Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife, and Water, Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, 

United States Senate

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT 

Tuesday, June 17, 2003 INVASIVE SPECIES 

Federal Efforts and State 

Perspectives on Challenges 

and National Leadership 

Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

GAO-03-916T 
In 2002, GAO reported that while the National Management Plan calls for 

many actions that are likely to contribute to preventing and controlling 

invasive species in the United States, it does not clearly articulate specific 

long-term goals toward which the government should strive. For example, it 

is not clear how implementing the actions in the plan will move national 

efforts toward outcomes such as reducing new invasive species by a specific 

number or reducing the spread of established species by a specific amount. 

Moreover, GAO found that the federal government had made little progress 

in implementing many of the actions called for by the plan. Reasons for the 

slow progress included delays in establishing teams to be responsible for 

guiding implementation of the planned actions, the low priority given to 

implementation by the National Invasive Species Council and federal 

agencies, and the lack of funding and staff responsible for doing the work. 

In addition, GAO reported that current federal efforts are not adequate to 

prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes via the 

ballast water of ships. Although federal officials believe more should be 

done to protect the Great Lakes from ballast water discharges, their plans 

for doing so depend on the development of standards and technologies that 

will take many years. 

More recently, state officials who responded to GAO’s survey, identified a 

number of gaps in, or problems with, existing legislation addressing invasive 

species and other barriers to managing invasives. Many state officials 

identified a lack of legal requirements for controlling invasive species that 

are already established or widespread as a key gap in legislation addressing 

both aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. State officials also often 

recognized ineffective standards for ballast water as a major problem in 

aquatics legislation. Regarding barriers to managing invasive species, state 

officials identified a lack of federal funding for state invasive species efforts, 

public education and outreach, and cost-effective control measures as major 

problems. State officials’ opinions varied on the preferred leadership 

structure for managing invasive species and whether to integrate legislative 

authority on invasive species. Many officials indicated that specifically 

authorizing the National Invasive Species Council would be an effective 

management option and favored integrated authority, but in both cases, the 

margins were relatively small. State officials indicated that the possible 

benefits of integrated legislation would be increased coordination between 

federal agencies and states and an increased focus on invasive species 

pathways, as opposed to focusing on individual species. The possible 

drawbacks identified included concerns that a single piece of legislation 

would not be able to address all possible situations dealing with invasive 

species and might reduce state flexibility in addressing invasives. 

Invasive species–nonnative plants 

and animals–have caused billions 

of dollars in damage to natural 

areas, businesses, and consumers. 

In 2001, the federal government 

issued a National Management Plan 

to coordinate a national control 

effort involving the 20 or so federal 

agencies that are responsible for 

managing invasive species. In 

October 2002, GAO reported on the 

implementation of the management 

plan and efforts to manage ballast 

water, among other things. 

(Invasive Species: Clearer Focus 

and Greater Commitment Needed 

to Effectively Manage the Problem)

[Oct. 2002, GAO-03-1] 

This testimony discusses some of 

GAO’s findings and 

recommendations in that report. It 

also presents the results of a 

subsequent GAO survey of state 

officials responsible for managing 

terrestrial and aquatic invasive 

species. This survey sought state 

perspectives on (1) the perceived 

gaps in existing legislation and 

barriers to addressing terrestrial 

and aquatic invasive species and 

(2) the federal leadership structure 

for addressing invasive species, as 

well as the integration of federal 

legislation on terrestrial invasive 

species with legislation on aquatic 

invasives. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-916T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at 

(202) 512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-916T, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife, and Water, Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, United 

States Senate 

June 17, 2003 

INVASIVE SPECIES 

Federal Efforts and State Perspectives on 

Challenges and National Leadership 
Page 1 GAO-03-916T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the difficult issue of managing 

invasive species as you deliberate Senate Bill 525,1

 which would 

reauthorize the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control 

Act of 1990.2

 Invasive species—harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and 

microorganisms—are found throughout the United States and cause 

damage to crops, rangelands, waterways, and other ecosystems that is 

estimated in the billions of dollars annually. In addition to their economic 

costs, invasive species can have a devastating effect on natural areas, 

where they have strangled native plants, taken over wetland habitats, 

crowded out native species, and deprived waterfowl and other species of 

food sources. Conservation biologists rank invasive species as the second 

most serious threat to endangered species after habitat destruction. 

Overall, scientists, academicians, and industry leaders are recognizing 

invasive species as one of the most serious environmental threats of the 

21st century. In October 2002, we issued a report on the federal 

government’s National Management Plan for managing invasive species, 

ballast water management, and other issues.3,4

My testimony today is based on our October 2002 report as well as new 

work that you requested. Specifically, I will discuss the findings and 

recommendations of our October 2002 report that address (1) progress 

made by federal agencies implementing the National Management Plan 

and (2) the current state of ballast water management as a pathway for 

invasive species. I will also discuss some of the results of new work we 

conducted to obtain state perspectives on (1) the gaps in, or problems 

with, existing legislation and barriers to addressing terrestrial and aquatic 

invasive species and (2) the federal leadership structure for addressing 

invasive species and integration of federal legislation on terrestrial 

invasive species with legislation on aquatic invasives. To obtain state 

perspectives, we surveyed the state agencies typically most involved with 

 1

S. 525, 108th Cong. (2003). 

2

Pub. L. No. 101-646, 104 Stat. 4761 (1990) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 4701-4751). 

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater 

Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem, GAO-03-1 (Washington, DC: Oct. 

2002). 

4

Executive Order 13112 created a National Invasive Species Council, now composed of 11 

federal departments and agencies, to provide national leadership on addressing invasive 

species and to develop a plan for managing them. 
Page 2 GAO-03-916T 

invasive species—state agencies responsible for agriculture and natural 

resources or fish and wildlife—sending surveys to at least two agencies 

within each of the 50 states. We received 68 responses from a total of 45 

states. We also surveyed the members of the Invasive Species Advisory 

Committee, a federal advisory committee established to help the federal 

government develop and implement its National Management Plan; we 

received responses from about two-thirds of the 24 Committee members. 

We also interviewed officials in a few states chosen because of their wellestablished invasive species programs or the large number of invasive 

species present. We conducted our work in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. We will provide to you the full 

results of our survey in a separate product. 

As we reported in October 2002, the National Management Plan for 

addressing invasive species lacks a clear long-term desired outcome and 

quantifiable measures of performance. While the actions called for in the 

plan are likely to contribute to controlling invasive species in a general 

sense, it is unclear how implementing them will move the United States 

toward a specific outcome, such as reducing new invasive species by a 

specific number or reducing the spread of established species by a 

specified amount. Federal officials recognize that the plan has deficiencies 

and are working on improvements. Currently, the only performance 

measure that can be assessed is the percentage of planned actions that 

have been completed. By this measure, implementation has been slow. As 

of September 2002, federal agencies had completed less than 20 percent of 

the actions that the plan called for by that date, although they had begun 

work on others. Reasons for the slow progress included delays in 

establishing teams to be responsible for guiding implementation of the 

planned actions, the low priority given to implementation by the National 

Invasive Species Council and federal agencies, and the lack of funding and 

staff responsible for doing the work. Some stakeholders expressed the 

view that the low priority given to implementing the plan and associated 

limited progress may be due to the fact that the Council and plan were 

created by executive order and thus do not receive the same priority as 

programs that are legislatively mandated. We made several 

recommendations to the Council intended to clarify goals and objectives 

in the National Management Plan and to improve reporting on the progress 

of its implementation; Council agencies generally agreed with our 

recommendations. 

We also reported in October 2002 that current federal efforts are not 

adequate to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great 

Summary 
Page 3 GAO-03-916T 

Lakes via the ballast water of ships. Despite federal regulations requiring 

ships that enter the lakes from more than 200 nautical miles off the U.S. 

coast to exchange their ballast water in the open ocean (that is, in waters 

deeper than 2,000 meters and farther than 200 nautical miles from the U.S. 

coast); retain the ballast water on board; or use an alternative, 

environmentally sound, method of ballast water management, aquatic 

invasive species are still entering the Great Lakes and establishing 

themselves in the ecosystem. According to the experts we consulted, at 

least two factors contribute to the failure of the existing regulations to 

prevent introductions. First, about 70 percent of the ships that enter the 

Great Lakes are classified by the Coast Guard as having no ballast on 

board and, are therefore, exempt from open-ocean exchange 

requirements. However, these ships may in fact carry thousands of gallons 

of residual ballast water and sediment in their drained tanks, and this 

water and sediment may contain potentially invasive organisms that may 

be mixed with water later taken from, and then discharged into, the Great 

Lakes. Second, the open-ocean exchange conducted by ships that have 

ballast does not effectively remove or kill all organisms in the ballast 

tanks. Although federal officials believe more should be done to protect 

the Great Lakes from ballast water discharges, their plans for doing so 

depend on the development of standards and technologies that will take 

many years. In the meantime, the continued introduction of invasive 

species could have major economic and ecological consequences. 

According to our new work, state officials identified a number of 

legislative gaps or problems, and other barriers related to addressing 

invasive species. A key gap noted in both aquatic and terrestrial legislation 

is the lack of legal requirements for controlling invasive species that are 

already established or widespread. State officials said that if there is no 

federal requirement, there is often little money available to combat a 

species and that a legal requirement would raise the priority for 

responding to it. For example, one state official complained about the lack 

of authority to control Eurasian ruffe, an invasive fish that has spread 

through several Great Lakes and causes great harm to native fisheries. He 

compared this to the authorities available to control the sea lamprey, 

which has a mandated control program that is funded by the U.S. and 

Canada.5

 In addition, many state officials frequently cited, as ineffective, 

the current federal standards for ballast water, which only impose 

requirements on ships entering the Great Lakes and not other U.S. waters. 

 5

Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, Sept. 10, 1954, U.S.-Can., 6 U.S.T. 2836. 
Page 4 GAO-03-916T 

State officials also identified the lack of federal funding for state invasive 

species efforts as another barrier they face. In particular, states were 

concerned about not having sufficient funds to create management plans 

for addressing invasive species, and to conduct monitoring and detection, 

inspection and enforcement, and research activities. Finally, state officials 

were also concerned with the lack of cost-effective control measures and 

insufficient public education and outreach efforts. 

State officials’ opinions on effective federal leadership structures for 

addressing invasive species varied. A National Invasive Species Council 

specifically authorized in legislation was most often identified as an 

effective leadership structure for managing invasive species, although 

many officials also thought that continuing with the Council as established 

by executive order would also be effective. Several federal agency officials 

thought that giving the Council authority in legislation would make it 

easier for them to implement the National Management Plan. Regarding 

the form legislation on invasive species should take, most state officials 

were in favor of integrating legislation on terrestrial invasive species with 

legislation on aquatic invasive species, but the margin was relatively small. 

Many state officials indicated that the possible benefits of integrated 

legislative authority would be increased coordination between federal 

agencies and states and an increased focus on invasive species pathways, 

as opposed to specific species. The possible drawbacks identified included 

concerns that a single piece of legislation would not be able to address all 

possible situations dealing with invasive species and may result in reduced 

state flexibility in addressing invasives. 

As we have reported in the past, the impact of invasive species in the 

United States is widespread, and their consequences for the economy and 

the environment are profound.6

 Invasive species affect people’s livelihoods 

and pose a significant risk to industries such as agriculture, ranching, and 

fisheries. The cost to control invasive species and the cost of damages 

they inflict, or could inflict, on property and natural resources are 

estimated in the billions of dollars annually. For example, according to the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), each year the Formosan termite 

causes at least $1 billion in damages and control costs in 11 states; USDA 

 6

U.S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State Funding to 

Address Harmful Nonnative Species, GAO/RCED-00-219 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 24, 

2000). 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-03-916T 

also estimates that, if not managed, fruit flies could cause more than $1.8 

billion in damage each year.7

 Invasive species continue to be introduced in 

new locations, with recent examples including the northern snakehead 

fish in Maryland, the emerald ash borer in Michigan, and the monkeypox 

virus in the Midwest. 

Invasive species may arrive unintentionally as contaminants of bulk 

commodities, such as food, and in packing materials, shipping containers, 

and ships’ ballast water. Ballast water is considered a major pathway for 

the transfer of aquatic invasive species. Ballast is essential to the safe 

operation of ships because it enables them to maintain their stability and 

control how high or low they ride in the water. Ships take on or discharge 

ballast water over the course of a voyage to counteract the effects of 

loading or unloading cargo, and in response to sea conditions. The ballast 

that ships pump aboard in ports and harbors may be fresh, brackish, or 

salt water. These waters could potentially contain various organisms that 

could then be carried to other ports around the world where they might be 

discharged, survive, and become invasive. Other invasive species may be 

introduced intentionally; kudzu, for example—a rapidly growing invasive 

vine that thrives in the southeastern United States—was intentionally 

introduced from Japan as an ornamental plant and was used by USDA in 

the 1930s to control soil erosion. 

Federal agencies implement a variety of invasive species-related programs 

and activities pursuant to their specific missions and responsibilities. 

USDA, for example, spends significant resources on prevention and 

control activities for invasive species that harm agricultural and forest 

products. USDA is also responsible for preventing infectious diseases, 

some of which are considered invasive, from spreading among livestock. 

States also play a major role in addressing invasive species, either through 

their own programs or through collaboration with or funding from federal 

programs. Such programs and the amount of resources expended on them 

vary considerably among the states. 

In response to concerns that we were losing the battle against invasive 

species, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 in February 1999 

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

and minimize their economic, environmental, and human health impacts. 

The executive order established the National Invasive Species Council, 

 7

Estimates are in 2001 dollars. 
Page 6 GAO-03-916T 

which is now composed of the heads of 11 federal departments and 

agencies, to provide national leadership on invasive species and to ensure 

that federal efforts are coordinated and effective, among other things. The 

executive order also required the Secretary of the Interior to establish a 

federal advisory committee to provide information and advice to the 

Council. To achieve the goals of the executive order, the Council was to 

develop a national management plan that would serve as the blueprint for 

federal action on invasive species. S. 525, if enacted, would call on the 

Council to carry out several other activities such as implementing a 

strategy to share information collected under the proposed legislation and 

to develop a program for educating the public about certain pathways for 

invasive species; it would also authorize funds for the Council to carry out 

these activities. 

The National Invasive Species Council’s management plan, Meeting the 

Invasive Species Challenge, issued in January 2001, calls for actions that 

are likely to help control invasive species, such as issuing additional 

regulations to further reduce the risk of species introductions via solid 

wood packing material, developing methods to determine rapid response 

measures that are most appropriate for specific situations, and devoting 

additional resources to strengthening inspection services at ports of entry. 

However, as we observed in our October 2002 report, the plan lacks a 

clear long-term goal and quantifiable performance criteria against which to 

evaluate its overall success. For example, the plan does not contain 

performance-oriented goals and objectives, such as reducing the 

introduction of new species by a certain percentage or reducing the spread 

of established species by a specified amount. Instead, the plan contains an 

extensive list of actions that, while likely to contribute to preventing and 

controlling invasive species, are not clearly part of a comprehensive 

strategy. Similarly, many of the actions in the plan call for federal agencies 

to take certain steps rather than to achieve specific results and do not 

have measurable outcomes. For example, the plan calls for the Council to 

work with relevant organizations to “expand opportunities to share 

information, technologies, and technical capacity on the control and 

management of invasive species with other countries.” The plan also calls 

for the Council to support international conferences and seminars. These 

types of actions are more process-oriented than outcome-oriented; taken 

individually, the actions may be useful, but judging whether they are 

successful and have contributed to an overall goal, will be difficult. 

Federal officials involved in developing the plan told us that they 

recognize that it has deficiencies and are working on improvements. The 

National Management 

Plan Lacks 

Measurable Goals, 

and Its 

Implementation Has 

Been Slow 
Page 7 GAO-03-916T 

Council acknowledged in the plan itself that many of the details of the 

actions called for would require further development in the 

implementation phase. The executive director of the Council staff told us 

that, in her opinion, given the scope of this first-time effort, it would have 

been unrealistic and difficult to agree on specific measurable goals. She 

also said that, in many areas, the federal government does not have the 

data on invasive species conditions needed to set long-term goals and 

develop better performance measures. She said that many of the actions 

called for in the management plan are designed to help develop needed 

data but pointed out that doing so for some aspects of invasive species 

management will be difficult given the comprehensive data needed. 

The management plan also called for the Council to establish a transparent 

oversight mechanism by April 2001 to report on implementation of the 

plan and compliance with the executive order. This mechanism, however, 

is just now being set in place. Without this mechanism, the only available 

measure that could have be used to assess overall progress in 

implementing the plan was the percentage of planned actions that were 

completed by the dates set in the plan. By this measure, implementation 

has been slow. Specifically, federal agencies had completed less than 20 

percent of the 65 actions that were called for by September 2002. Council 

agencies had started work on over 60 percent of the remaining planned 

actions, however, including some that have a due date beyond September 

2002. Several actions in the plan that were completed on time related to 

the development of the Council’s Web site, which is found at 

www.invasivespecies.gov. In addition, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard, the Department of the 

Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had sponsored 

research related to ballast water management. Nevertheless, a vast 

majority of the members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, 

which we surveyed for our October 2002 report, said that the Council was 

making inadequate or very inadequate progress. 

We found several reasons for the slow progress in implementing the plan. 

First, delays occurred in establishing the teams of federal and nonfederal 

stakeholders that were intended to guide implementation of various parts 

of the plan. Second, our review of agencies’ performance plans (prepared 

pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act) indicated that 

while some agencies’ plans described efforts taken to address invasive 

species under their own specific programs, none of the plans specifically 

identified implementing actions called for by the plan as a performance 

measure. Some stakeholders expressed the view that the low priority 

given to implementing the plan and associated limited progress may be 
Page 8 GAO-03-916T 

due to the fact that the Council and plan were created by executive order, 

and thus do not receive the same priority as programs that are legislatively 

mandated. Finally, we also noted a lack of funding and staff specifically 

devoted to implementing the plan. 

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

• ensure that the updated management plan contains performance-oriented 

goals and objectives and specific measures of success and 

• give high priority to establishing a transparent oversight mechanism for 

use by federal agencies complying with the executive order and reporting 

on implementation of the management plan. 

We also recommended that all member agencies of the National Invasive 

Species Council with assigned actions in the current management plan 

recognize their responsibilities in either their departmental or agency-level 

annual performance plans. The agencies generally agreed with our 

recommendations. 

Since we issued our report, the Council made significant progress on its 

first crosscutting budget—one of the planned actions in the management 

plan that should help to develop performance measures and promote 

better coordination of actions among agencies. The Office of Management 

and Budget is currently reviewing the Council’s proposal for the fiscal year 

2004 budget cycle. In addition, according to Council staff, the oversight 

mechanism should be finalized in July 2003, and the first revision to the 

management plan should be finalized later this summer. 

According to experts and agency officials we consulted, current efforts by 

the United States are not adequate to prevent the introduction of aquatic 

invasive species into the Great Lakes via ballast water of ships, and they 

need to be improved. Since 1993, federal regulations have required vessels 

entering the Great Lakes from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone—a 

zone extending 200 nautical miles from the shore—to exchange their 

ballast water in the open ocean (that is, water deeper than 2,000 meters) 

before entering the zone. Exchanging ballast water before arriving in the 

Great Lakes is intended to serve two purposes: to flush aquatic species 

taken on in foreign ports from the ballast tanks and to kill with salt water 

any remaining organisms that happen to require fresh or brackish water. If 

a ship bound for the Great Lakes has not exchanged its ballast water in the 

Current Regulations 

Concerning Ballast 

Water Management 

Are Not Keeping 

Invasive Species out 

of the Great Lakes 
Page 9 GAO-03-916T 

open ocean it must hold the ballast in its tanks for the duration of the 

voyage through the lakes or conduct an exchange in a different approved 

location. Data from the Coast Guard show that the percentage of ships 

entering the Great Lakes after exchanging their ballast water has steadily 

increased since the regulations took effect in 1993 and averaged over 93 

percent from 1998 through 2001. Despite this, numerous aquatic invasive 

species have entered the Great Lakes via ballast water and have 

established populations since the regulations were promulgated. 

Experts have cited several reasons for the continued introductions of 

aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes despite the ballast water 

regulations. In particular, the Coast Guard’s ballast water exchange 

regulations do not apply to ships with little or no pumpable ballast water 

in their tanks, which account for approximately 70 percent of ships 

entering the Great Lakes from 1999 through 2001. These ships, however, 

may still have thousands of gallons of residual ballast and sediment in 

their tanks that could harbor potentially invasive organisms from previous 

ports of call and then be discharged to the Great Lakes during subsequent 

ballast discharges. There are also concerns that open-ocean ballast water 

exchange is not an effective method of removing all potentially invasive 

organisms from a ship’s ballast tank. 

Federal officials believe that they should do more to develop treatment 

standards and technologies to protect the Great Lakes from ballast water 

discharges. The Coast Guard is now working to develop new regulations 

that would include a performance standard for ballast water—that is, a 

measurement of how “clean” ballast water should be before discharge 

within U.S. waters. The Coast Guard is expecting to have a final rule ready 

for interdepartmental review by the fall of 2004 that will contain ballast 

water treatment goals and a standard that would apply not only to ships 

entering the Great Lakes but to all ships entering U.S. ports from outside 

the Exclusive Economic Zone. Once the Coast Guard sets a performance 

standard, firms and other entities will be able to use this as a goal as they 

develop ballast water treatment technologies. While several technologies 

are being investigated, such as filtration and using physical biocides such 

as ultraviolet radiation and heat treatment, a major hurdle to be overcome 

in developing technological solutions is how to treat large volumes of 

water being pumped at very high flow rates. In addition, small container 

vessels and cruise ships, which carry a smaller volume of ballast water, 

may require different technologies than larger container vessels. As a 

result, it is likely that no single technology will address the problem 

adequately. Consequently, it could be many years before the world’s 

commercial fleet is equipped with effective treatment technologies. 
Page 10 GAO-03-916T 

Without more effective ballast water standards, the continued introduction 

of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes and other aquatic systems 

around the country is likely to cause potentially significant economic and 

ecological impacts. 

We reported in October 2002 that the Coast Guard and the Department of 

Transportation’s Maritime Administration are developing programs to 

facilitate technology development. In addition, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have 

funded 20 ballast water technology demonstration projects at a total cost 

of $3.5 million since 1998 under a research program authorized under the 

National Invasive Species Act. Other programs also support research, and 

the Maritime Administration expects to make available several ships of its 

Ready Reserve Force Fleet to act as test platforms for ballast water 

technology demonstration projects. Once effective technologies are 

developed, another hurdle will be installing the technologies on the world 

fleet.8

 New ships can be designed to incorporate a treatment system, but 

existing ships were not designed to carry ballast water technologies and 

may have to go through an expensive retrofitting process. With each 

passing year without an effective technology, every new ship put into 

service is one more that may need to be retrofitted in the future. 

Public and private interests in the Great Lakes have expressed 

dissatisfaction with the progress in developing a solution to the problem of 

aquatic invasive species introduced through ballast water. An industry 

representative told us that she and other stakeholders were frustrated with 

the slow progress being made by the Coast Guard in developing a 

treatment standard. More broadly, in the absence of stricter federal 

standards for ballast water, several Great Lakes states have considered 

adopting legislation that would be more stringent than current federal 

regulations. In addition, in a July 6, 2001, letter to the U.S. Secretary of 

State and the Canadian Minster of Foreign Affairs, the International Joint 

Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission stated their belief 

that the two governments were not adequately protecting the Great Lakes 

 8

A recent study analyzing the market for future treatment technologies reported that there 

are over 47,000 vessels in the world fleet for which ballast water treatment technologies 

could be applicable. 
Page 11 GAO-03-916T 

from further introductions of aquatic invasive species.9 They also noted a 

growing sense of frustration within all levels of government, the public, 

academia, industry, and environmental groups throughout the Great Lakes 

basin and a consensus that the ballast water issue must be addressed now. 

The two commissions believe that the reauthorization of the National 

Invasive Species Act is a clear opportunity to provide funding for research 

aimed at developing binational ballast water standards. 

S. 525 sets forth a more aggressive program against the introduction of 

aquatic invasive species through ballast water and related pathways. In 

particular, it would require ballast water standards for ships in all waters 

of the U.S., instead of the current voluntary program for waters outside of 

the Great Lakes. It also specifically authorizes significantly more funding 

in the form of grants to states, and federal funding and grants for research, 

including research on pathways, likely aquatic invaders, and development 

of cost-effective control methods. 

Now let me turn to our most recent work gathering state perspectives on 

invasive species legislation and management. 

State officials who responded to our survey identified several gaps in, or 

problems with, existing federal legislation on aquatic and terrestrial 

invasive species, as well as other barriers to their efforts to manage 

invasive species. 

 9

The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 established the International Joint Commission to, 

among other things, advise the U.S. and Canadian governments concerning transboundary 

water quality issues. The Commission has six members: three appointed by the President of 

the United States, with the advice and approval of the Senate, and three appointed by the 

Governor in Council of Canada, on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Great Lakes 

Fishery Commission was created in 1955 by a convention on Great Lakes fisheries between 

the U.S. and Canada. 

State Officials Cited 

Several Gaps in 

Existing Federal 

Legislation and 

Identified Other 

Barriers to 

Addressing Invasive 

Species 
Page 12 GAO-03-916T 

According to our new work, the lack of legal requirements for controlling 

already-established or widespread invasive species was the gap in existing 

legislation on aquatic and terrestrial species most frequently identified by 

state officials. Specifically, they said that this is a problem for species that 

do not affect a specific commodity or when a species is not on a federal 

list of recognized invasives. Officials noted that if there is no federal 

requirement, there is often little money available to combat a species and 

that a legal requirement would raise the priority for responding to it. For 

example, one state official complained about the lack of authority to 

control Eurasian ruffe, an invasive fish that has spread through several 

Great Lakes and causes great harm to native fisheries. He compared this to 

the authorities available to control the sea lamprey, which has a mandated 

control program that is funded by the U.S. and Canada. In addition, some 

state officials said that in the absence of federal requirements, differences 

among state laws and priorities also pose problems for addressing 

established species, for example, when one state may regulate or take 

actions to control a species and an adjacent state does not. Some state 

officials noted that they have little authority to control or monitor some 

species and that getting laws or regulations for specific species, such as 

those for the sea lamprey, takes time. 

Many state officials also identified ineffective federal standards for ballast 

water as a problem for addressing invasive species. Specifically, some 

state officials complained that standards and treatment technologies, 

regulations, compliance with reporting requirements, and penalties for 

noncompliance are lacking and say that research and legislation are 

needed to address the problem. As we reported in October 2002, federal 

regulations for ballast water are not effective at preventing invasive 

species from entering our waters and are only required for ships entering 

the Great Lakes. Some state officials also said that federal leadership is 

essential to fund efforts in these areas and to provide coordination among 

states. As I have already noted, S. 525 would authorize a more aggressive 

program for developing standards and technologies for regulating ballast 

water. Although some state officials believe solving the ballast water 

problem is possible, some officials pointed to difficulties in doing so with 

some methods. Specifically, these officials noted that some 

environmentalists are opposed to chemical treatments, while industry 

groups have objected to the cost of some technologies. S. 525 would revise 

the definition of “environmentally sound” (as in environmentally sound 

control measures) to delete the emphasis on nonchemical measures. 

Perceived Gaps in or 

Problems with Existing 

Legislation 
Page 13 GAO-03-916T 

State officials reported that inadequate federal funding for state efforts 

was the key barrier to addressing invasive species—both aquatic and 

terrestrial. In particular, state officials were concerned about having 

sufficient funds to create management plans for addressing invasive 

species, particularly as more states begin to develop plans, and for 

inspection and enforcement activities. State officials also identified the 

need for additional funds to conduct monitoring and detection programs, 

research, and staffing. In particular, some state officials noted that 

uncertainty in obtaining grant funds from year to year makes it difficult to 

manage programs, especially when funding staff positions relies on grants. 

S. 525 would specifically authorize significantly more funding in grants to 

address invasive species than is specifically authorized under the current 

legislation. 

Many state officials also identified a lack of public education and outreach 

as a barrier to managing terrestrial invasive species. Public education and 

outreach activities are important components of the battle against invasive 

species, as many invasives have been introduced through the activities of 

individuals, such as recreational boating, and the pet, live seafood, and 

plant and horticultural trades. For example, the outbreak of the 

monkeypox virus that has sickened at least 80 people in the Midwest is 

thought to have spread from a Gambian rat imported from Africa to be 

sold as a pet. S. 525 includes efforts intended to provide better outreach 

and education to industry, including the horticulture, aquarium, 

aquaculture, and pet trades, and to recreational boaters and marina 

operators, about invasive species and steps to take to reduce their spread. 

State officials identified a lack of cost-effective control measures as a key 

barrier to addressing aquatic invasive species. Some officials commented 

that there is a need for more species-specific research to identify effective 

measures. For example, one successful control effort—the sea lamprey 

control program—costs about $15 million per year. However, similar 

control programs for all invasive species would be problematic and 

officials told us that targeted research on control methods is needed, 

particularly for aquatic invasive species. S. 525 would authorize a grant 

program for research, development, demonstration, and verification of 

environmentally sound, cost-effective technologies and methods to control 

and eradicate aquatic invasive species. 

Other Barriers to 

Addressing Invasive 

Species 
Page 14 GAO-03-916T 

State officials’ opinions varied on the preferred leadership structure for 

managing invasive species and whether to integrate legislative authority 

on invasive species. Many state officials indicated that specifically 

authorizing the National Invasive Species Council would be an effective 

management option and favored integrated authority, but in both cases, 

the margins were relatively small. 

Currently, no single agency oversees the federal invasive species effort. 

Instead, the National Invasive Species Council, which was created by 

executive order and is composed of the heads of 11 federal departments 

and agencies, is intended to coordinate federal actions addressing the 

problem. State officials most often identified specifically authorizing the 

Council in legislation as an effective leadership structure for managing 

invasive species. Almost all of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee 

members that responded to our survey agreed with this approach. During 

our work for our October 2002 report, the executive director of the 

Council noted that legislative authority for the Council, depending on how 

it was structured, could be useful in implementing the national 

management plan for invasive species by giving the Council more 

authority and, presumably, authorizing more resources. Officials from 

USDA, the Department of Defense, and EPA also told us that legislative 

authority, if properly written, would make it easier for Council agencies to 

implement the management plan, as implementing actions under the 

executive order are perceived to be lower in priority than are programs 

that have been legislatively mandated. Many state officials, however, also 

believed that keeping the current Council authority as established by 

executive order is an effective option. 

As you know, federal authorities for addressing invasive species are 

scattered across a patchwork of laws under which aquatic and terrestrial 

species are treated separately. Questions have been raised about whether 

this is the most effective and efficient approach and whether the federal 

government’s ability to manage invasive species would be strengthened if 

State Officials’ 

Opinions Varied on 

Effective Leadership 

Structures for 

Managing Invasive 

Species and Whether 

to Integrate 

Legislative Authority 

on Invasive Species 

Federal Leadership 

Structure for Invasive 

Species 

Integration of Federal 

Laws Addressing Invasive 

Species 
Page 15 GAO-03-916T 

integrated legal authority addressed both types of invasives. Some believe 

such an approach would provide for more flexibility in addressing invasive 

species; others are concerned that such an approach would disrupt 

existing programs that are working well. 

On the basis of the responses from state officials, no clear consensus 

exists on whether legislative authority for addressing aquatic and 

terrestrial invasive species should be integrated. Overall, state officials 

were in favor of integrating legislative authority, but the margin was 

relatively small. Differences were more distinct, however, when we 

considered the state officials’ expertise. Specifically, we asked officials 

whether they considered themselves experts or knowledgeable in aquatic 

invasive species, terrestrials, or both. A large majority of the state officials 

who identified themselves as having expertise solely in aquatic invasive 

species were against integrating aquatic and terrestrial authority. The 

terrestrial experts were also against integrated authority, but with a 

smaller majority. These positions contrast with those of the state officials 

who said they were experts or knowledgeable in both aquatic and 

terrestrial invasives; these officials favored integrated authority by a large 

majority. About twice as many members of the Invasive Species Advisory 

Committee who responded to our survey favored integrating legislation on 

aquatic and terrestrial invasive species compared to those who did not. 

Regarding the drawbacks of integrating authority for aquatic and 

terrestrial invasive species, many state officials said that it could be 

difficult to address all possible situations with invasive species and some 

species or pathways may get overlooked, and were concerned that it may 

reduce state flexibility implementing invasive species programs. Some 

state officials said that the two types of invasives should be handled 

separately, since the ecological complexities of aquatics and terrestrials 

are very different—different pathways of entry and spread, and different 

requirements for control methods and expertise. In addition, some 

officials stated that combining legislative authority would result in 

competition among various invasive species programs for scarce 

resources. In particular, one official referred to the “issue of the moment” 

phenomenon, where a specific invasive species becomes the focus of great 

public attention and receives a large share of resources, while many other 

species may get very few resources. 

On the other hand, many state officials saw an increased focus on 

pathways for invasive species—as opposed to on specific species—as a 

possible benefit of integrating authority for aquatic and terrestrial invasive 

species. Such an approach could facilitate more effective and efficient 
Page 16 GAO-03-916T 

efforts to address invasive species. Many state officials also believed that 

integration of legislative authority could result in increased coordination 

between federal agencies and states. Some state officials described the 

efforts needed to address invasives as requiring broad, interdisciplinary 

coordination and characterized the current federal effort as fragmented 

and ineffective. In addition, some state officials said that the classification 

of species into aquatic or terrestrial types might not be clear-cut and that 

the current separation between them is “an artificial federal construct,” 

citing, for example, the difficulty of classifying amphibians. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. We would be happy 

to respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee 

may have. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 

512-3841. Mark Bondo, Mark Braza, Kate Cardamone, Curtis Groves, Trish 

McClure, Judy Pagano, Ilga Semeiks, and Amy Webbink also made key 

contributions to this statement. 

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360334) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs