This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-916T 
entitled 'Invasive Species: Federal Efforts and State Perspectives on 
Challenges and National Leadership' which was released on June 17, 
2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Testimony:

Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, United States Senate:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT:

Tuesday, June 17, 2003:

INVASIVE SPECIES:

Federal Efforts and State Perspectives on Challenges and National 
Leadership:

Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director Natural Resources and Environment:

GAO-03-916T:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-916T, testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, United States Senate

Why GAO Did This Study:

Invasive species–nonnative plants and animals–have caused billions of 
dollars in damage to natural areas, businesses, and consumers. In 
2001, the federal government issued a National Management Plan to 
coordinate a national control effort involving the 20 or so federal 
agencies that are responsible for managing invasive species. In 
October 2002, GAO reported on the implementation of the management 
plan and efforts to manage ballast water, among other things. 
(Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment Needed to 
Effectively Manage the Problem) [Oct. 2002, GAO-03-1] 

This testimony discusses some of GAO’s findings and recommendations in 
that report. It also presents the results of a subsequent GAO survey 
of state officials responsible for managing terrestrial and aquatic 
invasive species. This survey sought state perspectives on (1) the 
perceived gaps in existing legislation and barriers to addressing 
terrestrial and aquatic invasive species and (2) the federal 
leadership structure for addressing invasive species, as well as the 
integration of federal legislation on terrestrial invasive species 
with legislation on aquatic invasives. 

What GAO Found:

In 2002, GAO reported that while the National Management Plan calls 
for many actions that are likely to contribute to preventing and 
controlling invasive species in the United States, it does not clearly 
articulate specific long-term goals toward which the government should 
strive. For example, it is not clear how implementing the actions in 
the plan will move national efforts toward outcomes such as reducing 
new invasive species by a specific number or reducing the spread of 
established species by a specific amount. Moreover, GAO found that the 
federal government had made little progress in implementing many of 
the actions called for by the plan. Reasons for the slow progress 
included delays in establishing teams to be responsible for guiding 
implementation of the planned actions, the low priority given to 
implementation by the National Invasive Species Council and federal 
agencies, and the lack of funding and staff responsible for doing the 
work. In addition, GAO reported that current federal efforts are not 
adequate to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the 
Great Lakes via the ballast water of ships. Although federal officials 
believe more should be done to protect the Great Lakes from ballast 
water discharges, their plans for doing so depend on the development 
of standards and technologies that will take many years. 

More recently, state officials who responded to GAO’s survey, 
identified a number of gaps in, or problems with, existing legislation 
addressing invasive species and other barriers to managing invasives. 
Many state officials identified a lack of legal requirements for 
controlling invasive species that are already established or 
widespread as a key gap in legislation addressing both aquatic and 
terrestrial invasive species. State officials also often recognized 
ineffective standards for ballast water as a major problem in aquatics 
legislation. Regarding barriers to managing invasive species, state 
officials identified a lack of federal funding for state invasive 
species efforts, public education and outreach, and cost-effective 
control measures as major problems. State officials’ opinions varied 
on the preferred leadership structure for managing invasive species 
and whether to integrate legislative authority on invasive species. 
Many officials indicated that specifically authorizing the National 
Invasive Species Council would be an effective management option and 
favored integrated authority, but in both cases, the margins were 
relatively small. State officials indicated that the possible benefits 
of integrated legislation would be increased coordination between 
federal agencies and states and an increased focus on invasive species 
pathways, as opposed to focusing on individual species. The possible 
drawbacks identified included concerns that a single piece of 
legislation would not be able to address all possible situations 
dealing with invasive species and might reduce state flexibility in 
addressing invasives. 

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

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at 
(202) 512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the difficult issue of 
managing invasive species as you deliberate Senate Bill 525,[Footnote 
1] which would reauthorize the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 
Prevention and Control Act of 1990.[Footnote 2] Invasive species--
harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and microorganisms--are found 
throughout the United States and cause damage to crops, rangelands, 
waterways, and other ecosystems that is estimated in the billions of 
dollars annually. In addition to their economic costs, invasive species 
can have a devastating effect on natural areas, where they have 
strangled native plants, taken over wetland habitats, crowded out 
native species, and deprived waterfowl and other species of food 
sources. Conservation biologists rank invasive species as the second 
most serious threat to endangered species after habitat destruction. 
Overall, scientists, academicians, and industry leaders are recognizing 
invasive species as one of the most serious environmental threats of 
the 21st century. In October 2002, we issued a report on the federal 
government's National Management Plan for managing invasive species, 
ballast water management, and other issues.[Footnote 3],[Footnote 4]

My testimony today is based on our October 2002 report as well as new 
work that you requested. Specifically, I will discuss the findings and 
recommendations of our October 2002 report that address (1) progress 
made by federal agencies implementing the National Management Plan and 
(2) the current state of ballast water management as a pathway for 
invasive species. I will also discuss some of the results of new work 
we conducted to obtain state perspectives on (1) the gaps in, or 
problems with, existing legislation and barriers to addressing 
terrestrial and aquatic invasive species and (2) the federal leadership 
structure for addressing invasive species and integration of federal 
legislation on terrestrial invasive species with legislation on aquatic 
invasives. To obtain state perspectives, we surveyed the state agencies 
typically most involved with invasive species--state agencies 
responsible for agriculture and natural resources or fish and wildlife-
-sending surveys to at least two agencies within each of the 50 states. 
We received 68 responses from a total of 45 states. We also surveyed 
the members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, a federal 
advisory committee established to help the federal government develop 
and implement its National Management Plan; we received responses from 
about two-thirds of the 24 Committee members. We also interviewed 
officials in a few states chosen because of their well-established 
invasive species programs or the large number of invasive species 
present. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. We will provide to you the full results 
of our survey in a separate product.

Summary:

As we reported in October 2002, the National Management Plan for 
addressing invasive species lacks a clear long-term desired outcome and 
quantifiable measures of performance. While the actions called for in 
the plan are likely to contribute to controlling invasive species in a 
general sense, it is unclear how implementing them will move the United 
States toward a specific outcome, such as reducing new invasive species 
by a specific number or reducing the spread of established species by a 
specified amount. Federal officials recognize that the plan has 
deficiencies and are working on improvements. Currently, the only 
performance measure that can be assessed is the percentage of planned 
actions that have been completed. By this measure, implementation has 
been slow. As of September 2002, federal agencies had completed less 
than 20 percent of the actions that the plan called for by that date, 
although they had begun work on others. Reasons for the slow progress 
included delays in establishing teams to be responsible for guiding 
implementation of the planned actions, the low priority given to 
implementation by the National Invasive Species Council and federal 
agencies, and the lack of funding and staff responsible for doing the 
work. Some stakeholders expressed the view that the low priority given 
to implementing the plan and associated limited progress may be due to 
the fact that the Council and plan were created by executive order and 
thus do not receive the same priority as programs that are 
legislatively mandated. We made several recommendations to the Council 
intended to clarify goals and objectives in the National Management 
Plan and to improve reporting on the progress of its implementation; 
Council agencies generally agreed with our recommendations.

We also reported in October 2002 that current federal efforts are not 
adequate to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great 
Lakes via the ballast water of ships. Despite federal regulations 
requiring ships that enter the lakes from more than 200 nautical miles 
off the U.S. coast to exchange their ballast water in the open ocean 
(that is, in waters deeper than 2,000 meters and farther than 200 
nautical miles from the U.S. coast); retain the ballast water on board; 
or use an alternative, environmentally sound, method of ballast water 
management, aquatic invasive species are still entering the Great Lakes 
and establishing themselves in the ecosystem. According to the experts 
we consulted, at least two factors contribute to the failure of the 
existing regulations to prevent introductions. First, about 70 percent 
of the ships that enter the Great Lakes are classified by the Coast 
Guard as having no ballast on board and, are therefore, exempt from 
open-ocean exchange requirements. However, these ships may in fact 
carry thousands of gallons of residual ballast water and sediment in 
their drained tanks, and this water and sediment may contain 
potentially invasive organisms that may be mixed with water later taken 
from, and then discharged into, the Great Lakes. Second, the open-ocean 
exchange conducted by ships that have ballast does not effectively 
remove or kill all organisms in the ballast tanks. Although federal 
officials believe more should be done to protect the Great Lakes from 
ballast water discharges, their plans for doing so depend on the 
development of standards and technologies that will take many years. In 
the meantime, the continued introduction of invasive species could have 
major economic and ecological consequences.

According to our new work, state officials identified a number of 
legislative gaps or problems, and other barriers related to addressing 
invasive species. A key gap noted in both aquatic and terrestrial 
legislation is the lack of legal requirements for controlling invasive 
species that are already established or widespread. State officials 
said that if there is no federal requirement, there is often little 
money available to combat a species and that a legal requirement would 
raise the priority for responding to it. For example, one state 
official complained about the lack of authority to control Eurasian 
ruffe, an invasive fish that has spread through several Great Lakes and 
causes great harm to native fisheries. He compared this to the 
authorities available to control the sea lamprey, which has a mandated 
control program that is funded by the U.S. and Canada.[Footnote 5] In 
addition, many state officials frequently cited, as ineffective, the 
current federal standards for ballast water, which only impose 
requirements on ships entering the Great Lakes and not other U.S. 
waters. State officials also identified the lack of federal funding for 
state invasive species efforts as another barrier they face. In 
particular, states were concerned about not having sufficient funds to 
create management plans for addressing invasive species, and to conduct 
monitoring and detection, inspection and enforcement, and research 
activities. Finally, state officials were also concerned with the lack 
of cost-effective control measures and insufficient public education 
and outreach efforts.

State officials' opinions on effective federal leadership structures 
for addressing invasive species varied. A National Invasive Species 
Council specifically authorized in legislation was most often 
identified as an effective leadership structure for managing invasive 
species, although many officials also thought that continuing with the 
Council as established by executive order would also be effective. 
Several federal agency officials thought that giving the Council 
authority in legislation would make it easier for them to implement the 
National Management Plan. Regarding the form legislation on invasive 
species should take, most state officials were in favor of integrating 
legislation on terrestrial invasive species with legislation on aquatic 
invasive species, but the margin was relatively small. Many state 
officials indicated that the possible benefits of integrated 
legislative authority would be increased coordination between federal 
agencies and states and an increased focus on invasive species 
pathways, as opposed to specific species. The possible drawbacks 
identified included concerns that a single piece of legislation would 
not be able to address all possible situations dealing with invasive 
species and may result in reduced state flexibility in addressing 
invasives.

Background:

As we have reported in the past, the impact of invasive species in the 
United States is widespread, and their consequences for the economy and 
the environment are profound.[Footnote 6] Invasive species affect 
people's livelihoods and pose a significant risk to industries such as 
agriculture, ranching, and fisheries. The cost to control invasive 
species and the cost of damages they inflict, or could inflict, on 
property and natural resources are estimated in the billions of dollars 
annually. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA), each year the Formosan termite causes at least $1 billion in 
damages and control costs in 11 states; USDA also estimates that, if 
not managed, fruit flies could cause more than $1.8 billion in damage 
each year.[Footnote 7] Invasive species continue to be introduced in 
new locations, with recent examples including the northern snakehead 
fish in Maryland, the emerald ash borer in Michigan, and the monkeypox 
virus in the Midwest.

Invasive species may arrive unintentionally as contaminants of bulk 
commodities, such as food, and in packing materials, shipping 
containers, and ships' ballast water. Ballast water is considered a 
major pathway for the transfer of aquatic invasive species. Ballast is 
essential to the safe operation of ships because it enables them to 
maintain their stability and control how high or low they ride in the 
water. Ships take on or discharge ballast water over the course of a 
voyage to counteract the effects of loading or unloading cargo, and in 
response to sea conditions. The ballast that ships pump aboard in ports 
and harbors may be fresh, brackish, or salt water. These waters could 
potentially contain various organisms that could then be carried to 
other ports around the world where they might be discharged, survive, 
and become invasive. Other invasive species may be introduced 
intentionally; kudzu, for example--a rapidly growing invasive vine that 
thrives in the southeastern United States--was intentionally introduced 
from Japan as an ornamental plant and was used by USDA in the 1930s to 
control soil erosion.

Federal agencies implement a variety of invasive species-related 
programs and activities pursuant to their specific missions and 
responsibilities. USDA, for example, spends significant resources on 
prevention and control activities for invasive species that harm 
agricultural and forest products. USDA is also responsible for 
preventing infectious diseases, some of which are considered invasive, 
from spreading among livestock. States also play a major role in 
addressing invasive species, either through their own programs or 
through collaboration with or funding from federal programs. Such 
programs and the amount of resources expended on them vary considerably 
among the states.

In response to concerns that we were losing the battle against invasive 
species, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 in February 
1999 to prevent the introduction of invasive species; provide for their 
control; and minimize their economic, environmental, and human health 
impacts. The executive order established the National Invasive Species 
Council, which is now composed of the heads of 11 federal departments 
and agencies, to provide national leadership on invasive species and to 
ensure that federal efforts are coordinated and effective, among other 
things. The executive order also required the Secretary of the Interior 
to establish a federal advisory committee to provide information and 
advice to the Council. To achieve the goals of the executive order, the 
Council was to develop a national management plan that would serve as 
the blueprint for federal action on invasive species. S. 525, if 
enacted, would call on the Council to carry out several other 
activities such as implementing a strategy to share information 
collected under the proposed legislation and to develop a program for 
educating the public about certain pathways for invasive species; it 
would also authorize funds for the Council to carry out these 
activities.

National Management Plan Lacks Measurable Goals, and Its Implementation 
Has Been Slow:

The National Invasive Species Council's management plan, Meeting the 
Invasive Species Challenge, issued in January 2001, calls for actions 
that are likely to help control invasive species, such as issuing 
additional regulations to further reduce the risk of species 
introductions via solid wood packing material, developing methods to 
determine rapid response measures that are most appropriate for 
specific situations, and devoting additional resources to strengthening 
inspection services at ports of entry. However, as we observed in our 
October 2002 report, the plan lacks a clear long-term goal and 
quantifiable performance criteria against which to evaluate its overall 
success. For example, the plan does not contain performance-oriented 
goals and objectives, such as reducing the introduction of new species 
by a certain percentage or reducing the spread of established species 
by a specified amount. Instead, the plan contains an extensive list of 
actions that, while likely to contribute to preventing and controlling 
invasive species, are not clearly part of a comprehensive strategy. 
Similarly, many of the actions in the plan call for federal agencies to 
take certain steps rather than to achieve specific results and do not 
have measurable outcomes. For example, the plan calls for the Council 
to work with relevant organizations to "expand opportunities to share 
information, technologies, and technical capacity on the control and 
management of invasive species with other countries." The plan also 
calls for the Council to support international conferences and 
seminars. These types of actions are more process-oriented than 
outcome-oriented; taken individually, the actions may be useful, but 
judging whether they are successful and have contributed to an overall 
goal, will be difficult.

Federal officials involved in developing the plan told us that they 
recognize that it has deficiencies and are working on improvements. The 
Council acknowledged in the plan itself that many of the details of the 
actions called for would require further development in the 
implementation phase. The executive director of the Council staff told 
us that, in her opinion, given the scope of this first-time effort, it 
would have been unrealistic and difficult to agree on specific 
measurable goals. She also said that, in many areas, the federal 
government does not have the data on invasive species conditions needed 
to set long-term goals and develop better performance measures. She 
said that many of the actions called for in the management plan are 
designed to help develop needed data but pointed out that doing so for 
some aspects of invasive species management will be difficult given the 
comprehensive data needed.

The management plan also called for the Council to establish a 
transparent oversight mechanism by April 2001 to report on 
implementation of the plan and compliance with the executive order. 
This mechanism, however, is just now being set in place. Without this 
mechanism, the only available measure that could have be used to assess 
overall progress in implementing the plan was the percentage of planned 
actions that were completed by the dates set in the plan. By this 
measure, implementation has been slow. Specifically, federal agencies 
had completed less than 20 percent of the 65 actions that were called 
for by September 2002. Council agencies had started work on over 60 
percent of the remaining planned actions, however, including some that 
have a due date beyond September 2002. Several actions in the plan that 
were completed on time related to the development of the Council's Web 
site, which is found at www.invasivespecies.gov. In addition, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard, the 
Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) had sponsored research related to ballast water management. 
Nevertheless, a vast majority of the members of the Invasive Species 
Advisory Committee, which we surveyed for our October 2002 report, said 
that the Council was making inadequate or very inadequate progress.

We found several reasons for the slow progress in implementing the 
plan. First, delays occurred in establishing the teams of federal and 
nonfederal stakeholders that were intended to guide implementation of 
various parts of the plan. Second, our review of agencies' performance 
plans (prepared pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act) 
indicated that while some agencies' plans described efforts taken to 
address invasive species under their own specific programs, none of the 
plans specifically identified implementing actions called for by the 
plan as a performance measure. Some stakeholders expressed the view 
that the low priority given to implementing the plan and associated 
limited progress may be due to the fact that the Council and plan were 
created by executive order, and thus do not receive the same priority 
as programs that are legislatively mandated. Finally, we also noted a 
lack of funding and staff specifically devoted to implementing the 
plan.

To address these shortcomings, we recommended that the Council co-
chairs (the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior):

* ensure that the updated management plan contains performance-oriented 
goals and objectives and specific measures of success and:

* give high priority to establishing a transparent oversight mechanism 
for use by federal agencies complying with the executive order and 
reporting on implementation of the management plan.

We also recommended that all member agencies of the National Invasive 
Species Council with assigned actions in the current management plan 
recognize their responsibilities in either their departmental or 
agency-level annual performance plans. The agencies generally agreed 
with our recommendations.

Since we issued our report, the Council made significant progress on 
its first crosscutting budget--one of the planned actions in the 
management plan that should help to develop performance measures and 
promote better coordination of actions among agencies. The Office of 
Management and Budget is currently reviewing the Council's proposal for 
the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle. In addition, according to Council 
staff, the oversight mechanism should be finalized in July 2003, and 
the first revision to the management plan should be finalized later 
this summer.

Current Regulations Concerning Ballast Water Management Are Not Keeping 
Invasive Species out of the Great Lakes:

According to experts and agency officials we consulted, current efforts 
by the United States are not adequate to prevent the introduction of 
aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes via ballast water of 
ships, and they need to be improved. Since 1993, federal regulations 
have required vessels entering the Great Lakes from outside the 
Exclusive Economic Zone--a zone extending 200 nautical miles from the 
shore--to exchange their ballast water in the open ocean (that is, 
water deeper than 2,000 meters) before entering the zone. Exchanging 
ballast water before arriving in the Great Lakes is intended to serve 
two purposes: to flush aquatic species taken on in foreign ports from 
the ballast tanks and to kill with salt water any remaining organisms 
that happen to require fresh or brackish water. If a ship bound for the 
Great Lakes has not exchanged its ballast water in the open ocean it 
must hold the ballast in its tanks for the duration of the voyage 
through the lakes or conduct an exchange in a different approved 
location. Data from the Coast Guard show that the percentage of ships 
entering the Great Lakes after exchanging their ballast water has 
steadily increased since the regulations took effect in 1993 and 
averaged over 93 percent from 1998 through 2001. Despite this, numerous 
aquatic invasive species have entered the Great Lakes via ballast water 
and have established populations since the regulations were 
promulgated.

Experts have cited several reasons for the continued introductions of 
aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes despite the ballast water 
regulations. In particular, the Coast Guard's ballast water exchange 
regulations do not apply to ships with little or no pumpable ballast 
water in their tanks, which account for approximately 70 percent of 
ships entering the Great Lakes from 1999 through 2001. These ships, 
however, may still have thousands of gallons of residual ballast and 
sediment in their tanks that could harbor potentially invasive 
organisms from previous ports of call and then be discharged to the 
Great Lakes during subsequent ballast discharges. There are also 
concerns that open-ocean ballast water exchange is not an effective 
method of removing all potentially invasive organisms from a ship's 
ballast tank.

Federal officials believe that they should do more to develop treatment 
standards and technologies to protect the Great Lakes from ballast 
water discharges. The Coast Guard is now working to develop new 
regulations that would include a performance standard for ballast 
water--that is, a measurement of how "clean" ballast water should be 
before discharge within U.S. waters. The Coast Guard is expecting to 
have a final rule ready for interdepartmental review by the fall of 
2004 that will contain ballast water treatment goals and a standard 
that would apply not only to ships entering the Great Lakes but to all 
ships entering U.S. ports from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone. 
Once the Coast Guard sets a performance standard, firms and other 
entities will be able to use this as a goal as they develop ballast 
water treatment technologies. While several technologies are being 
investigated, such as filtration and using physical biocides such as 
ultraviolet radiation and heat treatment, a major hurdle to be overcome 
in developing technological solutions is how to treat large volumes of 
water being pumped at very high flow rates. In addition, small 
container vessels and cruise ships, which carry a smaller volume of 
ballast water, may require different technologies than larger container 
vessels. As a result, it is likely that no single technology will 
address the problem adequately. Consequently, it could be many years 
before the world's commercial fleet is equipped with effective 
treatment technologies. Without more effective ballast water standards, 
the continued introduction of aquatic invasive species into the Great 
Lakes and other aquatic systems around the country is likely to cause 
potentially significant economic and ecological impacts.

We reported in October 2002 that the Coast Guard and the Department of 
Transportation's Maritime Administration are developing programs to 
facilitate technology development. In addition, the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
have funded 20 ballast water technology demonstration projects at a 
total cost of $3.5 million since 1998 under a research program 
authorized under the National Invasive Species Act. Other programs also 
support research, and the Maritime Administration expects to make 
available several ships of its Ready Reserve Force Fleet to act as test 
platforms for ballast water technology demonstration projects. Once 
effective technologies are developed, another hurdle will be installing 
the technologies on the world fleet.[Footnote 8] New ships can be 
designed to incorporate a treatment system, but existing ships were not 
designed to carry ballast water technologies and may have to go through 
an expensive retrofitting process. With each passing year without an 
effective technology, every new ship put into service is one more that 
may need to be retrofitted in the future.

Public and private interests in the Great Lakes have expressed 
dissatisfaction with the progress in developing a solution to the 
problem of aquatic invasive species introduced through ballast water. 
An industry representative told us that she and other stakeholders were 
frustrated with the slow progress being made by the Coast Guard in 
developing a treatment standard. More broadly, in the absence of 
stricter federal standards for ballast water, several Great Lakes 
states have considered adopting legislation that would be more 
stringent than current federal regulations. In addition, in a July 6, 
2001, letter to the U.S. Secretary of State and the Canadian Minster of 
Foreign Affairs, the International Joint Commission and the Great Lakes 
Fishery Commission stated their belief that the two governments were 
not adequately protecting the Great Lakes from further introductions of 
aquatic invasive species.[Footnote 9] They also noted a growing sense 
of frustration within all levels of government, the public, academia, 
industry, and environmental groups throughout the Great Lakes basin and 
a consensus that the ballast water issue must be addressed now. The two 
commissions believe that the reauthorization of the National Invasive 
Species Act is a clear opportunity to provide funding for research 
aimed at developing binational ballast water standards.

S. 525 sets forth a more aggressive program against the introduction of 
aquatic invasive species through ballast water and related pathways. In 
particular, it would require ballast water standards for ships in all 
waters of the U.S., instead of the current voluntary program for waters 
outside of the Great Lakes. It also specifically authorizes 
significantly more funding in the form of grants to states, and federal 
funding and grants for research, including research on pathways, likely 
aquatic invaders, and development of cost-effective control methods.

Now let me turn to our most recent work gathering state perspectives on 
invasive species legislation and management.

State Officials Cited Several Gaps in Existing Federal Legislation and 
Identified Other Barriers to Addressing Invasive Species:

State officials who responded to our survey identified several gaps in, 
or problems with, existing federal legislation on aquatic and 
terrestrial invasive species, as well as other barriers to their 
efforts to manage invasive species.

Perceived Gaps in or Problems with Existing Legislation:

According to our new work, the lack of legal requirements for 
controlling already-established or widespread invasive species was the 
gap in existing legislation on aquatic and terrestrial species most 
frequently identified by state officials. Specifically, they said that 
this is a problem for species that do not affect a specific commodity 
or when a species is not on a federal list of recognized invasives. 
Officials noted that if there is no federal requirement, there is often 
little money available to combat a species and that a legal requirement 
would raise the priority for responding to it. For example, one state 
official complained about the lack of authority to control Eurasian 
ruffe, an invasive fish that has spread through several Great Lakes and 
causes great harm to native fisheries. He compared this to the 
authorities available to control the sea lamprey, which has a mandated 
control program that is funded by the U.S. and Canada. In addition, 
some state officials said that in the absence of federal requirements, 
differences among state laws and priorities also pose problems for 
addressing established species, for example, when one state may 
regulate or take actions to control a species and an adjacent state 
does not. Some state officials noted that they have little authority to 
control or monitor some species and that getting laws or regulations 
for specific species, such as those for the sea lamprey, takes time.

Many state officials also identified ineffective federal standards for 
ballast water as a problem for addressing invasive species. 
Specifically, some state officials complained that standards and 
treatment technologies, regulations, compliance with reporting 
requirements, and penalties for noncompliance are lacking and say that 
research and legislation are needed to address the problem. As we 
reported in October 2002, federal regulations for ballast water are not 
effective at preventing invasive species from entering our waters and 
are only required for ships entering the Great Lakes. Some state 
officials also said that federal leadership is essential to fund 
efforts in these areas and to provide coordination among states. As I 
have already noted, S. 525 would authorize a more aggressive program 
for developing standards and technologies for regulating ballast water. 
Although some state officials believe solving the ballast water problem 
is possible, some officials pointed to difficulties in doing so with 
some methods. Specifically, these officials noted that some 
environmentalists are opposed to chemical treatments, while industry 
groups have objected to the cost of some technologies. S. 525 would 
revise the definition of "environmentally sound" (as in environmentally 
sound control measures) to delete the emphasis on nonchemical measures.

Other Barriers to Addressing Invasive Species:

State officials reported that inadequate federal funding for state 
efforts was the key barrier to addressing invasive species--both 
aquatic and terrestrial. In particular, state officials were concerned 
about having sufficient funds to create management plans for addressing 
invasive species, particularly as more states begin to develop plans, 
and for inspection and enforcement activities. State officials also 
identified the need for additional funds to conduct monitoring and 
detection programs, research, and staffing. In particular, some state 
officials noted that uncertainty in obtaining grant funds from year to 
year makes it difficult to manage programs, especially when funding 
staff positions relies on grants. S. 525 would specifically authorize 
significantly more funding in grants to address invasive species than 
is specifically authorized under the current legislation.

Many state officials also identified a lack of public education and 
outreach as a barrier to managing terrestrial invasive species. Public 
education and outreach activities are important components of the 
battle against invasive species, as many invasives have been introduced 
through the activities of individuals, such as recreational boating, 
and the pet, live seafood, and plant and horticultural trades. For 
example, the outbreak of the monkeypox virus that has sickened at least 
80 people in the Midwest is thought to have spread from a Gambian rat 
imported from Africa to be sold as a pet. S. 525 includes efforts 
intended to provide better outreach and education to industry, 
including the horticulture, aquarium, aquaculture, and pet trades, and 
to recreational boaters and marina operators, about invasive species 
and steps to take to reduce their spread.

State officials identified a lack of cost-effective control measures as 
a key barrier to addressing aquatic invasive species. Some officials 
commented that there is a need for more species-specific research to 
identify effective measures. For example, one successful control 
effort--the sea lamprey control program--costs about $15 million per 
year. However, similar control programs for all invasive species would 
be problematic and officials told us that targeted research on control 
methods is needed, particularly for aquatic invasive species. S. 525 
would authorize a grant program for research, development, 
demonstration, and verification of environmentally sound, cost-
effective technologies and methods to control and eradicate aquatic 
invasive species.

State Officials' Opinions Varied on Effective Leadership Structures for 
Managing Invasive Species and Whether to Integrate Legislative 
Authority on Invasive Species:

State officials' opinions varied on the preferred leadership structure 
for managing invasive species and whether to integrate legislative 
authority on invasive species. Many state officials indicated that 
specifically authorizing the National Invasive Species Council would be 
an effective management option and favored integrated authority, but in 
both cases, the margins were relatively small.

Federal Leadership Structure for Invasive Species:

Currently, no single agency oversees the federal invasive species 
effort. Instead, the National Invasive Species Council, which was 
created by executive order and is composed of the heads of 11 federal 
departments and agencies, is intended to coordinate federal actions 
addressing the problem. State officials most often identified 
specifically authorizing the Council in legislation as an effective 
leadership structure for managing invasive species. Almost all of the 
Invasive Species Advisory Committee members that responded to our 
survey agreed with this approach. During our work for our October 2002 
report, the executive director of the Council noted that legislative 
authority for the Council, depending on how it was structured, could be 
useful in implementing the national management plan for invasive 
species by giving the Council more authority and, presumably, 
authorizing more resources. Officials from USDA, the Department of 
Defense, and EPA also told us that legislative authority, if properly 
written, would make it easier for Council agencies to implement the 
management plan, as implementing actions under the executive order are 
perceived to be lower in priority than are programs that have been 
legislatively mandated. Many state officials, however, also believed 
that keeping the current Council authority as established by executive 
order is an effective option.

Integration of Federal Laws Addressing Invasive Species:

As you know, federal authorities for addressing invasive species are 
scattered across a patchwork of laws under which aquatic and 
terrestrial species are treated separately. Questions have been raised 
about whether this is the most effective and efficient approach and 
whether the federal government's ability to manage invasive species 
would be strengthened if integrated legal authority addressed both 
types of invasives. Some believe such an approach would provide for 
more flexibility in addressing invasive species; others are concerned 
that such an approach would disrupt existing programs that are working 
well.

On the basis of the responses from state officials, no clear consensus 
exists on whether legislative authority for addressing aquatic and 
terrestrial invasive species should be integrated. Overall, state 
officials were in favor of integrating legislative authority, but the 
margin was relatively small. Differences were more distinct, however, 
when we considered the state officials' expertise. Specifically, we 
asked officials whether they considered themselves experts or 
knowledgeable in aquatic invasive species, terrestrials, or both. A 
large majority of the state officials who identified themselves as 
having expertise solely in aquatic invasive species were against 
integrating aquatic and terrestrial authority. The terrestrial experts 
were also against integrated authority, but with a smaller majority. 
These positions contrast with those of the state officials who said 
they were experts or knowledgeable in both aquatic and terrestrial 
invasives; these officials favored integrated authority by a large 
majority. About twice as many members of the Invasive Species Advisory 
Committee who responded to our survey favored integrating legislation 
on aquatic and terrestrial invasive species compared to those who did 
not.

Regarding the drawbacks of integrating authority for aquatic and 
terrestrial invasive species, many state officials said that it could 
be difficult to address all possible situations with invasive species 
and some species or pathways may get overlooked, and were concerned 
that it may reduce state flexibility implementing invasive species 
programs. Some state officials said that the two types of invasives 
should be handled separately, since the ecological complexities of 
aquatics and terrestrials are very different--different pathways of 
entry and spread, and different requirements for control methods and 
expertise. In addition, some officials stated that combining 
legislative authority would result in competition among various 
invasive species programs for scarce resources. In particular, one 
official referred to the "issue of the moment" phenomenon, where a 
specific invasive species becomes the focus of great public attention 
and receives a large share of resources, while many other species may 
get very few resources.

On the other hand, many state officials saw an increased focus on 
pathways for invasive species--as opposed to on specific species--as a 
possible benefit of integrating authority for aquatic and terrestrial 
invasive species. Such an approach could facilitate more effective and 
efficient efforts to address invasive species. Many state officials 
also believed that integration of legislative authority could result in 
increased coordination between federal agencies and states. Some state 
officials described the efforts needed to address invasives as 
requiring broad, interdisciplinary coordination and characterized the 
current federal effort as fragmented and ineffective. In addition, some 
state officials said that the classification of species into aquatic or 
terrestrial types might not be clear-cut and that the current 
separation between them is "an artificial federal construct," citing, 
for example, the difficulty of classifying amphibians.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. We would be happy 
to respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may 
have.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at 
(202) 512-3841. Mark Bondo, Mark Braza, Kate Cardamone, Curtis Groves, 
Trish McClure, Judy Pagano, Ilga Semeiks, and Amy Webbink also made key 
contributions to this statement.



FOOTNOTES

[1] S. 525, 108th Cong. (2003).

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

[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and 
Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem, GAO-03-1 
(Washington, DC: Oct. 2002). 

[4] Executive Order 13112 created a National Invasive Species Council, 
now composed of 11 federal departments and agencies, to provide 
national leadership on addressing invasive species and to develop a 
plan for managing them. 

[5] Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, Sept. 10, 1954, U.S.-Can., 6 
U.S.T. 2836.

[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Invasive Species: Federal and 
Selected State Funding to Address Harmful Nonnative Species, GAO/
RCED-00-219 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 24, 2000). 

[7] Estimates are in 2001 dollars. 

[8] A recent study analyzing the market for future treatment 
technologies reported that there are over 47,000 vessels in the world 
fleet for which ballast water treatment technologies could be 
applicable. 

[9] The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 established the International 
Joint Commission to, among other things, advise the U.S. and Canadian 
governments concerning transboundary water quality issues. The 
Commission has six members: three appointed by the President of the 
United States, with the advice and approval of the Senate, and three 
appointed by the Governor in Council of Canada, on the advice of the 
Prime Minister. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was created in 1955 
by a convention on Great Lakes fisheries between the U.S. and Canada.