To help carry out their responsibilities, the four land management agencies  have either strategic plans or other policy or management guidance for  addressing invasive species. Agencies responsible for parks, natural  resources, and transportation were also involved in invasive species  management. Other Types of Entities Play an Important Role in Weed Management

A growing number of areas in the country—particularly in the western  states—participate in multijurisdictional organizations known as “weed  management areas” or “cooperative weed management areas.” These  areas—which typically include federal, state, and local agencies;  nongovernmental organizations and businesses; and citizens—coordinate  and collaborate on weed management issues among neighboring  landowners. Funding for Weed Management Comes from a Variety of Sources

Efforts to manage invasive weeds rely on a web of federal, state, and local  government funding as well as nongovernmental funding sources. Some  entities use general operating funds, while others rely on grant programs  administered by numerous federal agencies. Federal and Nonfederal Officials Identified Funding, Cooperation, and Public Education as Key to Effective Weed Management

The majority of the officials we interviewed cited insufficient funding as  the primary barrier to dealing effectively with invasive weeds (39 of 48 and  37 of 41 officials responding to questions about managing weeds on  nonfederal land and federal land, respectively). First, federal and nonfederal officials said that project funding needs to be  consistent and predictable from year to year, because, to be effective, weed  eradication actions need to be done regularly until the weed population is  under control—which in some cases may take several years. Clear Consensus Does Not Exist among Weed Management Stakeholders on How Additional Resources for Weed Control Should Be Distributed

The officials we interviewed offered wide-ranging views on how the federal  government could best provide additional resources to weed management  entities. Most officials responding to the issue (33 of 38) stated that the federal  government should expand an existing program or programs rather than  create a new one to distribute additional weed management funds. The creation  of a new program—which the newly passed law requires—will add another  set of application procedures to learn and a new set of officials who may or  may not be familiar with state and local weed management entities and  their respective needs. Officials supportive of this approach said  that states best know their weed problems and therefore would make  better-informed funding decisions. Recommendation for Executive Action

To help ensure that the new program under the Noxious Weed Control and  Eradication Act is implemented effectively, we recommend that the  Secretary of Agriculture direct the implementing agency to collaborate  with other USDA and Interior agencies that have experience managing  invasive weeds (1) in developing the mechanisms for allocating funds to  weed management entities, and (2) in determining what entities should  receive such funding, using the agencies—along with other regional, state,  and local experts—as technical advisers, as appropriate. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report are to determine (1) the federal and  nonfederal entities that implement projects to address harmful  nonagricultural weeds, (2) the sources of funding that these entities use,  (3) the views of federal and nonfederal officials on the barriers that limit  the effectiveness of weed control efforts, (4) these officials’ observations  on specific aspects of how to implement a new program—or to infuse new  resources into an existing program—to support weed management and  control, and (5) the legal ramifications, if any, of the use of certain terms— such as invasive, noxious, and nonnative—and their associated definitions  on control efforts. While a large number of departments and agencies are in some way  responsible for weed management, as agreed with the requester, we limited  our focus on the federal entities engaged in weed management to the  Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Within Interior and USDA, we limited our scope to the four agencies that  manage the most public land—Bureau of Land Management (BLM),  National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Forest  Service; other agencies administering programs that can provide funding to  landowners and other partners (Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Farm Services  Agency); and agencies engaged in research into the use of weed control  methods (Agricultural Research Service; Cooperative State Research,  Education, and Extension Service; and U.S. Geological Survey). The states we selected were  California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, and Mississippi. One  distinction is whether a species is native or nonnative. Second, some states take control actions against  invasive weeds in addition to those identified as noxious weeds in their  statutes and regulations. CDFA has established through regulation a noxious weed list that  includes over 130 plant species. In the Department of Natural Resources, individual natural resource land  units—including forests, wildlife areas, and state parks—conduct weed  management as part of general operations. GAO Comments

1.
Why GAO Did This Study

Invasive weeds, native or nonnative plant species, cause harm to natural areas such as rangelands or wildlife habitat and economic impacts due to lost productivity of these areas. While the federal investment in combating invasive species is substantial most has been concentrated on agricultural lands, not on natural areas. In this report, GAO describes (1) the entities that address invasive weeds in natural areas and the funding sources they use; (2) federal, state, and local weed management officials' views on the barriers to weed management; and (3) their opinions about how additional resources for weed management could be distributed. GAO limited this study to entities in the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, and California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, and Mississippi, and gathered information through interviews of over 90 weed management officials.

What GAO Found

All types of landowners--government and private--are involved in the battle against invasive weeds in natural areas and include federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service; state and local agencies such as those responsible for agriculture, natural resources, and transportation; and individuals who manage their lands for a variety of purposes, including production or preservation. In some cases, federal or state laws and regulations require that landowners and managers control specific regulated weeds. In other instances, land managers control weeds--including unregulated ones--to meet their larger responsibilities for natural resource conservation. Weed management entities rely on a wide range of funding sources to carry out their activities. The federal government is the largest source of funding through the general budgets of federal land management agencies and numerous grant programs for natural resource management. State and local agencies and nongovernmental entities often rely on a mix of their own funding, grant resources, and collaboration with other entities or volunteers to implement weed management projects. Not surprisingly, given the magnitude of the invasive weed problem, federal and nonfederal officials we questioned believed that the lack of consistent and adequate funding limits effective management of the problem. Specifically, some officials commented that funding needs to be consistent from year to year to ensure that invasive weeds are eradicated or kept in check, but available resources for weed management often fluctuate. In addition, some officials said that funding is sometimes received late in the year, beyond the point when effective actions can be taken. Other identified barriers to effective weed management included the requirement to comply with National Environmental Policy Act requirements in order to conduct treatments, a lack of cooperation among entities needed to combat invasive weeds, and a general lack of awareness and public education on the issue. Posed with the prospect of a new program or funds for addressing invasive weeds, a majority of the federal and nonfederal officials who responded to our question preferred that existing programs be used to disburse additional funds. Several officials noted that a key factor for such an approach is to capitalize on existing relationships among current programs and weed management entities, rather than creating a new program. A majority of officials also believed that an agency within the Department of Agriculture should implement any new program or funding source, but that states should play a key role in determining how funds should be distributed. Some officials noted, however, that certain agencies have different expertise with regard to weeds and knowledge of local weed management entities. As we completed our review, a new law required the creation of a new program to provide funding by the Department of Agriculture for weed management. The law requires that the department rely on reviews by regional, state, and local experts when making funding decisions.