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. 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. 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. We found several reasons for the slow progress in implementing the plan. Finally, we also noted a lack of funding and staff specifically  devoted to implementing the plan. 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. Federal officials believe that they should do more to develop treatment  standards and technologies to protect the Great Lakes from ballast water  discharges. In addition, the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. 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. Many state officials also identified ineffective federal standards for ballast  water as a problem for addressing invasive species. Many state officials also identified a lack of public education and outreach  as a barrier to managing terrestrial invasive species. State officials identified a lack of cost-effective control measures as a key  barrier to addressing 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. 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. 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. Many state officials also believed that  integration of legislative authority could result in increased coordination  between federal agencies and states.
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. 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.