoration  to offset wetland losses due to development, is a source for some of its  weed management funding, according to a Conservancy official in  Mississippi. Some private landowners have also received funding from  government sources. For example, USDA’s Natural Resources  Conservation Service’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program  provided $165,000 in cost-share funds to 82 Mississippi landowners in fiscal  year 2003 and, as noted earlier, the state Department of Agriculture and  Commerce offered a $220,000 cost-share program for cogongrass.  Additionally, the Forestry Commission provides cost-share funds, through  its Forest Resource Development Program, to forest owners for weed  management. In fiscal year 2004, this program provided about $900,000 for  forest regeneration and improvement activities, including weed  management.

Description of Federal Agency Programs Supporting Invasive Weed Management Work on Nonfederal Lands

Table 6 identifies major programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture  (USDA) and the Department of the Interior that directly support weed  control, the objectives of those programs, the estimated amount of funding  provided, and the overall amount of funding available through the program.
In addition to the federal natural resource conservation programs known to  provide support for weed management, others could potentially be used for  that purpose. The programs listed in table 7 are those that USDA and  Interior have identified as being potential sources of funding.

Comments from the Department of the Interior

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s  letter dated February 9, 2005.

	GAO Comments

1. We recognize that the definition of invasive weeds we use in the report  is inconsistent with the definition of invasive species in Executive  Order 13112.  The primary difference is that our definition includes  species that are native to a particular ecosystem whereas the Executive  Order includes only those that are nonnative.  We chose to use the  broader definition because we were gathering information on entities  that manage weeds in general, and not just those that are nonnative.   This distinction has been added to the report.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Ross Campbell, Judy Pagano,  Matt Rosenberg, Dawn Shorey, Carol Shulman, Maria Vargas, and Amy  Webbink made key contributions to this report.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

Invasive weeds, native or nonnative plant species, cause harm to natural areas such as rangelands or wildlife habitat and economic impacts due to lost productivity of these areas. While the federal investment in combating invasive species is substantial most has been concentrated on agricultural lands, not on natural areas. In this report, GAO describes (1) the entities that address invasive weeds in natural areas and the funding sources they use; (2) federal, state, and local weed management officials' views on the barriers to weed management; and (3) their opinions about how additional resources for weed management could be distributed. GAO limited this study to entities in the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, and California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, and Mississippi, and gathered information through interviews of over 90 weed management officials.

What GAO Found

All types of landowners--government and private--are involved in the battle against invasive weeds in natural areas and include federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service; state and local agencies such as those responsible for agriculture, natural resources, and transportation; and individuals who manage their lands for a variety of purposes, including production or preservation. In some cases, federal or state laws and regulations require that landowners and managers control specific regulated weeds. In other instances, land managers control weeds--including unregulated ones--to meet their larger responsibilities for natural resource conservation. Weed management entities rely on a wide range of funding sources to carry out their activities. The federal government is the largest source of funding through the general budgets of federal land management agencies and numerous grant programs for natural resource management. State and local agencies and nongovernmental entities often rely on a mix of their own funding, grant resources, and collaboration with other entities or volunteers to implement weed management projects. Not surprisingly, given the magnitude of the invasive weed problem, federal and nonfederal officials we questioned believed that the lack of consistent and adequate funding limits effective management of the problem. Specifically, some officials commented that funding needs to be consistent from year to year to ensure that invasive weeds are eradicated or kept in check, but available resources for weed management often fluctuate. In addition, some officials said that funding is sometimes received late in the year, beyond the point when effective actions can be taken. Other identified barriers to effective weed management included the requirement to comply with National Environmental Policy Act requirements in order to conduct treatments, a lack of cooperation among entities needed to combat invasive weeds, and a general lack of awareness and public education on the issue. Posed with the prospect of a new program or funds for addressing invasive weeds, a majority of the federal and nonfederal officials who responded to our question preferred that existing programs be used to disburse additional funds. Several officials noted that a key factor for such an approach is to capitalize on existing relationships among current programs and weed management entities, rather than creating a new program. A majority of officials also believed that an agency within the Department of Agriculture should implement any new program or funding source, but that states should play a key role in determining how funds should be distributed. Some officials noted, however, that certain agencies have different expertise with regard to weeds and knowledge of local weed management entities. As we completed our review, a new law required the creation of a new program to provide funding by the Department of Agriculture for weed management. The law requires that the department rely on reviews by regional, state, and local experts when making funding decisions.