Aquatic Invasive Species: Additional Steps Could Help Measure Federal Progress in Achieving Strategic Goals
Published: 2015-11-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Invasive species—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. Invasive species, called a national crisis by  the Department of the Interior, 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. 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. A widely cited academic study from 2005—the most  recent comprehensive study of its kind—estimated that the environmental  impacts and economic costs associated with invasive species amount to  almost $120 billion per year.
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,  reported that estimated expenditures for invasive species activities by  more than 20 federal agencies were over $2 billion dollars in fiscal year  2014. 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  contained—once they have arrived and become established, aquatic  invasive species are difficult to eradicate.
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. 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. Each of the Task Force’s  federal member agencies has a different set of responsibilities related to  aquatic invasive species.
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.  The act also requires that the Task Force report to Congress annually on  the progress of its program. 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. We briefed  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. 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  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, 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.  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  identify regional priorities and coordinate regional activities. 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. Together, these federal, state, and nonfederal agencies and  organizations work to prevent and control aquatic invasive species and  implement the 1990 Act.
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.
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  Force and several of its member agencies. 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 cost- effective response to biological invasions. 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.
section_title: Task Force Member Agencies Estimated Expending an Average of About $260 Million Annually to Address Aquatic Invasive Species in Fiscal Years 2012 through 2014
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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:
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  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.
section_title: Task Force Member Agencies Conducted a Wide Range of Activities and Identified Several Challenges in Addressing Aquatic Invasive Species
paragraphs: 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Prevention
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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  that a more balanced approach between prevention and control activities  may be warranted.
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.
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.
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.
Physical barriers. The Corps operates a series of electric barriers in  the Chicago Area Waterway System located approximately 25 miles  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.
section_title: Early Detection and Rapid Response
paragraphs: 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 cost- effective 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: Control and Management
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Restoration
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Research
paragraphs: 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  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.
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.
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. 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.
section_title: Education and Public Awareness
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Leadership and International Cooperation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
section_title: The Task Force Has Not Taken Key Steps to Measure Progress in Achieving Its Strategic Goals
paragraphs: The Task Force has not taken key steps to measure progress in  achieving the goals laid out in its 2013-2017 strategic plan. In 2012, the  Task Force developed its 2013-2017 strategic plan, which serves to guide  Task Force member agencies in conducting aquatic invasive species- related 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).
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. 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.
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  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. 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.  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. Since its  inception, the Task Force has provided one report to Congress, in 2004.
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  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. 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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  reporting to Congress annually on the progress of its program.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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  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  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.
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  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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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), 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); 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. These were the same activity  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,  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. 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  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 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  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  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, our  previous reports on leading practices provided by the GPRA  Modernization Act of 2010, and our executive guide on strategic  planning, 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.
section_title: 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)
paragraphs: 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)
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.
section_title: Appendix III: Aquatic Invasive Species Activities Conducted by Task Force Member Agencies
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.