GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

August 2000 INVASIVE SPECIES

Federal and Selected

State Funding to

Address Harmful,

Nonnative Species

GAO/RCED-00-219

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 30

Appendix II: Federal Invasive Species Activities 33

Appendix III: Seven States’ Invasive Species Activities 37

Appendix IV: Federal and State Comments on Changes

Needed in Executive Order 13112 43

Appendix V: Responses to GAO’s Survey of 10 Federal

Departments On Budget Obligations for

Invasive Species 44

Appendix VI: Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States On

Expenditures for Invasive Species Activities 52

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 63

Tables Table 1: Major Invasive Species Activities 10

Table 2: Obligations for Invasive Species Activities, by

Federal Department, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000a 13

Table 3: Federal Funding for Categories of Invasive Species,

Fiscal Year 1999 15

Table 4: Federal Departments’ Views on Coordination Between

a Variety of Entities 17

Table 5: Invasive Species Activities Receiving the Greatest

Funding from Each State, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 20

Table 6: Invasive Species Receiving the Greatest Funding from

Each State, Fiscal Year 1999 21

Table 7: States’ Views on Coordination Between Several Entities 23

Table 8: Federal Involvement in Invasive Species Activities 33

Table 9: Seven States’ Invasive Species Activities 37

Figures Figure 1: Worker Removing Zebra Mussels From Water Intake

Pipes, Purple Loosestrife, and Destruction of Trees

Caused by Asian Long-Horned Beetles 9

Figure 2: Federal Obligations by Invasive Species Activity,

Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 14

Figure 3: Seven States’ Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 19
Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-285902 Letr

August 24, 2000

Congressional Requesters

Invasive species—harmful nonnative plants, animals, and

microorganisms1

—pose a serious threat to U.S. agriculture and the

environment, with estimated damages exceeding billions of dollars

annually. Invasive species are found in all 50 states, with some states, such

as Florida and Hawaii, more seriously affected than others. Examples of

well-known invasive species include the zebra mussel (a mollusk that clogs

water intake pipes and filtration equipment), the Asian long-horned beetle

(an insect that bores into the trunk of a tree, outside the reach of

pesticides), and purple loosestrife (a wetland plant that crowds out native

plants and animals).

In February 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13112 to help

prevent the introduction of invasive species; provide for their control; and

minimize their impact on the economy, the environment, and human health.

The order established the Invasive Species Council, made up of the heads

of eight federal departments with various responsibilities for addressing

invasive species, to provide for national leadership and coordination in

federal invasive species activities. Inadequate coordination between

various departments and other entities was identified by organizations

such as the Office of Technology Assessment and the Congressional

Research Service as a weakness hindering efforts in the past. The order

calls for the Council to carry out a number of duties, including issuing a

National Invasive Species Management Plan by August 3, 2000, that, among

other things, recommends performance-oriented goals, objectives, and

specific measures of success for federal departments’ invasive species

programs.

1

More specifically, invasive species are plant, animal, or microbial species that are not native

to the United States or to the affected area (i.e., an ecosystem—a community of organisms

and their environment) and whose introduction causes harm to the economy, the

environment, or human health. This definition is largely based on the definition in Executive

Order 13112.
B-285902

Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

To obtain a better understanding of the amount of government resources

directed at the invasive species problem, you asked us to provide

information on federal and selected state funding of invasive species

activities. Specifically, you asked that we identify (1) federal funding, by

department2 and activity (such as prevention and control), for invasive

species activities in fiscal years 1999 and 20003 and obtain the departments’

views on the effectiveness of coordination efforts with states and other

entities; (2) funding by selected states for invasive species activities in

fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and obtain the states’ views on the effectiveness

of coordination with federal departments and other entities; and (3) actions

taken by the Invasive Species Council to implement Executive Order 13112.

To identify federal funding for invasive species activities, we surveyed 10

federal departments—the 8 Council members (the departments of

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, the Interior, State, the Treasury, and

Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency), as well as the

Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. Combined,

these departments account for the vast majority of federal resources spent

on invasive species activities. Although all 10 federal departments and 7

states responded to our survey, Treasury was unable to provide information

on the amount of funding it obligated for invasive species activities and

Defense provided a partial response.4

To identify invasive species funding by selected states, we surveyed

California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, and New York—

seven states that have experienced serious problems with invasive species,

2

In this report and in our survey of federal departments, we use the term “department” to

refer to the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, the Interior, State,

Transportation, and the Treasury; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National

Science Foundation; and the Smithsonian Institution.

3

Funding data for fiscal year 1999 are actual obligations (federal) and actual expenditures

(states); data for fiscal year 2000 are estimated obligations (federal) and estimated

expenditures (states). Also, although the fiscal year of the federal government and many

states covers different periods (beginning in October for the federal government and July

for many states), in this report we use the term “fiscal year” for each entity’s fiscal year—

whatever that period may be.

4

While Treasury’s Customs Service engages in some invasive species-related activities, it

does not track obligations for these activities separately from its other enforcement

activities. Also, Defense provided only a partial response because two of its components

(the Air Force and the Army) did not provide information. According to a Defense official,

these components are responsible for the largest amount of lands under Defense

stewardship.
B-285902

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

are regarded as having strong invasive species programs, and/or provided

geographical representation for our survey. Because the total amount of

funding for all 50 states is unknown, we could not determine the extent to

which the funding reported by these 7 states is representative of all 50

states. To address the actions taken by the Invasive Species Council, we

interviewed Council representatives and reviewed Council documents.

Appendix I details our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief The federal departments responding to our survey reported obligating over

half a billion dollars—$513.9 million and $631.5 million in fiscal years 1999

and 2000, respectively—for activities related to invasive species. The U.S.

Department of Agriculture provided far and away the largest percentage of

these funds, 89 percent ($459 million) in fiscal year 1999 and 88 percent

($556.4 million) in fiscal year 2000. The eight other federal departments

that reported funding information provided between 0.2 percent and about

5 percent of the federal funding directed toward invasive species over the 2

years. Activities to prevent the introduction of invasive species received

the greatest percentage of federal funding—about 51 percent and 49

percent in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, respectively. Most federal

departments rated coordination with state governments as either “good” or

“fair.”

The seven states we surveyed reported spending between $1.6 million and

$94.5 million in fiscal year 1999 (for a total of $195.3 million) and between

$1.8 million and $127.6 million in fiscal year 2000 (for a total of $232.6

million) on invasive species activities. In both years, Florida spent the

greatest amount of funds, $94.5 million and $127.6 million, followed by

California, $82.6 million and $87.2 million. Most of the seven states directed

the largest percentage of their funding in both years toward activities to

control invasive species. Most of the seven states rated coordination with

federal departments as “good.”

The Invasive Species Council has been slow in getting off the ground,

although it has initiated several actions to implement Executive Order

13112. As of August 18, 2000, 18 months after the executive order was

issued, the Council had filled two of its four permanent staff positions and

had nearly completed filling the remaining two positions; when it does, it

will have an organizational infrastructure to oversee implementation. The

Council has also drafted and is receiving comments on its National Invasive

Species Management Plan, which is expected to be issued later in the

year—several months after the date stipulated in the executive order. In
B-285902

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

addition, it has established an advisory committee and six working groups

that have provided information and advice to the Council. Further, it is in

the process of developing a Web site to provide a broad range of

information on invasive species and is sponsoring workshops to promote

information sharing.

Background

Invasive Species Have

Caused Severe Ecological

and Economic Harm

The impact of invasive species in the United States is widespread, and their

consequences for the economy and the environment profound. They affect

peoples’ livelihoods, placing sustainable development and industries such

as agriculture, ranching, and fisheries at significant risk: Depending on the

species, they have increased pest control costs, contaminated grain,

reduced the grazing capacity of rangelands, lowered water tables, and

displaced native plants and wildlife habitats. Invasive species are

ubiquitous. Hundreds and perhaps thousands have established populations

in the United States, with almost every area of the country having at least

one highly damaging invasive species.

Most invasive species arrive in conjunction with human activity, transport,

or habitat modification that provides new opportunities for species’

establishment. They may arrive as contaminants of bulk commodities,

packing materials, shipping containers, or ships’ ballast. While many

invasive species have been introduced into the United States

unintentionally, others have been brought in by design. For example,

kudzu—a rapidly growing invasive vine that thrives in the southeastern

United States—was brought in from Japan as an ornamental plant and was

used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the 1930s to control soil

erosion. Other invasive species are imported as crops, livestock, pets, or

aquaculture species and later escape or are released into the environment.

Not all nonnative species are invasive, however. Many nonnative species,

such as cattle, wheat and soybeans, many fruits, and ornamentals (such as

tulips and chrysanthemums), have been largely beneficial and their

propagation controllable.
B-285902

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

While invasive species have caused considerable damage, their precise

economic impact has been poorly documented. No single organization

accumulates comprehensive data on all types of invasive species, and

assessing the dollar impacts on habitat—such as forests, wildlands, hay

and pasturelands, and aquatic sites—is very difficult. According to a 1993

study by the Office of Technology Assessment, the number and impact of

invasive species are chronically underestimated, especially for species that

do not damage agriculture, industry, or human health.5 The office estimated

that damage from 79 invasive species totaled about $97 billion from 1906

through 1991. It noted that this figure is likely only a fraction of the total

costs during the period because the figure includes only a small percentage

of invasive species; estimates for the economic effects of most invasive

species—including agricultural weeds, one of the most costly groups—

were unavailable. More recently, in 2000, Cornell University scientists put

total economic losses and associated control costs at approximately $137

billion a year.6 They noted that this estimate was greater than the Office of

Technology Assessment’s because it included over 10 times the number of

species and found higher costs reported in the literature for some of the

same species identified by the office.

Although the precise total costs of invasive species are uncertain, there is

little question that some cause serious damage. For example, about 400 of

the 958 species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered

Species Act are considered at risk, primarily because of competition with

and/or predation by invasive species inhabiting the same areas, according

to the Cornell scientists. A variety of ecological factors can enable a

nonnative species to become ubiquitous: a lack of natural enemies,

artificial or disturbed habitats that provide favorable conditions for

propagation, and/or the introduction of a highly adaptable species or a

species that is a very effective colonizer in its new ecosystem. The

following are examples of some well-known invasive species:

5

Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, Office of Technology Assessment,

OTA-F-565, Sept. 1993.

6

David Pimentel, et al., “Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in

the United States,” BioScience, Jan. 2000, pp. 53-65.
B-285902

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

• The zebra mussel most likely entered the United States as mussel

larvae in ballast water that was released into the Great Lakes by ships

traveling from Europe. Zebra mussels invade and clog water intake

pipes and water filtration and electric generating plants. Furthermore,

large zebra mussel populations reduce food and oxygen for native fauna:

They have been observed to completely cover native mussels, clams,

and snails, thereby further threatening these species. The cost of zebra

mussel prevention and remediation for electrical generation, water

treatment, and industrial facilities is estimated at $100 million a year,

according to the Cornell University study.7

• The Asian long-horned beetle is a recent arrival. It came to the

United States about 4 years ago, most likely in packing material or pallet

wood from China. According to Agriculture’s Forest Service, the spread

of this insect could have a significant economic, social, and ecological

impact on urban, rural, and forest areas in North America. This beetle is

particularly troublesome because it bores deep within a tree, where it

cannot by reached by pesticides. The only known treatment is to destroy

the infected tree, as well as other trees nearby that often show no signs

of infestation. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

damages from an infestation in New York State in 1996 resulted in the

removal of many trees and cost the state and federal government over

$5 million.

• Purple loosestrife is attractive in appearance (it has showy purple

flowers and is sold as an ornamental in some areas), but can have

devastating consequences. Arriving from Europe in the early 1800s, it

has infested wetlands in at least 42 states. It crowds out native wetland

plants that are an important source of food for waterfowl and has

spread through irrigation and river systems in the West. Once it gains a

foothold, it is almost impossible to eradicate. The Cornell study

estimated that this plant cost the U.S. economy $45 million a year.

Figure 1 shows the impact of these three species on the environment.

7

David Pimentel, et al., “Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in

the United States,” pp. 53-65.
B-285902

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Figure 1: Worker Removing Zebra Mussels From Water Intake Pipes, Purple Loosestrife, and Destruction of Trees Caused by

Asian Long-Horned Beetles

Worker standing inside a water intake pipe 

removing zebra mussels

Asian long-horned beetle and street

before and after an infestation

Man in a field

of purple loosestrife

Before

After
B-285902

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Sources: Cluster of zebra mussels, J. Ellen Marsden, Lake Michigan Biological Station; Worker

removing zebra mussels from water intake pipes, Ron Peplowski, Detroit Edison, Monroe Michigan

Power Station; Purple loosestrife and Asian long-horned beetle and resulting damage, U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Federal and State

Governments Are Involved

in a Variety of Invasive

Species Activities

The federal departments and states we surveyed are involved, to varying

degrees, in eight key activities that address various aspects of the invasive

species problem.8 (See table 1 for a description of these activities.) The U.S.

Department of Agriculture has the largest federal role in combating

invasive species as a result of its (1) authority to quarantine and conduct

port-of-entry inspections, (2) management of over 190 million acres of

public lands, and (3) large control projects related to agricultural pests.

Because invasive species often cross territorial and governmental

boundaries, federal, state, and local governments and other entities

sometimes cooperate in implementing invasive species programs. For

example, Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service works

with state and local agencies, as well as with private landowners, to

eradicate newly introduced weeds on private lands. Table 1 outlines the

major invasive species activities, and appendixes II and III provide further

information on federal and state invasive species activities.

Table 1: Major Invasive Species Activities

8

A ninth activity was a miscellaneous category: “other invasive species activities.”

Activity Definition

Prevention Activities to prevent the introduction of invasive species. Includes

monitoring the international and domestic movement of invasive

species, evaluating individual species for invasiveness prior to

introduction, and identifying and interdicting pathways for introduction.

Detection Surveillance for the existence and location of an invasive species that

may have been introduced.

Control

(management)

Measures to eliminate or reduce the effects of invasive species,

including eradicating infestations, reducing populations of invasive

species, preventing their spread, and/or mitigating their impact on the

economy.

Monitoring Ongoing research and surveys to track the presence and status of

invasive species over time and at varying geographic locales to

evaluate the impact of such species on ecosystems and to evaluate

the effectiveness of prevention, control, and restoration activities.
B-285902

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Executive Order 13112 Is

Intended to Improve the

Management of Invasive

Species Activities

Executive Order 13112—signed by President Clinton on February 3, 1999—

highlights invasive species as a serious problem and creates a structure and

process for identifying federal gaps in managing it.9 The order established

an Invasive Species Council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture,

Commerce, and the Interior. Major duties of the Council are to issue, by

August 3, 2000, a National Invasive Species Management Plan; evaluate its

progress in achieving the plan’s goals; and update the plan every other year.

Other Council responsibilities include (1) ensuring that federal

departments’ invasive species activities are coordinated, complementary,

cost-efficient, and effective, and rely, as appropriate, on existing invasive

species-related organizations (including the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task

Force, Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and

Exotic Weeds, and Committee on Environment and Natural Resources); (2)

encouraging planning and action to achieve the plan’s goals and objectives;

(3) developing recommendations for international cooperation; (4)

developing guidance for federal agencies on preventing and controlling

invasive species; (5) helping to develop a coordinated network among

federal agencies to document, evaluate, and monitor impacts from invasive

Restoration Activities to reinstate ecosystem structure and function that have been

affected by invasive species, using native species or noninvasive,

nonnative species where possible.

Research and

development

Developing scientific knowledge, methods, and technologies to

prevent, detect, control, and monitor invasive species or to restore

native species and habitat.

Education,

outreach,

partnerships,

and cooperative

activities

Actions to support public education programs and cooperative efforts

with stakeholders. Includes actions in support of international

agreements with foreign nations and international organizations.

Information

management

Activities to facilitate access to and exchange of information on

invasive species, including information on the distribution and amount

of invasive species; life histories of such species and invasive

characteristics; economic, environmental, and human health impacts;

management techniques; and laws and programs for management,

research, and public education. Includes storage of data and

information-sharing activities, such as providing access to databases

or other forms of information.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Activity Definition

9

Executive Order 13112 replaces Executive Order 11987 (1977).
B-285902

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

species; and (6) helping to establish an up-to-date information-sharing

system that uses the Internet. Appendix IV provides comments by federal

and state officials on changes needed in the executive order were the

Congress to enact legislation incorporating its provisions.

Federal Funding for

Invasive Species

Activities Totaled Over

Half a Billion Dollars in

Fiscal Years 1999 and

2000

The federal departments we surveyed reported that they obligated a total of

$513.9 million in fiscal year 1999 for invasive species activities; for fiscal

year 2000, reported obligations were $631.5 million. Agriculture was the

greatest source of federal funding for these activities, accounting for 89 and

88 percent of the total, respectively—$459 million in fiscal year 1999 and

$556.4 million in fiscal year 2000. The eight other federal departments

reporting funding information provided between 0.2 percent and about 5

percent of the federal funding directed toward invasive species over the 2

years. As shown in table 2, Interior and Defense provided the second and

third largest amounts of funding—Interior accounting for 4 percent and 5

percent in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, respectively, and Defense accounting

for 2 percent in both years.10 See appendix V for a summary of department

responses to the survey.

10 Defense provided only a partial response to this question because two of its components

(the Air Force and the Army) did not provide information.
B-285902

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Table 2: Obligations for Invasive Species Activities, by Federal Department, Fiscal

Years 1999 and 2000a

a

Treasury was unable to provide information on its obligations for invasive species

activities.

Source: GAO’s survey of 10 federal departments.

In addition to direct appropriations, Agriculture, the Smithsonian

Institution, and Defense reported receiving user fees11 to support their

fiscal year 1999 invasive species obligations. User fees provided about 14

percent of Agriculture’s, 4 percent of the Smithsonian Institution’s, and 2

percent of Defense’s invasive species obligations for that year.

Prevention Activities

Accounted for About Half

the Federal Funding for

Invasive Species Activities

In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, about half (51 percent and 49 percent,

respectively) of the total federal obligations for invasive species were

directed toward prevention activities. Activities to control invasive species

received the next highest percentage of funding—about 19 percent and 23

percent, respectively, in the 2 fiscal years—followed by research and

development, which received about 18 percent of the total funding in fiscal

year 1999 and about 17 percent in the following year. (See fig. 2 for the total

amount of federal funding obligated for each invasive species activity for

fiscal years 1999 and 2000.)

Dollars in millions

Federal department Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000

Agriculture $459.0 $556.4

Interior 18.1 31.1

Defense 12.5 14.5

State 7.5 9.2

Commerce 5.4 5.1

National Science Foundation 4.7 5.2

Transportation 3.5 4.0

Smithsonian Institution 2.1 1.9

Environmental Protection Agency 1.1 4.1

11For example, Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service collects user fees

for agricultural quarantine inspection and enforcement activities—activities that are key in

preventing the introduction of new invasive species into the United States.
B-285902

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Figure 2: Federal Obligations by Invasive Species Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 and

2000

Source: GAO’s survey of 10 federal departments.

Regarding which invasive species activity most needed additional attention

from the respondent’s department, half of the departments (four of eight

respondents) chose control activities; two chose prevention; and two chose

research and development.

308.5

143.8

39.9

11.8 9.9 3.7 4.7 3.4 4.8 2.9 3.4 9.6 8.4

29.2

94.6 99.1

262.9

104.9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Prevention

 Control 

 (management)

Research and 

 development

 Education, outreach, 

 partnerships, cooperative 

 activities

Other

Detection

Information 

management

Monitoring

Restoration

Obligations (dollars in millions)

FY 1999

FY 2000
B-285902

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Terrestrial Arthropods: The

Category of Invasive

Species That Received the

Most Federal Funding

In fiscal year 1999, about 55 percent ($284.5 million) of the $513.9 million in

reported federal obligations for invasive species were directed toward

specific categories of invasive species, rather than toward activities

addressing multiple categories of species. Over half ($154.5 million) of the

funding for specific categories of invasive species went to terrestrial

arthropods (a category of invertebrates—primarily insects—that includes

fruit flies and Asian long-horned beetles). The plant category, which

includes terrestrial noncrop (such as purple loosestrife), terrestrial crop

(crop weeds such as johnsongrass), and aquatic plants, received the second

greatest amount of funding—$70.7 million, or about 25 percent of the

funding for specific categories of invasive species. As shown in table 3,

microorganisms and diseases was the third highest category, receiving

about 12 percent ($33.1 million) of the funding for specific categories.

Table 3: Federal Funding for Categories of Invasive Species, Fiscal Year 1999

Source: GAO’s survey of 10 federal departments.

Dollars in millions

Category of invasive species Total federal funding

Terrestrial arthropods $154.5

Plants 70.7

Animal and plant microorganisms/diseases 33.1

Fish and aquatic invertebrates 20.4

Reptiles and amphibians 4.8

Mammals 0.8

Birds 0.2
B-285902

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Regarding which individual invasive species received the greatest amount

of funding in fiscal year 1999, five species were cited by the seven

departments that responded to this question. Agriculture directed its

greatest funding for a single invasive species—$36.2 million—toward fruit

flies. Defense and Commerce cited zebra mussels (funded at $2.7 million

and $1.0 million, respectively); the Interior and the Smithsonian Institution

reported that brown tree snakes12 received the greatest amount of their

funds ($1.9 million and $0.2 million, respectively). State directed the largest

amount of its funding ($7.5 million) toward sea lampreys (an eel-like ocean

fish that fastens onto other fish and eats until sated). See appendix V for

the complete responses to this question.

Many Entities Received

Federal Funds for Invasive

Species Activities

Federal departments provided invasive species funding to a variety of

entities, including other federal departments; state and local governments;

universities or colleges; private nonprofit organizations; individual

researchers; international organizations (e.g., the Great Lakes Fisheries

Commission—United States and Canada); and private landowners. Four of

the 10 departments reported that individual researchers received the

greatest amount of their funds for invasive species activities. The other six

departments spread their responses among five categories: other federal

departments, state governments, universities or colleges, international

organizations, and private landowners.

Federal Departments Most

Often Rated Coordination

Efforts With States as Either

Good or Fair

Most federal departments rated coordination with state governments on

invasive species issues as good or fair; at the same time, most respondents

rated coordination within their own department, between departments,

and between their department and universities/colleges as either good or

excellent. As shown in table 4, coordination between departments and

local governments received one of the lowest ratings. One department

stated that improved coordination was needed at local levels. It noted, for

example, that weed eradication projects may need to involve several

federal departments, state and county governments, and private

landowners, and that failure to involve any one of these entities could

result in failure.

12A snake that has caused major disruptions to power transmission, telephone service,

computers, tourism, and military operations in Guam. Hawaii and the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands are also believed to be at particular risk of introduction of this

invasive species.
B-285902

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Table 4: Federal Departments’ Views on Coordination Between a Variety of Entities

a

Nine federal departments responded to this question.

Source: GAO’s survey of 10 federal departments.

Number of department responsesa

Coordinating entities Excellent Good Fair Poor

Very

poor

Not

applicable

Between governmental entities

Units within own department 3 4 2

Federal departments 1 6 2

Federal departments and state governments 1 44

Federal departments and local governments 1 22 2 2

Between federal departments and

nongovernmental entities

Federal departments and universities/colleges 25 1 1

Federal departments and the private sector 1 3 3 11

Between federal departments and other

reported entities

International organizations 1 1

Interest groups 1

Irrigation districts 1

Tribal governments 1

Foreign governments 1

Other governments 1
B-285902

Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Funding for Invasive

Species Varied

Considerably Among

the Seven States

In fiscal year 1999, the state governments we surveyed reported

expenditures for invasive species activities ranging from $1.6 million to

$94.5 million (for a total of $195.3 million); in fiscal year 2000, the range

was $1.8 million to $127.6 million (for a total of $232.6 million). Appendix

VI provides a summary of state responses to the survey.

Florida and California Had

the Highest Invasive Species

Expenditures

Florida and California each spent considerably more than the other five

states on invasive species activities. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, Florida

reported spending $94.5 million13 and $127.6 million, respectively;

California’s reported spending for those years was $82.6 million and $87.2

million. The expenditures for Hawaii, Michigan, Idaho, New York, and

Maryland ranged from $1.6 million to $7.6 million for the 2 years, as shown

in figure 3.

13Florida’s fiscal year 1999 expenditures were overstated by up to $3.7 million because the

precise amount of invasive species funding by activity could not be separated out for several

programs that covered areas other than invasive species.
B-285902

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Figure 3: Seven States’ Expenditures for Invasive Species Activities, Fiscal Years

1999 and 2000

Source: GAO’s survey of seven states.

Florida California Hawaii Michigan Idaho New York Maryland

FY 1999

FY 2000

127.6

87.2

7.6

1.9 3.8 2.6 2.4 1.6 1.8

4.2 3.7

6.3

82.6

94.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140 Expenditures (dollars in millions)
B-285902

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

In addition to state government expenditures, several other government

entities provided invasive species funding to many of the seven states.

(This funding was not included in the funding reported by the states.) The

largest nonstate funding source was the federal government, which

provided about $0.3 million to $31.5 million to each of the seven states in

fiscal years 1999 and 2000.14 Counties were a source of government funding

for three states—Idaho received $3.8 million and $4.9 million; Florida, $1.3

million and $1.5 million; and Maryland, $0.3 million in each of the 2 years.

State Funding Focused on

Control Activities

Of the eight major activities, those directed toward controlling invasive

species received the most funding from every state except California (and

Michigan in fiscal year 2000), as shown in table 5.

Table 5: Invasive Species Activities Receiving the Greatest Funding from Each State, Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000

a

This represents the percentage of each state’s total expenditures for invasive species

activities.

Source: GAO’s survey of seven states.

Four of the states reported that preventing the introduction of new invasive

species was the activity in greatest need of more attention from their

14This refers to funding that federal departments provided to states to carry out state

invasive species programs.

Dollars in millions

Fiscal Year 1999 Fiscal Year 2000

State

Largest

activity

Expenditure

for activity

Percent of

state’s total

expendituresa

Largest

activity

Expenditure

for activity

Percent of

state’s total

expendituresa

California Prevention $33.8 41 Prevention $33.7 39

Florida Control 71.0 75 Control 100.9 79

Hawaii Control 2.1 34 Control 2.2 29

Idaho Control 1.9 52 Control 1.3 35

Michigan Control 3.4 81 Monitoring 0.6 32

Maryland Control 0.7 41 Control 0.8 42

New York Control 0.7 30 Control 0.8 31
B-285902

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

states. Control, detection, and monitoring were each reported by one state

as the primary activity needing more attention.

Plants and Terrestrial

Arthropods: The Categories

of Invasive Species

Receiving the Greatest

Amounts of State Funding

In fiscal year 1999, plants—terrestrial noncrop, terrestrial crop, and

aquatic—was the category of invasive species that received the most

funding from three states, with Florida providing the single greatest

amount—$54.2 million. In three other states, terrestrial arthropods was the

highest-funded category, with California providing the greatest funding

($43.7 million) for this category. Table 6 shows the categories of invasive

species that received the greatest funding from each state in fiscal year

1999.

Table 6: Invasive Species Receiving the Greatest Funding from Each State, Fiscal

Year 1999

Source: GAO’s survey of seven states.

For individual invasive species, no two states reported giving the greatest

amount of their funding to the same species—for example, citrus canker (a

highly contagious bacterial disease that infects citrus crops) received the

greatest amount of funding ($29.1 million) in Florida, and the medfly (the

Mediterranean fruit fly—a serious pest that attacks over 250 types of fruits,

vegetables, and nuts) was the top recipient of funds ($9.4 million) in

California.

Within the plant category, terrestrial noncrop plants (such as purple

loosestrife) were selected by Florida, Hawaii, and Maryland as the primary

category of invasive species needing more attention from their state

governments; aquatic plants (such as hydrilla—an aggressive submerged

Dollars in millions

State

Category of invasive species with the

greatest funding State funding

Florida Plants $54.2

California Terrestrial arthropods 43.7

Idaho Plants 3.7

Michigan Fish and aquatic invertebrates 3.1

Hawaii Plants 1.7

New York Terrestrial arthropods 1.1

Maryland Terrestrial arthropods 0.6
B-285902

Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

plant that can choke lakes and water supplies) were selected by three other

states (California, Idaho, and New York). The seventh state—Michigan—

selected microorganisms and diseases.

Many Entities Received

State Funds for Invasive

Species Activities

States provided invasive species funds to a variety of entities to carry out

invasive species activities within their states: Two states reported that

multi-stakeholder organizations (such as the Chesapeake Bay Program)

received the greatest amount of funding for invasive species activities; two

others reported universities or colleges; and local governments, private

nonprofit organizations, and lake associations were each reported by one

state.

States Most Often Rated

Coordination With the

Federal Government as

Good

The states rated coordination with the federal government on invasive

species issues most frequently as good. Coordination within states,

between states and universities/colleges, and between states and local

governments was also rated good by most states, as shown in table 7. Some

states had suggestions for improving coordination. For example, one state

thought that the primary federal responsibility and direction for invasive

species programs should reside with one federal department; another

noted that interstate regional planning councils were needed to coordinate

responses to new invasions.
B-285902

Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Table 7: States’ Views on Coordination Between Several Entities

Source: GAO’s survey of seven states.

Actions Taken by the

Invasive Species

Council to Implement

Executive Order 13112

Although the Invasive Species Council has been slow in getting off the

ground, it has initiated several actions in its first 18 months. Specifically, as

of August 18, 2000, the Council

• was in the final stages of staffing the organizational infrastructure that

will oversee the implementation of the executive order;

• had drafted and was receiving comments on its National Invasive

Species Management Plan—which the executive order stipulated was to

be issued by August 3, 2000;

• had established an advisory committee, which has held three meetings,

and six working groups, which have provided information and advice to

the Council; and

Number of state responses

Coordinating entities Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor

Between governmental entities

Between this state’s government entities (e.g.,

departments within the state)

4 3

Between this state government and other state

governments

3 4

Between this state government and the federal

government

4 3

Between this state government and local

governments

412

Between state governments and

nongovernmental entities

Between this state government and universities and

colleges

511

Between this state government and the private

sector

241

Between state governments and other reported

entities

Nonprofit organizations 1

Exotic Pest Plant Council 1

Regional water management districts 1

Tribes 1

The Nature Conservancy 1
B-285902

Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

• was in the process of developing a Web site and sponsoring workshops

to promote information sharing.

Organizational

Infrastructure Is Almost

Completed

As of August 18, 2000, the Council had filled two of its four permanent

positions (the executive director and one program assistant) and was close

to filling its two remaining positions (two assistant directors—one for

domestic and one for international policy). Until August, the Council’s

activities were conducted primarily by three persons detailed from

Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior who work part-time on Council

activities and part-time on their other job duties. The Council is also

assisted part-time by a scientist on detail from Agriculture and by a fulltime program assistant who has been on-board since March 2000.15

In addition, each of the eight department heads who serve on the Council

have appointed technical liaisons. These liaisons represent an

interdepartmental group that works directly with the Council to facilitate

the flow and exchange of information between the Council and the federal

departments represented on the Council.

The Council Has Drafted a

Management Plan

The Council has drafted a National Invasive Species Management Plan—

one of its major responsibilities—and is obtaining comments on the plan

from stakeholders, including representatives from state governments,

industry, academia, and the public. Council staff anticipate that notice of

the plan and a 60-day comment period will be published in the Federal

Register in September 2000. The draft plan provides recommendations on

the following issues: federal coordination; communication, education, and

outreach; prevention; early detection and rapid response; control;

restoration; research, database management, and monitoring; information

management; and international cooperation and capacity building. The

Council staff expect that the final plan will be issued later in the year—

several months after the date stipulated in the executive order.

To meet the order’s requirement that the Council encourage planning at

regional, state, local, tribal, and ecosystem-based levels, the Council

involved these and other parties in developing the national plan. For

example, an advisory committee and six working groups made up of

15In addition, the Council has generally had a summer intern.
B-285902

Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

federal and nonfederal members have played key roles in the plan’s

development. After drafting its plan, the Council obtained comments from

the eight departmental Council members and held public meetings to

discuss the plan in Oakland, California; Denver, Colorado; West Palm

Beach, Florida; Chicago, Illinois; and Albany, New York.

The Council Has

Established an Advisory

Committee and Six Working

Groups

Since its inception, the Council has held two meetings. In addition, to assist

it in carrying out its responsibilities, the Council has established an

advisory committee of 32 members from universities, state governments,

associations, and other entities. The advisory committee—selected from

nominations received in response to a Federal Register notice—has met

three times. Also, the Council has established six working groups—a total

of more than 250 members from various levels of government as well as

industry—to address issues such as policy, regulations, and international

activities.

The Council Is Developing a

Web Site and Holding

Workshops to Promote

Information Sharing

The Council is developing a Web site—www.invasivespecies.gov—and

holding workshops to promote information sharing. The Web site now

contains information about the Council’s activities, the draft management

plan, and links to the Web sites of governmental and nongovernmental

entities that are engaged in invasive species activities. In addition, the Web

site provides an e-mail address for comments on the draft plan. The

Council plans to add additional information, such as the invasive species

that are regulated by its department members, on an ongoing basis. The

Council is also developing a capability that will enable Web site visitors to

click on a state or county to learn about the invasive species in that area,

efforts to control those species, and ways they can help with those

activities.

In addition, Council members have sponsored workshops and other

meetings to obtain input from a variety of stakeholders on the integration

and sharing of databases.16 The next workshop, scheduled for September

2000, on western rangeland weed management will examine and provide

suggestions regarding (1) better use of existing databases and (2) future

data collection and sharing.

16These meetings are part of a project conducted by the Charles Valentine Riley Memorial

Foundation and sponsored by Agriculture, the Interior, the David and Lucile Packard

Foundation, and industry.
B-285902

Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Agency Comments We provided the Invasive Species Council co-chairs with a draft of this

report for their review and comment. The Executive Director and

representatives of the co-chairs, in commenting on the section on Council

actions, agreed with the facts presented in the section and provided

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In addition,

we provided appendix II to the officials who responded to GAO’s survey for

the 10 federal departments. These officials agreed with the facts in this

appendix on federal programs and provided clarifying comments, which

we incorporated as appropriate.

We conducted our work from April through July 2000 in accordance with

generally accepted auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional

committees and members; the Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary of

Agriculture; the Honorable Norman Y. Minetta, Secretary of Commerce; the

Honorable William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Bruce

Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior; the Honorable Madeleine K. Albright,

Secretary of State; the Honorable Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary of the

Treasury; the Honorable Rodney E. Slater, Secretary of Transportation; the

Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator, the Environmental Protection

Agency; the Honorable Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science

Foundation; and the Honorable Lawrence M. Small, Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution. Copies are also being sent to the Governors of

California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, and New York. We

will also make copies available to others upon request.
B-285902

Page 27 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me

on (202) 512-5138. The key contributors to this report are listed in appendix

VII.

Lawrence J. Dyckman

Director, Food and

Agriculture Issues
B-285902

Page 28 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

List of Congressional Requesters

The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources

and Environment

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest

Chairman, Subcommittee on Coast Guard

and Maritime Transportation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Richard Pombo

Chairman, Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture

Committee on Agriculture

House of Representatives

The Honorable Jim Saxton

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,

Wildlife and Oceans

Committee on Resources

House of Representatives
Page 29 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Page 30 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To address the first and second objectives of our review—federal and

selected state funding information for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for

invasive species activities and information on coordination efforts—we

mailed surveys to federal departments and selected states.

The survey to 10 federal departments requested information on federal

obligations for fiscal years 1999 (actual) and 2000 (estimated) and their

views on the effectiveness of coordination efforts with states and other

entities. The term “departments” refers to the following entities: the

departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, the Interior, State,

Transportation, the Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency (all

of which are members of the Invasive Species Council); and the National

Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution. The latter two entities

were identified by officials of Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce as

providing significant funding for various invasive species activities.

The survey to seven states requested information on state expenditures for

fiscal years 1999 (actual) and 2000 (estimated) and the states’ views on the

effectiveness of coordination efforts with federal departments and other

entities. The seven states surveyed—California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,

Maryland, Michigan, and New York—were selected on the basis of

recommendations from Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce officials

with expertise on invasive species. They recommended these states for one

or more of the following reasons: the state has significant problems with

invasive species, has implemented strong and/or innovative programs,

and/or provides geographical representation.

We did not independently verify the accuracy of the federal department or

state government officials’ responses to our surveys. However, we

pretested drafts of our surveys to obtain comments from federal and state

government officials and incorporated their comments where appropriate.

We also reviewed each survey response to identify internal data

inconsistencies and other issues needing clarification, followed up with

survey respondents to resolve questions, and made agreed-upon changes to

their responses as appropriate.

The federal and state surveys requested information on

obligations/expenditures for eight invasive species activities: prevention,

detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and

development, information management, and

education/outreach/partnerships/cooperative activities. We coordinated

with staff from the Invasive Species Council in developing the survey
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

instruments and used definitions for invasive species-related terms that the

Council developed. In addition, to put the magnitude of the invasive species

problem into perspective, we reviewed several studies that addressed

environmental and economic costs as well as other harmful effects

associated with invasive species. We did not, however, analyze or verify the

information contained in these studies.

In completing the survey, we asked federal departments to obtain

information from appropriate staff (that is, their staff with responsibilities

or knowledge of their department’s invasive species programs). Similarly,

we asked state officials to obtain information from all their

departments/agencies that conducted invasive species activities and to

incorporate the information into one state response. Federal obligations

were based on the federal fiscal year, which runs between October 1 and

September 30. However, the state expenditures were based on the states’

fiscal years, which generally run from July 1 through June 30.

We recognize that the total funding amount reported for invasive species

could be under- or over-estimated because of differences in both federal

and state departments’ and agencies’ reporting, budgeting, and accounting

practices. Also, in some cases, funding for invasive species activities could

not be separated from other activities. Some federal and state officials sent

in several individual responses from their various departmental or state

entities, which we consolidated into a single department or state response.

In these instances, we returned the consolidated survey to the respondent

for review and approval.

We received survey responses from all respondents—10 federal

departments and 7 states. However, two responses were missing significant

information. While Treasury’s Customs Service engages in some invasive

species-related activities, it does not track obligations for these activities

separately from its other enforcement activities. The Department of

Defense submitted only a partial response, which included the Navy, Army

Corps of Engineers, and the Marine Corps. The Army and the Air Force did

not provide information.

To address our third objective—the actions taken by the Invasive Species

Council to implement Executive Order 13112—we met with

representatives from (1) Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior and (2) the

Invasive Species Council’s three co-chairs and attended several public

meetings held by the Invasive Species Advisory Committee and the

Council. In addition, we reviewed documents, memos, reports, and
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 32 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

working draft policy papers developed by the advisory committee working

groups. Finally, we reviewed a draft of the National Invasive Species

Management Plan, which the Council prepared as directed by Executive

Order 13112. We did not, however, evaluate the extent to which the draft

plan meets the requirements of the executive order.

We performed our work from April through July 2000, in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 33 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Appendix II

Federal Invasive Species Activities ApendxiI

The federal government sponsors numerous invasive species activities

carried out by many departments with various unique, complex, and

integrated missions. These activities span waterways, wetlands, U.S. ports

of entry, public and private lands, the environment, roadsides, and

farmland. The 10 federal departments that we surveyed—Agriculture,

Commerce, Defense, the Interior, State, Transportation, the Treasury; the

Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and

the Smithsonian Institution—work with each other, state agencies,

nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens to prevent, detect,

control, and eradicate a variety of invasive species. Table 8 describes the

federal departments’ and their component agencies’ involvement in

invasive species programs and activities.

Table 8: Federal Involvement in Invasive Species Activities

Department and agency Activities

Department of Agriculture Involved in all invasive species activities: prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring,

restoration, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships,

and cooperative activities.

Agricultural Research

Service

Provides scientific and technical support for Agriculture and other federal agencies focusing on detection

technology for ports of entry; systematics (i.e., the study of natural patterns and processes relating to the

history of a species and the factors responsible for its origin and evolution) for rapid identification of

invading species; and pesticide application technology. Also develops biologically based controls and helps

monitor target pests of integrated pest management programs (such as ground, aerial, and satellite

monitoring of leafy spurge and other weed species).

Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service

Through its agriculture quarantine inspection and regulatory enforcement programs at 172 U.S. ports of

entry, conducts preclearance activities, risk analysis and permit decisions, treatment efforts, detection

surveys, and eradication efforts to prevent the introduction of foreign pests that would threaten U.S.

agricultural production and natural ecosystems. Foreign pests include insects, plant and animal diseases,

mollusks, mites, and invasive plants. Cooperates with federal and state agencies and nongovernmental

organizations to detect, contain, and eradicate infestations of quarantined significant foreign pests before

they become well established and spread.

Cooperative State

Research, Education, and

Extension Service

Funds integrated projects and competitively based research relevant to improving public understanding of

invasive species; funds research on cost-effective management, environmentally safe control of invasive

species using biological, chemical, cultural, and mechanical practices and supports invasive species

management to maximize effective and economical pest control and exclusion. Also provides linkages to

address invasive species problems with local, state, and regional stakeholders.

Economic Research

Service

Develops decision-making tools for comparing the consequences of invasive plant species with possible

control costs. Considers both direct and indirect human costs of ecosystem disruptions and costs and

potential adverse consequences of alternative weed treatments.

Farm Service Agency Requires all of its program participants to control weeds (including noxious weeds), insects, pests, and

other undesirable species on enrolled lands.
Appendix II

Federal Invasive Species Activities

Page 34 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Forest Service Manages 191 million acres of federal lands for many purposes, including protection from invasive weeds,

and is Agriculture’s lead agency for nuisance weed control. Conducts research on invasive plant species,

including ecological studies to support restoration of sites after treatment of exotic weeds and control of

invasive plants, such as kudzu in the southern United States and yellow starthistle, spotted knapweed, and

leafy spurge in Idaho. Seeks to control and mitigate the impact of invasive species, such as the Asian longhorned beetle, gypsy moth, hemlock woolly, and browntail moth. Conducts disease research, such as the

control of butternut canker and selection of trees that are genetically resistant to Dutch elm disease, pitch

canker, chestnut blight, and white pine blister rust. Works closely with state agencies, private landowners,

and tribal governments through its regulatory and enforcement programs to prevent and control invasive

species and provides funding and technical assistance through its state and private forestry programs.

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Provides technical assistance to cooperating landowners on managing invasive species that inhabit lands

used for agricultural production—has a significant program for range management and restoration, which

includes an invasive species control element. Maintains a database that includes extensive information on

invasive plant species and operates plant materials centers that promote the use of native species for soil

erosion control.

Department of Commerce Involved in all invasive species activities: prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring,

restoration, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships,

and cooperative activities.

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Funds research, education and outreach, and control activities primarily through the National Sea Grant

Program, with some activities funded through the National Ocean Service and National Marine Fisheries

Service. Efforts focus on marine systems and the Great Lakes. Research efforts include monitoring the

impacts of invasive species on coastal and other ecosystems, developing control and mitigation options,

and preventing new introductions by, among other things, developing new technologies for ballast water

management. Performs economic evaluations of the costs of aquatic invasive species and conducts control

programs to eradicate and prevent their spread. Has regulatory authority to prevent the introduction of

invasive species that may affect marine sanctuaries, such as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary;

endangered or threatened species; coastal areas; and essential fish habitats.

Department of Defense Involved in all invasive species activities: prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring,

restoration, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships,

and cooperative activities. Engages in management and control of invasive species: (1) prevents the entry

of invasive species in the United States, (2) controls invasive species on Defense installations, and (3)

restores Defense lands using native plants. Developed and implemented the Navy’s ballast water

management policy and set discharge standards for vessel ballast water to address the environmental

impact of invasive species in ballast water. Other efforts include partnerships to control brown tree snakes,

prevent the spread of invasive plants, and maintain a noxious and nuisance plant management information

system.

Army Corps of Engineers Supports aquatic plant control, which primarily involves invasive species in non-Corps waters. Spends

several million dollars annually on removal of aquatic growth, predominantly for invasive species, and

supports zebra mussel research efforts.

Environmental Protection

Agency

Involved in all invasive species activities: prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring,

restoration, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships,

and cooperative activities. Deals with invasive species in three general areas—(1) eliminating ballast water

as a pathway for plants, animals, or microbial species not native to the United States, (2) regulating

pesticides that may be used to control invasive species, and (3) conducting research on the ecological

impacts of invasive species.

Department of the Interior Involved in all invasive species activities: prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring,

restoration, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships,

and cooperative activities.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department and agency Activities
Appendix II

Federal Invasive Species Activities

Page 35 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Bureau of Indian Affairs Helps support the management of invasive species on Indian lands through exotic weed eradication and

other programs.

Bureau of Land

Management

Focuses primarily on controlling invasive plants on the 264 million acres it manages, primarily in western

states and Alaska. Initiated strategy to prevent and control the spread of noxious weeds on public lands by

using biological, chemical, and physical treatment for invasive plants. Responsible for protecting and

managing wild horses and burros that, although not native, have a legally protected status.

Bureau of Reclamation Focuses on invasive species infestation of water systems, including reservoirs, rivers, thousands of miles of

distribution canals, rights-of-way, wetlands, and recreational areas. Invasive species of concern include

zebra mussels, Chinese mitten crabs, hydrilla, water hyacinth, purple loosestrife, saltcedar and leafy

spurge. These species can obstruct water flow, hinder access for maintenance and recreation, cause

structural damage, and negatively affect water system operations, water quality, wildlife habitat and public

use.

Fish and Wildlife Service Protects and conserves fish and wildlife resources; controls invasive plants and animals, such as feral pigs,

melaleuca, salt cedar, purple loosestrife, in the 93-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System; works with

private landowners to implement on-the-ground restoration projects that eradicate and control and manage

invasive species; regulates imports of injurious wildlife; evaluates imported animals to determine injurious

status; conducts activities to prevent, control and monitor aquatic nuisance species such as zebra mussel,

Asian swamp eel, Chinese mitten crab, brown tree snake and others that threaten native species and the

aquatic ecosystems; and provides cost-share grants to implement approved state aquatic nuisance

species management plans.

Geological Survey Focuses on researching factors influencing the invasion by invasive species and the effects of invasive

species on ecosystem processes, native species, and landscape dynamics, especially on Department of

the Interior land; facilitates documentation, dissemination and integration of invasive species information;

focuses on small number of highly invasive species, with emphasis on the Great Lakes and eastern

waterways and wetlands, riparian ecosystems, and Hawaii, as well as invasive plants on western

rangelands. Also, manages the national Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database and several regional

databases (such as Hawaii, Colorado plateau, and northern prairie).

Minerals Management

Service

Routinely conducts ecological monitoring projects to measure potential or actual impacts of outer

continental shelf oil and gas development on marine, coastal, and human lives. Invasive species level

taxonomic identifications conducted during these monitoring efforts provide useful information for

documenting occurrences and geographic extensions of marine invasive species in near-shore and

offshore waters.

National Park Service About 190 of the 300 National Park Service units have identified exotic species as a significant resource

management concern in their management plans. When managing invasive species, relies on an

integrated pest management approach that permits the use of biological and other types of controls. Some

parks, such as Hawaii Volcanoes, Everglades, and Big Cypress, have programs to address specific

invasive species such as melaleuca, goats, pigs or invasive plants. In addition, a number of parks work

collaboratively with neighbors or other groups to manage invasive species.

Office of Insular Affairs Created a brown tree snake program supporting a number of operational, research, and education

activities in accordance with a long-term brown tree snake control plan.

National Science

Foundation

Involved in the following invasive species activities: research and development; and education, outreach,

partnerships, and cooperative activities. Funds basic and applied research on invasive species, including

their roles in population and ecological processes, their relationship to biological conservation activities,

and their role as a disturbance agent in the ecosystem.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department and agency Activities
Appendix II

Federal Invasive Species Activities

Page 36 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Source: GAO’s survey of 10 federal departments; Harmful Non-Native Species: Issues for Congress,

Congressional Research Service, Sept. 1999; and Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United

States, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-F-656, Sept. 1993.

Smithsonian Institution Involved in the following invasive species activities: prevention, detection, control (management),

monitoring, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships,

and cooperative activities. Research addresses the pattern, impact, and management of invasive species.

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center programs measure the pattern of transfer, invasion, and

impact of invasive species on coastal marine and estuarine systems. Conducts specific projects to test

methods to reduce the risk of species transfer in ship ballast water; documents the history of invasive

species invasions in the Chesapeake Bay. In cooperation with Coast Guard, established the National

Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse to measure the changing patterns of ballast water delivery,

manages vessels arriving in U.S. ports, and synthesizes national data on patterns and impacts of alien

species in coastal ecosystems.

Department of State Involved in the following invasive species activities: information management; and education, outreach,

partnerships, and cooperative activities. Engages in negotiations, international treaty activities, and

cooperative intergovernmental efforts to address invasive species issues—e.g., catalyzes formation of a

voluntary intergovernmental initiative to address the problem, negotiates in the International Maritime

Organization to develop a treaty to address the introduction of invasive species in ballast water, and works

with South Pacific countries to raise awareness of the need to control brown tree snakes. These

international efforts focus on safeguarding biodiversity, reducing negative ecological and economic impacts

from invasive species, and reconciling the need to identify and manage invasive species pathways with the

need to continue globalization and increase trade and travel.

Department of

Transportation

Involved in the following invasive species activities: prevention, research and development, information

management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities.

U.S. Coast Guard Responsible for developing and implementing a ballast water management program to minimize the

likelihood that invasive species can be transported to the United States in the ballast water of long-distance

ocean vessels.

Federal Highway

Administration

Focuses primarily on vegetation management, including developing guidelines for combating roadside

invasive species.

Department of the

Treasury

Involved in the following invasive species activities: prevention, detection, information management, and

education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities. The U.S. Customs Service has a major

operational role in preventing or restricting the entry of imported merchandise and its containers that could

potentially be or are infested with invasive species. Customs personnel inspect passengers, baggage, and

cargo at U.S. ports of entry to enforce or cooperate, as appropriate, in enforcing regulations/procedures of

other federal agencies. Customs selectively inspects incoming passengers, baggage, and cargo based on

risk management criteria, such as country-of-origin and other factors.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department and agency Activities
Page 37 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Appendix III

Seven States’ Invasive Species Activities ApendxiI

The seven states we surveyed conduct a variety of invasive species

activities through many of their departments and entities. Table 9 presents

the edited responses from the seven states. The table is followed by

descriptions of three states’ innovative invasive species programs.

Table 9: Seven States’ Invasive Species Activities

State and responsible

department or other entity Reported invasive species activities

California Involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, research and development,

information management, environmental compliance, planning, program supervision, and education,

outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities.

Department of Boating and

Waterways

Maintains open waterways in some areas through control of water hyacinths and Egeria densa (a plant

used in home aquariums—it forms dense mats that choke out native plants when introduced into

lakes).

Department of Food and

Agriculture

Conducts pest prevention programs that focus on species problematic to agriculture.

Department of Fish and Game Manages a variety of wildlife and game preserves (and vegetation in preserves), and controls

nondesirable vertebrates.

Department of Forestry and

Fire Protection

Assists landowners with forest pest problems.

Department of Transportation Conducts vegetation management of roadways, although this is not a discrete mission.

Department of Water Resources Focuses on water supply issues and controls Spartina (an aggressive, deep-rooted cordgrass that has

invaded open mud-flat estuaries and displaced native vegetation).

Department of Parks and

Recreation

Focuses on vegetation management of parks, although this is not a discrete mission.

State Lands Commission Manages ballast water management programs.

Florida Involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and

development, information management, field testing of new chemicals and treatments from companies,

and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities.

Department of Environmental

Protection

Maintains the largest invasive plant management program in the United States; manages invasive

plants throughout the state park system; and controls invasive plants on its managed lands.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission

Monitors invasive species, including Perna viridis (i.e., a green mussel that can restrict water flow in

pipes and increase drag on structures such as boat hulls). Monitors such invasive species by (1)

examining known or potential areas of infestation and (2) providing posters to power plants, marinas,

and tackle shops in known or potentially infested areas.

Water management districts Detects, controls, and monitors invasive species on district-owned lands; conducts restoration projects

to improve water quality and wildlife habitat; provides a potential source of matching funds for local

governments to complete water management projects; provides clearinghouse for documents and

information; maintains an Aquatic Wetland and Invasive Plant Information Retrieval System database

online; and retains an invasive plant control section that conducts the largest field application studies

using both biological and chemical methods.
Appendix III

Seven States’ Invasive Species Activities

Page 38 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Hawaii Involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and

development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative

activities.

Department of Agriculture Protects Hawaii’s agricultural industries, natural resources, and the public from the entry and

establishment of detrimental insects, weeds, and other pests; protects livestock and poultry industries

through the control and prevention of pests and diseases; and conducts animal disease surveillance

and epidemiology, laboratory diagnosis, rabies quarantine, and animal and bird importation inspection.

Department of Health Implements and enforces vector-control activities to minimize the dangers and annoyances caused by

mosquitoes, rats, and other vectors; supports investigations to suppress vector-borne diseases; and

develops control techniques to prevent the establishment of new vector and vector-borne diseases

from abroad.

Department of Land and

Natural Resources

Manages approximately 800,000 acres of state lands for mixed uses, including hunting, forestry,

recreation, and native species preservation. Ensures enforcement of relevant laws on departmentmanaged lands and on marine waters. Provides important participation in state- and community-based

efforts to control alien species through early detection, rapid response, and public education.

Department of Transportation Complies with all applicable state and federal regulations to ensure the protection of Hawaii’s

environmental and natural resources.

Idaho Involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and

development, information management, mapping/remote sensing, and education, outreach,

partnerships, and cooperative activities.

Department of Agriculture Designates a state noxious weed coordinator and determines what weeds are to be declared

“noxious;” establishes and supports cooperative weed management areas; establishes minimum

requirements and proficiency training for county weed superintendents; enters into agreements with

and coordinates and cooperates with federal agencies in planning and applying weed management

and control; ensures that county commissioners carry out the duties and powers ascribed to counties

in the Idaho Weed Law; and administers cost-share funds provided by the legislature for counties,

cooperative weed management areas, and other cooperators.

Department of Fish and Game Owns and manages about 118,000 acres, located primarily in several wildlife management areas.

Department of Lands Manages about 2,474,000 acres of state endowment lands.

Department of Parks and

Recreation

Manages over 38,000 acres of mostly scenic and high-quality recreation areas.

Department of Transportation Allocates around $3.5 million annually to vegetation management. Treats weeds along roads and

highways with herbicides.

University of Idaho Performs research and technology transfer directed at weeds and diseases of important Idaho crops;

provides diagnostic and weed identification services and research on remote sensing to locate and

map invasive species.

Maryland Involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and

development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative

activities.

Department of Agriculture Carries out noxious weed control program; plant pest/disease survey; nursery inspection; and

integrated pest management programs for crop pests, including the Mexican bean beetle, corn

earworm, and Colorado potato beetle. Also conducts survey program for pests of quarantine

significance; maintains integrated pest management of the gypsy moth; and detects and monitors

several other invasive forest pests, insects, and diseases.

(Continued From Previous Page)

State and responsible

department or other entity Reported invasive species activities
Appendix III

Seven States’ Invasive Species Activities

Page 39 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Source: GAO’s survey of seven states.

Innovative State Invasive

Species Programs

California, Florida, and Idaho described programs within their states that

used what they considered to be innovative approaches to invasive species

problems.

Department of Natural

Resources

Monitors and controls aquatic plants, such as hydrilla and water chestnut; nutria (a beaver-like rodent

that forages the root stalks of native wetland vegetation); phragmites (a perennial reed that grows in

and along wetlands and displaces species that provide food for wildlife); and mute swans.

Michigan Involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and

development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative

activities.

Department of Environmental

Quality

Conducts research and policy analysis, with an emphasis on prevention activities, and coordinates

statewide program relating to the unintentional introduction of nonnative, aquatic species. Works to

control zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, and curlyleaf pondweed.

Department of Natural

Resources

Works to manage sea lampreys in the Great Lakes. Performs control and education activities on gypsy

moths; monitors pine shoot beetles; monitors and provides education on beech scale (an insect that

contributes to beech bark disease), and Asian long-horned beetles.

Michigan State University Provides education on gypsy moths, pine shoot beetles, Japanese beetles, beech scale, and Asian

long-horned beetles.

New York Involved in detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and development,

information management, technology transfer, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative

activities.

Department of Agriculture and

Markets

Manages and controls all nonnative plants and insects.

Department of Environmental

Conservation

Surveys and monitors for aquatic species; controls sea lampreys; and manages purple loosestrife

programs.

Great Lakes Research

Consortium

In addition to research, conducts education/outreach programs and some detection and prevention

work.

Nature Conservancy/ Invasive

Plants Council

Monitors terrestrial invasive plant education, research, and control programs.

Sea Grant Performs education and outreach and funds research on aquatic nuisance species.

State museum Conducts education and outreach and original zebra mussel research.

(Continued From Previous Page)

State and responsible

department or other entity Reported invasive species activities
Appendix III

Seven States’ Invasive Species Activities

Page 40 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

California • The Regional Yellow Starthistle1 Control Project is a weed control

program that began as a community’s battle to preserve its quality of life

and property values. A program task force—made up of local

government representatives and volunteerswas established in 1996.

The program’s goals include (1) mapping infested areas throughout the

Tehachapi region, (2) exploring available integrated control options, and

(3) soliciting community support through an educational outreach

campaign. Since the program’s inception, volunteers have mapped the

yellow starthistle and implemented mechanical control of the weed in

selected areas, and the task force has implemented a landowner

assistance program that has provided low-cost, subsidized weed

treatments for over 200 sites.

• The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is the focus of restoration

and weed control programs that rely heavily on short- and long-term

volunteer efforts. The programs have different teams that carry out

different functions. For example, volunteers in the Invasive Plant Patrol

detect, map, and control new infestations of invasive plant species. The

Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National

Seashore recently received $601,000 from the National Park Service for

a joint 3-year Cape ivy (Delairea odoranta)2 control project. The

project’s objectives include containing and reducing the size of all

infestations in the parks, sharing knowledge with other resource

management agencies, and increasing public awareness and

involvement in controlling Cape ivy.

• The Ballast Water Management for Control of Non-Indigenous Species

Act, which took effect on January 1, 2000, specified responsibilities and

tasks to address nonindigenous aquatic species in California’s waters.

Under the act, the State Lands Commission was given responsibility for

ballast water inspection and monitoring. In the first 3 months after

establishing its program, the Commission succeeded in getting 67

percent of regulated ships to report to them using the U.S. Coast Guard

Ballast Report form, and program staff directly inspected the ballast

water of 25 percent of the ships. Educating the regulated vessel

1

The yellow starthistle is an annual herb that grows up to 3 feet—it infests over 9 million

acres of rangeland in the western United States.

2

Cape ivy, native to South Africa, is a twining, succulent climber and scrambler. It has the

ability to root at every leaf node and along the stem.
Appendix III

Seven States’ Invasive Species Activities

Page 41 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

community is also a large part of the Commission’s effort. In addition to

ballast water inspection, the act requires California’s Department of Fish

and Game to determine the location and extent of aquatic nuisance

species in California, the State Water Resources Control Board to

evaluate alternatives for managing ballast water, and the Board of

Equalization to collect inspection fees.

• California’s Department of Agriculture has run a Weed Detection and

Eradication Program for over 40 years in cooperation with county

agriculture departments. Through their efforts, 14 weed species have

been eradicated statewide and several others are close to being

eradicated. The program employs 8 to 10 biologists, located in districts

across the state, who maintain contact with county and other biologists

knowledgeable about the lands, weeds, and botany of the district. The

program biologists travel throughout their districts looking for target

weed species—their goal is to find an infestation when it is small and

easily controlled. These early finds often result in the complete

destruction of weed populations with a single visit. Biologists generally

visit other, more established infestations at least twice each year,

applying treatments whenever possible.

Florida • Since 1997, the state’s upland plant program has completed or initiated

over 150 invasive plant removal projects on federal, state, and local

conservation lands. To provide an infrastructure for planning and

implementing plant-related invasive species activities, Florida

established 11 regional invasive upland plant working groupsmade up

of local, city, county, state, and federal land managerscovering all of

Florida. These groups identify and set priorities for invasive plant

management needs within their areas and can choose from several

control operation methods, including regional contractors, independent

subcontractors, or in-house staff. In addition, the groups can obtain

funding from Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection’s

Bureau of Invasive Plant Management Upland Program.

Idaho • The state implemented a statewide, systematic, coordinated planning

process for managing noxious weeds. It convened a Governor’s Idaho

Weed Summit, which set the framework for its strategic plan. The plan

proposed several actions to be carried out at all levels and by all

agencies and organizations that have a stake in managing invasive

species. In August 1999, Idaho established a Statewide Weed
Appendix III

Seven States’ Invasive Species Activities

Page 42 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Coordinating Committee to implement the plan. As an indication of the

importance placed on the plan, Idaho’s governor recently participated in

a ceremony at which participants—including representatives from state

and federal agencies, a university, an Indian tribe, and otherssigned a

Memorandum of Understanding regarding the plan.

• The state has created 21 geographically oriented or watershed-based

cooperative weed management areas, which are locally led and include

all partners in the designated area. The areas cover about 75 percent of

the state and include private, state, and federal lands. Each area will

have a steering committee to oversee the development of an integrated

weed management plan for its area. To encourage this effort, Idaho’s

Department of Agriculture offers cost-share grants to supplement local

resources in implementing the local plans. To qualify for cost-share

grants, area steering committees are required to develop an annual

operating plan and an annual accomplishment report.
Page 43 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Appendix IV

Federal and State Comments on Changes

Needed in Executive Order 13112 ApendxiIV

In response to GAO’s survey, officials in four federal departments and four

states provided their views on changes they believed were needed in

Executive Order 13112 should the Congress enact legislation incorporating

the order’s language. Many comments on the executive order focused on

concerns regarding definitions and the roles of various entities.

Officials from two departments and one state raised concerns over

definitions in the executive order. They indicated that the definitions

should be (1) expanded to facilitate consistent identification of invasive

species and (2) clarified to exclude domesticated animals—such as cattle,

sheep, and horses—and domesticated grasses. In addition, one official

indicated that the terms “control” and “management” should be defined

differently.

Officials from three departments and two states reported concerns

regarding the roles of various entities with regard to invasive species. For

example, several officials stated that the respective roles of federal, state,

and local government need to be more clearly defined. One official said

that a national center is needed to (1) help bridge environmental and

agricultural interests and (2) enhance information exchange among

affected federal, state, and local governments and the private sector.

Another official stated that a network of expert centers should be

established and authorized to provide information, research, and technical

assistance. This official added that the Invasive Species Council and the

Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic

Weeds should be established through legislation.
Page 44 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Appendix V

Responses to GAO’s Survey of 10 Federal

Departments On Budget Obligations for

Invasive Species ApendxiV
Appendix V

Responses to GAO’s Survey of 10 Federal

Departments On Budget Obligations for

Invasive Species

Page 45 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix V

Responses to GAO’s Survey of 10 Federal

Departments On Budget Obligations for

Invasive Species

Page 46 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix V

Responses to GAO’s Survey of 10 Federal

Departments On Budget Obligations for

Invasive Species

Page 47 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix V

Responses to GAO’s Survey of 10 Federal

Departments On Budget Obligations for

Invasive Species

Page 48 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix V

Responses to GAO’s Survey of 10 Federal

Departments On Budget Obligations for

Invasive Species

Page 49 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix V

Responses to GAO’s Survey of 10 Federal

Departments On Budget Obligations for

Invasive Species

Page 50 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix V

Responses to GAO’s Survey of 10 Federal

Departments On Budget Obligations for

Invasive Species

Page 51 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Page 52 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities

Page 53 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities

Page 54 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities

Page 55 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities

Page 56 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities

Page 57 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities

Page 58 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities

Page 59 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities

Page 60 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities

Page 61 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Appendix VI

Responses to GAO’s Survey of Seven States

On Expenditures for Invasive Species

Activities

Page 62 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities
Page 63 GAO/RCED-00-219 Funding for Invasive Species Activities

Appendix VII

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contacts Lawrence J. Dyckman, (202) 512-5138

Jerilynn B. Hoy, (202) 512-5138

Staff

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Beverly Peterson, Diana Cheng,

Jacqueline A. Cook, Judith Kordahl, and Luann Moy made key

contributions to this report.

(150179) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

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

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00