Invasive Species: Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat
Published: 2001-07-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Invasive species--harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and microorganisms--are widespread throughout the United States, causing billions of dollars of damage annually to crops, rangelands, and waterways. An important part of pest control is quick action to eradicate or contain a potentially damaging invasive species. Federal rapid response to invasive species varies: species that threaten agricultural crops or livestock are far more likely to elicit a rapid response than those primarily affecting forestry or other natural areas, including rangelands and water areas. A major obstacle to rapid response is the lack of a national system to address invasive species. Other obstacles to rapid response include the need for additional detection systems to identify new species; improved partnerships among federal, state, and local agencies; and better technologies to eradicate invasive species. The Invasive Species Council's Management Plan makes several recommendations for improving rapid response, including developing a program of coordinated rapid response and pursuing increases in discretionary spending to support the program. A concerted effort to improve the rapid response is clearly needed. If properly implemented, the Council's recommendations will go a long way toward developing a national system to address this pressing need.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Invasive species—harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and  microorganisms—are found throughout the United States, causing billions  of dollars of damage annually to crops, rangelands, and waterways. For  example, zebra mussels are a widely known aquatic invasive. Transported  into the Great Lakes in ships’ ballast water, zebra mussels have clogged the  water pipes of electric companies and other industries; infestations in the  Midwest and Northeast have cost power plants and industrial facilities  almost $70 million between 1989 and 1995. Invasive species have also had a  devastating effect on natural areas, where they have strangled native flora,  taken over wetland habitats, and deprived waterfowl and other species of  food sources. Scientists, academicians, and industry leaders are  recognizing invasive species to be one of the most serious environmental  threats of the 21st century.
Sometimes invasive species enter the United States accidentally; for  example, as weed seeds in commodities, in ballast water from ships, or in  untreated wood-packing material. In other instances, invasive species are  brought in deliberately as ornamental plants, as pets, or for purposes such  as erosion control. Increased travel and global trade have resulted in  growing numbers of invasive species gaining entry into the United States.  Species from countries such as China and Russia with habitats similar to  our own are especially likely to gain a foothold in the United States.  Expanded trade within North America has also increased the risk of  spreading established invaders from one country to another.
Over 20 federal agencies—including the U.S. Departments of Agriculture  (USDA), Commerce, Defense, and the Interior—have responsibility for  some aspect of invasive species management. States also have a significant  management role, but the extent of their involvement varies considerably.
USDA, and primarily its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service  (APHIS), has the largest federal role. In fiscal year 2000, USDA spent about  $556 million on a wide range of invasive species-related activities—almost  90 percent of the total federal funding directed toward these activities.  Interior and Defense accounted for another 5 percent and 2 percent,  respectively. Federal invasive species activities include prevention (efforts  to keep invasive species from entering the country), detection (surveillance  for invasive species), and control (measures to eradicate or limit the spread  of invasive species).
An important part of these activities is rapid response—a response  conducted in time to eradicate or contain a potentially damaging invasive  species. Invasive species can be new to the United States or to an  ecosystem (a community of organisms and their environment) within the  United States.  The time required for rapid response varies depending on  the species and its habitat. A response within days may be needed to  eradicate many newly detected invasive species that reproduce and spread  rapidly; however, months or even years may be sufficient for some weeds  and pests that take a long time to proliferate. Since time, however, is often  of the essence, effective detection systems are integral to rapid response.  Without early detection, a rapid response may be infeasible. Efforts to  eradicate or control invasive species may involve, among other things,  pesticides, handpicking, and biological controls (that is, the introduction of  a natural enemy, predator, parasite, or disease, often from the pest’s native  range). Because invasive species do not respect jurisdictional boundaries,  rapid response often requires cooperation among federal, state, and local  government agencies, private land managers/owners, and tribal  governments.
In February 1999, invasive species received heightened attention with the  issuance of Executive Order 13112. The order was intended to help prevent  the introduction of invasive species, control their spread, and minimize  their impact on the U.S. economy, the environment, and human health. The  order established a National Invasive Species Council, comprising the  heads of eight federal departments and agencies, to provide national  leadership and coordination in federal invasive species activities.
The Council was charged with issuing a National Invasive Species  Management Plan. Among other things, the plan was to (1) recommend  performance-oriented goals and objectives, (2) recommend measures to  minimize the risk of new introductions of invasive species, and (3) review  existing and prospective authorities for preventing the introduction and  spread of invasive species. The plan, issued January 18, 2001, contained 57  recommendations, including 3 aimed at improving the nation’s ability to  respond rapidly to invasive species.
Concerned about the growing threat of invasive species, you asked us to  conduct two reviews. Our first report—Invasive Species: Federal and  Selected State Funding to Address Harmful, Nonnative Species  (GAO/RCED-00-219, Aug. 24, 2000)—addressed federal and selected state  funding for eight activities relating to invasive species. This report  responds to your request that we review federal efforts to provide rapid  response to invasive species. Specifically, we examined the extent to which  the federal government rapidly responds to new invasive species, the  obstacles that impede rapid response, and how rapid response can be  improved.
Among the steps taken as part of our review, we collected funding data on  the rapid responses of federal agencies with invasive species  responsibilities, including those within the Departments of Agriculture,  Commerce, and the Interior. Since many agency officials were uncertain  about what activities should be considered rapid response and their  agencies did not routinely track rapid response funding, their estimates of  rapid response funding may be somewhat over- or understated. At the same  time, however, the officials believe that their estimates are a fairly accurate  representation of their rapid response activities. Thus, any unreported  amounts should not significantly affect the relative magnitude of agency  funding described in this report.  Our scope and methodology is more fully  discussed in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Invasive Species Pose a Serious Threat to the Economy and the Environment
paragraphs: Scientists, industry officials, and land managers are recognizing that  invasive species are one of the most serious, yet least appreciated,  environmental threats of the 21st century. Expanding global trade and  travel with countries such as Russia, China, and South Africa have resulted  in rapid increases in the rate of introduction and number of newly  established invasive species in the United States. While most of the plants  and animals that make their way here are benign or even beneficial (for  example, cattle, wheat, and tulips are all non-native species), the small  proportion that become highly invasive have had huge economic and  biological impacts.
Damages resulting from invasive species may include power outages; loss  of farmland property values; increased operating costs; and loss of sport,  game, or endangered species. While the damages caused by these species  have been considerable, their precise economic impacts—particularly  those that do not damage agriculture, industry, or human health—are not  well documented.
However, a recent study by Cornell University scientists estimated the  total annual economic losses and associated control costs to be about $137  billion a year—more than double the annual economic damage caused by  all natural disasters in the United States.
Because invasive species encompass plants, animals, and microbes, the  problems they cause vary. The following examples demonstrate some of  their impacts:  On rangelands, leafy spurge, an invasive plant from Eurasia, crowds out  desirable and nutritious forage, reduces land values, and degrades  wildlife habitat. Annual damages from this weed are estimated to  exceed $100 million in the Great Plains states.
In U.S. forests, 19 of the 70 major insect pests are invasive species. Also,  over the past several years, over 6,700 trees were destroyed in New York  and Chicago after the discovery of the Asian long-horned beetle, an  insect that most likely arrived in packing material or wood from China.  According to USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), if this beetle  and other wood-boring pests become fully established in the United  States, they could damage industries that generate combined annual  revenues of $138 billion.
In freshwater habitats, aquatic invasive species, such as the zebra  mussel, clog lakes and waterways and adversely affect fisheries, public  water supplies, irrigation, water treatment systems, and recreational  activities.   Great Lakes water users spend tens of millions of dollars  annually to control zebra mussels.
In saltwater habitats, the European green crab has been associated with  the demise of the soft-shell clam industry in New England. The green  crab has recently been introduced to the West Coast where there is  serious concern that it could affect shellfish aquaculture and Dungeness  crab populations.  In 1996, the most recent estimate, researchers  calculated that the potential economic damage to shellfish production  there could be as high as $44 million a year.
A threat to humans and animals, the West Nile virus, commonly found in  Africa, West Asia, and the Middle East, is an invasive virus now present  in 12 eastern states and the District of Columbia. Birds are the natural  hosts for this microbe, which mosquitoes transmit from infected birds to  humans and other animals.
While the ecological impacts of invasive species can be devastating, they  are hard to quantify. However, many scientists believe that invasive species  are a significant threat to biodiversity—second only to habitat loss and  degradation. Further, they are a major or contributing cause of declines for  almost half the endangered species in the United States.
section_title: Invasive Species Council Established to Provide Leadership and Coordination
paragraphs: On February 3, 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13112 on  invasive species. Among other things, the order requires federal agencies to  (1) prevent the introduction of invasive species and (2) detect, respond  rapidly to, and control them in a cost-effective, environmentally sound  manner.
The order established a National Invasive Species Council—chaired by the  Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce and the Interior—with members  including the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, and Transportation,  and the Environmental Protection Agency. The order directs the Council to  provide national leadership on invasive species and to see that federal  agency efforts are coordinated and effective. The Secretary of the Interior  was also directed to form an advisory committee (the Invasive Species  Advisory Committee) to provide information and advice to the Council.
The order emphasizes the need for federal and state cooperation, as the  states have a key role in managing invasive species within their borders.  For example, in fiscal year 2000, Florida—which has a strong invasive  species program—spent over $127 million on invasive species activities.  States also retain general control over state lands and determine how they  will address invasive species on their lands. The order also states that the  Council shall develop recommendations for international cooperation.  An  effort already underway before the Council was established is the joint  U.S./Canadian effort to combat the sea lamprey—an eel-like ocean fish that  fastens onto other fish and eats until sated. Since 1956, the two  governments have worked jointly through the Great Lakes Fishery  Commission to control the spread of this invasive aquatic, which has had a  detrimental impact on the Great Lakes fishery.
The Council was also directed to prepare a National Invasive Species  Management Plan. The plan, issued in January 2001, provides a general  blueprint for dealing with invasive species and contains 57  recommendations—3 of which focus on rapid response.
section_title: Federal Agency Funding and Authorities Vary
paragraphs: The Council’s member agencies obligated about $631.5 million in fiscal year  2000 on invasive species-related activities; USDA provided almost 90  percent of this amount. USDA’s and particularly APHIS’ programs are  significant in their breadth and scope. For example, APHIS has jurisdiction  over plant pests, certain biological control organisms, the import and  export of plant species, and animals and animal diseases considered  harmful or a threat to livestock or poultry health. In addition, the Forest  Service, which manages about 191 million acres of federal land, has  authority for forest and rangeland pest and plant control.
Interior provided the second largest amount of federal invasive species  funding, $31.1 million in fiscal year 2000, or 5 percent of the federal  invasive species funding. Interior agencies—such as the Fish and Wildlife  Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Bureau of  Reclamation—are involved in regulating the import of animals found  injurious under the Lacey Act, enforcing laws and regulations governing  the import and export of wildlife into the United States, implementing  actions to address aquatic invasive species, and managing invasive species  on various publicly owned lands.
Defense provided the third largest amount of funding, about 2 percent. As  the fifth largest federal land manager, Defense is responsible for controlling  invasive species infestations on its installations and uses native plants to  restore Defense lands. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers spends  several million dollars annually for controlling invasive aquatic plants and  zebra mussels and for supporting research to develop control technologies  for managing these invasive species.
All told, at least 20 different federal agencies share responsibility and  authority over some facet of invasive species management. In addition,  several interagency groups help coordinate activities in this area.  Executive Order 13112 directs the Council to work with the:  Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, which coordinates activities  relating to aquatic invasive species;  Federal Interagency Committee on the Management of Noxious and  Exotic Weeds, which coordinates weed management efforts primarily  on federal lands; and  Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National  Science and Technology Council, which coordinates research efforts.
Invasive species management covers such activities as prevention,  detection, control, restoration, research and development, information  management, and public education. Prevention—the exclusion of invasive  species from the country or from specified regions or ecosystems—is the  first line of defense. When this fails, successful management often hinges  on early detection and rapid response to an invasion. Eradication or  containment of invasive species is most efficient, and sometimes only  possible, at an invasion’s earliest stages. Once an area becomes altered,  control activities, which may be costly, are needed to restore the habitat.
section_title: Federal Rapid Response to Invasive Species That Threaten Natural Areas Has Been Minimal
paragraphs: Invasive species that threaten agricultural crops or livestock are far more  likely to elicit a rapid response than those affecting mainly natural areas.  As shown in table 1, APHIS provided most federal rapid response  funding—an estimated $125.8 million out of a total $148.7 million reported  for fiscal year 2000. About 90 percent of APHIS’ funding was directed at  invasive species that primarily threaten agricultural crops or livestock;  another 9 percent was spent on the Asian long-horned beetle, which  primarily threatens forestry. Interior, second among federal departments in  total funding for invasive species, estimated that its agencies provided  about $1.4 million for rapid response activities. Its rapid responses were  directed at species that threaten natural areas.
Many rapid response needs are not being met, according to agency officials  and others, particularly for invasive species that threaten natural areas.  When these needs are not met, the consequences—to the economy and the  environment—can be costly.
subsections: section_title: APHIS Does Most Rapid Response, Focusing on Species That Threaten Crops or Livestock
paragraphs: Invasive species that threaten crops or livestock are the most likely to be  quickly addressed since APHIS, which is responsible for protecting  agriculture from invasive species, does the lion’s share of federal rapid  response. In fiscal year 2000, APHIS estimated that it spent $125.8 million  for rapid response—about 85 percent of the estimated $148.7 million  federal agencies spent on this activity. About $113.7 million of APHIS’  funding went toward species that primarily threaten crops or livestock. All  told, total federal rapid response funding for species that primarily affect  agriculture was reported to be about $118 million.
Most of APHIS’ rapid response funding was spent on relatively few invasive  species. APHIS’ biggest expenditure, almost $81 million, was for citrus  canker, a highly contagious bacterial disease that affects Florida’s citrus  crops. This effort entailed tree removal, destruction, and replacement.  Another $15 million went toward combating the glassy-winged  sharpshooter, an insect that transmits Pierce’s disease, a disease of  grapevines that threatens California’s grape and wine industry.
While APHIS has lead responsibility for responding to invasive species that  threaten agriculture, ARS funds research to support these activities. In  fiscal year 2000, ARS spent $4.5 million on projects that involved, among  other things, developing control methods and identifying species. For  example, it spent $900,000 on research to support APHIS’ response to the  glassy-winged sharpshooter.
section_title: Invasive Species That Threaten Natural Areas Receive Considerably Less Funding Than Those That Threaten Crops or Livestock
paragraphs: As shown in table 1, reported federal funding for invasive species that  threaten forestry and other natural areas was about $30 million, compared  to the $118 million spent on agriculturally related invasive species. A  further breakdown of the $30 million shows that 80 percent of this amount  was spent on two species that threaten forestry and related industries—the  Asian long-horned beetle and the European gypsy moth. In total, federal  rapid response funding for infestations affecting natural areas other than  forests (for example, rangelands and aquatic areas) was estimated at $2.9  million for this period.
The Forest Service was the chief contributor to efforts to protect forests  (federal and nonfederal) from invasive species, obligating an estimated  $15.1 million for rapid response and associated research for these  activities. Its rapid responses included about $1.8 million for the Asian  long-horned beetle and about $10.4 million for the European gypsy moth— an insect that has defoliated, and sometimes killed, hardwood trees in  eastern forests. In addition, APHIS spent $11.8 million (about 9 percent of  its rapid response funding) on species that primarily threatened forests.  Almost all of this funding—about $11.5 million—was spent on efforts to  eradicate the Asian long-horned beetle. ARS spent $660,000 on research to  support rapid response to this beetle.
Finally, rapid response funding for invasive species affecting natural areas  other than forestry, such as rangelands or aquatic areas, was about $2.9  million. Interior estimated that it spent about $1.4 million for rapid  response aimed at these activities. The Interior agencies that funded rapid  response activities included the:  Bureau of Land Management, which funded efforts directed at invasive  plants that affect grazing, wildlife, and recreation on rangelands;  Fish and Wildlife Service, which funded efforts directed at aquatic  invasive species, such as Caulerpa taxifolia, an invasive aquatic plant  that threatens native species and fishing in coastal waters, and the  round goby, a Eurasian fish that has displaced native fish in parts of the  Great Lakes;  Bureau of Indian Affairs, which funded efforts directed at invasive  plants on lands under its jurisdiction;  Bureau of Reclamation, which funded efforts against giant salvinia, an  aquatic plant from South America that degrades water quality, kills fish,  and chokes out other plants; and  U.S. Geological Survey, which funded research supporting rapid  response directed at various species, such as the Asian swamp eel, a  potential threat to native fish, frogs, and aquatic invertebrates in the  Florida Everglades.
The remaining funding for natural area infestations came from the Forest  Service (for invasive plants on rangelands), APHIS (for noxious weeds in  an Idaho wilderness area and for giant salvinia), ARS (for giant salvinia and  three other species), and Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration, which spent $100,000 to support a rapid response to  Caulerpa taxifolia.
In interpreting these funding estimates, it should be noted that many  agency officials were uncertain as to which activities should be included in  rapid response.  For example, invasive species, such as leafy spurge, may  exist in one area for a long time (where they are subject to control  activities) and then appear in a new area where rapid response is required  to eradicate them or prevent their spread. For our report, to the extent  possible, agencies identified those activities that corresponded to the rapid  response definition that we provided.  In addition, agencies did not  routinely track funding for these activities. The officials, however, believe  that their estimates are a fairly accurate representation of their rapid  responses.  Some agencies could not provide estimates of their rapid  response funding. For example, Defense officials said that while the  Department probably does minimal rapid response, it does not track these  responses and could not estimate the associated funding. The National  Park Service; the Fish and Wildlife Service division that manages National  Wildlife Refuges; and USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and  Extension Service also said they perform or support some rapid response.  While these agencies could not estimate their rapid response funding,  officials generally stated that it was minimal. Thus, while agency estimates  may be somewhat over- or understated, any unreported amounts should  not significantly affect the relative magnitude of funding described in this  report. (See app. 1 for further discussion of agencies’ funding estimates.)
section_title: Many Rapid Response Needs Have Not Been Met, With Costly Consequences
paragraphs: Officials from USDA, Interior, Commerce, and Defense have reported that  many rapid response needs have not been and are not being adequately  met. Many unmet needs stem from inadequate resources or attention to the  problem. In other instances, rapid response may not have occurred  because the infestation was not detected early on, technologies were not  available to combat the invasive species, or there was insufficient  understanding about the risk of the threat. The following examples  demonstrate some of these unmet rapid response needs:  According to Park Service officials, rapid response to invasive weeds in  many national parks is inadequate. The Service has 4 invasive plant  teams that, among other things, conduct rapid response in 38 parks.  However, over 150 additional parks with serious weed infestations have  requested coverage by invasive plant teams.
A Fish and Wildlife Service official said there is minimal rapid response  on its over 500 national wildlife refuges, although invasive species are  estimated to affect over a third of the refuge lands in the continental  United States. Moreover, a recent National Audubon Society study  assessed 10 wildlife refuges, described as “in crisis,” and found that  invasive species were damaging biological values in 4 of them. The  Service estimates that over $120 million a year is needed to combat  invasive species on wildlife refuges.
A USDA inventory of the nations’ private rangelands concluded that at  least 69 million acres (about 17 percent) were adversely affected by  invasive plants, including unwanted brush.
APHIS’ fiscal year 2001 budget request for $8.8 million for an invasive  species program to protect agricultural and nonagricultural resources  was not funded. The agency also requested a $1.7 million increase (from  $424,000 to $2.1 million) for a noxious weed program that was viewed as  an initial step toward a national rapid response system for invasive  plants. The program received an increase of about $700,000.
When newly detected invasive species are not addressed in time, the  results can be greater federal and state expenditures to control the  infestation. In agriculture, invasive species, such as the Mediterranean fruit  fly and citrus canker, are significant pests in terms of control costs.  Examples of costly control programs for invasive species that affect  natural areas also abound. Commonly cited programs include those aimed  at reducing populations of leafy spurge, sea lampreys, hydrilla, zebra  mussels, purple loosestrife, and brown tree snakes.
The response to the ruffe, a perch-like Eurasian fish, illustrates the  difficulties in mounting rapid response efforts and the economic  consequences of not doing so. The ruffe invaded North America in the  1980s through ballast water and soon colonized bays and tributaries along  parts of Lake Superior. A rapid response among federal, state, Canadian,  and other entities to contain the ruffe foundered because of a dispute over  whether to use chemical controls.   Although subsequent control efforts  have slowed the ruffe’s spread, it is expected to reach the warmer waters of  the lower Great Lakes fisheries where its economic consequences may be  devastating.  For example, the Ohio Great Lakes fishery alone is worth  about $600 million a year.
Several federal land managers considered the lack of adequate funding and  resources to manage noxious weeds on federal agencies’ land as  shortsighted, a “penny wise, pound foolish” approach. Although 90 percent  of the 350 million acres of federal western land are not yet significantly  infested, invasive weeds increase on average about 14 percent a year. When  a rangeland infestation becomes severe, the costs of weed control often  exceed the land’s market value. In 1991, for instance, a 3,200 acre ranch in  North Dakota sold at 60 percent below market value because it was  infested with leafy spurge. Even when land values deteriorate, weed  control is still needed to keep weeds from spreading to nearby areas. The  need to deal with invasive species was succinctly summarized by a Bureau  of Land Management official, who said “you can pay now or later, but you  will eventually pay sometime.”
section_title: Lack of a National System Is a Major Obstacle to Rapid Response
paragraphs: A major obstacle to rapid response is that there is no national system that  addresses all types of invasive species infestations—those affecting aquatic  areas, rangelands, and forests as well as crops and livestock. Without such  a system, problems that have hampered past rapid response efforts are less  likely to be resolved. Further, a national system would help assure that  invasive species that affect natural areas receive a level of attention  commensurate with their risks.
APHIS is the only federal agency with a systematic rapid response  process. However, its coverage has primarily been limited to pests  affecting crops and livestock. Other agencies with responsibilities for  natural areas, such as those in Interior, face competing demands for their  resources and often respond to infestations in an ad hoc manner.
subsections: section_title: National System Is Needed to Address Problems That Have Stymied Past Rapid Response Efforts
paragraphs: The United States lacks a comprehensive national system for rapidly  responding to newly detected invasive species. Among other things, such a  system could provide (1) integrated planning to encourage partnerships,  coordinate funding, and develop response priorities; (2) technical  assistance and other resources; and (3) guidance on effective response  measures.
Without a national system, recurring problems are less likely to be  uniformly addressed. Several problems that we identified—the need for  more detection systems; better mechanisms for developing federal, state,  and local government partnerships; and improved technologies to  eradicate and contain invasive species—are described below.
subsections: section_title: Additional Detection Systems Are Needed for Earlier Identification of New Infestations
paragraphs: Rapid response has been significantly hindered by the lack of early  detection systems to identify infestations when they are small and most  easily addressed. Without early detection, years may pass before an  invasive species is discovered or recognized as harmful. Detection of new  infestations falls short in several areas.
First, surveillance and monitoring for new invasive species are inadequate.  Visual surveys, traps, physical inspection, and water sampling can locate  infestations so that they can be mapped and responded to. However, many  species are not easily detected because they are microscopic, aquatic, or  difficult to recognize as new or invasive. Surveillance is particularly  important near high-risk areas (e.g., major shipping ports, airports, and  warehouses) where species are most likely to be introduced.
For example, some USDA officials believe that the Asian long-horned  beetle was in the United States up to 10 years before it was discovered in  New York in 1996. As of May 2001, this infestation (the first of five in New  York) has resulted in the destruction of over 2,500 trees. Late detection and  insufficient surveying of early infestations have made eradication efforts  more difficult. Whether the beetle can be totally eradicated is still  uncertain. The Caulerpa taxifolia, or “killer algae” infestation near San  Diego, is another example of a belated detection. Experts believe that this  aggressive aquatic plant was likely introduced about 4 years before it was  officially reported in June 2000. It is expected to have a devastating  economic impact on California coastal communities and significant  ecological consequences if it becomes permanently established and  spreads.
Surveillance efforts for new infestations vary among agencies, with APHIS  having the most extensive federal system. APHIS systematically monitors  for several agricultural pests, including gypsy moths, fruit flies, and cotton  boll weevils.  In other agencies, surveillance is more limited.  For  example, Park Service officials said that their four invasive plant teams  systematically survey for invasive plants; however, the teams cover only  about one-tenth of the parks.  Officials from the Fish and Wildlife Service  and Bureau of Land Management said they periodically surveyed only a  small percentage of their lands for new infestations. (In commenting on our  draft report, the Bureau noted that it has an inventory program that  monitors and detects weed infestations.)  An official from Commerce’s  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that few marine or  estuarine areas have baseline monitoring data.
Second, increased knowledge is needed about the biology of invasive  species to detect and identify new species and assess their potential  threats. For example, information on insects’ lifecycles can help detect  pests at various stages of their development. Similarly, risk assessments of  potentially invasive species are needed to prioritize response actions and  develop contingency plans. Agencies need to know, for example, whether  the species was invasive in other areas, what conditions (e.g., native range,  rate of population growth, ability to disperse within a new area) are  conducive to its invasiveness, and whether it is a threat to native species.  APHIS is working with several scientific organizations (e.g., the Weed  Science Society of America) to develop a list of the most potentially serious  invasive plant pests for use in targeting detection efforts and developing  contingency plans.
section_title: Stronger Federal, State, and Local Partnerships Can Help Address Common Problems
paragraphs: Since invasive species ignore boundaries, rapid response often involves  coordination among multiple government agencies. The complex interplay  among federal, state, and local agencies adds to the potential for  inefficiencies in these efforts. In the past, issues concerning leadership,  funding, and other organizational responsibilities have hampered such  efforts.
The discovery of giant salvinia in the Lower Colorado River in 1999  illustrates some of the pitfalls of rapid response involving multiple  jurisdictions. The infestation, found on a river bordering Arizona and  California, affected state, tribal, private, and federally managed land.  Interior agencies—the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation,  and Bureau of Land Management—Arizona and California state agencies,  local water districts, and other affected parties quickly formed a task force  to coordinate action. According to an Interior representative, the goal of  rapid response evaporated in the face of funding obstacles and  disagreements over who should be the lead agency and appropriate control  strategies. Had immediate action been taken, eradication of this infestation  would have been possible, according to a science advisory panel and  California officials.
Disagreements over funding reportedly contributed to delays in responding  to the Asian long-horned beetle. Although the beetle was first reported in  New York in August 1996, the removal of the first several hundred infested  trees was not completed until June 1997, nearly a year later. New York State  officials said that their response was delayed because the federal and state  officials initially involved in the effort lacked the authority to make funding  commitments. Additional delays occurred because of state and local  concerns regarding the sufficiency of federal funding available for tree  removal and restoration costs.
On the other hand, officials cited several response efforts that exemplified  effective partnerships, one being the response to Caulerpa taxifolia.  Federal and state participants said the response was effective largely  because of the (1) early involvement of a public-private action team that  recognized the urgent need for rapid response and (2) active involvement  of several key players, including the consulting firm that discovered and  treated the infestation, the regional water quality control board, and the  state agriculture department. The regional water board was instrumental in  obtaining state emergency cleanup and abatement funding, enabling  eradication efforts to quickly begin. Surveying began a day after the  infestation was identified; within 2 weeks, an action team was formed and  initiated response measures. Initial treatment was completed in 3 months.
Periodic monitoring and treatment are ongoing, but it will take years to  know whether complete eradication can be achieved.
Executive Order 13112 emphasizes the need for federal agencies to  cooperate with states. Many state officials are concerned about what role  they will play in a national rapid response system and have differing views  on what their roles should be. For example, in commenting on  recommendations in the draft invasive species management plan, some  states emphasized the need to respect the sovereignty of state, local, and  tribal authorities, particularly in managing fish and wildlife within their  borders. Others emphasized the importance of a strong national effort to  address invasive species given their limited ability to address interstate  problems. The rapid response capabilities of states also vary. For example,  a 1993 Office of Technology Assessment study reported that most state  agencies rated their invasive species implementation and enforcement  resources as “less” or “much less” than adequate. Finally, some states,  such as Minnesota and Hawaii, have substantial legal structures in place,  while others have barely addressed the issue.
To develop partnerships in areas relating to agriculture, APHIS has  established memorandums of understanding with state departments of  agriculture in all 50 states. These agreements define, among other things,  federal and state rapid response duties.
section_title: Enhanced Technologies and Additional Research Are Needed to Facilitate Rapid Response
paragraphs: An effective rapid response to invasive species requires having sufficient  information on and access to environmentally sound, cost-effective control  methods. Many responses fail or are only partially successful because  they lack information on how best to control the species or because control  methods are unavailable or politically infeasible to use.
Agencies’ inability to fund accelerated research on emerging threats has  limited the availability of effective control methods. For example,  according to Forest Service scientists, research to develop control methods  and basic knowledge about sudden oak death, a new destructive invasive  forest disease in California, was delayed by the time-consuming process  used to obtain funding. The scientists noted that although $3.5 million was  needed to do the research, it took 7 months, from late June 2000 until late  January 2001, for the Forest Service to obtain about one-third ($1.1 million)  of the requested amount from Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).  Consequently, the Forest Service was unable to develop basic knowledge  about this little known disease as quickly as it would have had the research  been fully funded immediately. Furthermore, the Service estimated that it  needed an additional $875,000 in fiscal year 2001 for immediate research  and development in connection with other emerging invasive threats, such  as the exotic spruce aphid which has caused severe damage to forests in  the Southwest.
Likewise, a Geological Survey scientist said that his agency does little rapid  research relating to newly detected species because funding is not readily  available. He said that research managers must often seek resources from  other agencies if they want to initiate research and surveys  to support  rapid response. However, according to this scientist, whether the funding  comes from within the Survey or without, the amount of time spent in  obtaining it frequently makes rapid response infeasible.
For certain invasive species, particularly those affecting aquatic areas,  environmentally sound control methods are not available. According to a  Commerce official, control methods in aquatic areas are much less  developed than those in terrestrial settings because (1) awareness of the  need for aquatic control methods is relatively recent and (2) industry has  little incentive to develop control methods for aquatic areas. Unlike  controls used in terrestrial settings, those developed for aquatic areas have  few commercial applications; thus, the return on investment tends to be  low. This official added that no feasible methods currently exist for  controlling some invasive species, such as the spotted jellyfish, which was  detected in the Gulf of Mexico in 2000.
In other instances, effective chemical pesticides may be available, but have  not been registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act for use in aquatic settings. A number of aquatic species— including the zebra mussel, round goby, and ruffe—continue to spread, in  part because of the lack of environmentally sound control methods.  Moreover, the number of pesticides available for invasive species control is  declining. The Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that methyl  bromide—the major fumigant option used in food and fiber quarantine pest  treatments—is scheduled to be phased out by 2005. Reassessment of  important pesticides, including malathion and guthion, may result in these  being phased out as well.
Finally, control methods are sometimes too costly. For example, in  assessing controls to prevent the Asian swamp eel from moving into the  Everglades National Park, an interagency task force considered installing  an electrical barrier. Although this was regarded as the most effective  control method available, it was rejected due to its high cost. Instead the  task force chose to test physical removal, which cost less but, according to  some task force members, is likely to be less effective.
section_title: Rapid Response Depends Largely on the Centrality of Invasive Species to an Agency’s Mission
paragraphs: A federal agency is more likely to respond rapidly to infestations if  eradication or containment of invasive species is central to the agency’s  core mission.  An activity that is central to an agency’s mission is more  likely to have ready access to resources than one that must compete with  other important activities.  While safeguarding agriculture from invasive  pests is a primary mission of APHIS, safeguarding natural areas from  invasive species is not specified in other agencies’ missions and competes  with other important activities for scarce resources. For the most part,  responses to such infestations (if they are responded to at all) occur on an  ad hoc basis.
subsections: section_title: A Primary Mission of APHIS is to Safeguard Agriculture From Invasive Pests
paragraphs: APHIS’ mission statement specifically identifies safeguarding agriculture  from invasive pests; it has clear responsibilities and authorities to rapidly  respond to infestations viewed as significant threats to that sector.  APHIS’  activities in this area have strong constituency backing and receive the  majority of rapid response funding.
APHIS has authority to take various steps to deal with an emerging  invasion. It has the authority to seize, quarantine, treat, and/or dispose of  plants and animals and their products to prevent the importation or  interstate movement of plant and animal diseases, pests, and noxious  weeds that are new to or not known to be widely prevalent or distributed  within and throughout the United States. In the event of a severe disease or  pest outbreak which threatens U.S. agricultural production, the Secretary  of Agriculture can declare an emergency that, among other things, allows  the Secretary to transfer CCC funds to APHIS to pay for eradication  activities and to indemnify producers. USDA can also declare, under  certain circumstances, an “extraordinary emergency,” triggering intrastate  authority to address situations in which measures being taken by a state  are inadequate to eradicate a plant pest or noxious weeds.
In conjunction with its core mission of safeguarding agriculture from  invasive species, APHIS has implemented a systematic process for  responding to newly detected plant pests. Its rapid response system  includes guidance and procedures, a process for evaluating the risks posed  by new plant pests, the ability to take some initial actions within 72 hours,  and access to resources and funds for emergency response. Its New Pest  Advisory Group, which includes experts within and outside of APHIS, is  responsible for evaluating new or reintroduced plant pests and  recommending response actions to a Deputy Administrator. To date, APHIS  is the only federal agency to implement such a systematic rapid response  process.
USDA’s response to karnal bunt illustrates its ability to react quickly to  invasive species. On March 7, 1996, ARS scientists confirmed that the  spores on a wheat sample from Arizona were karnal bunt, a fungal disease  of wheat first reported in India. Within 4 days, APHIS officials activated a  rapid response team to begin quarantine and survey work. On March 21,  1996, the Secretary of Agriculture announced that he had signed a  Declaration of Extraordinary Emergency, which allowed USDA to take a  wide range of actions to control and eradicate the fungus, including  compensating farmers for losses and imposing quarantines in Arizona and  several counties in New Mexico and Texas.
While the Plant Protection Act of 2000 expanded APHIS’ authority to  address invasive species that threaten natural resources and the  environment, APHIS has done relatively little in this area.  APHIS has  recently revised its mission statement to specifically identify safeguarding  natural areas from invasive species; however, APHIS officials said that the  agency has been reluctant to rapidly respond to natural area infestations, in  large part because it lacks the funding to do so. They noted that the  Congress has not responded favorably to APHIS’ requests for additional  funds to expand its traditional mission. Some USDA and Interior officials  said that in the absence of strong constituency or industry backing, there  has been little impetus for the Congress to support an expanded USDA  role.
section_title: Invasive Species That Threaten Natural Areas Are Less Likely to Receive a Rapid Response
paragraphs: Invasive species that threaten natural areas are generally not subject to  processes equivalent to those applicable for agricultural pests. An  important reason for this is that while Interior and the Forest Service and,  to a lesser extent, entities such as Commerce and Defense have  responsibilities for protecting the environment, invasive species are a small  part of the activities conducted under their missions. As a result, competing  priorities and other factors have limited their ability to respond to natural  area infestations.
The Department of the Interior’s management of invasive species is limited  by several factors that are detailed below:  If an invasive species affects Interior lands, Interior can use its land  management authorities to address the situation as quickly as funding  and staffing allow. There are, however, many other environmental issues  that compete for Interior’s resources, so there is little assurance they  will be available for responding to invasive species.
Unlike USDA, Interior lacks access to another funding source for rapid  response. Also, unlike APHIS, Interior agencies rarely receive  appropriations from the Congress directing them to address specific  infestations. Therefore, Interior’s invasive species programs tend to  focus on control and restoration rather than rapid response. For  example, a National Wildlife Refuge official noted that invasive species  funding on refuge lands is used for projects identified in previous annual  budget cycles. As a result, funds are directed toward recurring or well- established problems rather than toward rapid response.
Although Interior has authority to conduct control and eradication  programs on its lands, its authorities are not nearly as specific as APHIS’  invasive species authorities—even in natural areas. APHIS’ authorities  cover movement into the United States and interstate movement of  insects, plant pathogens, exotic plants, and aquatic organisms that might  threaten natural ecosystems. In contrast, rather than preventing the  spread of invasive species overall, many of Interior’s statutes are general  land management statutes or protect a particular species or group of  species. For example, according to an Interior attorney, the Endangered  Species Act may result in actions against invasive species, but they  would be a byproduct of protecting listed endangered species.
Competing priorities have also limited other agencies’ abilities to obtain the  resources needed to rapidly respond. For example, the Forest Service has  authority and responsibility for promoting environmental protection of  forests and rangelands, including protection against invasive species.  However, this particular environmental objective must compete with  others for funding, including programs aimed at improving and protecting  water quality and quantity and reducing fire hazards near urban areas.  Moreover, the Service has additional priorities relating to the human use of  these natural resources, such as improving the capability of forests and  rangelands to provide products (water, timber, and minerals) and services  (recreational opportunities) and improving Service roads and facilities.
According to Forest Service officials, a lack of resources for accelerated  research, management, and technical assistance has impeded their efforts  to be more actively involved in rapid responses. At the same time, they  emphasized that the agency works actively with APHIS and other partners  to perform risk assessments and surveys critical to eradication and control  of invasive species in national forests and in partnership on other lands.  In  commenting on a draft of our report, the Forest Service said that when  given adequate resources, it has successfully implemented rapid response  actions in full cooperation with its partners.
A Defense official said that Defense’s response to invasive species has been  minimal because it does not consider the activity to be directly related to  its mission. Although Defense is responsible for managing invasive species  on military installations, the manager acknowledged that some invasive  species are not being addressed. With many competing funding priorities,  only the most invasive plants have become rapid response priorities. The  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also has invasive species responsibilities; it  helps manage and remove aquatic nuisance species. For example, the  Corps is authorized to implement cost−sharing arrangements with state and  local governments for managing nuisance aquatic plants in waterways not  under the control of the Corps or other federal agencies. A Corps official  said that the lengthy planning studies required for these grants virtually  preclude assisting states with rapid response, and this program has not  been funded since 1996.
Commerce—through its National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration—has, as a peripheral part of its mission, responsibility for  managing aquatic invasive species. However, according to a Commerce  official, only a few of its activities involve rapid response. For example,  Commerce resources helped support the rapid response effort to eradicate  Caulerpa taxifolia.
Since invasive species that threaten natural areas are not central to any  agency’s mission, they are more likely to fall through the cracks. A good  example of this is giant salvinia, widely regarded as one of the most  devastating aquatic weeds in the world. Although APHIS listed giant  salvinia as a Federal Noxious Weed in 1983, this aquatic nuisance continues  to be sold at commercial nurseries, even in states where its sale is  prohibited. Giant salvinia was first reported in the United States outside of  cultivation in South Carolina in 1995. According to a retired APHIS official,  APHIS was asked to fund this eradication effort but declined. South  Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources cobbled together sufficient  funding to eradicate this infestation. A similar response was absent in  Texas, however, where the plant was discovered in 1998. As of March 2001,  it has been confirmed in 4 public reservoirs, 7 rivers or streams, 6 river  basins, and 27 private lakes in that state. In addition, giant salvinia now  occurs in water bodies in Arizona, California, Louisiana, Mississippi,  Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Hawaii.
section_title: The Council’s Management Plan Has Recommendations for Addressing Obstacles to Rapid Response
paragraphs: The Invasive Species Council’s management plan, issued in January 2001,  provides a broad plan of action with 57 recommendations covering 9 key  areas of invasive species management. Three of the recommendations  specifically address rapid response; a number of others address related  areas including early detection. In general, the plan’s rapid response  recommendations call for developing a coordinated rapid response  program; developing draft legislation for rapid response, with the  possibility of permanent funding; and expanding regional networks of  invasive species databases. At the same time, the Council acknowledges  that many of the recommendations lack specificity and will require further  development before they can be implemented. (See app. III for details on  the rapid response recommendations and the Council’s actions and  planned actions to address them.)
Taken in their entirety, the plan’s recommendations would appear to  address the obstacles to rapid response described in our report. These  include, first and foremost, the need for a national rapid response system to  provide guidance, technical assistance and other resources, and integrated  planning. Other obstacles that we identified in this report include the need  for (1) additional detection systems; (2) improved partnerships among  federal, state, and local agencies; and (3) enhanced technologies for  eradicating invasive species.
Specifically, the Council’s plan calls for:  A national system. The plan recognizes the need for a system that  would provide, among other things, for rapid response to new invasions.  It recommends that by July 2003, the Council develop a program of  coordinated rapid response to new invasions of natural and agricultural  areas and pursue increases in discretionary efforts to support the  program. The Council is to coordinate with other federal, state, local,  and tribal agencies in developing the program. According to Council  staff, a working group of representatives from the Council’s member  agencies will be responsible for implementing this recommendation in  cooperation with other stakeholders. The working group is to be  established before the end of August 2001.
Developing additional early detection systems. The plan has one  recommendation aimed at improving the detection and identification of  new invasive species. The recommendation contains a series of steps,  including (1) compiling a list of taxonomic experts; (2) developing new  methods for detecting pathogens and parasites; (3) instituting  systematic surveys of high-risk locations; (4) developing a more user- friendly approach to identifying and reporting invasive species; and (5)  developing—for use on the Internet—an early detection module that  will provide information on invasive plants.
Developing stronger partnerships. The plan emphasizes the need to  build partnerships with state and local entities, improving coordination,  and resolving jurisdictional issues. Moreover, many recommendations  incorporate consultations with states and other affected parties as part  of the implementation process. For example, regarding rapid response,  the plan calls for the Council to develop—in consultation with the  states—draft legislation, including the possibility of a permanent  funding mechanism and matching grants to states to develop strong  partnerships. Other recommendations call for developing (1) clearly  defined processes and procedures to help resolve jurisdictional and  other disputes regarding invasive species and (2) a national public  awareness campaign, emphasizing public and private partnerships.  These are only a few examples of the initiatives aimed at developing  stronger partnerships.
Improving technologies for use in rapid response. The plan calls  for developing and testing methods to determine which rapid response  measures are most appropriate for specific situations. In addition, the  plan recommends (1) preparing a catalog of existing aquatic and  terrestrial control methods and proposing strategies to determine their  effectiveness in different U.S. habitats; (2) establishing and coordinating  a long- and short-term research capacity (ranging from basic to applied  research) on invasive species; and (3) as part of a cross-cutting budget  proposal for fiscal year 2003, including an initiative to adequately fund  federal invasive species research programs.
Since the plan is relatively new, implementation of its recommendations is  just getting underway. The Council has, however, taken steps to establish  priority areas for implementation, rapid response being one of these areas,  according to its executive director.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Some non-native species arrive in the United States as accidental tourists;  others are brought in purposely—for example, to beautify gardens or as  fish or game for sportsmen. However, one thing invasive species have in  common is that their numbers are increasing dramatically. The explosive  growth of invasive species has been accompanied by an increased  awareness of the threat they pose and damages they cause. However,  heightened awareness has not yet resulted in a systematic national  approach to rapid response. As a result, opportunities for eradicating  potentially devastating invasive species continue to be lost.
Currently, if an invasive species is a serious threat to agricultural crops or  livestock there is a good chance that APHIS will address it in some way.  APHIS has a process in place for evaluating new invasive species and  obtaining resources for responding to serious threats. On the other hand, if  an infestation threatens primarily natural areas, the odds of it being rapidly  responded to are significantly less. For these infestations, it is sometimes  uncertain which, if any, agency will take the lead; ready access to funds is  often a problem; and generally no one agency is held accountable if the  infestation spreads.
At this point, it is unlikely that a single agency, such as Agriculture or  Interior, will unilaterally develop a systematic process for evaluating and  rapidly responding to invasive species that threaten natural areas. Without  specific responsibility for rapidly responding to natural area infestations  and resources to implement such a program, agencies have little impetus to  take on this responsibility. Thus, we believe that a coordinated approach  for dealing with rapid response nationwide offers the best opportunity for  ensuring that invasive species of all types will get a level of attention  commensurate with their risks. Such a system would bring federal agencies  and other stakeholders to the table to address invasive species as a national  problem—one that requires integrated planning, resources, and guidance.
The Invasive Species Council’s management plan provides a structured  framework for dealing with the threat of invasive species nationwide. The  plan covers activities on many fronts—from prevention to educational  outreach—and will likely take many years to fully implement. As a result,  the plan’s recommendations will need to be implemented incrementally. In  this regard, we agree with the Council’s decision to treat rapid response as  an area requiring priority attention. Rapid response provides an excellent  target of opportunity, offering the potential to save millions of dollars in  damages and control costs and for preserving natural habitats and native  species.
We believe that if the recommendations are properly implemented, they  will go a long way toward developing a systematic national approach  toward rapid response. At the same time, while a concerted effort is clearly  needed to slow the onslaught of invasive species, we believe that before  drafting rapid response legislation and requesting increases in funding, the  Council needs to clarify several fundamental issues. In particular, many  agency officials are uncertain as to what types of activities should be  considered rapid response and, consequently, how much funding their  agencies devote to that activity. In order to make a convincing case for  additional legislation or resources, the Council must first define rapid  response and obtain a solid understanding of how much federal funding is  already being directed toward this activity. Only then will the Council have  a sound basis for determining future needs.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: We recommend that the co-chairs of the Invasive Species Council—the  Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior—direct the Council  members to:  Develop criteria for what constitutes a rapid response, including  examples of activities that fall into that category.
Based on the criteria established above, develop information on their  Departments’ rapid response funding and the programs and activities  that receive funding.
In consultation with the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, establish  rapid response priorities to help identify resource needs and guide the  discretionary actions of agencies in addressing invasive species.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft copy of this report for review and comment to the  Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior and to the  Invasive Species Council.  We met with the Council’s staff and the three  departmental liaisons who provided comments from their respective  Departments and agencies: Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service,  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Forest Service, and Natural  Resources Conservation Service); Commerce (National Atmospheric and  Oceanic Administration); and Interior (Bureau of Land Management,  Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Minerals Management  Service, National Park Service,  and U.S. Geological Survey). The  Departments, agencies, and the Council’s staff generally agreed with the  substance of our report and with our recommendations.  A major theme  running throughout the comments was the impact of inadequate resources  on their ability to rapidly respond to new infestations and the need for  additional funding to develop an effective rapid response capability.  They  also provided technical comments that we incorporated throughout our  report as appropriate.  Appendix IV provides a summary of the major  points raised in the comments and our response, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days from the  date on this letter.  At that time, we will send copies of this report to  interested congressional committees and members; the Executive Director  of the National Invasive Species Council; the co-chairs of the National  Invasive Species Council (the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and  the Interior); and to the other Council members.  We will also make copies  available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  on (202) 512-3814.  The key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the extent of federal rapid response to new invasive species,  we reviewed the activities of the federal agencies responsible for invasive  species activities and asked the agencies that conducted rapid response for  data on which species they rapidly responded to and the related obligations  for fiscal year 2000.
The following agencies provided funding estimates for their rapid response  efforts:  U.S. Department of Agriculture: the Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the Forest Service;  Department of the Interior: the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of  Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife  Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey; and  Department of Commerce: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration.
The following agencies did not provide funding estimates on rapid  response:   Department of Defense; Agriculture’s Cooperative State Research,  Education, and Extension Service; APHIS’ Wildlife Services program;  and Interior’s National Wildlife Refuge System, Coastal Program, and  National Park Service do not track budget information on their rapid  response activities and could not estimate funding for these activities.
Officials from Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency,  Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, Interior’s  Minerals Management Service, and Defense’s Army Corps of Engineers  said that although their respective organizations conducted invasive  species activities, they did not perform rapid response in fiscal year  2000.
Agencies’ reported obligations may be under- or overstated for several  reasons. First, officials said that rather than using a specific fund for rapid  response activities, their agencies rely, at least in part, on programmatic  and contingency funds that fund many activities. Agencies do not routinely  track the rapid response portion of this funding. While much of APHIS’  funding for rapid response is transferred from CCC, it also relies on  programmatic and contingency funds. The basis for agencies’ funding  estimates ranged from analyses of funding records to an agency official’s  informed opinion. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation,  Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Geological Survey listed the rapid  response activities that they funded; the Fish and Wildlife Service provided  funding information on its rapid responses to aquatic nuisance species; and  the Bureau of Land Management estimated that its rapid response funding  was 8 percent of its total invasive species obligations.
Further, the agencies were somewhat uncertain as to which activities to  include in rapid response. To facilitate consistency among the agencies, we  provided a definition of rapid response as being “a response carried out in  time to contain or eliminate potentially damaging invasive species—the  actual time required for rapid response varies depending on the species.”  We also worked with the agencies while they prepared their data to further  ensure consistency. We did not verify the accuracy of the agencies’ data.  However, we did compare their data with other available data in an effort  to identify inconsistencies. We resolved all substantive inconsistencies  with agency budget and program officials.
To determine the obstacles to rapid response, we interviewed officials and  scientists and obtained plans, status reports, budget requests, and other  documents from the agencies cited above and from the Department of  Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Smithsonian Institution,  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Invasive Species Council staff. We also  interviewed representatives and reviewed documents from two  interagency groups: the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the  Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic  Weeds. In addition, we obtained views on obstacles from representatives of  state agricultural or natural resource agencies in California, Florida,  Hawaii, Minnesota, and Texas and with nonprofit organizations involved  with invasive species efforts, including the American Lands Alliance,  Nature Conservancy, and Charles Valentine Riley Memorial Foundation. We  selected the states cited above because agency officials stated that they  have significant invasive species problems and/or strong and innovative  invasive species programs.
In addition, we analyzed studies, reports, the National Invasive Species  Management Plan and public comments on the plan, and other documents  describing invasive species response systems, problems, and obstacles to  more timely rapid response. To review the actions of federal agencies in  greater detail, we analyzed four invasive species threats—the Asian long- horned beetle, Asian swamp eel, Caulerpa taxifolia, and giant salvinia.  Agency officials identified these invasive species as being serious threats  and relatively recent introductions into the United States. Furthermore,  these infestations have received varying levels of rapid response from  federal agencies.
To determine how federal agencies can improve rapid response, we  interviewed officials from the entities cited above to obtain their views on  solutions to obstacles impeding rapid response. In addition, we interviewed  invasive species experts at several universities. We analyzed and  synthesized recommendations obtained in interviews and from reports,  plans, documents, and literature relating to rapid response. We also  reviewed invasive species legislation and Executive Order 13112 and  analyzed the rapid response recommendations in the National Invasive  Species Management Plan.
We performed our work from October 2000 through May 2001, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Invasive Species Rapidly Responded to by Federal Agencies
paragraphs: The federal Departments that provided estimates of their rapid response  obligations for fiscal year 2000—Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce— also provided information on the invasive species that they rapidly  responded to in that period. For Agriculture’s APHIS and ARS and Interior’s  Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management, the invasive  species listed are ordered by the amount obligated, from largest to  smallest. The information provided by Agriculture’s Forest Service and  Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs and U.S. Geological Survey did not allow  for such ordering.
subsections: section_title: Department of Agriculture
paragraphs: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:  Citrus bacterial canker,  glassy-winged sharpshooter/Pierce’s disease, Mediterranean fruit fly, Asian  long-horned beetle, plum pox virus, West Nile virus, transmissible  spongiform encephalopathy in sheep, olive fruit fly, Asian gypsy moth, giant  salvinia, pink hibiscus mealybug, federally listed noxious weeds, rabbit  calcivirus disease, screwworm.
Agricultural Research Service:  Glassy-winged sharpshooter/Pierce’s  disease, brown citrus aphid, citrus psylla, papaya mealybug, pink hibiscus  mealybug, Asian long-horned beetle, plum pox virus, karnal bunt, sorghum  ergot, tropical soda apple, giant salvinia, West Nile virus, Caulerpa taxifolia,  yellow unicorn plant, elongate mustard, blissid cinchbug, waterlettuce.
Forest Service: European gypsy moth, Asian long-horned beetle, hemlock  woolly adelgid, Port-Orford-cedar disease, Asian gypsy moth, pine shoot  beetle, sudden oak death, pink hibiscus mealybug, giant salvinia, yellow  starthistle, purple loosestrife, Dyers woad, leafy spurge, spotted knapweed,  Canada thistle, orange hawkweed, Dalmatian toadflax, rush skeletonweed,  whitetop, Miconia, banana poka, cheatgrass, Scotch broom.
section_title: Department of the Interior
paragraphs: Fish and Wildlife Service (aquatic species):  Caulerpa taxifolia, Asian  swamp eel, zebra mussel, brown tree snake, round goby, New Zealand mud  snail, ruffe.
Bureau of Indian Affairs: Cogongrass, purple loosestrife, Russian  knapweed, musk thistle.
Bureau of Land Management: Giant salvinia, yellow starthistle, purple  loosestrife, Dyers woad, squarrose knapweed, salt cedar, leafy spurge,  spotted knapweed, Canada thistle, Scotch thistle, and others.
U.S. Geological Survey: Asian swamp eel; giant salvinia; garlic mustard;  round goby; black, silver, and bighead carp; green mussel; zebra mussel;  other aquatic invasive species.
Bureau of Reclamation: Giant salvinia.
section_title: Department of Commerce
paragraphs: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Caulerpa  taxifolia.
section_title: Management Plan’s Recommendations on Rapid Response
paragraphs: The Invasive Species Council’s management plan contains three  recommendations that specifically address rapid response. The  recommendations and the Council’s stated and planned actions to address  them are as follows: 1. Starting in January 2001, Interior (especially U.S. Geological  Survey/Biological Resources Division) and USDA, in cooperation with  the National Science Foundation and Smithsonian Institution, will  expand regional networks of invasive species databases (e.g., the Inter- American Biodiversity Information Network) and produce associated  database products, to cooperate with the Global Invasive Species  Programme and other partners to establish a global invasive species  surveillance and rapid response system.
Actions Taken to Address Recommendation:  Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey received a grant in September 2000 from  the U.S. Department of State to (1) provide technical assistance in  implementing the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network and  (2) convene a meeting in conjunction with the Global Invasive Species  Programme and provide seed funding for regional hubs in Mexico and  South Africa. The meeting, a workshop on developing regional invasive  species information hubs, was held in February 2001. It brought together  scientists from Africa, North America, and international organizations who  are working on ways to facilitate invasive species efforts by strengthening  taxonomic services and/or information networks. 2.  By July 2003, the Council, in coordination with other federal, state,  local, and tribal agencies, will develop a program for coordinated rapid  response to incipient invasions of both natural and agricultural areas  and pursue increases in discretionary spending to support this  program.
Actions Planned to Address Recommendation:   Establish interagency invasive species "rapid response" teams that  include management and scientific expertise.  Teams will focus on  taxonomic, ecosystem, and regional priorities, and coordinate with  local and state governmental and non-governmental efforts,  including standing and ad hoc state invasive species councils.
Develop and test methods to determine which rapid response  measures are most appropriate for a situation.
Review and propose revisions of policies and procedures (i.e.,  advance approval for quarantine actions, pesticide applications, and  other specific control techniques, and interagency agreements that  address jurisdictional and budget issues) concerning compliance  with federal (e.g., Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy  Act, Endangered Species Act) and non-federal laws that apply to  invasive species response actions.  The proposed revisions will be  made available for public comment and will take into account local  and state requirements.
Prepare a guide to assist rapid response teams and others that will  incorporate the methodology developed for response measures and  guidance on (1) regulatory compliance and (2) jurisdictional and  budget issues. 3.  Within fiscal year 2003 budget development, the Council, in  consultation with the states, will develop and recommend to the  President draft legislation for rapid responses to incipient invasions,  including the possibility of permanent funding for rapid response  efforts as well as matching grants to states in order to encourage  partnerships.  The recommended legislation will augment existing rapid  response mechanisms.
Action Taken to Address Recommendation:  The Council is seeking recommendations from its member agencies for  nominees to a working group that will draft legislation.
section_title: Summary of Agency Comments and Our Response
paragraphs: The following summarizes the key points raised in the comments provided  on a draft of our report by the Departments, agencies, and Council staff and  our response, as appropriate.
Agriculture’s APHIS agreed with the need to develop criteria for what  constitutes a rapid response.  The Forest Service noted that (1) it has full  authority to respond to invasive species on national forests and in  partnership on other lands and that its response has been limited by  inadequate resources, not by lack of authority, as suggested in our report;  (2) our report does not discuss the impediments to rapid response resulting  from compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act; and (3)  regarding the statement in our conclusions that “a national rapid response  system offers the best opportunity for ensuring that invasive species ...lgets  a level of attention commensurate with their risks,”  Executive Order 13112  and the National Invasive Species Management Plan endorse building on  existing strengths, not creating new structures, to enhance coordination  and program response to invasive species.
First, we agree that the Forest Service has the authority to rapidly respond  to invasive species under the conditions it described.  However, having  authority and having resources to carry out that authority are not the same  thing.  In particular, we believe that the ability to obtain resources for rapid  response is related to the centrality of invasive species to an agency’s  mission.  Invasive species is one of many important Forest Service  responsibilities; however, it is not specifically identified in the Forest  Service’s mission as it is for APHIS.  Second, regarding the National  Environmental Protection Act, agency officials that we interviewed during  our review had differing views on the extent to which compliance with the  act hindered rapid response, with some believing that adequate planning  could minimize the impediments and others maintaining that the act was a  major hindrance. While we agree that compliance with the act may slow  rapid response in some circumstances, we believe that any impediments it  creates are not of the magnitude of those described in our report. Finally,  we agree with the Forest Service that a national system for rapid response  should be built on existing strengths and we do not mean to imply  otherwise.  In fact, our conclusions note that the Council’s plan provides a  structured framework for dealing with the treatment of invasive species  nationwide and that if its recommendations are properly implemented,  they will go a long way toward developing a systematic national approach  toward rapid response.
Commerce said that the report was well written and accurate in its  discussion of the difficulties in rapidly responding to invasive species.    Commerce also commented on the problems posed by resource shortages.   It noted that rapid response needs in aquatic ecosystems are unpredictable;  in some years there may be no need to mount a rapid response effort and in  others, several seriously invasive species may be introduced.  Given this  variability, most of Commerce’s invasive species funding is directed toward  preventing and controlling invasive species that have been identified in  advance.  Commerce further noted that a rapid response to a new,  potentially serious, infestation may require large amounts of money and  extensive reprogramming of funds committed to other priority areas.
Interior said the report was well written and generally precise in its  observation of Interior’s program efforts to support rapid response.   Interior also said that the report will focus congressional attention on the  opportunity to clarify authorities (particularly in interjurisdictional  response efforts) and consider multi-year emergency response funding for  such harmful, unpredictable invasions.  Interior also noted that (1) the  shortage of resources in the land and water management activities of the  bureaus continue to be exacerbated by broadening mission goals; (2) there  is an increasing need for technological improvements to enhance  monitoring and rapid assessment of priorities for action; (3) planning  processes have not yet been fully integrated with state and local  stakeholders into regional or statewide rapid response contingency plans;  and (4) an important aspect of assessing the true risk and cost of invasive  species on natural areas is the ability to assess economic value for wildlife  habitat and recreational losses resulting from plant infestations.  This is an  area that lags well behind agronomic assessment.
The Invasive Species Council staff said that the report covered a high- priority area for the Council.  They further noted that the key issue  concerning rapid response is readiness and that a consistent and universal  agency complaint is that even when an infestation is detected early, the  lack of coordination and a contingency fund or funds-transfer mechanism  were major obstacles to quick action.   They added that our report’s  recommendations did not reflect the need for a flexible contingency  funding mechanism.
Regarding our first recommendation (developing criteria for what  constitutes a rapid response), the Council staff agreed that the definitions  for rapid response vary even among the Departments surveyed in our  review.   They also said that while this recommendation can be done  relatively quickly, it should not be the primary focus for the Council action  put forth in our report.  Regarding the second recommendation (developing  information on Departments’ rapid response funding and the programs that  are receiving funding), the Council staff said that work on this effort is  already underway. Finally, they suggested that we recommend that the  Council fully implement the National Invasive Species Management Plan’s  recommendations regarding early detection and rapid response.
We appreciate the need that the Council staff and many agencies expressed  for additional funding and a flexible funding mechanism to rapidly address  new invasions.  Our report documents some of the consequences of the  lack of resources in addressing some invasive species.  At the same time,  we believe that the funding issue is ultimately a policy concern that is best  addressed by congressional decisionmakers in their deliberations on  national spending priorities.  Thus, we are not making a recommendation  or endorsing recommendations in the Invasive Species Management Plan  regarding the adequacy of rapid response funding or the need for a flexible  funding mechanism.  Finally, we continue to believe that before the Council  requests additional legislation or resources it must first develop criteria for  what constitutes a rapid response.  The considerable confusion regarding  this term makes it critical that Council members reach consensus on what  a rapid response is before they undertake activities to strengthen it.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Gary Brown, Jacqueline Cook, Judith  Kordahl, Beverly Peterson, and Amy Webbink made key contributions to  this report.
section_title: Ordering Information
paragraphs: The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of  reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to  the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit  cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are  discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC  20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and  testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list  from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone  phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain  these lists.
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs
paragraphs: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm  e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov  1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)