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

Letter

Background

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.

Task Force Member Agencies Estimated Expending an Average of About $260 Million Annually to Address Aquatic Invasive Species in Fiscal Years 2012 through 2014

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.

Task Force Member Agencies Conducted a Wide Range of Activities and Identified Several Challenges in Addressing Aquatic Invasive Species

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.

Prevention

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.

Early Detection and Rapid Response

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.

Control and Management

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.

Restoration

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.

Research

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.

Education and Public Awareness

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.

Leadership and International Cooperation

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.

The Task Force Has Not Taken Key Steps to Measure Progress in Achieving Its Strategic Goals

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendation for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Appendix II: Map of the United States with Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and Their Reported Presence by State, and Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Appendix II: Map of the United States with Examples of Aquatic Invasive Species and Their Reported Presence by State, and Common Pathways (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Figure 3 shows examples of aquatic invasive species and their known locations (i.e., reported presence of a species) as well as common pathways of invasion (see interactive fig. 1) and includes the figure’s rollover information. Table 5 provides descriptions of the aquatic invasive species used as examples, and table 6 provides descriptions of common pathways of invasion.

Appendix III: Aquatic Invasive Species Activities Conducted by Task Force Member Agencies

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.

Appendix IV: Copy of GAO Questionnaire Disseminated to Task Force Member Agencies

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgments

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.