AQUATIC INVASIVE 

SPECIES 

Additional Steps 

Could Help Measure 

Federal Progress in 

Achieving Strategic 

Goals

Report to Congressional Committees 

November 2015

GAO-16-49

United States Government Accountability Office
 

United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-49, a report to 

congressional committees

November 2015

AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES 

Additional Steps Could Help Measure Federal

Progress in Achieving Strategic Goals

Why GAO Did This Study

Aquatic invasive species—harmful, 

nonnative plants, animals, and 

microorganisms living in aquatic 

habitats—damage ecosystems or 

threaten commercial, agricultural, and 

recreational activities. The 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

Prevention and Control Act of 1990 

created the Task Force and required it

to develop an aquatic nuisance (which 

GAO refers to as invasive) species 

program. The Water Resources 

Reform and Development Act of 2014 

includes a provision that GAO assess

federal costs of, and spending on, 

aquatic invasive species. 

This report examines (1) how much 

Task Force member agencies 

expended addressing aquatic invasive 

species for fiscal years 2012-2014; (2) 

activities conducted by Task Force 

member agencies and challenges in 

addressing aquatic invasive species; 

and (3) the extent to which the Task 

Force has measured progress in 

achieving the goals of its 2013-2017 

strategic plan. GAO sent a 

questionnaire to member agencies to 

obtain expenditures for fiscal years 

2012-2014; interviewed member

agency officials; and analyzed laws

and strategic planning documents. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Task Force 

develop a mechanism to measure 

progress toward its strategic goals and 

help meet certain statutory

requirements. Most member agencies 

generally concurred or had no 

comments, but NOAA disagreed. GAO 

believes its recommendation is valid as 

discussed further in this report. 

What GAO Found

The 13 federal member agencies of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 

(Task Force) estimated expending an average of about $260 million annually for

fiscal years 2012 through 2014 to address aquatic invasive species. However, 

several member agencies identified in their questionnaire responses challenges 

in developing their estimates. For example, some member agencies reported that

their activities to address aquatic invasive species were often integrated into 

larger projects, making it difficult to isolate the portion of expenditures specific to 

aquatic invasive species out of total expenditures for the projects. As a result, 

expenditure information reported by GAO generally reflects member agencies’

best estimates of total expenditures, rather than actual expenditures. 

Task Force member agencies conducted a wide range of activities and identified 

several challenges in addressing aquatic invasive species. Member agencies 

reported conducting activities across several activity categories, including taking 

actions to prevent introductions, control the spread of existing invaders, and 

research ecological impacts of aquatic invasive species. For instance, most 

conducted prevention activities—such as constructing a series of electric barriers 

to prevent the entry of Asian Carp from the Mississippi River Basin into the Great 

Lakes—recognizing that prevention activities may be the most cost-effective 

method of addressing aquatic invasive species. Additionally, officials from 

several member agencies expressed concern that their activities, though 

numerous, may not be adequate relative to the growing magnitude and impacts 

of aquatic invasive species amid decreasing or constrained agency resources. 

The Task Force—which is co-chaired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—developed a 2013-

2017 strategic plan to guide its member agencies but has not taken key steps to 

measure progress in achieving the goals laid out in its strategic plan. As called 

for in its strategic plan, the Task Force in 2012 planned to develop an operational 

plan to track and measure aquatic invasive species activities and progress. 

However, the Task Force did not develop an operational plan because of 

constrained funding and limited resources, according to Task Force 

representatives. The Task Force also did not meet several of the 1990 Act’s 

requirements including describing its members’ roles and activities and reporting 

annually to Congress on the program’s progress. The representatives agreed 

that a mechanism to track activities and measure progress is important and said 

they plan to discuss the possibility of doing so at their November 2015 meeting. 

Task Force representatives, however, had not established a time frame or 

specifics for their approach. Developing and regularly using a tracking 

mechanism could help the Task Force measure progress in achieving its 

strategic goals, as well as help the Task Force meet the 1990 Act’s requirements 

to describe its members’ roles and specific activities and to report annually to 

Congress on the program’s progress. 

View GAO-16-49. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841

or fennella@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Letter 1

Background 7

Task Force Member Agencies Estimated Expending an Average 

of About $260 Million Annually to Address Aquatic Invasive 

Species in Fiscal Years 2012 through 2014 15

Task Force Member Agencies Conducted a Wide Range of 

Activities and Identified Several Challenges in Addressing 

Aquatic Invasive Species 19

The Task Force Has Not Taken Key Steps to Measure Progress in 

Achieving Its Strategic Goals 30

Conclusions 35

Recommendation for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 44

Appendix II Map of the United States with Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species 

and Their Reported Presence by State, and Common Pathways 

(Corresponds to fig. 1) 49

Appendix III Aquatic Invasive Species Activities Conducted by Task Force Member 

Agencies 55

Appendix IV Copy of GAO Questionnaire Disseminated to Task Force Member 

Agencies 57

Appendix V Comments from the Department of the Interior 74

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Commerce 76

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 81

Tables

Table 1: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Member Agencies’ 

Key Roles and Responsibilities 11

Table 2: Categories of Activities to Address Invasive Species 12

Table 3: Estimated Annual Expenditures to Address Aquatic 

Invasive Species, by Task Force Member Agency, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2014 16

Table 4: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force’s 2013-2017 

Strategic Goals and Examples of Action Items 31

Table 5: Description of Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species 51

Table 6: Examples of Common Pathways 54

Table 7: Aquatic Invasive Species Activities Conducted by Task 

Force Member Agencies, by Activity Category, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2014 55

Figures

Figure 1: Interactive Map of the United States with Examples of 

Aquatic Invasive Species and Their Reported Presence 

by State, and Common Pathways 8

Figure 2: Invasive Species Invasion Curve 14

Figure 3: Map of the United States with Examples of Aquatic 

Invasive Species and Their Reported Presence by State, 

and Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1) 50
Page iii GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Abbreviations

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Task Force Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

The 1990 Act The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and

 Control Act of 1990

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 30, 2015

Congressional Committees

Invasive species1

—harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and 

microorganisms—are pervasive throughout the United States and cause 

major economic losses to segments of the economy and significant 

environmental damage each year to crops, rangelands, waterways, 

fisheries, and ecosystems.2 Invasive species, called a national crisis by 

the Department of the Interior,3 number in the thousands and are 

expected to increase, with about 250 new species having invaded the 

United States since 2011 and more than 750 invasive species expanding 

their range since that time.

4 As we have found, the impact of invasive 

species in the United States is widespread, and their consequences for 

the economy and the environment are profound, although this can be 

difficult to measure.5 A widely cited academic study from 2005—the most 

recent comprehensive study of its kind—estimated that the environmental 

 

1

For the purposes of this report, we define an invasive species as a nonnative species—to 

include all taxa of animals, plants, and microorganisms—the introduction of which does or 

is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

2

GAO, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively 

Manage the Problem, GAO-03-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 2002); Invasive Species: 

Cooperation and Coordination Are Important for Effective Management of Invasive 

Weeds, GAO-05-185 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2005); CRS, Invasive Non-Native 

Species: Background and Issues for Congress (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 25, 2002); and 

the Department of the Interior’s National Invasive Species Council Five-Year Review of 

Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species (Washington, D.C.: 2005).

3

The Department of the Interior’s 2014 Invasive Species Action Plan states that invasive 

species pose one of the greatest threats to the ecological, economic, and cultural integrity 

of U.S landscapes. The plan also states that the number and impacts of aquatic invasive 

species are expected to escalate in the coming decade due to, among other things, the 

global movement of people and materials from increased tourism and trade that will 

further disperse species around the world. 

4

EDDMapS. August 2015. The University of Georgia, Center for Invasive Species and 

Ecosystem Health. Available online at www.eddmaps.org/tools/query. 

5

GAO-05-185; GAO-03-1; and GAO, Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State 

Funding to Address Harmful, Nonnative Species, GAO/RCED-00-219 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 24, 2000).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

impacts and economic costs associated with invasive species amount to 

almost $120 billion per year.6

Addressing aquatic invasive species is a complex, interdisciplinary issue 

with the potential to affect many sectors and levels of government 

operations. Multiple federal agencies, often in coordination with state and 

local governments, industry, international parties, and nongovernmental 

agencies, work to prevent, manage, eradicate, and raise awareness 

about invasive species. The National Invasive Species Council, which 

was established by an Executive Order in 1999 to, among other things, 

coordinate federal agencies’ activities concerning invasive species,7

reported that estimated expenditures for invasive species activities by 

more than 20 federal agencies were over $2 billion dollars in fiscal year 

2014.8 This estimate encompasses expenditures for all invasive species,

however, and does not separate out expenditures specific to aquatic 

invasive species—species found in marine, freshwater, estuarine, and 

riparian areas, such as fish, mollusks, snakes, plants, and pathogens or 

parasites of aquatic animals and plants. Aquatic invasive species, which 

are one type of invasive species, harm native ecosystems or commercial, 

agricultural, or recreational activities dependent on these ecosystems, 

such as by threatening commercially or recreationally important fish 

species, according to the National Invasive Species Council. Officials 

from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the 

Department of the Interior have likened aquatic invasive species to an oil 

spill that will continue to spread unless promptly and completely 

 

6

D. Pimentel, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison, “Update on the environmental and economic 

costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States,” Ecological Economics

52 (2005). This study is the most recent comprehensive assessment of the costs 

associated with invasive species on a national scale available, according to officials from 

several federal agencies that work on invasive species issues. 

7

64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (Feb. 8, 1999). National Invasive Species Council, Invasive Species 

Interagency Crosscut Budget (May 27, 2015). In 1999, Executive Order 13112 established 

the National Invasive Species Council, to, among other things, provide national leadership 

regarding invasive species and coordination of federal agency activities concerning 

invasive species relying to the extent feasible and appropriate on existing organizations. 

As part of this effort, the National Invasive Species Council has been identifying funding 

sources and spending by federal agencies on invasive species activities through an 

annual “crosscut” budget summary. 

8

Expenditures are the actual spending of money; an outlay. GAO, A Glossary of Terms 

Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: September 

2005). 
Page 3 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

contained—once they have arrived and become established, aquatic 

invasive species are difficult to eradicate.9

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 

1990, as amended (the 1990 Act), was enacted to, among other things, 

prevent the unintentional introduction and dispersal of nonindigenous 

(which we refer to as nonnative) species into waters of the United States 

through the management of ballast water (water in a ship’s holding tank 

used for stability and safety that may be taken on in one location and 

discharged in another) and other requirements, and to understand and 

minimize economic and ecological impacts of nonnative aquatic nuisance 

species that become established in the United States.10 The 1990 Act 

notes that, if preventive management measures are not taken nationwide 

to prevent and control unintentionally introduced nonnative aquatic 

species in a timely manner, further introductions and infestations of 

destructive species may occur. The 1990 Act created the Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Task Force (Task Force), which coordinates 

governmental efforts dealing with aquatic invasive species in the United 

States through regional panels, special committees, and work groups. 

The Task Force consists of 13 federal member agencies along with state, 

regional, and nongovernmental organizations.11 Each of the Task Force’s 

 

9

As we have previously found, a fundamental concept to invasiveness is that invasive 

species have been introduced into an environment in which they did not evolve, and they 

usually have no natural predators to limit their spread. GAO-03-1. 

1016 U.S.C. § 4701(b). 

1116 U.S.C. § 4721(b).The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act 

of 1990, as amended, designated the following as Task Force members: the Director of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commandant 

of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Secretary 

of Agriculture, and the head of any other federal agency the Task Force chairpersons 

deem appropriate. As of July 2015, the Task Force was co-chaired by representatives 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and membership consists of the following 13 federal agencies and 

departments: (1) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, (2) U.S. Forest Service, (3) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (4) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (5) 

U.S. Coast Guard, (6) Bureau of Land Management, (7) Bureau of Reclamation, (8) 

National Park Service, (9) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (10) U.S. Geological Survey, 

(11) Department of State, (12) Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration, 

and (13) Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the act, as amended, authorized 

the chairpersons to invite representatives from state agencies and other governmental 

entities to participate as ex-officio members of the Task Force. As of 2015, the Task Force 

included 13 state, regional, and nongovernment entities as ex-officio members, along with 

six regional panels.
Page 4 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

federal member agencies has a different set of responsibilities related to 

aquatic invasive species.12

The 1990 Act requires, among other things, the Task Force to develop 

and implement an aquatic invasive species program for waters of the 

United States. Specifically, the 1990 Act requires the Task Force to 

develop a program that identifies the goals, priorities, and approaches for 

aquatic invasive species prevention, monitoring, control, education, and 

research to be conducted or funded by the federal government. The act 

requires the Task Force to (1) describe the specific prevention, 

monitoring, control, education, and research activities to be conducted by 

each Task Force member; (2) describe the role of each Task Force 

member in implementing the elements of the program; and (3) include 

recommendations for funding to implement elements of the program.13

The act also requires that the Task Force report to Congress annually on 

the progress of its program.14 In 1994, The Task Force developed a 

program overview that established the core elements of its aquatic 

invasive species program and served to guide the work of the Task 

Force. The Task Force subsequently developed a series of strategic 

plans starting in the early 2000s to further guide its membership—the 

federal, state, regional, and nongovernmental organizations that conduct 

aquatic invasive species activities—in implementing the aquatic invasive 

species program. In 2012, the Task Force developed its most recent 

strategic plan, covering 2013 through 2017, which identified eight goals 

for the program.

The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 includes a 

provision in section 1039(a)(2) that GAO conduct an assessment of the 

federal costs of, and spending on, aquatic invasive species.15 We briefed 

 

12The Task Force uses the terms “aquatic invasive species” and “aquatic nuisance 

species” interchangeably. The 1990 Act uses the term “aquatic nuisance species.” For 

purposes of this review, we use the term “aquatic invasive species.” According to the 

definition we used in our questionnaire, aquatic species include all animals and plants as 

well as pathogens or parasites of aquatic animals and plants totally dependent on aquatic 

ecosystems for at least a portion of their life cycle. Bacteria, viruses, parasites and other 

pathogens of humans are excluded. 

1316 U.S.C. § 4722(b). 

1416 U.S.C. § 4722(k)(2). 

15Pub. L. No. 113-121, § 1039(a)(2), 128 Stat. 1193, 1237 (2014). 
Page 5 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

your offices on our preliminary results on June 3, 2015. This report 

transmits our final results related to this review. This report examines (1) 

how much Task Force member agencies expended addressing aquatic 

invasive species for fiscal years 2012 through 2014; (2) activities 

conducted by Task Force member agencies and challenges in addressing 

aquatic invasive species; and (3) the extent to which the Task Force has 

measured progress in achieving the goals of its 2013-2017 strategic plan.

For all three objectives, we reviewed aquatic invasive species-related 

laws, regulations, and academic studies. To determine how much Task 

Force member agencies expended addressing aquatic invasive species 

and to obtain information on activities conducted, we conducted 

interviews with, and obtained documentation from the Task Force and its 

13 federal member departments and agencies (member agencies) 

regarding any expenditure information they maintain related to aquatic 

invasive species. We also interviewed staff from the National Invasive 

Species Council to learn about their efforts to collect information on 

federal expenditures for invasive species activities. We then developed 

and disseminated a questionnaire to the 13 Task Force member agencies 

to obtain each member agencies’ estimated annual expenditures to 

address aquatic invasive species for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 (the 

most recent years for which reliable data were available) and examples of 

these activities.16 The expenditures reflect the agencies’ best estimates of 

how much they spent on aquatic invasive species activities during these 

years. Based on our assessment of the estimated annual expenditures 

reported by Task Force member agencies, we found the estimates for 

fiscal years 2012 through 2014 were sufficiently reliable for purposes of 

this report—to provide general estimates of total annual expenditures by 

these agencies on activities related to aquatic invasive species.

To further describe activities conducted by Task Force member agencies 

and any challenges in addressing aquatic invasive species, we built on 

the information gathered through our questionnaire and conducted a 

series of interviews with officials from the 13 member agencies; the 

 

16We also requested that Task Force member agencies provide us with details about their 

aquatic invasive species related expenditures, such as expenditures by categories of 

activities and specific aquatic invasive species of concern. The agencies varied in the 

level of detail they were able to provide to us. Because of the incompleteness and 

inconsistency of the data reported across the Task Force member agencies, we did not 

include this information in our report. 
Page 6 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

federal ex-officio member of the Task Force, the Smithsonian 

Environmental Research Center; and each of the Task Force’s six 

regional panels. Through these interviews, we collected information and 

documentation on the agencies’ aquatic invasive species activities and 

any challenges they face in addressing aquatic invasive species. Many of 

the activities reported by agencies were ongoing or span multiple fiscal 

years, and thus, the information we collected often highlights, but is not 

limited to, fiscal years 2012 through 2014. We also conducted site visits in 

Southern Florida, Northern California, and Western Washington to 

observe activities and interview local federal officials at the sites. We 

selected these locations based on the number and variety of aquatic 

invasive species present and federal agencies involved, as well as the 

types of activities conducted in those locations.

To determine the extent to which the Task Force has measured progress 

in achieving the goals of its 2013-2017 strategic plan, we conducted 

interviews with and obtained documentation from Task Force 

representatives, officials from the 13 Task Force member agencies, and 

officials representing the six regional panels. We reviewed the Task 

Force’s 2013-2017 strategic plan and other documentation related to its 

strategic plan. We then compared this information to program 

requirements identified in the 1990 Act, our previous reports on leading 

practices provided by the Government Performance and Results 

Modernization Act of 2010, and our executive guide on strategic 

planning,17 as appropriate. Appendix I presents a more detailed 

description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2014 to November 

2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

17GAO/GGD-96-118. 
Page 7 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Aquatic invasive species can be found in all U.S. states and territories. 

They can enter and travel in aquatic habitats by several common 

pathways, including through the discharge of ships’ ballast water; hull 

fouling, such as barnacle growth, on commercial vessels and recreational 

boats; and accidental or intentional release of organisms into aquatic 

habitats through aquaculture, bait, aquaria (fish tanks), or the pet trade. 

Once established in a particular location, an aquatic invasive species can 

spread to other locations and ecosystems. Figure 1 is an interactive map 

of the United States with some examples of aquatic invasive species and 

their known locations (i.e., reported presence of a species) as well as 

common pathways of invasion—these examples do not represent all 

types of aquatic invasive species or pathways, but rather serve as 

illustrative examples (see app. II for a printable version). Scientists and 

officials from several federal agencies said that the presence and impacts 

of aquatic invasive species are, and are likely to continue, growing, such 

as from the warming of ocean waters and the opening of shipping 

channels through the Arctic, allowing new species to potentially thrive in 

habitats previously too cold or inaccessible.

Background
Figure 1: Interactive Map of the United States with Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and Their 

Reported Presence by State, and Common Pathways

Page 8 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Instructions: To view species descriptions hover on the numbered photos. To view pathways descriptions click on the icons 

 at the right of the page. To print a version containing text, see appendix II.

Interactive Graphic

Sources: USGS; NOAA; USFWS; EPA; USDA; Hawaii Invasive Species Council; Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database; PLANTS Database; Global Invasive Species Database; GAO. | GAO-16-49
Page 9 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Note: Species and pathways depicted in this interactive map are examples only and do not represent 

all aquatic invasive species or pathways. Species distributions, or “spread,” in these maps are by 

state and represent the reported presence (not establishment) of a species in at least one, but not 

necessarily all, bodies of water in the state. Species distributions are based on the known 

distributions of each species, as of July 2015, according to the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Plants Database. 

The Task Force, created by the 1990 Act, is co-chaired by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA. FWS provides funding for the 

administration of the Task Force, including conducting annual meetings, 

publishing Federal Register notices, and supporting an Executive 

Secretary and other FWS staff that work as regional coordinators.18 To 

implement its aquatic invasive species program, the Task Force relies on 

its 13 member agencies—each of which has a different set of 

responsibilities related to aquatic invasive species, based on their overall 

mission and areas of programmatic responsibility (see table 1). These 

member agencies conduct aquatic invasive species activities and commit 

resources to achieve the goals of the aquatic invasive species program.19

According to the Task Force’s 1994 program overview, implementation of 

the program is a cooperative effort that will build on and fill gaps in 

existing activities and programs, and individual agencies will implement 

the program in line with their specific authorities, priorities, expertise, and 

funding. In addition, the Task Force is advised by six regional panels—

consisting of representatives of state, tribal, and nongovernmental 

organizations, commercial interests, and neighboring countries—that help 

 

18According to Task Force representatives and FWS officials, in fiscal year 2014, about 

$260,000 in funding was provided through the FWS’ Branch of Aquatic Invasive Species 

program budget to support administration of the Task Force. 

19Several agencies have included addressing invasive species (or aquatic invasive 

species in particular) as part of their strategic planning efforts that guide agency activities 

and resource expenditures. Specifically, the Department of the Interior, with five member 

agencies on the Task Force, includes addressing invasive species as a stated goal as part 

of its departmentwide goals contained in its 2014-2018 strategic plan. Similarly, in its 

2015-2020 strategic plan, the U.S. Forest Service includes addressing invasive species as 

part of its goal to sustain the nation’s forests and grasslands. In addition, in September 

2015, FWS’s Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program released its 2016-2020 strategic 

plan in which managing aquatic invasive species is identified as one of seven goals. This 

plan described specific challenges related to aquatic invasive species that program staff 

plan to conduct over the 5-year period to accomplish the plan’s goals.
Page 10 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

identify regional priorities and coordinate regional activities.20 Some 

funding is provided to each regional panel as well as to state 

governments and other entities to support implementation of species- or 

region-specific aquatic invasive species management plans and other 

activities.21 Together, these federal, state, and nonfederal agencies and 

organizations work to prevent and control aquatic invasive species and 

implement the 1990 Act.

 

20Each of the six regional panels meets at least once a year to share information and 

coordinate activities, among other things, and each panel is responsible for reporting back 

to the Task Force on its progress in implementing aquatic invasive species activities and 

to provide recommendations. The 1990 Act directed the Task Force to establish two of the 

six regional panels and to encourage development of additional regional panels. 

21According to Task Force representatives and FWS officials, in fiscal year 2014 FWS 

provided over $3 million in funding, including approximately $1 million to support 

implementation of 40 state and interstate aquatic nuisance species plans with Task Force 

approved management plans; $240,000 to six regional panels; $1 million for the QuaggaZebra Mussel Action Plan; $300,000 for the National Asian Carp Management and Control 

Plan; and $700,000 for expenditures on other national species management and control 

plans. 
Page 11 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Table 1: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Member Agencies’ Key Roles and Responsibilities

Department or 

agency Component agency Key roles and responsibilities for aquatic invasive species

Department of 

Agriculture 

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service 

Manage the Federal Noxious Weed Lista and inspect imports for prohibited aquatic 

plants. Control and manage aquatic animals and animal pathogens with significant 

impact on commercial aquaculture. 

U.S. Forest Service Control and prevent aquatic invasive species on national forest land and participate in 

prevention efforts through educational outreach. 

Department of 

Commerce 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

Co-chair the Task Force. Responsible for prevention, monitoring, control, education, 

and research to prevent introductions and spread of aquatic invasive species in 

aquatic habitats such as National Marine Sanctuaries. 

Department of 

Defense 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 

Control and manage the spread of aquatic invasive species on or around the 

facilities, ports, harbors, and other navigable waterways it manages. Support 

research programs on aquatic invasive species. 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

U.S. Coast Guard Regulate biofouling (the accumulation of organisms on a vessel’s exterior surfaces) 

and ballast water to help ensure aquatic invasive species are not discharged into 

waters of the United States. 

Department of the 

Interior

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Prevent and control the impacts of aquatic invasive plants and animals on fish and 

wildlife habitat throughout the public lands it manages. 

Bureau of 

Reclamation 

Manage programs to control aquatic invasive species in water systems it manages, 

including reservoirs, rivers, and distribution canals. 

National Park Service Manage and control aquatic invasive species established in national parks and 

prevent the introduction of new species in national parks. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Co-chair the Task Force. Manage multiple programs addressing prevention, 

management, and control of aquatic invasive species. Enforce the Lacey Act,b

including its prohibitions on the importation and interstate transport of injurious wildlife 

(which includes certain aquatic invasive species). 

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

Conduct research and provide scientific information on aquatic invasive species to 

support the efforts of federal agencies and other partners. 

Department of State Fund the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and other agencies’ efforts to address 

aquatic invasive species and coordinate with international parties. 

Department of 

Transportation 

Maritime 

Administration 

Research ballast water and hull fouling issues and participate in ship hull cleaning 

efforts for ship disposal. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Regulate discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels, such as 

ballast water, under Sec. 402 of the Clean Water Act. Chair the Great Lakes 

Interagency Task Force overseeing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which 

includes efforts to address aquatic invasive species. 

Sources: Draft, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 2014 Report to Congress (information); GAO (analysis). | GAO-16-49

Note: This list of agency roles and responsibilities for aquatic invasive species is not comprehensive; 

it is intended to illustrate key roles and responsibilities of each agency as they relate to aquatic 

invasive species.

a

The Plant Protection Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, who has delegated this authority to 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to publish, by regulation, a list of noxious weeds and 

to prohibit or restrict their importation, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce if necessary 

to prevent the introduction into the United States or the dissemination of a noxious weed within the 

United States (7 U.S.C. § 7712). Noxious weeds are any plant or plant product that can directly or 

indirectly injure or cause damage to crops, livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, 

irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment.
Page 12 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

b

Among other things, the Lacey Act, as amended, prohibits the importation into the United States and 

interstate transport of certain animals, including aquatic invasive species listed as injurious wildlife.

Activities to address aquatic invasive species can be categorized using 

the seven general activity categories developed by the National Invasive 

Species Council. These categories reflect common activities agencies 

conduct along the continuum of an invasion of a species, from preventing 

the arrival or spread of an invading species to controlling or eradicating 

that species from the ecosystem. Table 2 describes each activity 

category.

Table 2: Categories of Activities to Address Invasive Species

Activity category Definition

Prevention Actions taken to prevent the entry, establishment, dispersal, and dissemination of invasive 

species. 

Early detection and rapid response Actions taken to detect incipient invasions and assess the current and potential impact of 

invasions; to eradicate, contain, or control a potentially invasive nonnative species 

introduced into an ecosystem while the infestation of that ecosystem is still localized, and 

to eradicate or contain invasive species populations while they are still localized. 

Control and management Actions taken to lessen and manage the impact of invasive species within their 

established ranges and limit their spread.

Restoration Actions taken to assist the recovery and reestablishment of plant and animal communities 

that have been overwhelmed by invasive species. 

Research Actions taken to identify, evaluate, control, and understand invasive species and their 

interactions with the biotic (i.e., living things that shape an ecosystem) and abiotic (i.e., not 

derived from living organisms) elements of the environment.

Education and public awareness Actions taken to maintain and increase public awareness of invasive species and related 

programs and to promote public activities that reduce the spread and impact of invasive 

species. 

Leadership and international cooperation Actions taken to provide leadership, oversight, and coordination to maintain and enhance 

the capabilities to prevent, control, manage, and understand invasive species and invasion 

pathways with relevant state, local and international partners, and provide for public input 

and participation.

Sources: The National Invasive Species Council Invasive Species Interagency Crosscut Budget Summary (2014); GAO questionnaire of 13 Task Force member agencies. | GAO-16-49

Note: These activity categories apply to all invasive species, including both aquatic and terrestrial 

species.

Preventing the introduction of aquatic invasive species into ecosystems is 

generally the most effective means of avoiding their establishment and 

spread, according to numerous academic reports, as well as the Task 
Page 13 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Force and several of its member agencies.22 According to a 2006 study, 

the difficulties and expense of reversing biological invasions means 

investment in prevention is likely to be the most successful and costeffective response to biological invasions.23 Further, eradication (the 

elimination of an invading species from the ecosystem) and control 

(limiting an invasive species to a specific ecosystem) becomes 

increasingly difficult and costly as a species becomes established and 

spreads, as shown in figure 2.24

 

22David M. Lodge, et al., “Biological Invasions: Recommendations for U.S. Policy and 

Management” in Ecological Society of America, 16(6) (Washington, D.C., 2006); Brian 

Leung et al., “An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of 

invasive species” in The Royal Society, DOI 10.1098/rspb.2002.2179; and David Finnoff 

et al., “Take a risk: Preferring prevention over control of biological invaders,” Ecological 

Economics 62 (2007) 216-222; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, 

Oceans, and Watersheds, “Overview of EPA Authorities for Natural Resource Managers 

Developing Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response and Management Plans” 

(Washington, D.C.: December 2005).

23David M. Lodge, et al., “Biological Invasions: Recommendations for U.S. Policy and 

Management” in Ecological Society of America, 16(6) (Washington, D.C., 2006). 

24See also G.M. Ruiz and J. T. Carlton, Invasive Species: Vectors and Management 

Strategies, chapter 5, 2nd ed. (2003); and Daniel Simberloff, “How Much Information on 

Population Biology Is Needed to Manage Introduced Species?,” Conservation Biology 17, 

no. 1 (February 2003). “The most effective way to deal with invasive species, short of 

keeping them out, is to discover them early and attempt to eradicate or at least contain 

them before they spread.” 
Page 14 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Figure 2: Invasive Species Invasion Curve
Page 15 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Task Force member agencies estimated expending an average of about 

$260 million annually for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 to address 

aquatic invasive species. Several of the member agencies identified 

challenges and limitations associated with the expenditure information 

they provided in response to our questionnaire. As a result, the 

information reported by Task Force member agencies on annual 

expenditures through our questionnaire generally reflects the agencies’ 

best estimates, rather than actual expenditures. Table 3 provides the 

estimated annual expenditures for each Task Force member agency 

during fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

Task Force Member 

Agencies Estimated 

Expending an 

Average of About 

$260 Million Annually 

to Address Aquatic 

Invasive Species in 

Fiscal Years 2012 

through 2014
Page 16 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Table 3: Estimated Annual Expenditures to Address Aquatic Invasive Species, by Task Force Member Agency, Fiscal Years 

2012 through 2014

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year 2012

estimated expenditures 

Fiscal year 2013

estimated expenditures 

Fiscal year 2014

estimated expenditures 

Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service $3,618 $3,454 $3,467

U.S. Forest Service a a a

Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

3,855 3,454 3,528

Department of Defense 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 134,886 133,139 148,571 

Department of Homeland Security 

U.S. Coast Guard 2,809 3,995 3,362

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 298 205 70

Bureau of Reclamation 4,728 5,352 6,335

National Park Service 3,967 4,078 5,437

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 13,049 13,096 15,049

U.S. Geological Survey 10,229 10,034 11,325

Department of Stateb 18,575 18,106 19,341

Department of Transportation 

Maritime Administration 5,137 4,965 4,473

Environmental Protection Agencyc 56,709 44,946 54,599

Total $257,860 $244,824 $275,557

Sources: GAO questionnaires of 13 Task Force member agencies. I GAO-16-49

Note: The data in this table were provided by Task Force member agencies and reflect their best 

estimates of annual expenditures to address aquatic invasive species for fiscal years 2012 through 

2014.

a

The U.S. Forest Service reported that it was unable to develop estimated annual expenditures for its 

aquatic invasive species activities. The agency cited several reasons, including that its program 

management and financial accounting systems do not separately track aquatic invasive species 

expenditures.

b

The Department of State estimates reflect amounts mostly provided to the Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission, largely for Sea Lamprey control and research efforts. The Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission provided financial resources to other Task Force member agencies and therefore to 

minimize double-counting, we have to the extent possible, excluded this funding from the estimates 

reported by the other Task Force member agencies.

c

The Environmental Protection Agency’s estimates reflect amounts for the Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative (a program launched in 2010 to protect and restore the Great Lakes ecosystem), most of 

which was provided to other Task Force member agencies. To minimize double-counting, we have, to 

the extent possible, excluded this funding from the estimates reported by the other Task Force 

member agencies.
Page 17 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Based on information reported through our questionnaire, estimated 

expenditures by Task Force member agencies for fiscal year 2014 ranged 

from a high of about $149 million by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) to a low of $70,000 by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Specifically, the Corps reported that the majority of its estimated annual 

expenditures were for controlling and managing existing aquatic invasive 

species at multiple projects it manages, and mostly came from the 

respective project’s operations and maintenance funding. The Bureau of 

Land Management’s estimates for fiscal year 2014 comprised the annual 

cost to develop and place aquatic invasive species awareness 

advertisements in print materials focusing on outdoor activities such as 

hunting, fishing, and boating. Also, for fiscal year 2014, the Bureau of 

Land Management reported that it did not have funding to provide to its 

state offices to coordinate or carry out aquatic invasive species activities 

in their local areas, as it did in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. Estimates for 

Task Force member agencies generally reflected a variety of activities 

undertaken or funded by the respective agency spanning multiple species 

and regions within their areas of programmatic responsibility. In contrast, 

estimates for some agencies reflected efforts specific to a particular 

region or activity. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) reported that its estimates mostly reflected expenditures of funding 

transferred to other agencies to carry out activities in support of the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative—a program launched in 2010 to protect and 

restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. One of the Initiative’s main focus 

areas includes prioritizing efforts to prevent the introduction of new 

invasive species into the Great Lakes.25

In responding to our questionnaire, several of the Task Force member 

agencies identified challenges and limitations in collecting information on 

how much they estimated expending to address aquatic invasive species. 

These included the following:

 

25Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Fiscal Years 2010-2014, 09-P-0231 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 21, 2010.) The plan includes 

a “zero tolerance policy” for invasive species. We recently reported on information 

available about the Initiative’s activities and results, including those addressing invasive 

species, see GAO, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Improved Data Collection and 

Reporting Would Enhance Oversight, GAO-15-526 (Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2015).
Page 18 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

• Expenditures on aquatic invasive species activities are not 

specifically tracked. Seven of the 13 Task Force member agencies 

reported that their budget structures and financial accounting systems 

were not designed to specifically track expenditures on aquatic 

invasive species activities. For instance, the U.S. Forest Service 

reported that many aquatic invasive species related activities are 

conducted throughout the agency, but the agency’s program 

management and financial accounting systems do not separately 

track aquatic invasive species expenditures. Specifically, U.S. Forest 

Service officials said they could not identify the portion of funding 

expended directly for aquatic invasive species because these 

activities were often integrated into larger projects—such as 

inspecting and cleaning equipment used in fighting wildfires. For 

example, the agency has developed specific protocols to inspect, 

assess, and decontaminate equipment, such as the inside of a fire 

pump, to help make sure it is clear of any invasive algae or mussels 

that may be unintentionally transferred to a new watershed when 

moving water between areas to fight fires. U.S. Forest Service officials 

further explained that this is one step of many in cleaning and 

preparing the equipment for its next use, and its management and 

financial accounting systems are not set up to capture or break out 

activities to this level of detail. Similarly, the Bureau of Reclamation 

reported that expenditures for aquatic invasive species activities at its 

water projects—such as clearing water control structures to maintain 

water delivery through pipes and canals—are funded mostly through 

the operations and maintenance budget for each project and are not 

tracked as expenditures specific to aquatic invasive species.

• Decisions on expenditures for aquatic invasive species are made 

at the local or regional level. Four of the 13 member agencies 

reported that decisions on expenditures for aquatic invasive species 

activities are delegated to a regional or local level and are not tracked 

at the national level. For example, the National Park Service reported 

that once funding is provided to a national park, headquarters 

management does not generally direct how the funding is expended 

at that park. Instead, park management generally determines how the 

funding will be used to accomplish park objectives, including whether 

and how to prioritize funding for aquatic invasive species activities. 

Similarly, the Bureau of Land Management reported that numerous 

decisions and activities take place at its local or state office level that 

are not tracked by headquarters, including expenditures on aquatic 

invasive species, and, therefore, annual expenditures on aquatic 

invasive species across the agency are unknown. The U.S. Forest 

Service also reported in its questionnaire that many of its aquatic 
Page 19 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

invasive species activities are conducted through cooperative 

partnership agreements at the local and regional level and 

expenditures for these activities are not reported at the national level.

Through our questionnaire and interviews with officials from the Task 

Force and its member agencies, we found that member agencies 

conducted a wide range of activities and faced several challenges in 

addressing aquatic invasive species. Most member agencies reported 

conducting activities across the seven general activity categories 

developed by the National Invasive Species Council, including taking 

actions to prevent introductions of new aquatic invasive species and 

control the spread of existing ones (see app. III). Task Force member 

agencies also identified several challenges in addressing aquatic invasive 

species. Some of these challenges are overarching, and others relate to 

how member agencies plan or conduct aquatic invasive species activities 

specific to the activity categories.

Regarding overarching challenges, several Task Force member 

agencies—including officials from the Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture, the Corps, and NOAA—expressed concern that their 

activities, though numerous, may not be adequate relative to the growing 

magnitude and impacts of aquatic invasive species amid decreasing or 

constrained agency resources. Task Force representatives further said 

that many of the member agencies have faced competing priorities in 

carrying out aquatic invasive species-related activities, with some 

member agencies having limited flexibility to conduct work in multiple 

areas. According to officials from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), for 

example, much of the agency’s aquatic invasive species activities have 

been focused on identifying methods to treat and control Asian Carp in 

accordance with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and other funding 

for this work. USGS officials said that though their work on Asian Carp 

has been critical, it has sometimes meant that they have not been able to 

prioritize other needs, such as identifying marine invaders from nonballast 

water sources or new marine and arctic threats given the warming of 

ocean waters.

The following are examples of activities Task Force member agencies 

conducted to address aquatic invasive species along with challenges they 

identified related to specific activity categories, based on the responses 

we received to our questionnaire and interviews with officials from the 

Task Force and its member agencies. These examples include activities 

from each of the seven activity categories—(1) prevention, (2) early 

Task Force Member 

Agencies Conducted 

a Wide Range of 

Activities and 

Identified Several 

Challenges in 

Addressing Aquatic 

Invasive Species
Page 20 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

detection and rapid response, (3) control and management, (4) 

restoration, (5) research, (6) education and public awareness, and (7) 

leadership and international cooperation. These examples do not 

represent all activities conducted or challenges identified by member 

agencies, but rather they illustrate the nature and type of activities and 

challenges discussed.

Eleven of the 13 Task Force member agencies reported conducting a 

range of prevention activities, often related to managing specific 

pathways to help prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species into 

new aquatic habitats. Task Force member agencies repeatedly 

highlighted the importance of conducting prevention-oriented activities as 

a cost-effective means of addressing aquatic invasive species. Officials 

from some member agencies also said that they would like to conduct 

more prevention-oriented activities, but that they have faced challenges in 

doing so, in part because of policy or funding decisions within their 

respective agencies.26 For example, Corps officials said they believed 

that it would be most cost-effective to treat certain aquatic invasive plants 

upstream from project boundaries before the species spreads 

downstream and potentially threatens project infrastructure; however, it is 

generally the agency’s policy to treat areas within rather than outside 

project boundaries.27 Some Task Force member agencies also told us 

that prevention activities cannot be conducted at the expense of activities 

aimed at controlling aquatic invasive species already established, and 

 

26The preference to do more prevention-oriented activities, according to officials from 

several member agencies, includes activities under both the prevention and early 

detection and rapid response activity categories.

27To treat aquatic invasive species outside project boundaries in the past, the Corps 

partnered with state and local agencies. Specifically, the River and Harbor Act of 1958, as

amended, authorizes a comprehensive U.S. Army Corps of Engineers program to provide 

for the prevention, control, and progressive eradication of noxious aquatic plant growths 

and aquatic invasive species from navigable and other waters of the United States. The 

law requires a cost share from local interests for the program’s projects (known as the 

Aquatic Plant Control program). Before 1996, the Corps utilized this authority to fund 

aquatic invasive plant control projects with local and state governments. According to 

Corps officials, Corps management stopped requesting funding for this control program in 

1996 based on a determination that the local and state governments receiving the benefits 

of this work should be responsible for paying all of the costs. From fiscal year 1998 

through fiscal year 2012, the Corps conducted limited activities under this Aquatic Plant 

Control program when Congress would appropriate or direct funds for it, according to 

Corps officials. 

Prevention
Page 21 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

that a more balanced approach between prevention and control activities 

may be warranted.

Examples of prevention activities include the following:

• Regulations. The U.S. Coast Guard and EPA regulate the 

management of ballast water—a primary pathway for the introduction 

of new aquatic invasive species into and within the United States—

and other vessel discharges into waters of the United States. In 2012, 

the Coast Guard updated its ballast water regulations to include a 

standard for the allowable concentrations of living organisms allowed 

in a vessel’s ballast water discharged in waters of the United States. 

In 2013, EPA issued a general permit that contains numeric 

technology-based limitations on acceptable concentrations of living 

organisms in ballast water discharge.28

• Inspections. FWS’s Office of Law Enforcement inspects certain 

wildlife shipments to help ensure that prohibited species, including 

certain aquatic invasive species, do not enter the country. FWS’s has 

about 120 inspectors at 49 ports of entry nationwide that review 

import documentation and conduct visual inspections of some 

shipments to help prevent species listed as injurious wildlife under the 

Lacey Act from being illegally brought into the country or across state 

lines.29

• Physical barriers. The Corps operates a series of electric barriers in 

the Chicago Area Waterway System located approximately 25 miles 

 

2878 Fed. Reg. 21938 (Apr. 12, 2013). In October 2015, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously with 

respect to five aspects of the permit and remanded these aspects to EPA to adequately 

address them; however, the permit remains in force while EPA does so. 

29A species can be added to the list of injurious wildlife by statutory amendment or by 

FWS rulemaking. The most recent listings were in March 2015, when FWS added four 

reptiles to the list. See 80 Fed. Reg. 12702 (Mar. 10, 2015). As of April 2015, there were 

about 240 mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, crustaceans, and mollusks—of which about 150 

are considered aquatic invasive species—that were listed as injurious wildlife. This 

includes species of walking catfish (100), snakeheads (28), zebra mussels (6), carp (4), 

mitten crab (3) and snakes (9). In addition, FWS officials indicated that all salmonids 

(approximately 170 species) are listed due to their pathogen risk, which renders them 

injurious. In October 2015, FWS finalized a change to the process by which it adds new 

species to its list of injurious wildlife to make it more efficient and allow the agency to 

better prevent the introduction of species that are injurious. 80 Fed. Reg. 66554 (Oct. 29, 

2015). 

Prevention Efforts to Control the Spread of 

Quagga and Zebra Mussels

Several Task Force member agencies are 

involved in activities to prevent the spread of 

invasive Quagga and Zebra Mussels 

throughout the western United States. For 

example, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

and the National Park Service support 

implementation of the Quagga-Zebra Mussel 

Action Plan, which was developed by several 

state and federal agencies, as well as 

nongovernmental organizations in the western 

United States. This plan serves as a road map 

for identifying and prioritizing specific actions 

needed to prevent the further spread of 

Quagga and Zebra Mussels, respond to new 

infestations, and manage existing ones. FWS 

has installed signs at National Wildlife Refuges

to alert boaters about the risk of these species 

and has funded training in 18 states on 

inspecting boats and other watercraft to 

identify and remove the mussels. The National 

Park Service expended approximately $2 

million in fiscal year 2014 on mussel 

prevention and control and monitoring at nine 

western parks. In addition, the Bureau of 

Reclamation has conducted a series of public 

education and outreach efforts, including the 

dissemination of informational pamphlets at 

boat shows, designed to educate the public on 

practices they can follow to help prevent the 

spread of Quagga and Zebra Mussels.

Source: Bureau of Reclamation. | GAO-16-49

Quagga Mussels covering infrastructure
Page 22 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

from Lake Michigan to prevent the entry of Asian Carp and other 

aquatic invasive species from the Mississippi River Basin into the 

Great Lakes. These barriers send out pulses to form an electric field 

in the water that discourages fish from crossing.

Ten of the 13 Task Force member agencies reported conducting early 

detection and rapid response activities—activities to detect the presence 

of aquatic invasive species in an area and remove any newly detected 

species while they are localized and before they become established and 

spread to new areas. Aside from preventing introductions, the most costeffective way to address an invasive species is to detect and respond to 

invasions early, according to documents from the U.S. Forest Service and 

NOAA. However, coordinated rapid response efforts have been 

challenging to implement due, in part, to constraints in existing funding, 

according to officials from some agencies. Consequently, 11 Task Force 

member agencies are part of a federal work group, co-led by the 

Department of the Interior and the National Invasive Species Council, that 

in January 2015 started developing a framework for a national early 

detection and rapid response program and a plan for an emergency rapid 

response fund.30 The work group reported in July 2015 that it plans to 

issue a report of recommendations to implement an early detection and 

rapid response framework, including mechanisms for funding, to the 

White House and the Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience in 

the fall of 2015.

 

30This work was initiated in response to the October 2014 Priority Agenda Enhancing the 

Climate Resilience of America's Natural Resources, issued by the White House Council 

on Climate Preparedness and Resilience. 

Early Detection and Rapid 

Response
Page 23 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Examples of early detection and rapid response activities include the 

following:

• National early detection database. The USGS maintains the 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, a publicly accessible 

database, to track information on the locations of aquatic invasive 

animals throughout the United States. Federal agencies, as well as 

state and local agencies and the public, can report aquatic invasive 

species sightings and when verified, the sightings are added to the 

database and updated daily by the USGS.31

• Rapid response strike teams. The FWS has five regional strike 

teams in place to help eradicate any new invasions as soon as 

possible after they are detected in the nation’s 563 wildlife refuges.

These strike teams survey a small portion of the acreage within 

national wildlife refuges when new invasions are suspected, according 

to FWS officials, to determine the presence of any invasions and then 

take actions to eradicate or contain confirmed invasions before 

populations spread.

 

31USGS officials told us that, before 2012, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database 

also included data on aquatic invasive plants, but that they stopped including plant data in 

the database because of funding constraints at the time. In June 2015, USGS officials told 

us that an increase in funding to their Invasive Species Program in fiscal year 2015 has 

allowed them to resume their efforts to collect and report data on aquatic invasive plants 

as part of this database, and that adding plant information back to the database was a 

high funding priority for the agency partly due to requests from other federal agencies and 

partners to do so. 

Early Detection Technique Using 

Environmental DNA

Detection methods such as the use of 

environmental DNA have become widespread 

among Task Force member agencies, such as 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the National 

Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and 

the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

Environmental DNA—genetic material shed 

into the environment by organisms that can be 

detected in samples of air, water, or soil—is a 

relatively new tool being used to detect 

invasive species, particularly in areas where 

the species is not abundant or is difficult to 

detect. For example, because they are well 

camouflaged in the environment, visual 

detection of Burmese Pythons in South Florida 

is difficult, with detection rates of less than 1%. 

Use of environmental DNA methods, however, 

can increase python detection rates to more 

than 90%, according to USGS officials. Since 

spring 2015, USGS researchers have been 

working with FWS to test water from the 

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge in 

Florida to determine whether Burmese 

Pythons may have spread to the refuge. 

Although environmental DNA helps confirm the 

presence of an aquatic invasive species in an 

area, it neither confirms whether the species 

has become established in the area, nor does 

it provide information on the number or current 

location of any species detected.

Source: © Camp Walker, Catalyst Charters, Islamorada, 

Florida. | GAO-16-49

Environmental DNA testing can detect 

Burmese Pythons
Page 24 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Eleven of the 13 Task Force member agencies reported conducting 

activities designed to lessen and mitigate the impact or spread of aquatic 

invasive species on the facilities or areas they manage. Such activities 

may be designed to eradicate an invading species, but where eradication 

is not deemed feasible, such activities are designed to manage the 

invader by controlling the impact of the species and its spread. Activities 

aimed at controlling or managing the impact and spread of invasions 

represent a substantial portion of overall aquatic invasive species-related 

activities conducted, in terms of both effort and funding, according to Task 

Force representatives and officials from several member agencies. Some 

of these officials stressed the importance of sustaining efforts to control 

and manage aquatic invasive species to avoid reintroductions or spread 

of the species. For example, Corps officials said that, after eliminating 

infestations of Melaleuca, an invasive wetland tree, over a prescribed 10-

year treatment period, periodic treatments would still be necessary to 

ensure new populations do not become established. Officials from several 

member agencies including the Corps noted, however, that limited or 

inconsistent funding has, at times, made it challenging to consistently 

manage areas as prescribed—potentially leading to the reemergence of 

aquatic invasive species.

Control and Management
Page 25 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Examples of control and management activities include the following:

• Biological controls. To control and manage the spread of 

Alligatorweed, a leafy aquatic invasive plant found in the southeastern 

United States and California, officials from the Corps told us they are 

using a beetle that feeds and reproduces only on Alligatorweed. 

According to officials from the Corps and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, the beetle has been successful in controlling the weed, 

and the need for additional treatments, such as herbicide applications, 

has been nearly eliminated in Florida.

• Chemical controls. The Department of State, through the Great 

Lakes Fishery Commission, along with the Corps, FWS, USGS and 

other federal and state partners, are primarily using chemicals called 

lampricides to kill Sea Lamprey, an invasive fish, in their larval stage

before they can attach and prey upon native fish. According to 

Department of State officials, as of 2015, chemical controls have led 

to a 90 percent reduction in the Sea Lamprey population over its 

historical high level.

• Physical and mechanical controls. The Bureau of Reclamation 

uses physical and mechanical control methods to remove Water 

Hyacinth, an aquatic invasive plant, from one of its California facilities. 

Bureau of Reclamation officials said that, if left untouched, Water 

Hyacinth clogs canals, pumps, and fish screens, which can kill the fish 

they are working to protect. Bureau of Reclamation officials told us 

that, between 2013 and 2015, they removed between 10,000 and 

20,000 truckloads of Water Hyacinth from the area surrounding the 

facility—with a dump truck filled with Water Hyacinth leaving the 

facility every 5 minutes during the height of its growing season.

Ten of the 13 Task Force member agencies reported conducting a variety 

of activities to restore aquatic habitats adversely affected by aquatic 

invasive species. Officials from a few Task Force member agencies said 

that it may be possible to begin restoring habitats or ecosystems while 

control and management activities are under way, but in some cases 

aquatic invasive species may need to first be controlled or contained. 

According to a few member agencies, this creates a challenge in that 

Multipronged Method to Control and 

Manage Melaleuca

Melaleuca, an Australian tree that has 

destroyed many southern Florida wetlands,

can be managed through a combination of 

biological, chemical, and physical and 

mechanical controls. For instance, through the 

introduction of weevils, a type of beetle that 

serves as a biological control, Melaleuca can 

be controlled. Researchers from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture said, however, that 

the ability of Melaleuca trees to grow in various 

water depths has prevented the weevils—

which require ground to burrow in—from 

successfully reproducing and eating the 

Melaleuca in swampy areas. According to 

National Park Service officials, Melaleuca can 

also be controlled if it is consistently treated 

over a 10-year period using the method in 

which the trees are first cut or hacked down 

with a machete or mechanical device and then 

sprayed with herbicides designed to kill them 

on the first, second, fourth, seventh, and tenth 

years of treatment. If this process is not 

followed as prescribed, however, the trees 

may regrow and spread. The National Park 

Service Exotic Plant Management Team and 

Everglades National Park have contributed to 

control of Melaleuca in South Florida, as 

shown in the photo below.

Source: National Park Service. | GAO-16-49

Partially treated Melaleuca forest

Restoration
Page 26 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

restoration activities must wait until control activities are finished, meaning 

that restoration may be delayed.

Examples of restoration activities include the following:

• Habitat restoration. NOAA reported providing funding and technical 

expertise for community-based habitat restoration projects, such as 

providing about $925,000 in 2012 for the Lower Black River Habitat 

Restoration Project in Ohio. The goal of this project is to restore fish 

and wildlife habitat in the lower Black River through actions such as 

the removal of aquatic invasive plants by chemical and manual 

techniques followed by the planting of native shrubs.

• Native fish restoration. The National Park Service reported 

removing nonnative fish from waters in a number of parks to restore 

native species and enhance natural aquatic biodiversity. Officials told 

us that they have been expending about $1 million per year since 

2013 at Yellowstone National Park on lake trout removal efforts in 

Yellowstone Lake. These efforts include contracting with commercial 

fishing crews to remove invasive lake trout that have caused a 

significant decline in populations of the native Yellowstone Cutthroat 

Trout.

All 13 Task Force member agencies reported conducting or sponsoring 

research designed to support activities to help prevent, detect, or control 

the impacts or spread of aquatic invasive species, as well as determine 

their impacts on aquatic habitats. Research is critical to identify effective 

techniques for prevention, detection, control, and management of aquatic 

invasive species and to help clarify and quantify the effects aquatic 

invasive species have on native species and habitats, as well as 

economic costs and impacts to human health, according to Task Force 

documents. Officials from several member agencies and Task Force 

representatives noted that significant gaps in knowledge in certain areas 

related to aquatic invasive species is a challenge and, therefore, would 

like to see additional research, such as a comprehensive study to identify 

and assess the environmental impacts and economic costs associated 

with invasive species in the United States. Such information is critical to

understanding the magnitude of the impacts from aquatic invasive 

species and for obtaining funding to address problems they are causing, 

according to these officials. In addition, limits in scientific knowledge 

about newly introduced species and the levels at which they may become 

established or harmful, especially in ballast water, affect member 

agencies’ ability to manage the ballast water pathway, according to 

Research
Page 27 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

officials from NOAA and the Smithsonian Environmental Research 

Center. Officials from the U.S. Coast Guard said that it is difficult to set 

regulations or establish allowable concentrations of organisms that can 

be safely released in ballast water when the threshold for establishment 

of a new potentially invasive species may not be well understood.

Examples of research activities include the following:

• Species research. The Corps is researching various types of 

invasive aquatic vegetation and options for managing such species 

through its Aquatic Plant Control Research Program, which is 

authorized by statute.32 In 2014, Corps’ researchers completed field 

studies in Montana that used selective management strategies to 

control Eurasian Watermilfoil, a plant that is invasive throughout most 

states, including Alaska.

• Impacts research. Officials from USGS and NOAA have conducted 

research aimed at improving scientific knowledge about how aquatic 

invasive species may be adversely affecting ecosystems. In 2015, 

USGS continued research to identify whether newly established 

nonnative species may warrant being considered “high priority 

invaders,” such as the Burmese Python in the Everglades. Since 

2009, NOAA has conducted research to determine how certain 

aquatic invasive species have affected endangered salmon feeding 

behavior and habitat in the Pacific Northwest as part of its effort to 

understand the impacts that aquatic invasive species have on these 

native species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

• Pathways research. The Maritime Administration sponsors the 

operation of three research facilities—in California, Maryland, and 

Wisconsin—that are testing the capability of treatment systems for 

ballast water to determine whether those systems may be approved 

by the U.S. Coast Guard pursuant to its ballast water regulations.

 

3233 U.S.C. § 610(a)(1). 

Federal Research on Hydrilla

Federal research on Hydrilla, a submerged 

invasive plant that has clogged navigation 

channels and other water systems across the 

United States, involves efforts by several Task 

Force member agencies. For example, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

conducted research on the biology of Hydrilla 

during 2015 to provide a better understanding 

of the invasion ecology of this species in 

northern rivers and glacial lakes. The Corps 

has also researched chemical treatments and 

application strategies to control or alter the 

reproduction of Hydrilla. Chemical treatments 

developed through research have been 

successful in controlling some strains of 

Hydrilla, according to Corps officials. Aquatic 

herbicides developed through research have 

also been successful in controlling Hydrilla, but 

some strains have become resistant. In 

addition, the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, in collaboration with the 

Corps, is researching biological controls for 

Hydrilla, such as releasing insects that will eat 

the plant.

Source: © Stephen Ausmus. | GAO-16-49

Collection of Hydrilla for chemical research
Page 28 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Eleven of the 13 Task Force member agencies reported engaging in 

education and public awareness activities to increase awareness about 

aquatic invasive species and their impacts and help minimize or prevent 

further introductions. According to Task Force documents, the lack of 

public awareness about the impacts and threats posed by some invasive 

species and how they are introduced is a substantial challenge for Task 

Force member agencies in addressing aquatic invasive species. 

Examples of education and public awareness activities include the 

following:

• National awareness campaigns. The Task Force, Bureau of Land 

Management, FWS, U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard 

are among the federal agencies that collaborate on the “Stop Aquatic 

Hitchhikers!” campaign. Since 2002, this multimedia campaign has 

used television, billboards, and social and print media to encourage 

users of outdoor recreational areas to help stop the transport and 

spread of aquatic invasive species by, for example, making sure they

clean, drain, and dry their boats and boat trailers before transporting 

them to different aquatic areas.

• Local awareness events. The National Park Service, along with 

state agencies and nongovernmental organizations, hosted the 

inaugural 5K “Race Against Invasives” run through Everglades 

National Park in February 2015 to raise awareness about invasive 

species, especially those in Florida.

Lionfish Education and Public Awareness

Several Task Force member agencies are 

involved in raising awareness about Lionfish, a 

highly invasive fish that has spread throughout 

coastal waters of the southeast and the 

Caribbean. To help raise awareness, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, along with nonprofit partners, 

has sponsored numerous Lionfish derbies since 

2010, including 10 public tournaments in 2014 

in which divers could hunt the edible fish with 

spears. The National Park Service produced a 

Lionfish Response Plan in 2012 that aims to 

help inform the public about the Lionfish 

invasion and prevent and mitigate impacts to 

parks. Biscayne National Park, in Florida, 

conducts an education program in which 

Lionfish removed from the park are sent to 

classrooms for safe dissection by students. 

National Park Service officials told us that 

concentrated education efforts like this have 

been effective in educating the public about 

Lionfish. In addition, the Department of State 

provided funding to work with partners in the 

Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean to launch a 

web portal that provides managers and the 

public with access to the latest information on 

Lionfish and impacts in the Atlantic Ocean.

Source: © Rachel Bowman. | GAO-16-49 

Lionfish hunter with speared Lionfish

Education and Public 

Awareness
Page 29 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Ten of the 13 Task Force member agencies have been involved in 

activities to provide leadership to the aquatic invasive species 

community—which includes federal and nonfederal as well as 

international agencies working on aquatic invasive species issues—and 

to enhance cooperation and collaboration, such as by participating and 

serving as members in a range of international, national, regional, state, 

and local task forces, councils, and other entities. Given the often 

complex and widespread nature of aquatic invasive species, working 

across jurisdictional boundaries is the most effective approach to 

combating aquatic invasive species, according to Task Force officials and 

documents. Moreover, working with other federal and nonfederal 

agencies and organizations helps the Task Force to identify areas where 

legislation may be needed to fill gaps in statutory authority, suggest 

priority policy issues, and define roles and responsibilities for managing 

aquatic invasive species, according to Task Force documents. Officials 

from the regional panels told us, however, that one challenge in such 

work is that constrained agency funding has meant that they have not 

been able to consistently attend Task Force, regional panel, or other 

cooperative meetings.33

Examples of leadership and international cooperation activities include 

the following:

• Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force activities. The Task Force 

conducts semiannual meetings that provide an open and public forum 

for members to exchange information and coordinate their aquatic 

invasive species activities. For example, the Task Force’s May 2015 

meeting included presentations on a wide range of topics, from the 

adoption of species-specific national management plans to 

recommendations from its regional panels on issues of local 

significance.

 

33Some regional panel representatives told us that it has been difficult for them to fully 

conduct activities, including attending semiannual Task Force meetings, due to decreased 

funding provided to the panels. Beginning in fiscal year 2012, funding for the regional 

panels decreased from $300,000 to $240,000 annually, which represents a decrease from 

$50,000 to $40,000 per panel. Similarly, Task Force representatives said that funding to 

support implementation of state and interstate management plans has remained level at 

about $1 million annually, but that the number of approved plans eligible for assistance 

has increased each year, resulting in less funding being awarded per state plan. 

Leadership and 

International Cooperation
Page 30 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

• International cooperation. Officials from the Corps and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture have collaborated with scientists in China, 

South Korea, and Switzerland to identify and develop insect biological 

control agents to target invasive aquatic plants such as Hydrilla and 

Eurasian Watermilfoil. For example, in fiscal year 2014, Corps officials 

reported expending about $450,000 on developing such control 

agents, which included collecting 350 plant samples from more than 

90 field sites to help match invasive plants located in the United 

States with their countries of origin to improve the success of 

identifying insects to control these species.

The Task Force has not taken key steps to measure progress in 

achieving the goals laid out in its 2013-2017 strategic plan.34 In 2012, the 

Task Force developed its 2013-2017 strategic plan, which serves to guide 

Task Force member agencies in conducting aquatic invasive speciesrelated activities to implement the aquatic invasive species program. The 

strategic plan identifies eight goals for the program—which generally align 

with the seven activity categories developed by the National Invasive 

Species Council—as well as a number of targeted action items for Task 

Force member agencies to achieve these goals (see table 4).35

 

34For the Task Force’s 2013-2017 strategic plan, see 

http://anstaskforce.gov/Documents/ANSTF%20Strategic%20Plan%202013-2017.pdf. 

35We have previously found that, though a legal requirement specific to federal agencies 

and departments, the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 

serves to guide executive federal agency planning and provides leading practices for 

strategic planning at agencies and entities that work closely with or are a part of the 

federal government, including task forces. (See GAO, Environmental Justice: EPA Needs 

to Take Additional Actions to Help Ensure Effective Implementation, GAO-12-77 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 2011.) The identification of goals in the Task Force’s Strategic 

Plan is consistent with such leading practices.

The Task Force Has 

Not Taken Key Steps 

to Measure Progress 

in Achieving Its 

Strategic Goals
Page 31 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Table 4: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force’s 2013-2017 Strategic Goals and Examples of Action Items 

Goal Examples of action items 

Coordination - Maximize the organizational effectiveness of 

the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

• Coordinate the development and implementation of species and 

pathways management plans.

• Increase communication among members, regional panels, and 

committees of the Task Force to prioritize issues and activities.

Prevention - Develop strategies to identify and prevent the 

establishment of new aquatic invasive species and slow 

the spread of existing ones in the waters of the United 

States.

• Recommend amendments to the injurious wildlife provisions of the

Lacey Acta to allow a proactive approach for preventing the 

establishment of new invasive species through the trade of live 

organisms.

• Develop and maintain a priority list for aquatic invasive species 

pathways.

Early detection and rapid response - Identify and respond 

to aquatic invasive species within a timely manner 

following introduction to prevent their establishment and/or 

spread.

• Increase public and industry involvement in reporting sightings of 

aquatic invasive species through the U.S. Geological Survey’s online 

reporting form for its publicly available database on locations of 

aquatic invasive species.

• Develop a rapid response technical support network that can provide 

resources and technical support in response to newly detected 

species.

Control and management - Control established aquatic 

invasive species when feasible and when the benefits of 

managing the established species outweigh the costs of 

removing them with respect to harm to the environment, 

the economy, and public health.

• Increase the number of training workshops for natural resource 

managers and the total number of personnel and volunteers trained 

in control measures for aquatic invasive species.

• Identify gaps in control efforts and tools.

Restoration - Protect and rehabilitate native species and 

ecosystems by conducting habitat restoration efforts on 

multiple scales.

• Ensure that federal land and water management guidance manuals 

consider aquatic invasive species issues during the planning and 

development of habitat restoration projects.

• Compile, highlight, and share lessons learned for both restoration 

successes and failures within the United States.

Education and outreach - Increase awareness concerning 

the threats of aquatic invasive species, emphasizing the 

impacts, importance of prevention and containment, and 

recommendations for appropriate domestic and 

international actions.

• Utilize the internet and social media as well as traditional media 

sources to disseminate information and promote awareness of 

aquatic invasive species.

• Cooperate with media outlets to reach a broad range of the public 

with aquatic invasive species messages.

Research - Facilitate research to address environmental, 

economic, and human health risks and impacts associated 

with aquatic invasive species.

• Develop and maintain a list of aquatic invasive species research 

priorities and communicate this list to the scientific community.

• Improve data collection at ports of entry so numbers and 

identification of species entering the United States through 

commerce in living organisms are available and accessible.

Funding - Coordinate federal agency budgets to support 

the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force’s priorities and 

establish a clear process that links state and regional 

needs in their areas of responsibility.

• Compose an annual report focused on aquatic invasive species and 

use it as an opportunity to reach decisionmakers and other leaders 

on the need for policies and funding for aquatic invasive species 

efforts.

• Prioritize actions based on anticipated efficacy, threat level, and 

costs/benefits to natural resources.

Source: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Strategic Plan (2013-2017). | GAO-16-49
Page 32 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Note: The action items included in this table are not comprehensive, but rather they serve as 

examples of the action items associated with each strategic goal and are intended to illustrate the 

types of actions that Task Force member agencies may take to implement the strategic plan.

a

Among other things, the Lacey Act, as amended, prohibits the importation into the United States and 

interstate transport of certain animals, including aquatic invasive species listed as injurious wildlife.

The action items identified in the strategic plan were intended to be 

completed over the 5-year period of the plan, but the strategic plan also 

stated that accomplishing the items would be dependent upon the 

budgets of individual agencies. The strategic plan did not identify or 

describe roles or activities to be conducted by specific member agencies 

or measures to track progress in achieving its eight strategic goals. 

Rather, the strategic plan called for the Task Force to develop an 

operational plan to specify how Task Force member agencies would put 

the strategic plan into operation.36 According to the strategic plan, the 

function of the operational plan was to ensure the strategic goals were 

measurable and accountable. Specifically, the operational plan was 

intended to contain the following elements: (1) a description of short-term 

efforts to support and implement the strategic plan and its goals; (2) the 

roles of Task Force member agencies; (3) when available, the time 

frames, lead agencies or groups, and funding; and (4) regular updates 

with its actions reported annually to measure progress toward 

accomplishing the goals of the strategic plan. The elements envisioned 

for the operational plan are also largely required by the 1990 Act.37

Before the strategic plan went into effect, however, the Task Force 

decided not to develop an operational plan as envisioned in the strategic 

plan. Instead, the Task Force decided to develop a reporting matrix in the 

form of a spreadsheet to collect information on member agencies’ aquatic 

invasive species-related activities, according to the Task Force’s autumn 

2012 meeting minutes. This reporting matrix was designed to collect 

 

36We have previously found that the Government Performance and Results Modernization 

Act of 2010—which calls for a performance plan to implement an agency’s strategic 

plan—provides leading practices for strategic planning for task forces. The operational 

plan described in the Task Force’s Strategic Plan is consistent with such leading 

practices. 

37The 1990 Act requires the Task Force to submit a report to Congress annually detailing 

the progress of its program, as well as to develop a program that (1) describes the specific 

prevention, monitoring, control, education and research activities to be conducted by each 

Task Force member; (2) describes the role of each Task Force member in implementing 

the elements of the program; and (3) includes recommendations for funding to implement 

elements of the program. 
Page 33 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

information on the aquatic invasive species activities that member 

agencies had planned to conduct related to the goals of the strategic 

plan. This reporting matrix was also designed to collect funding 

information associated with each of these activities, which could serve as 

a starting point for the Task Force to identify funding gaps and priorities 

and develop recommendations for funding to implement elements of its 

aquatic invasive species program as required by the 1990 Act. The 

reporting matrix was disseminated to Task Force member agencies in 

August 2012, but fewer than half (6 of 13) of the Task Force member 

agencies provided information to the Task Force.38 According to Task 

Force representatives, the Task Force did not disseminate or collect 

additional information using the reporting matrix after 2012.

According to Task Force representatives, the Task Force decided not to 

develop an operational plan or use the reporting matrix after 2012 

because of constrained funding and limited resources. In particular, they 

said they were limited in their efforts because of the constrained funding 

environment that emerged from sequestration in 2013 and 2014.39

According to Task Force representatives, the retirement in 2013 and the 

continued vacancy of its Executive Secretary has resulted in the Task 

Force being without dedicated staff to support updates to the reporting 

matrix. Task Force representatives further explained that, given the 

limited staff devoted directly to the Task Force, they rely on staff from 

member agencies to contribute to the administration of the program, but 

member agencies have had competing priorities and have not had the 

resources to contribute to developing an operational plan in the way that 

was originally envisioned when the strategic plan was developed. In 

addition, Task Force representatives said that, since 2014, the Task 

Force along with member agency staff, has been focused on drafting a 

report to Congress, an annual requirement under the 1990 Act.40 Since its 

inception, the Task Force has provided one report to Congress, in 2004. 

 

38All six regional panels also provided information to the Task Force for the reporting 

matrix in 2012. 

39As a result of sequestration in 2013 and 2014, federal agencies reduced or delayed 

some services and disrupted agency operations. For information on 2013 sequestration, 

see GAO, 2013 Sequestration: Agencies Reduced Some Services and Investments, While 

Taking Certain Actions to Mitigate Effects, GAO-14-244 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2014).

40The 1990 Act requires the Task Force, beginning in 1992, to submit a report to 

Congress annually detailing the progress of its program.16 U.S.C. § 4722(k)(2).
Page 34 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Task Force representatives said they expect to finalize and issue their 

draft report by the end of 2015. In reviewing a draft of the report, we 

found that the draft provided an overview and examples of aquatic 

invasive species activities conducted by the Task Force, member 

agencies, regional panels, and states since the Task Force’s 2004 report, 

as well as some information on the role of Task Force member agencies 

in aquatic invasive species management. After they finalize the 2015 

report, Task Force representatives have not indicated that they would 

begin submitting reports annually to meet this reporting requirement in the 

future.

Task Force representatives also said they have no plans to develop an 

operational plan, as called for in the strategic plan, but acknowledged the 

importance of developing a means to regularly track various member 

agencies’ aquatic invasive species activities and measure progress 

toward meeting the strategic goals. Specifically, in response to our inquiry 

into the status of an operational plan, Task Force representatives told us 

in May 2015 that they planned to discuss the possibility of reviving or 

modifying the reporting matrix they had used in 2012. Task Force 

representatives subsequently told us that, during a June 2015 meeting, 

member agencies agreed that a tracking mechanism was important. 

However, they also told us that they did not determine what such a 

mechanism would look like, how it would be implemented and by whom, 

or how to address concerns expressed by some member agencies that 

the mechanism not burden agency staff already working at capacity in 

light of constrained funding. Task Force representatives said they plan to 

further discuss the idea of reviving or modifying the reporting matrix at 

their next semiannual Task Force meeting in November 2015. But, 

representatives could not tell us when they planned to make a decision 

on the approach they would take or provide specifics on what information 

they would collect or how they would measure progress in achieving their 

strategic goals.

By developing and regularly using a tracking mechanism—that would 

include the elements envisioned for an operational plan and required by 

the 1990 Act—the Task Force could better position itself to (1) measure 

progress in achieving its strategic goals and (2) comply with certain 

requirements in the 1990 Act for the aquatic invasive species program. 

Addressing aquatic invasive species is a complex, interdisciplinary issue 

with the potential to affect many sectors and levels of government 

operations. Strategic planning is a way to respond to this governmentwide 

problem on a governmentwide scale. Our past work on crosscutting 

issues has found that governmentwide strategic planning can integrate 
Page 35 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

activities that span a wide array of federal, state, and local entities, as 

well as provide a comprehensive framework for making resource 

decisions and holding agencies accountable for achieving strategic 

goals.41 With its strategic plan, the Task Force has a framework in place 

to guide and integrate the numerous and varied aquatic invasive species 

activities spanning many member agencies. In addition to measuring 

progress in achieving the Task Force’s strategic goals, developing and 

regularly using a tracking mechanism could also help the Task Force 

meet the 1990 Act’s requirements to describe its members’ roles and 

specific activities and to report annually to Congress on the program’s 

progress.

Aquatic invasive species, a serious and growing problem affecting all 

states and U.S. territories, have been likened to a never-ending oil spill, 

given that they are notoriously difficult to eradicate once they become 

established. Though hard to calculate, the economic and ecological harm 

caused by aquatic invasive species is vast. Capturing how much federal 

agencies have expended—and will likely need to expend—to effectively 

address aquatic invasive species is also challenging. Consequently, it is 

not possible to identify how much may be needed to fully address aquatic 

invasive species, both in terms of current invasions or measures to 

prevent future invasions. Capturing how much progress federal agencies 

have made in combatting aquatic invasive species is similarly 

challenging.

The Task Force and its member agencies have taken significant steps—

including conducting a wide array of activities and developing a strategic 

plan to guide their efforts—to address the threats and impacts of aquatic 

invasive species. However, the Task Force has not met several of the 

1990 Act’s requirements, including reporting annually to Congress on the 

program’s progress, or developed a mechanism to ensure its strategic 

goals are measurable and accountable, such as through an operational 

plan, as called for in its strategic plan, because of constrained funding 

and limited resources. Task Force member agencies agreed that a 

mechanism to track activities and measure progress was important, but 

the Task Force has not decided what the mechanism would look like, how 

 

41GAO, Climate Change: Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions, GAO-10-113 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009).

Conclusions
Page 36 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

it would be implemented and by whom, or how to address concerns that it 

not burden agency staff already working at capacity. Developing and 

regularly using a tracking mechanism could help the Task Force measure 

progress in achieving its strategic goals, as well as help the Task Force 

meet the 1990 Act’s requirements to describe its members’ roles and 

specific activities and to report annually to Congress on the program’s 

progress. Moreover, such a mechanism could provide a starting point for 

identifying funding gaps and priorities, better positioning the Task Force 

to meet the 1990 Act’s requirement to include recommendations for 

funding to implement elements of its aquatic invasive species program.

As the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force considers how to measure 

progress toward accomplishing its strategic goals, we recommend that 

the Task Force develop and regularly use a tracking mechanism, to 

include elements envisioned for an operational plan and to largely meet 

requirements in the 1990 Act, including:

• specifying the roles of member agencies related to its strategic plan,

• tracking activities to be conducted by collecting information on those 

activities and associated funding,

• measuring progress member agencies have made in achieving its 

strategic goals, and

• reporting to Congress annually on the progress of its program.

We provided the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Homeland Security, Interior, State, and Transportation and the 

Administrator of the EPA a draft of this report for their review and 

comment. Only the Department of the Interior and the Department of 

Commerce’s NOAA provided written comments, which are included in 

appendixes V and VI, respectively. Interior generally agreed with the 

report’s findings and recommendation, and NOAA disagreed, as further 

discussed below. The Department of Defense’s U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, the Department of State, and EPA indicated that they had no 

comments on our report through e-mail communications provided through 

departmental audit liaisons on October 19, October 21, and October 23, 

2015, respectively. We also received e-mails provided through audit 

liaisons from the following departments that stated that the departments 

agreed with the report’s findings and recommendation and had no other 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 37 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

comments: The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service and U.S. Forest Service (dated October 29, and 

October 30, 2015, respectively); the Department of Transportation (dated 

October 26, 2015); and the Department of Homeland Security (dated 

October 15, 2015). 

In its written comments, the Department of the Interior stated that it 

generally agreed with the findings of our report and concurred with our 

recommendation. Interior stated that it appreciated our review of the 

challenges faced by the Task Force in addressing and managing risks 

posed by the introduction and proliferation of aquatic invasive species. 

Interior stated that the Task Force, of which its FWS is a co-chair, is 

currently evaluating the reporting matrix to improve its utility as a tracking 

mechanism. Additionally, Interior stated that, at its November 2015 

meeting, the Task Force agreed to track accomplishments using a 

modified activity tracking tool while its members continue to evaluate how 

best to track their activities going forward. Interior also stated that the 

Task Force’s report to Congress is undergoing final agency review, and it 

is expected to be delivered to Congress in the coming months, which, 

together with its tracking efforts, will help provide the Task Force with a 

mechanism to both measure and communicate progress toward its 

strategic goals, as called for in our report. We agree that using a modified 

activity tracking tool and completing the report to Congress will be 

positive first steps in the Task Force’s measuring progress toward 

accomplishing its strategic goals and meeting requirements in the 1990 

Act, in accordance with our recommendation. Interior also provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate. 

In its written comments, NOAA disagreed with several aspects of our 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation. In addition, NOAA stated that 

our report did not sufficiently address certain aspects of the mandate to

conduct the review contained in section 1039(a)(2) of the Water 

Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. First, NOAA stated that 

the report did not mention future costs to mitigate the impacts of aquatic 

invasive species and that, although it may be difficult to give specific 

numbers, some information could be speculated upon. In the opening 

paragraph of our report, we state that the impacts of invasive species in 

the United States are widespread and expected to increase, with 

profound consequences for the economy and the environment. We cite a 

2005 academic study—the most recent comprehensive study of its kind—

that estimates the environmental impacts and economic costs associated 

with invasive species at almost $120 billion per year. Additionally, through 

our questionnaire, we requested that federal member agencies provide 
Page 38 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

planned activities and estimated expenditures for future years. However, 

as we describe in the scope and methodology appendix (app. I) of our 

report, we decided not to report future estimated expenditures given the 

limited information provided by some member agencies. We believe that 

reporting partial information could be misleading and could underestimate 

likely future expenditures. 

Second, NOAA stated that our analysis could have gone into more detail 

about current federal spending on prevention activities. We limited our 

reporting of expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 to estimates 

of total annual expenditures for each Task Force member agency 

because many member agencies reported that they could not provide 

estimates of their expenditures by activity category, including prevention. 

Third, NOAA stated that we did not address whether federal spending is 

adequate for the maintenance and protection of services provided by 

federal facilities. As we note in our report, capturing how much federal 

agencies have expended—and will likely need to expend—to effectively 

address aquatic invasive species is challenging. Given the limited 

information available from the Task Force member agencies on current 

and planned expenditures related to aquatic invasive species, we 

determined we would not be able to reliably conduct an analysis of the 

adequacy of federal spending. Lastly, NOAA stated that we chose to 

focus on the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and its strategic plan 

rather than documenting other legislative and programmatic efforts that 

target the prevention, control, and management of aquatic invasive 

species. The scope of our review includes all federal member agencies of 

the Task Force, and in discussing activities and challenges those member 

agencies face in addressing aquatic invasive species, our report 

highlights many of the legislative and programmatic efforts those 

agencies are undertaking, such as efforts by the U.S. Coast Guard and 

EPA to regulate and manage ballast water through updated regulations. 

NOAA also stated that our report did not mention federal mandates 

intended to address aquatic invasive species other than the 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, the 

National Invasive Species Act of 1996, and Executive Order 13112. 

NOAA stated that at its exit conference with us on July 14, 2015, it noted 

that many federal agencies receive additional directions or mandates to 

address or respond to aquatic invasive species and their impacts and that 

each agency must balance these mandates. We agree that federal 

agencies may have multiple responsibilities in addressing aquatic 

invasive species—we outline many of these responsibilities in table 1 of 

the background of our report where we describe the key roles and 
Page 39 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

responsibilities of Task Force member agencies under various federal 

laws. Also, in describing examples of the activities and challenges 

member agencies face in addressing aquatic invasive species in the 

second objective of our report, we identify and describe many of the 

requirements and mandates member agencies must follow. For example, 

we describe efforts of the FWS’ Office of Law Enforcement to enforce the 

Lacey Act, which prohibits the importation and interstate transport of 

wildlife listed as injurious, among other things. NOAA also stated that 

balancing and responding to various requirements ultimately affects the 

agencies’ ability to adequately respond to this national issue. We agree 

with this statement, and in our discussion of challenges faced by member 

agencies in addressing aquatic invasive species, we report that many of 

the member agencies have faced competing priorities in carrying out 

aquatic invasive species-related activities, with some member agencies 

having limited flexibility to conduct work in multiple areas. 

In addition, NOAA stated that the interactive map (fig. 1) may be 

misleading, inaccurate, or confusing. First, NOAA stated that the reported 

presence of a species in USGS’ Nonindigenous Aquatic Species 

database (one of two key sources we used to prepare species’ location 

information for the map) does not mean that the species is established in 

a particular state’s waters as the map portrays. In our draft report, in a 

note to the figure, we included a statement to clarify that species 

distributions in the map represent the reported presence of a species in at 

least one, but not necessarily all, bodies of water in the state, and do not 

necessarily indicate establishment of the species in any part of the state. 

To further clarify this point so as not to potentially mislead readers, in 

response to NOAA’s comment, we have updated the figure title and note 

and also added a statement to this effect in the body of the report. 

Second, NOAA stated that Caulerpa, one aquatic invasive species we 

highlighted in the figure, had been eradicated. Upon receipt of this 

information from NOAA and in light of obtaining additional supporting 

data, we removed Caulerpa from the figure. Third, NOAA stated that 

providing points of pathways of invasion as part of the interactive figure 

was confusing or inaccurate in some cases. We agree that the manner in 

which we linked our description of the pathways of invasion to the map in 

the draft report could be misinterpreted; consequently, in response to 

NOAA’s comment, we disassociated the description of pathways from the 

map. We believe that providing a description of various pathways aquatic 

invasive species may use to enter and spread into new areas is important 

context for our report. 
Page 40 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Furthermore, concerning our recommendation that the Task Force 

develop and regularly use a tracking mechanism, to include elements 

envisioned for an operational plan and to largely meet requirements in the 

1990 Act, NOAA stated that it does not believe the recommendation can 

address problems faced by the Task Force. NOAA stated that, with 

respect to measuring progress, the Task Force agreed to use an activity 

matrix to compile information, but the matrix has not been updated since 

2012 for several reasons, including because of uncertainties in funding, 

shifting priorities, and the loss of the Task Force Executive Secretary 

position, which has not been filled since the former Executive Secretary 

retired in 2013. NOAA further stated that the report does not address the 

underlying causes that have hindered Task Force efforts to track 

progress, including the limited budget under which the Task Force 

operates, which has been reduced significantly in recent years. Our 

recommendation was not intended to comprehensively address the 

problems faced by the Task Force, but rather was more narrowly focused. 

Specifically, the intent of our recommendation is to help the Task Force 

regularly track progress toward achieving its strategic goals in a manner 

that ensures it also largely meets requirements in the 1990 Act, such as 

reporting to Congress annually on the progress of its program. In our 

report, we discuss the constrained funding environment and limited 

resources the Task Force and its member agencies reported working 

under, including having limited staff devoted directly to the Task Force 

and facing the constrained funding environment that emerged from 

sequestration in 2013 and 2014. We believe that by implementing our 

recommendation—that is, by developing and regularly using a tracking 

mechanism to include the roles of member agencies, activities conducted 

and associated funding, and progress made in achieving strategic 

goals—the Task Force would be in a better position to identify and 

communicate its progress, as well as funding or resource needs to 

address problems faced by the Task Force. As we note in our report, 

capturing how much federal agencies have expended—and will likely 

need to expend—to effectively address aquatic invasive species is 

challenging. But by developing and regularly using a tracking mechanism, 

we believe the Task Force would be better-positioned to assess funding 

gaps and priorities and begin to identify solutions to address the 

challenges member agencies face in addressing aquatic invasive 

species. 

Finally, NOAA identified examples where it stated information portrayed in 

our report could have evolved into recommendations. For example, 

NOAA commented that a recommendation that calls for a more balanced 

approach in conducting prevention activities would be beneficial. In our 
Page 41 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

report, we state that member agencies repeatedly highlighted the 

importance of conducting prevention-oriented activities as a cost-effective 

means of addressing aquatic invasive species. We also note that officials 

from some member agencies said they would like to conduct more 

prevention-oriented activities, but that prevention activities cannot be 

conducted at the expense of activities aimed at controlling aquatic 

invasive species already established, and that a more balanced approach 

between prevention and control activities may be warranted. We include 

this and the other examples NOAA references in our report to provide 

context on an issue, provide examples of activities being undertaken by 

member agencies, or describe challenges faced by member agencies in 

addressing aquatic invasive species—consistent with the objectives and 

scope of work conducted for this review. Consistent with government 

auditing standards, we are to have sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for findings and conclusions before we can 

develop recommendations. Based on our work, we did not have sufficient 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for making recommendations on 

the examples NOAA identified. We encourage NOAA to continue to work 

with Task Force member agencies and others to pursue areas they 

identify as needing additional work, such as identifying ways to take a 

more balanced approach across prevention and control activities. We 

believe that by implementing our recommendation, NOAA, as one of the 

co-chairs of the Task Force, would be in a better position to identify 

funding gaps and priorities, and determine recommendations for funding 

based on emerging needs. 

NOAA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as 

appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Homeland Security, the Interior, State, and Transportation; the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge at the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 42 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

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

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

the report are listed in appendix VII.

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Page 43 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

List of Committees

The Honorable Jim Inhofe

Chairman

The Honorable Barbara Boxer

Ranking Member

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman

The Honorable Maria Cantwell

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rob Bishop

Chairman

The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva

Ranking Member

Committee on Natural Resources

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

This report examines (1) how much the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 

Force (Task Force) member agencies expended addressing aquatic 

invasive species from fiscal year 2012 through 2014; (2) activities 

conducted by Task Force member agencies and challenges in addressing 

aquatic invasive species; and (3) the extent to which the Task Force has 

measured progress in achieving the goals of its 2013-2017 strategic plan.

For all three objectives, we reviewed aquatic invasive species-related 

laws, including the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 

Control Act of 1990, as amended (the 1990 Act),1 regulations, and 

academic studies. We conducted interviews with, and obtained 

documentation from, the co-chairs of the Task Force and other Task 

Force representatives; officials from the 13 Task Force federal member 

departments and agencies (member agencies);2 and representatives from 

each of the Task Force’s six regional panels to learn about their roles and 

responsibilities, aquatic invasive species-related activities, and any 

expenditure information they maintain related to those activities. In 

addition, we interviewed staff from the National Invasive Species Council 

to learn about their efforts to collect information on federal expenditures 

for invasive species activities.

To determine how much Task Force member agencies expended 

addressing aquatic invasive species for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 

and obtain information on activities conducted, we developed and 

disseminated a questionnaire to the 13 Task Force member agencies, 

requesting information on their estimated expenditures and activities 

conducted to address aquatic invasive species. Specifically, the 

questionnaire requested member agencies to provide estimates of their 

expenditures for the activities they conducted in each of the following 

seven aquatic invasive species activity categories: (1) prevention, (2) 

early detection and rapid response, (3) control and management, (4) 

research, (5) restoration, (6) education and public awareness, (7) and 

leadership and international cooperation.3 These were the same activity 

 

1

16 U.S.C. §§ 4701-4751.

2

We defined our scope to include the 13 federal department and agencies that are the 

federal members of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, as established by the 1990 

Act. Other federal agencies may also conduct aquatic invasive species-related activities.

3

We also included an eighth category labeled “other” for member agencies to report any 

activities they determined did not fit within any of the seven categories.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

categories used by the National Invasive Species Council to collect and 

report information for its annual invasive species interagency “crosscut” 

budget summary. The council’s annual budget summary includes 

estimates of federal agency expenditures and planned funding on 

activities to address all types of invasive species, but it does not include a 

breakdown of expenditure by type, including expenditures specific to 

aquatic invasive species. Therefore, the council’s annual budget 

summary provided a framework for us to follow in developing our 

questionnaire, but we could not use information from the budget summary 

to obtain or report information on federal expenditures specific to aquatic 

invasive species. Several Task Force member agency officials 

recommended that we follow the council’s framework for our 

questionnaire since many of the member agencies provide information to 

the council, and they suggested that following a similar framework would 

facilitate their ability to respond to our request. In developing our 

questionnaire, we worked with staff from the National Invasive Species 

Council and conducted pretests with three member agencies to obtain 

their comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

In our questionnaire, we requested that each member agency provide (1) 

its estimated expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 (the most 

recent years for which member agencies reported reliable data were 

available), (2) examples of aquatic invasive species activities conducted 

during this time period, and (3) its planned activities and estimated 

expenditures for future years, which we defined as fiscal years 2015 and 

2016. We also included questions about how the Task Force member 

agencies prepared their estimates, their sources of information, any 

challenges or limitations in preparing the estimates, and whether the 

estimates were reviewed by their budget or financial offices. Appendix IV 

provides a blank copy of our questionnaire.

We received completed responses from all 13 of the Task Force member 

agencies. The member agencies provided information on their activities 

conducted to address aquatic invasive species, but member agencies 

varied in the level of detail they provided about their estimated 

expenditures. Twelve of the 13 member agencies included at least some 

information on their estimated expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 

2014, but the U.S. Forest Service reported that it was unable to provide 

estimates. For the other 12 agencies, they varied in their ability to provide 

consistent and complete information on their estimated expenditures at 

the level of detail we requested in our questionnaire. With respect to the 

expenditure information for fiscal years 2012 to 2014, some agencies 

were able to provide estimates of their expenditures by activity category, 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

but many reported that they could not provide estimates at this level of 

detail. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency reported its 

expenditures supported activities for five of the seven activity categories, 

but because it could not provide separate estimates for each of these 

categories it reported all of its expenditures under the prevention 

category. Similarly, the National Park Service reported conducting 

activities in all seven activity categories in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, but 

provided estimates for two activity categories (research and restoration) 

and reported that it was unable to determine how much of its estimated 

expenditures went toward the other five activity categories in these years. 

Based on inconsistencies and incomplete responses across the 13 

member agencies, we decided to limit our reporting for fiscal years 2012 

through 2014 to estimates of total annual expenditures for each Task 

Force member agency.

With respect to future expenditures for fiscal years 2015 to 2016, a few 

member agencies indicated they did not have estimates of expenditures 

for future years, though others had partial estimates. To avoid reporting 

potentially misleading information that could underestimate likely future 

expenditures compared to amounts reported for fiscal years 2012 through 

2014, we decided not to report the future expenditure estimates provided 

to us. Similarly, 9 of the 13 member agencies reported that they were not 

able to provide estimates for how much they expended addressing 

specific aquatic invasive species, citing reasons such as expenditures 

being tracked at a project level rather than by a specific species. 

Therefore, we do not include species-specific expenditure information in 

our report.

After receiving completed questionnaires, we followed up with Task Force 

member agency officials to obtain clarification or additional information, 

as needed. We did not independently verify the accuracy of the estimated 

expenditures reported by the member agencies, which likely include 

some over- and some under-estimates. For example, in its response, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) described various activities that 

were implemented through projects supported with grant funding from the 

Wildlife Sport Fish Restoration Program.4 But, FWS did not include 

expenditure estimates for these project activities because it could not 

reliably estimate how much of the grant funding should be attributed to 

 

4

50 C.F.R. pt. 80-86.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

the aquatic invasive species component of the grant-funded projects. We 

asked each of the Task Force member agencies for their assessment of 

whether their estimated expenditures for fiscal years 2012 to 2014 were 

an underestimate, overestimate, or about right. Ten of the member 

agencies responded that their estimates were “about right,” and two 

indicated they were underestimates (one member agency did not provide 

estimates). Accordingly, the expenditures reflect the agencies’ best 

estimates of how much they expended on aquatic invasive species 

activities during these years. Based on our assessment of these 

responses, along with the responses provided through the questionnaire, 

we determined that the expenditure estimates for fiscal years 2012 

through 2014 were sufficiently reliable for purposes of this report—to 

provide general estimates of total annual expenditures by Task Force 

member agencies on activities to address aquatic invasive species.

To describe the activities conducted by Task Force member agencies and 

any challenges in addressing aquatic invasive species, we built on the 

information gathered through our questionnaire and conducted a series of 

interviews with officials from the 13 member agencies, the federal exofficio member of the Task Force (the Smithsonian Environmental 

Research Center), and each of the Task Force’s six regional panels. 

Through these interviews, we collected information and documentation on 

aquatic invasive species activities conducted and any challenges 

agencies identified in addressing aquatic invasive species. Many of the 

activities and challenges relate to ongoing activities that span multiple 

fiscal years and thus the information we collected often highlights, but is 

not limited to, fiscal years 2012 through 2014. We also conducted site 

visits in Southern Florida, Northern California, and Western Washington 

to interview local federal officials and observe activities at the sites, such 

as inspections of shipments of live fish to search for aquatic invasive 

species and research being conducted at research facilities. We selected 

these locations based on the number and variety of aquatic invasive 

species and federal agencies, as well as the types of activities conducted 

in those locations. Information we obtained from our interviews and site 

visits on activities conducted and challenges identified are not 

generalizable, but we believe the examples we obtained provide 

important insights into the wide array of aquatic invasive species activities 

being undertaken across the 13 Task Force member agencies and the 

challenges agencies face in conducting those activities.

To determine the extent to which the Task Force has measured progress 

in achieving the goals of its 2013-2017 strategic plan, we conducted 

interviews with and obtained documentation from Task Force 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

representatives, officials from the 13 Task Force member agencies, and 

officials representing the six regional panels. We reviewed the Task 

Force’s 2013-2017 strategic plan, its 2012 reporting matrix, and other 

documentation related to the Task Force’s efforts to collect information 

related to its strategic plan. We then analyzed and compared this 

information to program requirements identified in the 1990 Act,5 our 

previous reports on leading practices provided by the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010,6 and our executive guide on strategic 

planning,7 as appropriate.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2014 to November

2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

5

16 U.S.C. § 4722(b).

6

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). 

7

GAO/GGD-96-118. 
Appendix II: Map of the United States with 

Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and 

Their Reported Presence by State, and 

Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Page 49 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Figure 3 shows examples of aquatic invasive species and their known 

locations (i.e., reported presence of a species) as well as common 

pathways of invasion (see interactive fig. 1) and includes the figure’s 

rollover information. Table 5 provides descriptions of the aquatic invasive 

species used as examples, and table 6 provides descriptions of common 

pathways of invasion. 

Appendix II: Map of the United States with 

Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and 

Their Reported Presence by State, and 

Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1)
Appendix II: Map of the United States with 

Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and 

Their Reported Presence by State, and 

Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Page 50 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Figure 3: Map of the United States with Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and Their Reported Presence by State, and 

Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Note: Species and pathways depicted in this interactive map are examples only and do not represent 

all aquatic invasive species or pathways. Species distributions, or “spread,” in these maps are by 

state and represent the reported presence (not establishment) of a species in at least one, but not 

necessarily all, bodies of water in the state. Species distributions are based on the known 
Appendix II: Map of the United States with 

Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and 

Their Reported Presence by State, and 

Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Page 51 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

distributions of each species, as of July 2015, according to the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Plants Database. 

Table 5: Description of Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species

Species States affected Species description

Common Water 

Hyacinth

Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas; California; 

Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; Florida; 

Georgia; Hawaii; Illinois; Kentucky; 

Louisiana; Massachusetts; Mississippi; 

Missouri; New Jersey; New York; North 

Carolina; Oregon; South Carolina; 

Tennessee; Texas; Virginia; Washington

A free-floating flowering plant that forms dense colonies that block 

sunlight and crowd out native species, and can clog water intake 

structures, canals, and irrigation systems, therefore damaging 

ecosystems, raising operation costs, and impacting navigation of 

waterways. Common Water Hyacinth has become established in 

the Southeast, Northeast, and along the Pacific Coast of the 

United States after being introduced from South America through 

the ornamental aquarium trade. 

Chinese Mitten Crab California; Connecticut; Delaware; 

Louisiana; Maryland; Michigan; New 

Jersey; New York; Ohio; Oregon; 

Washington

Crustaceans that threaten fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, 

cause clogging at water intake structures, and have the potential to 

transport disease to humans. Chinese Mitten Crabs are native to 

the Pacific Coasts of China and Korea. They were introduced to 

California, the Great Lakes, and the Mid-Atlantic Coast through 

ballast water discharge and the intentional or accidental release of 

these crabs purchased as food. Chinese Mitten Crabs are listed as 

an injurious species under the Lacey Act, making it illegal to import 

or transport them between states. 

Sea Lamprey Illinois; Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; New 

York; Ohio; Pennsylvania; Wisconsin

Fish that prey on native fish by attaching to the outside of a native 

host fish and draining its nutrients, often killing the host fish. Sea 

Lamprey can devastate native fish populations and harm fishing 

industries. They are native to the Atlantic Ocean, but invaded the 

Great Lakes by passing through canals.

Asian Carp Every state but Alaska, Montana, and 

Rhode Island

Collectively refers to four species: Grass Carp, Bighead Carp, 

Black Carp, and Silver Carp. These fish harm ecosystems, 

threaten native species, and are also a danger to human health 

when they jump out of the water, which can injure or distract 

recreational boaters. Found naturally in Russia and China, each 

species of Asian Carp was intentionally introduced in the United 

States to improve water systems. Specifically, Grass Carp were 

intended for vegetation control, Bighead and Silver Carp for water 

quality improvement, and Black Carp for aquaculture-related work 

on parasite control. However, these fish escaped their introduction 

areas and, as a group, Asian Carp have invaded lakes in nearly all 

U. S. states, including the invasion of Grass Carp into the Great 

Lakes. Bighead Carp, Black Carp, and Silver Carp are listed as 

injurious species under the Lacey Act, making it illegal to import or 

transport them between states.
Appendix II: Map of the United States with 

Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and 

Their Reported Presence by State, and 

Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Page 52 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Species States affected Species description

Zebra and Quagga 

Mussels

Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas; California; 

Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; 

Georgia; Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; 

Kentucky; Louisiana; Maryland; 

Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota; 

Mississippi; Missouri; Nebraska; Nevada; 

New Jersey; New York; North Dakota; 

Ohio; Oklahoma; Pennsylvania; South 

Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; 

Vermont; Virginia; West Virginia; 

Wisconsin

Distinct species of mussels that cause similar types of damage to 

native ecosystems by destroying native fish habitat and food webs. 

Both species of mussels colonize on water supply pipes, which 

can impact hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, public water 

supply plants, and industrial facilities. These mussels also affect 

navigation and boating by increasing the weight on vessels and 

sinking navigation buoys. They arrived in the United States from 

the Black, Caspian, and Azov Seas through ballast water 

discharge and have spread across much of the continental United 

States from recreational boats and fishing gear. Zebra Mussels 

(but not Quagga Mussels) are listed as an injurious species under 

the Lacey Act, making it illegal to import or transport them between 

states.

Northern Snakehead Arkansas; California; Delaware; Florida; 

Illinois; Maryland; Massachusetts; New 

Jersey; New York; North Carolina; 

Pennsylvania; Virginia

A fish that competes with native species for food and habitat and 

can eat small birds and mammals in addition to other fish and 

aquatic reptiles. It originates from China, Russia, and Korea and 

has invaded numerous areas of the north and Mid-Atlantic Coast

of the United States as well as Florida, Illinois, Arkansas, and 

California. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 

snakeheads arrived in U.S. waters as an import for the live food 

market and became invasive by intentional release from the 

aquarium trade. Northern Snakehead is listed as an injurious 

species under the Lacey Act, making it illegal to import or transport 

them between states.

Nutria Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas; California; 

Delaware; Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Iowa; 

Kansas; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maryland; 

Minnesota; Mississippi; Missouri; 

Nebraska; Nevada; New Mexico; New 

York; North Carolina; Ohio; Oklahoma; 

Oregon; Pennsylvania; Tennessee; Texas; 

Virginia; Washington; West Virginia

An aquatic invasive mammal, resembling a beaver, which has 

destroyed habitat and threatened endangered species in many 

states. Nutria overgraze wetland habitats, destroying ecosystems. 

It is native to southern South America and was originally imported 

into Louisiana for fur farming, but escaped to areas including 

Louisiana, Maryland, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. In 

Maryland, populations of Nutria have largely been eliminated, 

according to Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service officials. 

Snowflake Coral Hawaii A soft, nonreef forming coral that grows over hard surfaces, but 

also grows quickly over native corals and reef surfaces, which kills 

native reefs, especially the native black coral that supports a 

vibrant economy and ecosystem in Hawaii. Snowflake Coral also 

feeds on zooplankton that supports reef ecosystems. It is native to 

the Caribbean and was introduced through hull fouling to Hawaii. 

Water Lettuce Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; 

Delaware; Florida; Georgia; Hawaii; 

Kansas; Louisiana; Maryland; Mississippi; 

Missouri; New Jersey; New York; North 

Carolina; Ohio; South Carolina; Texas

A floating aquatic invasive plant that grows into dense mats that 

can clog waterways and water intake structures. Scientists 

disagree as to whether the plant is native to the continental United 

States or originated from South America or Africa, but agree that it 

was likely transported by ballast water across the United States 

and is invasive in Hawaii. 
Appendix II: Map of the United States with 

Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and 

Their Reported Presence by State, and 

Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Page 53 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Species States affected Species description

New Zealand 

Mudsnail

Arizona; California; Colorado; Idaho; 

Illinois; Minnesota; Montana; New York; 

Nevada; Ohio; Oregon; Pennsylvania; 

Utah; Washington; Wisconsin; Wyoming

A small freshwater snail that can cause declines in native snail 

populations by out competing them and can alter stream 

ecosystems through their rapid spread. The New Zealand 

Mudsnail originates from New Zealand and adjacent small islands 

and has become established in the western United States and the 

Great Lakes. It is believed that the snail was introduced to the 

Great Lakes and western states through ballast water discharge 

and hull fouling. 

Alligatorweed Alabama; Arkansas; California; Florida; 

Georgia; Illinois; Kentucky; Louisiana; 

Mississippi; North Carolina; Oklahoma; 

South Carolina; Tennessee; Texas; 

Virginia

A leafy aquatic plant that forms dense mats that crowd out native 

species and impedes recreational activities such as boating, 

swimming, and fishing. Alligatorweed originates from South 

America and was introduced through ballast water discharge in the 

southeastern United States and California. 

Hydrilla Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas; California; 

Connecticut; Delaware; Florida; Georgia; 

Indiana; Iowa; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maine; 

Maryland; Massachusetts; Mississippi; 

New Jersey; New York; North Carolina; 

Pennsylvania; South Carolina; Tennessee; 

Texas; Virginia; Washington

A submersed aquatic plant that can grow in thick mats and has the 

ability to regrow from small pieces of the plant. It can clog canals, 

irrigation, and structure vents. Hydrilla is listed as a Federal 

Noxious Weed, which restricts its importation, exportation, and 

interstate movement. According to U.S. Army Corps of Engineer 

officials, bacteria can grow on the surface of Hydrilla, such as 

Aetokthonos hydrillicola, and kill some waterfowl and Bald Eagles 

when they ingest the bacterium. Hydrilla is found in the Southeast, 

Northeast, Washington, California, Arizona, Indiana, and Iowa. It 

was introduced from Asia through the aquarium trade. 

Lionfish Alabama; Florida; Georgia; Louisiana; 

Mississippi; New Jersey; New York; North 

Carolina; Rhode Island; South Carolina; 

Texas; Virginia

A saltwater fish that preys on native fish communities and 

damages fragile coral ecosystems. Lionfish have several spines 

that contain potent venom that can administer a painful sting to 

humans and potential predators. As a result, it has few natural 

predators outside its native habitat. Lionfish are native in the 

western Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, and Red Sea; they are 

invasive in the western Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of 

Mexico. The arrival of Lionfish in the Atlantic Ocean is attributed to 

the aquarium trade and intentional release of pet Lionfish. 

Melaleuca Florida; Hawaii; Louisiana An invasive tree that crowds out native species and causes 

damage to ecosystems, especially delicate wetlands. Melaleuca 

has adapted to grow at varying levels of water and each tree can 

hold millions of seeds, which allow this invasive tree to spread 

rapidly. It is originally from Australia and was brought to the United 

States as an ornamental plant used for erosion control. It is found 

in Hawaii, Florida, and Louisiana and is listed as a Federal 

Noxious Weed, which restricts its importation, exportation, or 

interstate movement. 

Burmese Python Florida A constrictor snake that preys on and competes with native 

species. It is native to Southeast Asia and is invasive in Southern 

Florida. It was introduced by pet owners through escape or 

intentional release. The Burmese Python is listed as injurious 

wildlife under the Lacey Act, making it illegal to import or transport 

the snake between states. 

Sources: USGS; NOAA; USFWS; EPA; USDA; Hawaii Invasive Species Council; Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database; PLANTS Database; Global Invasive Species Database; GAO. | GAO-16-49
Appendix II: Map of the United States with 

Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and 

Their Reported Presence by State, and 

Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Page 54 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Table 6: Examples of Common Pathways

Common pathways Description of common pathways

Trade The transport of items through commerce or other exchanges—by boat, airplane, the mail, or other 

transportation methods—increases the probability of introducing aquatic invasive species. Aquatic 

invasive species can be intentionally sent through trade or mail routes such as with Chinese Mitten 

Crabs for human consumption, or they can hitchhike by various transportation modes or on other 

species. 

Ballast water Water in a ship’s holding tank that is used for stability and safety. When ballast water is acquired in one 

body of water or location and released in another, the potential for invasive species to be released and 

impact coastal communities is immense. Ballast water discharge is a common pathway through which 

aquatic invasive species are introduced into U.S. waters. Ballast water can introduce aquatic invasive 

species at any port in fresh or saltwater around the United States. For example, the introductions of 

Quagga and Zebra Mussels have been attributed to ballast water discharges. 

Hull fouling The accumulation of organisms on a vessel’s exterior surfaces can occur on commercial, recreational, 

or military vessels. Also called biofouling, hull fouling can introduce aquatic invasive species into any 

water body where boats or other water vessels are used and species become detached from surfaces. 

Snowflake Coral, for example, was introduced to Hawaii through this pathway. 

Outdoor gear and bait Fishing and hiking gear, as well as live bait, from outdoor activities has been known to spread aquatic 

invasive species to new waters. Fishing equipment, diving gear, and other recreational items that are 

transported among water bodies increase the risk of introduction. Discarding unused live bait after 

fishing can also introduce species that disrupt their new ecosystems and eliminate competing native 

species. For example, New Zealand Mudsnails have been unintentionally transported on fishing 

equipment across water bodies throughout the United States. 

Boats and boat trailers Recreational boats and boat trailers are a common pathway of introduction for aquatic invasive species, 

such as Hydrilla. Small pieces of this plant can survive on trailers and boat motors and regrow in new 

locations. Boat trailers are a common pathway for species to move from one water body to another and 

numerous federal and state agencies are invested in preventing species’ spread through this pathway 

through the “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!” campaign and cleaning stations at boat launches across the 

United States. Boats and boat trailers, for example, are estimated to have spread Quagga and Zebra 

Mussels from the Great Lakes to other water bodies in the United States. 

Aquarium release Escape or intentional release of unwanted pets and ornamental or aquarium plants, as well as escape 

or intentional release of species from aquaculture farms, can be a source of invasive species in all parts 

of the country. Lionfish and Burmese Pythons, for example, were introduced to U.S. waterways after 

being released from aquaria. 

Intentional introductions Illegal stocking and the live food industry can introduce aquatic invasive species. Although it may be 

prohibited by law, people release fish into new waters for sport fishing, which can have severe impacts 

on ecosystems. The import of live, exotic plants and animals and the release of those species in new 

locations to create local live food sources is another pathway of intentional introduction. The Northern 

Snakehead, for example, is thought to have been introduced in Maryland from the live food industry 

after it became a popular food source. 

Sources: USGS; NOAA; USFWS; EPA; USDA; Hawaii Invasive Species Council; Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database; PLANTS Database; Global Invasive Species Database; GAO. | GAO-16-49
Appendix III: Aquatic Invasive Species 

Activities Conducted by Task Force Member 

Agencies

Page 55 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Through our questionnaire to the 13 federal member agencies of the 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (Task Force), we requested that 

member agencies identify the types of aquatic invasive species activities 

they conducted during fiscal years 2012 through 2014, including how 

those activities fell within the seven general activity categories developed 

by the National Invasive Species Council. The Task Force member 

agency responses are summarized in table 7. 

Table 7: Aquatic Invasive Species Activities Conducted by Task Force Member Agencies, by Activity Category, Fiscal Years 

2012 through 2014

Agency Preventiona

Early

detection

and rapid 

responseb

Control and 

managementc Restorationd Researche

Education

and public 

awarenessf

Leadership 

and 

international 

cooperationg

Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service       

U.S. Forest Service       

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

      

Department of Defense

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers       

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard     

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management    

Bureau of Reclamation       

National Park Service       

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service       

U.S. Geological Survey   

Department of State       

Department of Transportation 

Maritime Administration  

Environmental Protection Agency      

Total number of agencies conducting 

activity

11 10 11 10 13 11 10

Sources: GAO questionnaires of 13 Task Force member agencies. I GAO-16-49

Note: These seven activity categories were developed by the National Invasive Species Council 

Activities and reflect common activities agencies conduct along the continuum of an invasion of a 

species. These activity categories apply to all invasive species, including both aquatic and terrestrial 

species.

Appendix III: Aquatic Invasive Species 

Activities Conducted by Task Force Member 

Agencies
Appendix III: Aquatic Invasive Species 

Activities Conducted by Task Force Member 

Agencies

Page 56 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

a

Prevention includes actions taken to prevent the entry, establishment, dispersal, and dissemination 

of aquatic invasive species.

b

Early Detection and Rapid Response includes actions taken to detect the presence of an aquatic 

invasive species and assess current and potential impact of the introduction. Rapid Response 

includes activities taken to eradicate, contain, or control a potentially invasive species introduced into 

an ecosystem before it spreads.

c

Control and Management includes actions taken to lessen and manage the impact of aquatic 

invasive species within their established ranges and limit their spread.

d

Restoration includes actions taken to assist the recovery and reestablishment of aquatic plant and 

animal communities that have been overwhelmed by aquatic invasive species.

e

Research includes actions taken to identify, evaluate, control, and understand aquatic invasive 

species and their interactions with the biotic and abiotic elements of the environment.

f

Education and Public Awareness includes actions taken to maintain and increase public awareness 

of aquatic invasive species and programs and to promote public actions that reduce the spread and 

impact of aquatic invasive species.

g

Leadership and International Cooperation includes actions taken to provide leadership, oversight and 

coordination to maintain and enhance the capabilities to prevent, control, manage, and understand 

aquatic invasive species and invasion pathways with relevant state, local, and international partners, 

and provide for public input and participation.
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 57 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member 

Agencies
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 58 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 59 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 60 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 61 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 62 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 63 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 64 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 65 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 66 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 67 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 68 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 69 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 70 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 71 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 72 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 

Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Page 73 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 74 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 75 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 76 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 77 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 78 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 79 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 80 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 81 GAO-16-49 Aquatic Invasive Species

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. 

In addition to the individual named above, Alyssa M. Hundrup (Assistant 

Director), Natalie Block, Mark Braza, Greg Campbell, Virginia Chanley, 

Armetha Liles, Michael Meleady, Kelly Rubin, Jeanette Soares, Anne 

Stevens, Sara Sullivan, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Tama Weinberg made 

key contributions to this report.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361617)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.