Invasive Species
Cooperation and Coordination Are Important for Effective Management of Invasive Weeds Gao ID: GAO-05-185 February 25, 2005Invasive 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-185, Invasive Species: Cooperation and Coordination Are Important for Effective Management of Invasive Weeds
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-185
entitled 'Invasive Species: Cooperation and Coordination Are Important
for Effective Management of Invasive Weeds' which was released on March
29, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of
Representatives:
February 2005:
Invasive Species:
Cooperation and Coordination Are Important for Effective Management of
Invasive Weeds:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-185]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-185, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Resources, House of Representatives
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.
What GAO Recommends:
Because invasive weed control involves many different types of
entities, GAO recommends that the Department of Agriculture collaborate
with other federal agencies that have experience managing invasive
weeds in administering its new weed program. In commenting on a draft
of this report, the Department of the Interior agreed with the findings
and supports the recommendation; Agriculture did not provide comments.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-185.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841, or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Government Agencies at All Levels and Nongovernmental Entities Manage
Invasive Weeds:
Funding for Weed Management Comes from a Variety of Sources:
Federal and Nonfederal Officials Identified Funding, Cooperation, and
Public Education as Key to Effective Weed Management:
Clear Consensus Does Not Exist among Weed Management Stakeholders on
How Additional Resources for Weed Control Should Be Distributed:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Legal Ramifications of the Terms Used in Federal and State
Law for Invasive Weeds:
Appendix III: Weed Management in the Five States Reviewed:
California:
Colorado:
Idaho:
Maryland:
Mississippi:
Appendix IV: Description of Federal Agency Programs Supporting Invasive
Weed Management Work on Nonfederal Lands:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Estimates of Infested Federal Acreage and Acreage Treated in
Recent Fiscal Years:
Table 2: Federally Funded Programs Known to Support Weed Control by
Other Entities:
Table 3: Number of organizations, by type, contacted in five states:
Table 4: Summary of Provisions in 26 States' Statutory Definitions:
Table 5: States' Definitions of Noxious Weeds:
Table 6: USDA and Interior Funding Programs Known to Have Provided
Support for Invasive Weed Management by Nonfederal Entities, Fiscal
Year 2004:
Table 7: USDA and Interior Funding Sources That Could Potentially
Support Invasive Weed Management by Nonfederal Entities:
Figures:
Figure 1: National Park Service Exotic Plant Management Teams:
Figure 2: Tri-State Weed Management Area's Hells Canyon Project:
Figure 3: Susan River Tall Whitetop Eradication Project:
Figure 4: The San Miguel Tamarisk Eradication Project:
Figure 5: Partnership Success on Cogongrass in Mississippi:
Figure 6: Giant Hogweed Eradication in Maryland:
Abbreviations:
APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
CDFA: California Department of Food and Agriculture:
FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service:
IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources-World Conservation Union:
NPS: National Park Service:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey:
Letter February 25, 2005:
The Honorable Richard Pombo:
Chairman:
Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The infestation of invasive nonnative plants, animals, and
microorganisms is a long-standing and growing problem in the United
States. As we have reported in the past, these species pose a
significant risk to industries such as agriculture, ranching, and
fisheries by damaging the environment on which these industries depend.
Many scientists believe that invasive species are also a significant
threat to biodiversity and are major or contributing causes of
population declines for almost half the endangered species in the
United States.
The federal government has a substantial stake in the battle against
invasive species. Numerous federal agencies spend over a billion
dollars annually to prevent, detect, control, or otherwise manage
invasive species. To date, however, most efforts have been focused on
invasive insects, diseases, and weeds that infest agricultural
resources because of the economic impact these species have on crops.
But invasive species are not limited to just agricultural lands, and
there is a growing awareness that they also cause harm to other types
of ecosystems and natural resources such as forests, rangelands, and
urban areas by, for example, crowding out native species and affecting
the frequency of wildfires. The spread of invasive weeds in these
nonagricultural areas is said to resemble an explosion in slow motion,
and weeds now cover an estimated 133 million acres in the United
States.
Several federal laws and an Executive Order provide direction to
agencies for addressing invasive weeds. For example, the Plant
Protection Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
list weeds that it determines can cause certain harms, including damage
to agriculture or natural resources. Under the act, these weeds are
designated as being "noxious weeds." The department is authorized to
regulate the movement of these noxious weeds in interstate commerce and
may order that they be destroyed. The Secretary of Agriculture has
delegated this authority to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS). In addition, under section 15 of the Federal Noxious
Weed Act, all federal agencies are required to undertake a number of
control efforts for undesirable plants, which include designated
noxious weeds. In 1999, the President issued Executive Order 13112,
which established the National Invasive Species Council made up of the
heads of certain federal departments and agencies. As directed by the
order, the council developed a national management plan that includes
recommended actions for addressing all types of invasive species,
including weeds.
Various statutes, such as those regarding natural resource protections
in our national parks, forests, refuges, and rangelands, also provide
authority to the federal land management agencies to control invasive
weeds on federal lands. Nonfederal entities and private landowners also
play a role in combating invasive weeds under state and local laws or
because of their interest in resource protection. Federal agencies are
authorized to enter into cooperative agreements to assist nonfederal
landowners with those efforts. Since weed control often involves
chemical treatments that may have major impacts on the environment,
agencies must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act,
which requires them to analyze the impacts of major federal actions.
The 108th Congress continued to recognize the daunting task that
managing invasive species poses by enacting laws to provide additional
resources for addressing specific invasive species. In 2003, Congress
authorized $6 million per year over a 5-year period for Maryland and
Louisiana programs to eradicate nutria--a South American rodent that
destroys wetland habitat. In 2004, Congress passed the Noxious Weed
Control and Eradication Act, which authorizes $15 million for each
fiscal year over a 5-year period for a new program of grants and
cooperative agreements to support state, county, and other weed
management entities' efforts to control invasive weeds; the Secretary
of Agriculture is responsible for establishing this new program.
In this context, we identified (1) the federal and nonfederal entities
that implement projects to address terrestrial invasive weeds on
nonagricultural lands, (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, and (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. We also determined the legal
ramifications of the use of certain terms--such as invasive, noxious,
and nonnative--and their associated definitions on control efforts (see
app. II). For purposes of this report, we use the term "invasive weeds"
to refer to terrestrial plants or plant parts that are either native or
nonnative to a particular ecosystem and could threaten the environment,
economy, or public health. Invasive weeds include those that are
identified as "noxious weeds"--terrestrial or aquatic weeds that the
federal government or state governments regulate because of the harm
they can cause; noxious weeds may be native or nonnative. Our
definition for invasive weeds is different from the invasive species
definition under Executive Order 13112 in that it includes native
species. We define nonagricultural land to include all land that is not
actively used for row crop production, orchards, cereal grains, or
pastures. On the other hand, for purposes of this report, forests and
rangeland are nonagricultural land uses.
To analyze these issues related to terrestrial weeds on nonagricultural
lands, we examined weed management entities' policies and practices at
the federal, state, and local levels. We limited our review of federal
agencies' weed management activities to the four major land management
agencies: the Department of the Interior's (Interior) Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park
Service (NPS); and USDA's Forest Service. We also examined federal
programs that these and other agencies within Interior and USDA
administer to support weed management by nonfederal entities. In
addition, we reviewed agencies within those departments that conduct or
support weed-related research. Finally, we reviewed invasive weed
management issues in five states--California, Colorado, Idaho,
Maryland, and Mississippi--to gain an understanding of the nonfederal
entities involved in weed management. We selected these states to
provide a range of characteristics, including geography, federal land
ownership, and maturity of weed management programs. We used structured
interviews to obtain information from 57 federal, state, local, and
nongovernmental officials. We conducted unstructured interviews with
another 36 officials. All told, we spoke with over 90 federal and
nonfederal officials representing 58 agencies and organizations. We did
not attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of these federal and
nonfederal efforts to address nonagricultural weeds, and were unable to
identify with precision the amount of funding these entities devote to
weed management. We conducted our review from May 2004 through December
2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. For more details on our scope and methodology, see appendix
I.
Results in Brief:
A wide range of organizations manage terrestrial invasive weeds on
nonagricultural lands across the United States, including federal
agencies, state and local governments, large and small nongovernmental
organizations, and individual landowners. In the federal government,
large land management agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management
and the Forest Service are among the most visible participants in such
weed management, although other federal agencies also control weeds,
conduct research, and support the efforts of other weed management
entities. The federal land management agencies primarily control weeds
as part of their larger responsibilities for natural resource
conservation but also in order to comply with federal laws on managing
invasive weeds, such as section 15 of the Federal Noxious Weed Act. In
the five states we reviewed, state agencies responsible for
agriculture, natural resources, and transportation most often manage
weeds on state lands and may also work on private lands on a
reimbursable basis. In three of these states, county officials are
responsible for managing weeds on county lands and for assisting
private landowners. Private entities ranging from major land
conservation organizations to small neighborhood associations and
individual landowners also participate in weed management.
The federal and nonfederal entities working on invasive weeds that we
identified draw upon multiple sources of public and private funding.
Federal land management agencies typically do not have specific
congressional appropriations for invasive weed management but allocate
funds out of their general operational budgets. While the agencies are
not able to determine expenditures with precision, they estimated that
in fiscal year 2004 they collectively spent around $40 million for weed
control activities on their lands. Similarly, states and counties we
reviewed typically rely on general operating funds to support their
efforts, while some also levy specific taxes or receive grants from
private organizations. The five states we reviewed vary widely in
geographic size as well as in the size of their weed management
programs; rough estimates of their annual funding levels range from
hundreds of thousands of dollars to over $10 million. States and local
governments also frequently use funding from the numerous federal grant
and cooperative agreement programs that support natural resource and
land management activities of nonfederal entities. Most of these
federal programs--which are in addition to the programs federal
agencies conduct to manage weeds on their own lands--are focused on
broader natural resource management issues, such as protecting water
quality or reducing soil erosion, but allocate tens of millions of
dollars each year to invasive weed projects. To make these funding
decisions, the federal agencies typically select grant applications
that best meet the objectives and eligibility criteria of the grant
program; the agencies sometimes receive input from other federal
officials and state and local experts to aid in decision making.
Nongovernmental organizations involved in weed management use grants
from a variety of governmental and private sources.
Officials we interviewed overwhelmingly believe that the lack of
consistent and adequate funding limits effective weed management (39 of
48 of those who commented on management on nonfederal land and 37 of 41
who commented on management on federal lands). Consistent funding is
critical because weed treatment needs to occur regularly, year after
year, to keep the weed population under control; progress made in one
year can be lost without subsequent treatments. However, funding is not
consistent because the availability of grants or general operating
funds fluctuate from year to year. Timely funding--at a point in the
year when weeds can be most easily treated--also makes eradication
efforts more effective. Officials identified other barriers to
effective weed management, but not nearly as frequently as funding. For
example, more than one-third of the officials (15 of 41) said that
requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the
potential impacts of major federal actions to the environment were
overly time consuming and a hindrance to effective and timely weed
management on federal land. While officials were generally supportive
of the intent of the act, they said that the procedures could make it
difficult to respond rapidly to new infestations.
Weed management officials varied in how they believed additional
resources for weed control should be delivered, and more than one-third
of those we interviewed did not have firm opinions on the matter. In
some respects, the opinions expressed were similar to the approach
taken in the newly enacted Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of
2004. A notable difference, however, is that 33 of the 38 officials who
expressed an opinion believed that existing programs should be modified
to direct more funding to weed management and that a new program was
not necessary. Many officials noted that existing programs have
developed relationships with weed management entities that should be
maintained. The act, however, requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
establish a new program. Under a new program, officials generally
agreed that a wide range of activities should be funded, including
education, prevention, early detection and rapid response, control,
monitoring, and research; the act, in fact, does authorize USDA to fund
a broad array of weed management activities and projects. With regard
to leadership for a new program, 20 of 31 officials believed that it
should be managed by USDA or one of its agencies. The act does require
USDA to establish the program, but does not specify which agency within
USDA should implement it. Officials pointed out what they believed were
strengths and weaknesses of both USDA and Interior agencies with
respect to managing support programs for weed management, including
geographic coverage and the level of experience in working on weeds,
particularly in natural areas. For example, some commented that USDA's
Natural Resources Conservation Service has good geographic coverage but
little experience managing nonagricultural weeds. Others appreciated
the focus that Interior's land management agencies have on protecting
natural areas.
Among the 39 officials commenting on how the federal government should
allocate additional funds for weed management, 24 stated that the
states should play the primary role in determining which projects to
fund, while 8 advocated giving this responsibility to a federal agency.
To some degree, the act addresses both approaches by giving
responsibility for making funding decisions to USDA but requiring the
department to rely on technical and merit reviews conducted by
regional, state, and local experts, to the maximum extent practicable.
Regardless of which USDA agency is chosen to implement the new program,
USDA and Interior officials stressed to us that collaboration with
other relevant federal agencies within the two departments would be
beneficial since it would allow the agencies to share expertise on
specific invasive weeds and experience with nonfederal entities. The
law, however, does not specifically call for other federal agencies to
be involved in setting direction for the program or in making funding
decisions.
Federal and state laws use many different terms, such as "noxious" and
"exotic," to describe harmful weeds. In federal law, three different
terms are used for, or encompass, invasive weeds--"invasive species,"
"noxious weeds," and "undesirable plants." At the state level, almost
all states use the term "noxious weed" but define it differently.
Importantly, control efforts by weed management entities are affected
by--and in some cases can be restricted by--definitions for these
terms, federal and state noxious weed lists, and other federal and
state legal provisions. For example, some states limit control efforts
to only those weeds on federal or state lists, while other states
authorize control efforts for additional weeds. In addition, some
states further categorize listed noxious weeds and, in doing so, make
distinctions in the types of control efforts that are authorized or
required.
To ensure that in administering its new grant funding program USDA
considers the broad range of issues related to weed management and the
needs of weed management entities across the country, we recommend that
it collaborate with other federal agencies experienced in managing
invasive weeds and related grant programs to help develop the
mechanisms for allocating funds to weed management entities and to
serve as technical advisers in determining what entities should receive
such funding.
The Department of the Interior provided comments on a draft of this
report and generally agreed with the findings and supported the
recommendation. With regard to our recommendation for collaboration
between USDA and Interior on implementation of the new grant funding
program, the department suggested that the issue be approached through
the National Invasive Species Council and that council's advisory
committee. Four Interior bureaus (the National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Geological
Survey) also reviewed the report and provided technical comments
relating to funding data and the number of acres infested with weeds.
We have incorporated these comments where appropriate. The letter from
the department is in appendix V.
The Department of Agriculture did not respond to our request to comment
on a draft of this report, although the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service and the Forest Service provided technical comments
and clarifications. We have incorporated those where appropriate.
Background:
As we have reported in the past, the impact of all types of invasive
species in the United States is widespread, and their consequences for
the economy and the environment are profound.[Footnote 1] Invasive
species are found on agricultural cropland and in natural and urban
areas, and can be either terrestrial or aquatic. Invasive species
represent all taxonomic groups--plants, animals, and microorganisms--
and cause harm by multiplying rapidly, crowding out native species,
damaging agricultural and industrial resources, and generally altering
natural systems.[Footnote 2] For example, they can alter entire
ecosystems by disrupting food chains, preying on critical native
species such as pollinators, increasing the frequency of fires, or--as
in the case of some plants--simply overshadowing and outcompeting
native plants. As such, many scientists believe that invasive species
are a significant threat to biodiversity and many endangered species in
the United States. The cost to control invasive species and the cost of
damages they inflict, or could inflict, on property or natural
resources are estimated to total billions of dollars annually. Once
they have arrived, invasive species are hard to eradicate. As the Fish
and Wildlife Service noted, "Invasive species management is a never-
ending activity because of the insidious and explosive nature of the
species themselves. Elimination of established populations of multiple
invasive species has not yet been demonstrated in the 100-year history
of the Refuge System."[Footnote 3]
The Plant Conservation Alliance--an organization created in 1994 to
protect native plants by ensuring that their populations and
communities are maintained, enhanced, and restored--estimates that
about 4,000 foreign plant species have been introduced into the United
States since European settlement began, and as many as 1,000 of these
have been identified as a threat to our native flora and fauna as a
result of their aggressive, invasive characteristics.[Footnote 4] All
50 states have been affected, although certain states are particularly
hard hit. California, Florida, and Hawaii are hosts to an estimated
2,000 nonnative plants, or half of the 4,000 that exist nationwide.
Some of the 4,000 introduced plant species were brought as food crops
and do not display invasive or harmful characteristics. Others arrived
by accident, perhaps germinated from seeds either contaminating
otherwise beneficial commodities such as grain or in the soil once used
as ships' ballast. Other plant species were introduced intentionally to
serve some purpose or as an ornamentally desirable plant. Kudzu, for
example--a rapidly growing vine that thrives in the southeastern and
mid-Atlantic United States--was intentionally introduced from Japan by
USDA in the 1930s to control soil erosion but has now overtaken many
natural areas. Similarly, multiflora rose was promoted for use as a
living fence, like hedgerows on pastureland, but has spread far beyond
its original purpose. Ornamentally pleasing but also invasive plants
include English ivy, autumn olive, Japanese honeysuckle, and purple
loosestrife. Some species that are considered invasive--autumn olive,
for example--are still advertised as beneficial to the environment
because they are a food source for wildlife. However, once established,
the seeds of invasive plants can spread through wind, water, and
animals, and by hitching a ride on people or their vehicles. Invasive
weeds may also take hold or spread as a result of disturbances in
ecological systems. Disturbances could include deforestation, road
building, or changes in water quality or quantity.
Historically, weed control has been practiced primarily in agricultural
areas. However, there is a growing recognition that invasive weeds'
effects are felt throughout natural areas as well. For example,
sagebrush-grassland ecosystems such as those in the Great Basin states,
including Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, are degraded by
cheatgrass, introduced from Eurasia. This grass, along with other
nonnative grasses such as medusahead, are now the dominant plant
species on tens of millions of acres in the West. Because cheatgrass
tolerates wildfire and adds to fuel loads, it has increased the
frequency of major fires in these grasslands--ecosystems that cannot
handle frequent, intense fires--thereby causing a near extirpation of
native flora and fauna. In the Northeast and Midwest, purple
loosestrife is rapidly degrading wetlands by filling in open waters
with dense stands--some thousands of acres in size. In the Southwest,
tamarisk--also known as salt cedar--proliferates along streams in
otherwise arid landscapes, ousting native trees and shrubs upon which
native animals depend while also lowering water tables. This report
focuses on efforts to manage terrestrial invasive weeds in
nonagricultural areas, including forests, rangelands, parks, and urban
areas.
Government Agencies at All Levels and Nongovernmental Entities Manage
Invasive Weeds:
A wide range of organizations and individuals manage and control
invasive weeds on nonagricultural lands across the United States,
including federal, state and local agencies; large and small
nongovernmental organizations; and private landowners. The weed
management activities of these entities are guided by federal and state
laws, agency policies and regulations, executive initiatives, or
natural resource management principles.
Four Federal Agencies Are Extensively Involved in Managing Invasive
Weeds on Federal Land:
The four major land management agencies we examined are responsible for
the vast majority of federal lands in the United States--over 630
million acres out of a total of over 700 million acres (BLM, 261
million; Forest Service, 193 million; FWS, 96 million; NPS, 84
million).[Footnote 5] As directed by the various statutes that they
implement, these agencies are to ensure they manage the lands under
their jurisdiction for a variety of important economic, recreation, and
conservation purposes. While the laws do not specifically require the
agencies to control invasive weeds, they give the agencies broad
authority to guard against threats to the resources they are
responsible for protecting.[Footnote 6] For example, invasive weeds
such as leafy spurge and yellow star thistle, which degrade western
rangelands, hamper BLM's ability to ensure adequate forage for grazing;
some rangeland weed species are actually toxic or fatal if consumed by
livestock, while others displace desirable native grasses. Invasive
weeds are also crowding out some native species on national wildlife
refuges and other federal lands, harming threatened or endangered
species or other protected wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Service
reported that invasive weeds interfere significantly with meeting
wildlife objectives on nearly 50 percent of its refuges. In addition,
invasive weeds that increase fuels can feed high-intensity fires and
crowd out seedlings, thereby hindering the Forest Service's ability to
manage forests for sustainable timber harvests. Three of the four
agencies--BLM, the Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service--
are authorized to expend funds to protect resources outside of lands
they manage, which is important in battling invasive weeds as the weeds
do not respect jurisdictional borders. The National Park Service does
not have this authority.
While the federal agencies may use these broad authorities for natural
resource management to control weeds, section 15 of the Federal Noxious
Weed Act requires federal agencies to have a management program for the
control of some invasive plant species.[Footnote 7] As authorized under
the Plant Protection Act, USDA's APHIS maintains a list of noxious
weeds--plants or plant products that can cause certain harms, including
damage to agricultural or natural resources.[Footnote 8] The current
list contains 96 plant taxa, about one-half of which are known to be in
the United States, according to USDA.[Footnote 9] This represents a
small percentage of the overall number of plants that have invaded the
country. USDA's APHIS is authorized to take a number of actions to
prevent the introduction or spread of these listed weeds and may
cooperate with other federal agencies. In addition, Executive Order
13112 directs federal agencies to take actions against invasive
species, including preventing their introduction, providing for their
control, and conducting relevant research. The order, issued in 1999,
established a National Invasive Species Council, comprising the heads
of certain federal departments and agencies, and directed the council
to develop a national management plan for invasive species; the
resulting plan contains action items for the land management agencies
(and others).[Footnote 10] For example, the plan called upon agencies
to request additional funding through the annual appropriation process,
to reduce the spread of invasive species from federal lands to
neighboring areas, and to lessen the impact of invasive species on
natural areas.[Footnote 11]
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. In addition, the agencies
have done some assessments of the extent of weed infestations on
federal lands. All have identified significant infestations and taken
actions to treat weeds, although officials noted to us that, because
the agencies have only recently used standardized methods of measuring
infestations or areas treated, comparisons over time must be done with
caution. They also cautioned us that treating an acre of weeds does not
necessarily mean controlling the weeds on that acre; subsequent
treatments are likely to be necessary. (See table 1 for agency
estimates.)
Table 1: Estimates of Infested Federal Acreage and Acreage Treated in
Recent Fiscal Years:
Agency: Interior: BLM;
Infested acres (fiscal year of estimate): 36 million (2001);
Estimated acres treated (fiscal year of treatment)[A]: 318,000 (2004).
Agency: Interior: FWS;
Infested acres (fiscal year of estimate): 1.9 million (2004);
Estimated acres treated (fiscal year of treatment)[A]: 280,000 (2004).
Agency: Interior: NPS;
Infested acres (fiscal year of estimate): 2.6 million (2004);
Estimated acres treated (fiscal year of treatment)[A]: 132,200
(2004)[B].
Agency: USDA: Forest Service;
Infested acres (fiscal year of estimate): 6 million to 7 million
(2002);
Estimated acres treated (fiscal year of treatment)[A]: 157,000 (2003).
Sources: Agriculture and Interior.
[A] In 2002, the four land management agencies endorsed new standards
for measuring acres treated for invasive weeds. The new standards call
for agencies to measure the actual acreage covered by weed species. In
the past, an acre infested with a handful of tamarisk trees, for
example, might have been recorded as an infested acre, when the actual
acreage infested with the tree was quite a bit less. This approach is
likely to show a decline in the number of acres that agencies report
they treated.
[B] The National Park Service reports that it controlled weeds on over
95,000 of the 132,200 acres it treated and expects to treat on average
approximately 200,000 acres per year.
[End of table]
According to most federal officials we spoke with (15 of 18), weed
infestations are getting worse. The Forest Service estimated in 1998
that weed infestations were increasing on its lands by approximately 8
percent to 12 percent annually. Recognizing the threat that
infestations pose, federal agencies try to control weeds by pulling
them out by hand, mowing, applying herbicides, and using biological
control agents, among other methods.[Footnote 12] For example, in 2002,
the National Park Service distributed approximately 5 million flea
beetles in three parks in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming in an
attempt to biologically control leafy spurge. In the Washington, D.C.,
area, National Park Service staff members have manually removed
Japanese stiltgrass to protect sensitive native species. Often, a
combination of methods, known as integrated pest management, is needed.
For example, federal agencies have used a combination of chemical and
mechanical methods-- including burning and plowing--to manage tamarisk
in the West. They are also experimenting with biological control. In
Hawaii, USDA and Interior have supported efforts to suppress an
invasive tree (miconia) by uprooting it, spraying herbicide from
helicopters, and using a fungal biological control agent.
Such actions, though, are resource intensive, and agencies often do not
have enough staff to carry out many projects. In 2000, to address the
issue of a lack of on-site staff, the National Park Service created
Exotic Plant Management Teams, which move among the parks to control
harmful plants. The Park Service has found these teams to be an
effective tool and expanded the program to 16 teams that cover 209 of
the 388 units in the national park system (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: National Park Service Exotic Plant Management Teams:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The National Park Service's Exotic Plant Management Teams treat
invasive weeds in one park for a week or two before moving on to a
different park. Starting in 2000, the service's Biological Resource
Management Division created four teams, each charged with conducting
weed management work on parks within a distinct geographic area. In
fiscal year 2003, there were 16 teams that were funded at $5.2 million,
or an average of about $300,000 per team. Each team, with the exception
of the one in Florida, consists of a team leader, 4 to 16 members, and
a liaison between the team and the nearby parks. The team in Florida is
unique in that it contracts out all of its control work through the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which pays about half
the control costs, rather than using service employees. A
representative of every park covered by a team serves on a steering
committee that sets priorities and selects projects. To select
projects, the committee receives requests from parks and ranks them
using criteria such as their cost-effectiveness and biological impacts.
In addition to weed control work, a team might help a park create a
weed management plan or inventory infestations on its land, as did the
team that assists park units in the Washington, D.C., area. In 2003,
the teams inventoried 627,112 acres across the national park system;
treated 10,666 acres of infestations; and restored 191 acres of land
with native species. Partnerships are an important component of the
teams' work. In 2003, partners contributed $2.8 million to team efforts
across the country. Partners range from nongovernmental organizations
such as the Student Conservation Corps (through which students
volunteer with a team) to state and local government agencies. For
example, the Colorado Plateau team worked with Utah State University in
2003 to conduct inventory surveys at six sites in Utah. The map above
shows the areas each team covers as well as the year in which funding
for each team began.
[End of figure]
The Fish and Wildlife Service also began to use this approach in fiscal
year 2004 with three so-called "strike teams" that work at refuges in
the Everglades, the Lower Colorado River, and the Columbia-Yellowstone-
Missouri River areas. In light of staffing limitations, all four land
management agencies also seek volunteers to help control invasive
weeds. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service is using trained
volunteers to help with early detection at six refuges. In general, the
agency reports that volunteers conduct about 20 percent of all work on
refuges, which now includes assisting with noxious weed activities.
Sixteen federal agencies--including the 4 federal land management
agencies we reviewed--also work toward better weed control by
participating in the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management
of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, which was established in 1994 through a
memorandum of understanding. According to the committee's charter, the
committee is to coordinate (1) information on the identification and
extent of invasive weeds in the United States and (2) federal agency
management of these species. Since it began, the committee made
recommendations that led federal agencies to create a grant program for
managing weeds known as the Pulling Together Initiative, published a
nontechnical overview of invasive weeds to increase public awareness,
and developed a conceptual design for a national early detection and
rapid response system for invasive weeds. The committee has also
encouraged the development of state and regional invasive species teams
and councils.
State and Local Governments We Reviewed Vary in the Extent to Which
They Manage Weeds:
We found similarities and differences in the state and local agencies
that manage invasive weeds among the five states we examined. These
states--California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, and Mississippi--all
have laws to address the management of noxious weeds. In four states,
the laws require a state agency to designate or list noxious weeds, but
they define what is considered noxious differently (app. II discusses
states' definitions in detail). The number of listed weeds varied
widely across the five states, from a low of 3 in Maryland to a high of
133 in California.
All five states' weed laws authorize certain management efforts for
noxious weeds. For example, states' laws typically discuss control
steps that can be taken, agency responsibilities, provisions regarding
sale and transport of listed weeds, and taxes or other steps that can
be taken to raise revenue to implement management programs. The weed
lists can also limit the specific weeds that state agencies are able to
work on; some laws limit agencies' use of state funds to efforts that
address only listed weeds or stipulate that they must use state funds
on listed weeds before addressing other weeds. In addition, four of the
five states--Mississippi is the exception--require private landowners
to control or eradicate listed weeds on their property. Most of the
laws provide for assessing misdemeanor charges or fines for
noncompliance.
Each of the five states has infrastructure in place to address noxious
weeds, although the infrastructure varies from informal to formal. In
all five states, the state agriculture department is responsible for
implementing the state weed law. Agencies responsible for parks,
natural resources, and transportation were also involved in invasive
species management. Some states also have laws or other directives that
establish additional organizational responsibilities. For example, in
Idaho, state law established a statewide weed coordinator, and a
gubernatorial executive order created an invasive species
council.[Footnote 13] Colorado law created a statewide weed coordinator
and a statewide noxious weed advisory committee. Also, in Colorado, the
state agency for higher education plays a key role in implementing the
state's strategic plan for managing invasive species by providing
research, education, and outreach. California law provides for a weed
coordinator and a weed mapping specialist. Maryland and Mississippi
have much less formal infrastructures. The five states have other
mechanisms to help manage invasive weeds. Each has an invasive species
or plant pest council or committee, which is primarily intended to
share information among the entities involved in weed management. Three
of the five states--California, Colorado, and Idaho--also have
strategic plans for addressing noxious weeds. Appendix III provides
detailed information on weed management in the five states.
Some of the state laws also impose infrastructure requirements on
counties. For example, in Colorado and Idaho, state law requires each
county to have a weed coordinator and weed advisory council. In
California, county agriculture commissioners carry out most of the work
on noxious weed eradication and control in the state. In Maryland and
Mississippi, weed management programs are at the discretion of the
county. In Maryland, almost all counties have some programs addressing
invasive weeds that were initiated in cooperation with the state's
agriculture agency. We found very little activity at the county level
in Mississippi.
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.
The areas are considered important grassroots efforts that garner local
support and enthusiasm for controlling noxious weeds. Federal agencies-
-BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service, USDA's
Natural Resources Conservation Service, and others--are often partners
in weed management areas. Participating state agencies include
departments of transportation, agriculture, fish and game, forestry,
and parks. Other typical partners include county weed agencies, soil
and water conservation districts, community groups, railroads,
irrigation districts, and private landowners.
For the five states we reviewed, California, Colorado, and Idaho had
weed management areas while Maryland and Mississippi did not. According
to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the state has 40
weed management areas representing over 50 of the state's 58 counties.
Idaho's Department of Agriculture lists 30 areas that cover nearly the
entire state. In Colorado, weed management areas encompass one-half of
the state, according to the state weed coordinator. Officials in these
three states have stated that the management areas have had a positive
impact on weed control by increasing coordination or leveraging limited
resources. Maryland and Mississippi officials, as well as other
stakeholders, speculated that weed management areas might not be as
common in the East because of differences in typical land ownership
patterns. Eastern states are less likely to be dominated by a large
landowner, such as the federal government, which often provides needed
leadership. Figure 2 describes the activities of one weed management
area in the Pacific Northwest.
Figure 2: Tri-State Weed Management Area's Hells Canyon Project:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Noxious weeds are the largest biodiversity threat to Hells
Canyon, which covers 1.15 million acres in Idaho, Washington, and
Oregon. The canyon is a refuge for some of the best remaining native
plant communities, with over 1,000 native plant species--many found
nowhere else on Earth--and about 380 wildlife species. The Tri-State
Weed Management Area's project includes 340,000 acres within and around
the canyon, including public and private lands. The weeds posing the
greatest harm are yellow star thistle, hoary cress, leafy spurge, and
rush skeletonweed. Yellow star thistle alone covers more than 100,000
acres. It can spread at the rate of 60 percent annually, and its seeds
can lie dormant for 10 years. It causes chewing disease and death in
horses, and chokes out wildlife habitat, rangelands, and recreational
areas. Hoary cress is a serious problem because its deep and creeping
rootstalk makes it difficult to control--cultivation spreads root
pieces that start new plants. Leafy spurge can produce blisters and
dermatitis in humans, cattle, and horses and can cause permanent
blindness if rubbed into the eyes. This weed spreads both by seed and
creeping roots and can throw its seeds as far as 15 feet. Rush
skeletonweed is difficult to control because each plant can produce up
to 15,000 seeds annually and has an extensive, deep root system.
The Tri-State Weed Management Area began the Hells Canyon project in
January 2002. At least 16 federal and state land management agencies,
county weed programs, private landowners, nonprofit organizations, and
the Nez Perce Tribe are involved. While the project benefits from
shared leadership and implementation responsibilities among all
entities, the principal entities are BLM, the Idaho Fish and Game
Department, The Nature Conservancy of Idaho and Oregon, and the county
weed superintendents in participating Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
counties. Over the last 3 years, the weed management area has treated
13,000 acres and revegetated 1,200 acres in Hell's Canyon. Weed
management includes an early detection and rapid response system guided
by satellite technology to eradicate new invasions, including in remote
areas; consistent monitoring and evaluation; and a publicly accessible
geographic information system and weed database.
[End of figure]
Another type of multijurisdictional organization--exotic plant pest
councils--allows government and nongovernmental organizations and
academic experts to collaborate and share information on weed
management. The councils--typically nonprofit organizations formed
voluntarily by interested parties--obtain funding from membership dues,
grants, donations, and other sources. Three regional councils cover
portions of the United States in the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and New
England. Similarly, the Western Weed Coordinating Committee is a
voluntary organization designed to help coordinate noxious weed
management programs and efforts among state and federal agencies.
Many nongovernmental organizations--often voluntary "friends" groups--
also provide services at national wildlife refuges and national parks
or for state or local governments.[Footnote 14] For example, in 2003,
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge
Association began an initiative involving "friends" groups and
volunteers to assist in combating invasive species.[Footnote 15]
Similarly, the National Park Service has entered into an agreement with
the Student Conservation Association to collaborate on weed control in
national parks. In California, chapters of the California Native Plant
Society organize members to volunteer for weed removal, sometimes in
collaboration with government agencies and other nongovernmental
organizations. In Montgomery County, Maryland, volunteers through the
"weed warrior" program donated nearly 3,000 hours of labor in 2004. In
addition, BLM's volunteer services program reports many instances of
weed control done by volunteers brought together through other
nongovernmental organizations or as individuals. Weed management areas
also engage volunteers in the war on weeds (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Susan River Tall Whitetop Eradication Project:
[See PDF for image]
Note: According to BLM's California State Weed Coordinator, tall
whitetop--also known as perennial pepperweed--is one of the six most
widespread invaders in California, with Lassen County one of the most
infested areas in the state. Located in northeastern California--about
80 miles northwest of Reno, Nevada--Lassen County encompasses about 4
million acres, with approximately 64,000 of those acres being infested.
Tall whitetop is difficult to treat and control because it can grow in
both wet and dry locations, including in ditches, roadsides, cropland,
and along waterways, and mechanical removal such as dicing helps the
species spread to new areas. Through its robust and deep-spreading root
system and production of numerous seeds, it chokes out native
vegetation and crops to form a monoculture.
The Susan River Tall Whitetop Project is a Lassen County Weed
Management Area five-year effort that benefits greatly from the efforts
of many volunteers and funding sources. BLM has provided significant
leadership to the management area, which includes city, county, and
federal entities; private sector companies; and other nongovernmental
entities and individuals. For example, students have participated in
weed surveys, research, and weed removal, and a private company--Sierra
Pacific Industries--has partnered with a 4-H group to maintain an area
they "adopted." Project participants have also developed a K-12 school
curriculum and adult education courses at a local community college. In
addition, the California Department of Corrections allowed inmates from
the local minimum-security correction facility to volunteer for
mechanical weed removal. In 2000, the project began treating about 17
miles of river corridor located in and around the city of Susanville.
By using an integrated weed management approach that was researched by
the University of California at Davis, the project has been very
successful in eliminating whitetop in designated areas and has moved to
work on additional infestations on both public and private lands
through the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Honey Lake
Valley Resource Conservation District. The removal success is due, in
part, to mowing at the prebud stage and applying herbicide after the
plants resprout. Numerous funding sources have made this project
possible. A Pulling Together Initiative grant was initially matched by
Pheasants Forever, the California Department of Food and Agriculture,
the city of Susanville, Lassen County Department of Agriculture, Sierra
Pacific Industries, and the Lassen Union High School. Subsequent annual
funding sources have included the state, Lassen National Forest, and
BLM's Cooperative Conservation Initiative.
[End of figure]
With regard to national nongovernmental organizations, we found The
Nature Conservancy was active in weed management--both as a landowner
and as a partner with other landowners--in all five states we reviewed.
In these states, the Conservancy owns lands on which it conducts weed
management activities, and it assists government agencies on weed
management projects on public lands. For example, in Mississippi, the
Conservancy is under contract to the Department of Defense to help it
protect threatened and endangered species by controlling invasive weeds
at Camp Shelby, a National Guard training facility. Because the camp is
partly within national forest boundaries, the Conservancy also
coordinates weed control work with the Forest Service. Figure 4
provides detailed information on a weed management project The Nature
Conservancy led in Colorado.
Figure 4: The San Miguel Tamarisk Eradication Project:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Tamarisk, or salt cedar, is a tenacious shrub or small tree with
a root system up to 100 feet deep. When its leaves fall to the ground,
they deposit a salt residue on surrounding surface soils. Tamarisk's
roots and high salt content enable it to quickly replace native
cottonwoods, willows, grasses, and other herbaceous plants, degrading
the habitat for native wildlife, especially birds; decreasing forage
for livestock; and increasing fire hazards. In 2003, the Colorado Water
Conservation Board estimated that tamarisk occupied 55,000 acres and
consumed 170,000 acre-feet of water more per year than the native
vegetation it replaces. Such consumption can lower water tables and dry
up springs, wetlands, and riparian areas. While tamarisk threatens many
riparian areas in Colorado, it has not established as strong a foothold
in the San Miguel River Watershed, located in southwestern Colorado.
Therefore, the San Miguel project provided a unique opportunity to
control, if not completely eradicate, tamarisk along this river. As of
October 2004, the project had received approximately $600,000 from at
least eight government agencies and nongovernmental entities. These
funds have been used to map the area, develop educational materials,
and control and monitor the weed population. At the end of calendar
year 2004, the project spent a total of $380,000 to remove tamarisk, at
an average cost of $5,750 per mile.
The project's partners include The Nature Conservancy, the San Miguel
Weed Board, the Bureau of Land Management, the Terra Foundation, the
San Miguel Watershed Coalition, the San Miguel Basin Soil Conservation
District, the Monsanto Corporation, the Bureau of Reclamation Central
Utah Project, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Colorado
Wetlands Initiative, and volunteer groups. The effort, launched in
2001, mapped the weed population (Russian olive and Siberian elm were
also included) over 150 river miles of the San Miguel and its
tributaries, which identified over 100 miles infested with tamarisk,
and then removed these weeds from 40 miles of river. The partners
expect to continue removing tamarisk and to establish the San Miguel as
the only naturally functioning, tamarisk-free river in the Southwest by
2006. They also expect to offer continuing landowner education,
monitoring, and maintenance.
[End of figure]
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. Often, funding from
one source is used to leverage funding from other sources.
Federal Agencies Often Use General Resource Management Funds to Address
Invasive Weeds on Federal Lands:
Federal land management agencies generally do not receive specific
appropriations for weed management but typically fund weed and other
invasive species management out of appropriations for broad budget line
items, such as vegetation management or refuge operations and
maintenance. However, the agencies do not all track expenditures on
weed management activities and therefore cannot comprehensively
describe the amount of funding devoted to weed management or the
sources of that funding.[Footnote 16] Overall, as can be seen in the
following examples, agencies fund a mix of activities to help them
determine the extent of their weed problems, control particularly bad
infestations and eradicate them where possible, and conduct research
and education:
* The Forest Service's rangeland management program--with an estimated
budget of about $15.7 million for invasive weeds in fiscal year 2004--
uses resources from its vegetation and watershed management
appropriation. Its most significant expenditures are for prevention,
early detection and eradication, and control of terrestrial weeds; its
2004 plan called for treating weeds on over 67,000 acres. Forest
Service officials told us that the agency also manages invasive weeds
through fire management and other programs, but that it cannot easily
quantify those expenditures.
* The National Park Service funds its weed management activities from
its resource stewardship account. While individual park units draw from
this appropriation, the Park Service also uses it to fund its exotic
plant management teams. The agency spends about $5.2 million annually
out of its natural resource stewardship budget on 16 teams that serve
many park units.
* According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, it funds invasive weed
work out of its refuge operations and maintenance budget. From this
budget, the agency estimates that it spent $4.7 million in fiscal year
2004 to prevent, manage, and control invasive weeds.[Footnote 17]
Included in this total are the Fish and Wildlife Service's three
invasive species "strike teams" that are similar to the National Park
Service's exotic plant management teams.
* BLM funds weed management activities primarily through its range
management program, which in fiscal year 2004 provided about $7.2
million for weed control. However, other BLM activities, such as fire
or wildlife management, can also be used to fund weed management.
On occasion, Congress uses appropriations legislation to direct
activities on weed management or invasive species. For example, the
conference committee for Interior's fiscal year 2004 appropriations
directed the Forest Service to spend $300,000 from its vegetation and
watershed management account on leafy spurge control. It also directed
the Secretary of the Interior to transfer $5 million to the Fish and
Wildlife Service's resource management account to fund, among other
things, water quality monitoring and eradication of invasive plants at
the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge in Florida.
Federal Programs Provide Funding for Weed Control Work by Other
Entities:
Interior and USDA manage at least eight programs that provide hundreds
of millions of dollars through grants and cooperative agreements to
other federal agencies, state and local governments, nongovernmental
organizations, and private landowners to support resource conservation
efforts, including weed control.[Footnote 18]
Most of these programs award grants to support a variety of
conservation activities, and agencies do not consistently track how
much these programs spend directly on weed control. Table 2 shows the
major programs that have been used to support weed control, the
estimated amount of funding provided for weed control, and the total
funding that the programs provided for conservation. More information
on these and other programs is in appendix IV.
Table 2: Federally Funded Programs Known to Support Weed Control by
Other Entities:
Entity: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation;
Program name: Pulling Together Initiative[A];
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $1.3 million;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $1.3 million.
Entity: Montana State University;
Program name: Center for Invasive Plant Management Cooperative Weed
Management Area Grants[B];
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $121,660;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $121,660.
Entity: Interior: Departmentwide (BLM, NPS, FWS);
Program name: Cooperative Conservation Initiative Conservation
Challenge Cost Share;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $7.7 million;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $21.2 million.
Entity: Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Program name: Partners for Fish and Wildlife;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $7.3 million[C];
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $42.4 million.
Entity: Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Program name: Private Stewardship Grants;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: USDA: $2.4 million;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: USDA: $7.4 million.
Entity: USDA: Forest Service;
Program name: Cooperative Forest Health Management Program;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $5.2 million;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $44.7 million.
Entity: USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program name: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $4 million in 2003[D];
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $21.2 million in 2003[E].
Entity: USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program name: Environmental Quality Incentives Program;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $8.2 million in 2003[D];
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $627 million in 2003[F].
Entity: Total;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $36.2 million;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $765.3 million.
Sources: USDA, Interior, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the
Center for Invasive Plant Management.
[A] This program is funded by Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, and
BLM;
USDA's Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service;
and the Department of Defense.
[B] This program is managed by Montana State University. The Center has
received federal funds through BLM's land resources appropriation
account at the direction of House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
[C] These funds include grants to partners as well as Fish and Wildlife
Service staff who work with partners to implement projects.
[D] This number is estimated for 2003; the conservation service did not
have an estimate for 2004.
[E] Funding for this program increased to $29.9 million in 2004.
[F] Funding for this program increased to $908.3 million in 2004.
[End of table]
The federal programs have specific purposes and eligibility criteria
that guide what type of projects will receive funds or cooperative
agreements (see app. IV for program descriptions). The programs vary in
how funding decisions are made, although most of them receive input
from other agencies and stakeholders. For example, USDA makes funding
decisions at the state level for relevant farm bill conservation
programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. While
USDA issues a national announcement about funding availability and
describes the types of conservation activities that are eligible for
funding, a state technical committee--made up of a variety of public
and private sector stakeholders--determines which of those activities
will receive the highest priority. This may mean that some state
committees may emphasize funding weed control projects while others may
not. Funding decisions for grants provided under the Pulling Together
Initiative are made at a national level by a steering committee of weed
management experts from government, industry, professional societies,
and nonprofit organizations. The committee reviews all applications
together and makes award decisions once a year. The Fish and Wildlife
Service's Private Stewardship grant program also draws upon a diverse
panel of representatives from federal and state governments and other
organizations to assess proposals.
Among the programs listed in table 2, two are dedicated solely to weed
management--the Pulling Together Initiative and the Center for Invasive
Plant Management's grant program. Under the Pulling Together
Initiative, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation distributes
federal grant funds to state, county, and local agencies, and private
nonprofit organizations, among others. The grants are designed to build
capacity at the local level to manage invasive weeds by supporting the
creation of weed management areas. According to the foundation, local
partners will match the grants in 2004 with over $3.3 million in
nonfederal contributions.[Footnote 19] Among the states we reviewed, in
2004 the Pulling Together Initiative awarded five grants to Colorado,
four California, two each to Idaho and Maryland, and one to
Mississippi, for a total of $396,300.[Footnote 20] Two of those grants
include the following:
* Larimer County Weed District in Colorado received $25,000 to
coordinate a cooperative effort to manage and, where possible,
eradicate leafy spurge from the riparian areas of the Poudre River and
its tributaries using chemical, biological, and mechanical weed control
methods. The local matching contribution was about $60,000.
* The California Department of Food and Agriculture received a $20,000
grant to continue to survey, map, and implement integrated pest
management practices to control and eradicate purple loosestrife in
Humboldt, Kern, Mendocino, San Mateo, Siskiyou, and Sonoma counties.
The local matching contribution was $40,000.
The other program devoted solely to weed management is administered by
the Center for Invasive Plant Management at Montana State University.
The university created the center following discussions among public
and private stakeholders. From fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the
center received about $3.3 million in federal funds specifically for
weed management.[Footnote 21] The center supports the efforts of weed
management areas in the West by offering them small, competitive
grants. From fiscal years 2002 through 2004, the center made 58 grants
to weed management areas in 14 states, for a total of about $282,000.
For instance, the center awarded $4,937 in 2003 to the Mojave Weed
Management Area in San Bernardino County, California, to develop a
comprehensive weed management plan for the Mojave River; tamarisk is
the primary target species of this project. The center has also used
funding from BLM to create an online course in ecological land
management, provide grants for weed management research and for
synthesizing research libraries, establish restoration projects for
weed-dominated lands, and publish numerous public education and
outreach documents, among other things.
The Forest Service's cooperative forest health management program is
also heavily focused on weed management. This program supports
cooperation among state, private, and tribal land jurisdictions and
develops weed management programs using integrated pest strategies.
Since fiscal year 2002, the program has provided funding to Forest
Service regions for invasive plant activities on state and private
forested lands. In fiscal year 2004, the program distributed $5.2
million--an increase of $2 million compared with 2003--to its regions.
APHIS enters into cooperative agreements with state agencies and
universities and others to conduct surveys, develop biological control
methods, and implement weed management. Data from APHIS show that in
fiscal year 2004, the agency provided at least $3.2 million through
cooperative agreements for agricultural and nonagricultural weed
projects. APHIS's total budget for pest and disease management in
fiscal year 2004 was $331 million, most of which is devoted to
agricultural pests and diseases.
In addition to the federal natural resource conservation programs in
table 2 that are known to provide support for weed management, others
have the potential to be used for that purpose. For example, USDA
reports that the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Grassland
Reserve Program could be used to address tamarisk, an invasive tree
species, or other invasive plants. These programs that agencies could
potentially use to support weed control provide billions of dollars for
conservation efforts in general (see app. IV for more detail on these
programs).
After we completed our interviews of weed management officials,
Congress enacted the Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004,
calling for the establishment of a new source of funds for weed
management. This law amends the Plant Protection Act and requires the
Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program to support weed control
efforts by weed management entities on BLM, Forest Service, and
nonfederal lands. The law authorizes USDA to provide grants to and
enter into cooperative agreements with weed management entities.
Eligible activities include education, inventories and mapping,
management, monitoring, methods development, and other activities to
control or eradicate noxious weeds. In addition, USDA may enter into
cooperative agreements at the request of a state's governor for rapid
response to outbreaks of noxious weeds. The law authorizes
appropriations of $7.5 million for grants and $7.5 million for
cooperative agreements for each of 5 years beginning in fiscal year
2005. It is not yet clear what agency within USDA will administer this
new program.
If the law were fully funded, it would represent a significant source
of funds for weed management. The authorized amount is about 40 percent
of all federal grant funding identified by our review as devoted to
nonagricultural invasive weed management in fiscal year 2004. However,
it is not yet clear what portion of the new program's funds will be
used to address noxious weeds in nonagricultural settings. The law
authorizes that funds may be used on natural area lands that BLM, the
Forest Service, and nonfederal entities manage--but not on national
parks or refuges--but it does not limit weed control support to
nonagricultural lands. In the 108th Congress, Members of Congress
introduced two other legislative proposals calling for additional
resources for weed management--one addressed invasive species in
general, while the other was limited to two western weed
species.[Footnote 22]
Federal Agencies Conduct or Support Weed Management Research:
Much of the federal funding already discussed deals with the management
of invasive weed infestations; however, federal agencies also conduct
or support weed management research. We identified four federal
agencies within Agriculture and Interior that provide funding and other
support to federal and nonfederal researchers. The types of research
range from studies of the natural history of weeds (such as their life
cycles and methods of spread) to evaluations of the effectiveness of
control techniques. This research, however, primarily addresses weeds
in agricultural settings.
USDA agencies fund several research efforts. The Agricultural Research
Service has funded research on several key weeds in natural areas,
including tamarisk, leafy spurge, and melaleuca, as part of its overall
weed and invasive species program. The Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service is making an estimated $3.6 million
available in fiscal year 2005 through its National Research Initiative
to a wide range of educational institutions, local governments,
nonprofit organizations,
individuals, and others to study the biology of weedy and invasive
plants.[Footnote 23] For example, the initiative has funded research on
the causes and consequences of weed plant invasions in forestlands and
on the effects of nitrogen supply on Japanese barberry and Japanese
stiltgrass. The Forest Service also supports research related to
invasive weeds such as in developing new guides for identifying and
controlling for invasive plants using mechanical and biological control
methods. According to the Forest Service, in fiscal year 2004 it
allocated more than $3.5 million for weed research.
In fiscal year 2004, Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) budgeted
$9.3 million for invasive species research. USGS reports that it spends
about half of its invasive species research funds on weeds--about $4.7
million. It develops its research agenda in consultation with its
client agencies in Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, and Bureau of Land Management), which determine their research
needs, in part, based on the National Invasive Species Council's
National Management Plan for Invasive Species, departmental priorities,
and congressional interests. For example, the survey has been
researching nutria, ballast water, and tamarisk because of recent
congressional actions on these issues.
States Rely on Various Sources of Funding for Weed Management:
The states we reviewed primarily use funds from a variety of state
agencies' general appropriations to undertake weed management.
Typically, state agencies responsible for agriculture, natural
resources, and transportation are most active in weed management and
have either dedicated weed funding or utilize funds from general
maintenance accounts. State agencies also rely on federal grant
programs to assist in their weed management efforts. For example, as
discussed previously, all five states received funds through the
Pulling Together Initiative for weed management activities.
The five states we reviewed differed in the level of resources devoted
to controlling weeds. The disparity in resources no doubt reflects
differences in the size and geography of the states and the nature and
extent of the invasive species problem. We believe that it also
reflects differences in the priority that certain states have assigned
to the problem and their capacity for allocating resources. For this
report, while we obtained information on expenditures, we did not
attempt to precisely determine how much the five states are spending on
weed management on nonagricultural lands. As with the federal agencies,
it is often difficult to distinguish state agency expenditures on
agricultural weeds from those on nonagricultural weeds, and between
general maintenance work and weed control. In 2000, we reported on
similar issues with regard to state expenditures on all types of
invasive species (not just weeds), including three of the states we
reviewed for this report.[Footnote 24]
California: Several state agencies spend funds on weed management. The
Department of Food and Agriculture, the lead agency for weed management
in California, receives approximately $2 million and the Department of
Transportation about $1 million annually for weed control from state
appropriations. The Department of Parks and Recreation's funding
fluctuates based on available funds, including general appropriations,
ongoing maintenance funds, and specially funded projects. The Coastal
Conservancy (a state agency focused on protecting coastal resources)
has spent approximately $800,000 per year of grant money and $300,000
per year for in-kind, staff, and direct expenses over the last 3 years
on management of a specific invasive weed (Spartina alternifolia, a
wetlands grass).
Colorado: The state weed coordinator estimated that state funding for
invasive weeds was approximately $3.6 million for fiscal year 2002.
This amount included the Colorado Department of Agriculture's noxious
weed program, the Department of Natural Resources' program for
controlling weeds on state lands, and the Department of
Transportation's work along roadsides. In the past, the state provided
additional resources for addressing invasive weeds. From fiscal years
1998 through 2002, the Colorado legislature provided about $1.3 million
through the Colorado Noxious Weed Management Fund to support
communities, weed control districts, or other entities engaged in
cooperative noxious weed management efforts. On average, private,
local, other state, and federal entities matched every dollar of the
state's investment with more than a 5-to-1 ratio. However, the state
legislature discontinued funding for the program in 2003 because of
concerns about the state's overall financial situation.
Idaho: Congressional appropriation committees have directed land
resource appropriation funds for noxious weed control in Idaho. Since
2000, the state has received a total of about $5.6 million in federal
funds through BLM and the Forest Service. Over that same period, the
state's general fund has provided about $2.2 million. The Idaho
Department of Agriculture manages these funds. Other state departments,
including Fish and Game, Lands, Transportation, and Parks and
Recreation, are also responsible for weed management on the lands they
oversee and for determining what portion of their general operating
budgets will be devoted to weed management on a yearly basis.
Maryland: The Maryland Department of Agriculture had a 2004 budget of
$310,000 for weed management for salaries, equipment, enforcement, and
other expenses; also included was $80,000 in grants to 20 county weed
programs. The state's highway administration spent about $2 million on
vegetation management in 2004, of which less than $50,000 was for
control of two state-listed noxious weeds (Canada thistle and
Johnsongrass) and phragmites. The Maryland Department of Natural
Resource's associate director for habitat conservation told us that
funding for weed control efforts on departmental lands, including state
parks, comes from general operating budgets and is difficult to
estimate.
Mississippi: The lead agency for weed management, the Mississippi
Department of Agriculture and Commerce, spent about $100,000 from its
general budget for weed management in fiscal year 2004. It also
received funding from other sources, including a $25,000 Pulling
Together Initiative grant and $250,000 from USDA's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service in fiscal year 2004. Those funds have been
used to support landowners' weed control efforts through a cost-share
program. The Mississippi Department of Transportation spent about $2.5
million from its general operating budget in fiscal year 2003 for
chemical weed control on over 27,000 miles of state-owned roadways.
Private landowners also reimbursed the Mississippi Forestry Commission
about $177,000 for weed management work it did that year on private
lands. The conference committee for the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004 directed $1 million of the
U.S. Geological Survey's water resources appropriation to go to the
GeoResources Institute of Mississippi State University to develop
remote sensing techniques and monitoring strategies for early detection
of invasive weeds in the Southeast, control techniques for invasive
aquatic plants, and an assessment of new invaders.
Local Governments Rely on a Range of Funding Sources for Weed
Management:
Counties that we reviewed receive funding for weed management from the
federal government, state agencies, their own general operating funds,
and special tax levies. County agriculture departments or weed
management districts are the primary recipients of this funding but
other departments may include those responsible for roads, parks, or
public works. The counties we contacted illustrated a wide range of
funding available for weed control, from a few thousand dollars per
county to more than $1 million.
For example, in Idaho, we identified two counties with significantly
different funding levels. Ada County, Idaho, provided almost $1 million
for weed management in fiscal year 2004 and budgeted over $1.3 million
for fiscal year 2005. In 2004, the funding sources were a weed
management mill levy, weed control fees charged to residents when the
county treats their weeds, and the reimbursements from government
agencies for weed treatment on federal lands (BLM, Bureau of
Reclamation, and the National Guard). Ada County's weed superintendent
told us that because the county has these sources of funding, and
because it recognizes that other counties have fewer resources, he does
not apply for grants and funding from other sources that may be the
primary source of funding for some counties. In contrast to Ada
County's situation, Idaho's Adams County spent about $67,000 for weed
management in 2003, including a $49,085 Resource Advisory Council
grant, $12,356 from the state, and $6,000 from the county. However,
according to a county official, because the funding is not sufficient
to meet existing needs, the county recently established a weed levy to
help fund its limited program. In total, the county agriculture
departments in California devoted an estimated $4 million from their
general operating funds to weed control in fiscal year 2004. In
Maryland, the Department of Agriculture provided a total of $80,000 in
grants in 2004 to 20 counties that the counties matched or exceeded. We
did not identify Mississippi counties engaged in weed control.
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). Many of these
officials highlighted the magnitude of the task at hand to control
invasive weeds in discussing their funding situations. For example,
Fish and Wildlife Service refuge managers have identified invasive
plant management projects estimated to cost approximately $70 million,
compared with estimated agency expenditures of $4.7 million on weed
control in fiscal year 2004. The California Department of Food and
Agriculture's annual weed management budget is approximately $2
million, but it has identified about $5 million in necessary management
projects per year. Similarly, the Forest Service region responsible for
California had a weed management budget of about $600,000 in fiscal
year 2004 but estimated that it needed about $1.8 million to control
weeds.
Officials we interviewed also identified specific issues related to
funding. 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. Currently, officials submit new funding
requests each year with no guarantee that projects started will be
funded through to completion--potentially losing the investment made in
weed reduction in prior years. The Fish and Wildlife Service's national
strategy recognized the difficulty of addressing invasive species and
its funding implications commenting, "Like an out-of-control wildfire,
the cost of fighting invasive species increases each year." The agency
also noted that, according to experts, the cost to control invasive
species increases two- to threefold each year that control efforts are
delayed. The National Park Service noted that, in some cases, parks do
not have funds for routine maintenance to ensure that treated areas do
not become reinfested. Second, some officials responsible for both
federal and nonfederal lands noted that funding often arrives late in
the year, which may limit their ability to begin weed control in the
spring, when many types of weeds can be attacked most effectively. In
addition, in many northern communities, the window of opportunity for
weed treatment is small because of weather conditions. Third, some
officials identified what they described as an often burdensome grant
application process as a disincentive to pursuing needed funds for work
on nonfederal lands. For example, one large nongovernmental
organization said it would not apply for grants of less than $25,000
because the benefits would not outweigh the costs associated with
applying. In addition, county and municipal governments often do not
have the time or the expertise to identify and apply for grants. One
county parks department official commented that she was reluctant to
apply for grants because the likelihood of receiving one did not
warrant the time and effort required to apply. And lastly, some of our
respondents said that local communities sometimes have difficulty
meeting requirements to provide matching funds for federal grants to
work on nonfederal lands.[Footnote 25]
Officials identified additional barriers to addressing invasive weeds
on federal lands, although not nearly as frequently as funding. More
than one-third of the officials (15 of 41), including 6 federal and 9
nonfederal officials, cited compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act as an impediment, although they were generally supportive of
the goals of the act.[Footnote 26] Officials said that the time it
takes to conduct required analyses of the potential impacts of
treatment, such as applying herbicides, could make it difficult to
respond rapidly to new infestations. The Forest Service director of
rangeland management told us that she believes that agency personnel
should be able to routinely use registered herbicides--without going
through an impact analysis--as long as they follow label directions.
Similarly, one Fish and Wildlife official told us he does not believe
the agency should need to extensively analyze the potential impacts of
using certain herbicides that any homeowner could legally purchase and
use. Some agencies seek to or have tried to streamline the process for
complying with the act, including the following:
* The Forest Service's National Strategy and Implementation Plan for
Invasive Species Management calls for pursuing use of National
Environmental Policy Act regulations' categorical exclusions and the
agency's emergency authorities to ensure environmental analysis does
not inhibit environmentally sound rapid response or control efforts.
Under a categorical exclusion, certain activities that are deemed not
to have a significant effect on the environment can be conducted
without the need for an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement.
* In Mississippi, the Forest Service has completed a programmatic
environmental assessment of cogongrass control using herbicides.
According to the Forest Service, the programmatic assessment enables
the service to use an environmental impact analysis of herbicide use at
one location to satisfy the requirements of the act at other locations,
if certain circumstances are met. This enables forest managers to act
more quickly to invasive weed outbreaks, in some cases.
* BLM prepared a series of environmental impact statements on
vegetation management--including noxious weeds--for the entire western
United States in the 1980s and early 1990s that has helped to
streamline analytical processes by providing an overview of the
possible impacts of different treatment methods based on the broad
regional characteristics of the 13 western states. The agency still has
to conduct site-specific analysis of the potential impacts of treatment
methods, but the extent of that analysis is reduced. BLM is in the
process of developing an updated programmatic environmental impact
statement to address pesticide use and general vegetation management on
its lands.
In terms of nonfederal lands, in addition to funding barriers, more
than one-third of officials responding (19 of 48) identified a lack of
cooperation as problematic for effective weed management. State and
county officials told us that successful weed control depends on the
efforts of neighboring landowners to do their part, since weeds pay no
attention to property lines. However, officials said that some
landowners are uncooperative with weed control efforts. In addition,
because some people do not understand the long-lasting damage that can
be caused by invasive weeds, they often oppose the use of herbicides,
which may have more intense short-term effects on the environment but
are needed to eradicate invasive weeds. National Park Service officials
noted that, in contrast with other land management agencies, the park
service is not authorized to conduct work outside its boundaries and
this has hampered them in cooperating with adjacent landowners. Also
for nonfederal lands, about one-third of officials (14 of 48)
identified a lack of awareness or education as a barrier. Some
officials said that because people are unaware of the harmful effects
of invasive weeds, they sometimes neglect weeds on their property,
thereby reducing the effectiveness of other control efforts. In
addition, some officials noted that greater public awareness could lead
to higher government priority for the issue and could help prevent the
introduction and spread of invasive species by making the public aware
of the risks of such activities as spreading seeds through recreational
activities.
We also asked officials to identify the factors contributing to
effective management of invasive weeds. About 83 percent (44 of 53
officials responding) identified cooperation and coordination as
important for successful management on both federal and nonfederal
lands. Officials noted that cooperation among numerous landowners and
government agencies allows for the sharing of resources that are often
in short supply and an ability to address weeds over a larger
geographic area than if tackled alone. This sentiment is most evident
in the strong support and momentum that has been building for the
creation of weed management areas. Officials routinely highlighted such
major benefits of these areas as improved coordination among the
participating entities and the resulting collaboration on weed
management projects. (Fig. 5 discusses a successful collaborative
project in Mississippi addressing invasive cogongrass.)
Figure 5: Partnership Success on Cogongrass in Mississippi:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Cogongrass was introduced into the United States in the early
1910s in packaging materials brought into Alabama. The weed, originally
from Southeast Asia, had been found in 47 of Mississippi's 82 counties
by 2003. It has been named the seventh worst weed in the world because
it is highly flammable and can crowd out native vegetation, infest
agricultural and natural lands, and have a negative economic impact by
hindering timber production. Some agencies have lacked adequate
resources to conduct cogongrass control. For example, the De Soto
National Forest Ranger District reported in 2003 that it had the
resources to treat about 25 acres of cogongrass annually, although
forest staff estimated that they needed to treat 200 to 300 acres
annually to control the infestation. Historically, the numerous
agencies working on cogongrass were not coordinated and therefore
duplicated efforts. The public was also not generally aware of the
problems cogongrass posed for the state.
In 2002, after complaints from numerous landowners over many years, the
Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce recruited 17 other
state and federal agencies to create a cogongrass task force. The task
force's goal is to "facilitate a voluntary and cooperative effort in
educating the public, researching this pest species, and providing a
means of control, suppression or eradication of cogongrass in
Mississippi." The task force drafted an action plan in 2004 that lays
out its goal of reducing infestations as well as the expected tasks of
23 state and federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations. For
example, under the plan, the Mississippi Forestry Commission is charged
with surveying lands for infestations and enforcing sanitation
requirements on its employees to stop the spread of the weed. Task
force participation is voluntary, however, and agencies are not legally
required to devote financial resources. Nevertheless, agencies have
received and devoted funds for cogongrass control. For example, the
Department of Agriculture and Commerce has received $250,000 from USDA,
which it has used to provide herbicides to landowners.
[End of figure]
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. In some instances, these views were consistent
with the approach called for in the newly enacted Noxious Weed Control
and Eradication Act of 2004; in others they were not.[Footnote 27] (We
conducted our interviews before this law was passed.)
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.[Footnote 28] Some officials told us that they preferred using
existing programs because they know the application procedures, the
types of projects the programs typically fund, and the agency officials
that run the programs. 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.
One official noted that there was no need to "reinvent the wheel."
The act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the new
program, but does not designate a responsible agency within USDA. The
act amended the Plant Protection Act, which USDA has delegated to APHIS
for implementation. About two-thirds of officials responding to our
question (20 of 31) also identified USDA or one of its agencies as the
best fit to lead a new program.[Footnote 29] Officials we interviewed
did not agree on which agency within USDA should lead a new program,
but the Forest Service was identified most often (by 13 officials).
Four officials named APHIS as an appropriate agency to manage the
program. Officials noted that the various USDA agencies have different
focuses that could affect how they would implement the program. For
example, while the Forest Service was cited as having knowledgeable
staff, established relationships with local land managers, and
experience in delivering funding, one official expressed concern that
the service might fund weed management projects on forested lands only,
and not in other nonagricultural settings. Similarly, while some
officials said that USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service would
be a good fit because of its extensive contacts at the local level and
funding expertise, others were concerned that it does not have much
experience with weed management on nonagricultural lands.
Officials' views on the types of activities that should be eligible for
funding are consistent with the activities and projects eligible for
funding under the act. The act includes a broad range of activities and
projects that can be funded, including education, methods development,
control, and monitoring. Eighteen officials (of 40) said that all of
these activities should be eligible and everyone agreed that at least a
subset of these should be eligible. As noted earlier, public education
is important because citizens and businesses may be the unintentional
carriers of invasive weeds, and improved awareness can help garner
additional support for addressing the problem. Research and monitoring
are essential to identifying ways to prevent invasive weed
introductions and cost-effectively control or eradicate them, and to
ensure that treated areas do not become reinfested. Some officials also
identified inventorying and mapping, and early detection and rapid
response as important activities that should be funded. Inventorying
and mapping of weed infestations is important so that the extent of the
problem can be determined and tracked over time, while early detection
and rapid response help avoid future costs by addressing weed
infestations before they become unmanageable. (See fig. 6 for an
example of the value of early detection and rapid response in Maryland.)
Figure 6: Giant Hogweed Eradication in Maryland:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Giant hogweed is on the federal noxious weed list and is a public
health concern because its sap can cause serious burns and blisters.
Native to Asia, the plant likely entered North America as early as 1917
as an ornamental garden plant. It most often infests roadsides. Giant
hogweed was detected in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., before it
was detected in Maryland. In Pennsylvania, the number of infestations
grew from 6 in 1997 to 550 in 2003. Those sightings worried Maryland
officials about the possible presence of the weed in their state.
Maryland's Department of Agriculture began to survey for giant hogweed
in 2003, before the state had any known infestations. This survey was
done in conjunction with a public awareness and education campaign,
which included the Maryland Invasive Species Council naming the weed as
the "Invader of the Month" in April 2003. The department also held
workshops to increase public awareness and encouraged landowners and
citizens to report possible giant hogweed infestations. The department
received and surveyed 101 reports of infestations in 2003. While some
of those reports were incorrect, the department found and treated 29
infested sites that year. The department has also monitored those sites
to address regrowth of the weed. In addition, Maryland's Department of
Natural Resources treated infestations on its lands in 2003. Total
project costs across the state were about $25,000--$5,000 of which came
from a USDA grant. The department hopes to ultimately eradicate the
plant from the state. This eradication program shows the importance of
early detection and rapid response--acting to identify and control the
weed before it becomes widespread and less manageable. The public
education campaign was a key factor in the eradication program's
success because it helped the public become aware of the importance of
detecting and reporting invasive species.
[End of figure]
With regard to the method of awarding grant funds to weed management
entities, the act specifies some selection considerations and states
that the grants should be awarded competitively, but leaves the
development of the program to the Secretary. The act states that the
Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, rely on technical
and merit reviews provided by regional, state, or local weed management
experts in making funding decisions. However, 24 of 39 officials stated
that funding should be provided directly to the states, which would
then distribute the funds to local weed management entities. Officials
supportive of this approach said that states best know their weed
problems and therefore would make better-informed funding decisions.
This approach is similar to the way in which Idaho currently receives
federal funding and then distributes it to state and local weed
management entities. Until USDA's new program is developed, however, it
is not clear how much influence these nonfederal experts will have in
the funding decisions. It is also unclear how the Secretary will
delegate implementation authority and which other federal officials
will be involved in the decision making. About one-quarter of those who
commented on this issue (8 of 39) expressed a preference for federal
officials deciding about project-specific grants to state and local
entities based on a review of proposals. A few officials cited the
Pulling Together Initiative as a model that could be followed, in which
representatives from relevant federal agencies and nonfederal
stakeholders consider the merits of grant applications and jointly make
funding decisions. Such an approach could provide a balance in federal
and nonfederal influence in deciding how to allocate funds for weed
management.
Conclusions:
Clearly the attack on invasive weeds in the United States is a massive
effort that will continue far into the future. This effort involving a
multitude of entities is needed, however, because invasive weeds
pervade the landscape and affect virtually every type of ecosystem.
Certainly, an additional source of funds to address invasive weeds, as
authorized in recent legislation, will be welcomed by those involved in
the battle. However, given the magnitude of the problem in relation to
the resources devoted to it, identifying priorities and deciding how
those resources should be allocated is important. As officials pointed
out to us during our work, many types of weed management activities are
needed, and different areas of the country are plagued by different
weed problems and have varying levels of infrastructure in place to
deal with them. In addition, when it comes to providing federal
assistance to deal with invasive weeds, federal agencies have specific
strengths and weaknesses with regard to their connection to, and
understanding the needs of, weed management entities. While the newly
enacted Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act recognizes the
importance of drawing upon the expertise of others by requiring
reliance on information provided by regional, state, or local weed
management experts, it does not specifically require consultation with
other federal entities. Nonetheless, we believe it is important for the
Secretary of Agriculture to direct the implementing agency of the new
program to collaborate with other federal entities with relevant weed
management experience to (1) benefit from lessons learned in
administering grant programs and cooperative agreements and (2)
identify priorities that should receive funding from this new source so
as to complement other federal assistance to on-the-ground weed
management activities.
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture. The Department of the Interior provided
written comments (see app. V). The Department of Agriculture did not
provide comments, although the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service and Forest Service provided technical comments and
clarifications. We have incorporated those where appropriate.
The Department of the Interior concurred with our findings.
Specifically, the department stated that the report contributes to the
call for cooperation and collaboration across all government levels to
control and eradicate invasive plants, and agrees with the attention it
places on natural or nonproduction areas as significant contributors to
our nation's biological and natural resources heritage. The department
supported our recommendation regarding implementation of the Noxious
Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004. In addition, the department
suggested that the issue be approached through the National Invasive
Species Council and that council's advisory committee. Four Interior
bureaus (the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau
of Land Management, and the U.S. Geological Survey) also reviewed the
report and provided technical comments relating to funding data, the
number of acres infested with weeds, and other issues. We have
incorporated those comments where appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we will plan no further distribution until 30
days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to other interested congressional committees and the Secretaries
of Agriculture and the Interior. We also will make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: 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. As
called for in the objectives, we focused on weed control programs that
address problems in nonagricultural areas, such as parks, forests,
rangeland, and other types of land. As agreed with the requester, we
focused on terrestrial weeds.
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). (We therefore excluded other federal departments engaged in
weed management, such as the Department of Defense and the Department
of Transportation.)
To determine what federal entities implement projects to address
harmful nonagricultural weeds and what sources of funding these
entities use, we interviewed relevant officials at Interior, USDA, and
the National Invasive Species Council, and reviewed weed management
literature and Web sites. 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). This scope excluded several Interior and
USDA agencies that are less involved in weed management or research,
including Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs
and USDA's Economic Research Service.
To learn more about the role of state and local governments and other
nonfederal entities in weed management, we interviewed officials from
several national organizations, including the National Association of
Counties, the National Association of Conservation Districts, the Weed
Science Society of America, and the Environmental Law Institute. On the
basis of these interviews, we determined that the number of state and
local agencies engaged in weed management was large. We also decided
that it was not feasible or necessary to attempt to identify all such
entities. Therefore, we selected a nonprobability sample of states to
review in detail to provide illustrations of the types of weed
management structures and entities that are at work across the
country.[Footnote 30] The states we selected were California, Colorado,
Idaho, Maryland, and Mississippi. We selected them to provide a range
of characteristics, using criteria that included geography, federal
land ownership, and maturity of weed management programs. While these
states are not representative of all states, they illustrate some of
the types of weed management entities and activities that exist within
states. For these five states, we determined whether there was a lead
official--such as a state weed coordinator or invasive species
coordinator--who would be able to direct us to other officials working
on weed control in the state on behalf of federal, state, local, and
nongovernmental organizations. We used those recommendations and other
means to generate a list of entities to contact.
To gather information on the activities of federal and nonfederal weed
control entities, determine what factors could improve the
effectiveness of weed control efforts, and obtain opinions on specific
aspects of how to implement a new federal weed control support program,
we administered two structured interview guides. We designed the first
interview guide to gather information from officials connected with
weed control efforts at federal, state, and local government agencies
and nongovernmental organizations. We administered that guide to 52
officials. We designed the second interview guide to gather information
from officials connected with federal grant and cooperative agreement
programs that can be used to fund the weed control work of a variety of
entities and stakeholders. We administered that interview guide to 5
federal officials.
The interview guides contained common questions regarding the
officials' opinions about the top three barriers to effective weed
management, the top three factors contributing to success, and their
views on certain aspects related to providing additional financial
support to weed management entities. The guides also contained unique
questions tailored to the different types of respondents. For example,
the interview guide for weed managers contained questions about the
sources of funding the entities use, while the interview guide for
federal grant program managers contained questions about the extent to
which those programs support weed control.
We gathered information about weed control expenditures by federal and
nonfederal entities from a variety of sources. These include the
structured interview guides, agency budget documents, and other agency
reports and databases. In the instances where officials provided us
with information through the interview guide, we asked if their answer
was an estimate. We sought other documentation where practicable. We
independently corroborated the data the officials provided in answer to
our questions, to the extent possible, using other documentation. In
some instances, we verified that expenditures agencies reported to have
made for weed control were consistent with expenditures reported for
recent years. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report.
Similarly, we obtained information on federal and other grant resources
directed to weed control from a variety of sources, including
structured interviews, and agency or organizational documents. In some
instances, agency officials were only able to provide estimates of the
resources directed to weed control, while in other cases the data were
more definitive. We independently corroborated the funding estimates
provided by federal officials in response to our questions, to the
extent possible, by comparing it with overall agency budgets for those
programs. With respect to federally funded programs that are
administered by other organizations (the Pulling Together Initiative
and Center for Invasive Plant Management), we compared reported
expenditures on weed projects with prior years' expenditures. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report.
Some of the questions in the guides asked for open-ended opinions
regarding how to provide new federal funding for weed control. At
times, in answering one question, a respondent would also provide an
answer to a subsequent question. In our analysis, we assigned their
answers to the appropriate question. In some instances, respondents did
not give clear answers to specific questions. For example, in response
to a question about which federal agency should be responsible for
administering a new program to support weed management agencies, one
official said "any land management agency." In a situation like that,
we classified the response as "unclear" rather than adding to the
tallies of each land management agency. We analyzed the responses to
these questions in light of the provisions of the newly enacted Noxious
Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004.
Within the five states we reviewed, we contacted officials at federal,
state, and local government agencies, as well as at nongovernmental
organizations. We did not attempt to identify or contact all federal,
state, and local agencies engaged in weed management in each state. For
the five states, we set as a target contacting representatives from the
federal land management agencies' regional or state offices, as well as
representatives from one federal land management unit--such as a
national park or wildlife refuge--within each state. We also sought to
contact representatives from at least four counties, municipalities, or
nongovernmental organizations in each state. To accomplish this, we
asked state weed coordinators or other knowledgeable officials to
recommend appropriate entities, and we conducted Internet research.
In addition to using the interview guides, we also interviewed 36
officials in a less formal way. We conducted some of these interviews
prior to preparing the interview guides. In other instances, we used an
informal interview method because we did not believe that either of the
guides was appropriate for the interviewee. In our report, we present
information obtained from the informal interviews, but do so separately
from our presentation of information we obtained through the interview
guides. In all, we spoke with over 90 officials representing 58 federal
and nonfederal organizations.
Table 3 shows the number of organizations from different levels of
government we contacted within each state. We did not contact
representatives from all of the categories in each state; for example,
in Mississippi we learned that county and municipal agencies are not
actively involved in weed management.
Table 3: Number of organizations, by type, contacted in five states:
Organizations: Federal agencies;
California: 2;
Colorado: 3;
Idaho: 3;
Maryland: 3;
Mississippi: 3.
Organizations: State agencies;
California: 3;
Colorado: 1;
Idaho: 3;
Maryland: 3;
Mississippi: 3.
Organizations: Counties/municipalities;
California: 5;
Colorado: 3;
Idaho: 8;
Maryland: 2;
Mississippi: 0.
Organizations: Nongovernmental organizations/individuals;
California: 1;
Colorado: 1;
Idaho: 3;
Maryland: 1;
Mississippi: 2.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We made site visits in Maryland, Idaho, and Colorado to observe weed
control entities in action. For example, in Maryland we observed
National Park Service staff hand pulling and mechanically removing
Japanese stilt grass to protect native plant species, and in Idaho we
observed the use of goats to graze leafy spurge.
To provide information on issues related to the terminology of invasive
weeds, we researched the use and definitions of relevant terms in
federal and state laws. This included analysis of the Plant Protection
Act and section 15 of the Federal Noxious Weed Act, Executive Order
13112, and relevant statutes and regulations concerning invasive weeds
in all 50 states. We also reviewed testimony provided to Congress by
stakeholders to gain a better understanding of some of the concerns
associated with the use a certain terminology.
We conducted our review from May 2004 through December 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Legal Ramifications of the Terms Used in Federal and State
Law for Invasive Weeds:
Based on our review of the statutes and regulations of the federal
government and the fifty states, federal and state laws use many
different terms to describe harmful weeds, including invasive, noxious,
and exotic. In federal law, three different terms are used for, or
encompass, invasive weeds--invasive species, noxious weeds, and
undesirable plants. At the state level, almost all states use the term
noxious weed, but define it differently. The states' lists of noxious
weeds and the manner in which states determine whether to categorize a
weed as noxious, also differ among the states. The noxious weed
definitions, noxious weed lists, and other legal provisions affect
control efforts by federal and state officials.
Terms Used in Federal Law for Invasive Weeds:
In the United States, three terms are used at the federal level for
invasive weeds: invasive species, noxious weeds, and undesirable
plants. The common element of all of these different terms is the
concept of harm.[Footnote 31] However, the definitions and scope of
these different terms vary.
* Executive Order 13112 uses the term invasive species and defines such
species broadly as an alien species whose introduction does or is
likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human
health.[Footnote 32] Alien species are defined as a species (including
its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of
propagating that species) that is not native to a particular ecosystem.
* The Plant Protection Act uses the term noxious weed, which it defines
as "any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure
or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products),
livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation,
navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public
health, or the environment."[Footnote 33] This definition expanded upon
an earlier definition of noxious weed that only included plants of a
foreign origin posing a threat to agricultural interests that were new
to or not widely spread in the United States.[Footnote 34]
* Section 15 of the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended, uses
the term undesirable plants and defines them as "plant species that are
classified as undesirable, noxious, harmful, exotic, injurious, or
poisonous, pursuant to State or Federal law."[Footnote 35] This
provision prohibits the designation of endangered species or plants
indigenous to the area where control measures are taken as undesirable
plants.
There are several important distinctions in these definitions. One
distinction is whether a species is native or nonnative. The Executive
Order defines invasive species as those that are not native to any
particular identifiable ecosystem within the United States. Section 15
of the Federal Noxious Weed Act limits control activity to those
undesirable plants that are not indigenous to the area where control
efforts are to be taken. The Plant Protection Act's definition of a
noxious weed, however, does not limit work on invasive weeds to those
that are not native, authorizing control efforts to address native
species that may be harmful. Another distinction relates to a
definitional issue that the International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources-World Conservation Union (IUCN) has
identified as important with regard to management of invasive species.
Specifically, because lower taxonomic units of species can be harmful,
the IUCN has recommended that the term "species" include subspecies,
lower taxa, and any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagule of the
species that could survive and reproduce.[Footnote 36] Both the Plant
Protection Act's definition of noxious weed and the Executive Order's
definition of invasive species include plant products or
parts.[Footnote 37] However, the definition of an undesirable plant,
while including species identified as noxious by state or federal law,
does not specifically indicate that subspecies or plant parts are
included.
In addition to these definitional distinctions, some plant species have
both beneficial uses for some purposes but also demonstrate harmful
characteristics--spurring debate over how these species should be
characterized and managed. For example, a number of invasive plants
have been intentionally introduced into the United States because of
their beneficial uses, but later turned out to be harmful. Crownvetch
has been useful in slope stabilization, beautification and erosion
control on highways, and as a living mulch for no-till corn. Some
officials in the agriculture industry have testified that it should not
be considered an invasive species.[Footnote 38] However, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources and others have found crownvetch to be
a serious management threat to natural areas and native plants because
of its rapid spread by creeping roots and seeds. Similarly, kudzu and
salt cedar were promoted for erosion control, but these weeds have
overgrown native vegetation and are now the subject of significant
eradication efforts. A somewhat similar debate has arisen with respect
to genetically modified organisms and crops, which may provide benefits
to humans but may also pose a threat to natural systems or other crops
by introducing certain genetic characteristics.
Federal agencies have various authorities under which they can control
invasive weeds. Under the Plant Protection Act, USDA's APHIS has listed
96 noxious weeds that are prohibited or restricted from entering the
United States or that are subject to restrictions on interstate
movement within the United States. While the Plant Protection Act's
definition of a noxious weed no longer requires a plant to be new to or
not widely spread in the United States, USDA continues to state that
candidates for the federal noxious weed list should be either not yet
present in the United States or of limited distribution.[Footnote 39]
According to an APHIS official, the rule of thumb APHIS uses for
determining whether a plant is new is whether it has been in the United
States for three years or less. Since the enactment of the Plant
Protection Act in 2000, no additional weeds have been added to the
federal noxious weed list.[Footnote 40] For those noxious weeds that
are listed, the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to control these
noxious weeds, including their parts, moving into or through the United
States or interstate. If the Secretary considers it necessary in order
to prevent the spread of a noxious weed that is new to or not known to
be widely prevalent or distributed in the United States, the Secretary
may take certain control actions, including destroying or quarantining
the noxious weed and ordering an owner of one of these noxious weeds to
take control actions.
All federal agencies are required, under section 15 of the Federal
Noxious Weed Act, to undertake a number of control efforts for
undesirable plants. Every federal agency must:
* designate an office or person adequately trained in the management of
undesirable plant species to develop and coordinate an undesirable
plants management program for control of undesirable plants on federal
lands under the agency's jurisdiction;
* establish and adequately fund an undesirable plants management
program through the agency's budgetary process;
* complete and implement cooperative agreements with state agencies
regarding the management of undesirable plant species on federal lands
under the agency's jurisdiction; and:
* establish integrated management systems to control or contain
undesirable plant species targeted under cooperative
agreements.[Footnote 41]
However, as discussed above, undesirable plants are not defined by
section 15 beyond the species level to include plant parts; rather,
undesirable plants are defined as "plant species that are classified as
undesirable, noxious, harmful, exotic, injurious, or poisonous,
pursuant to State or Federal law." Thus--even though the definition of
an undesirable plant would include a weed designated as noxious either
under the Plant Protection Act or under state law and even though these
other laws may extend to subspecies, lower taxa, or plant parts--the
control requirements under section 15 could technically be limited to
just noxious weeds and other designated plants that are at the species
level. While this is a potential definitional issue, we have not found
any evidence, from federal agencies or others, identifying this issue
as a barrier to control efforts.
In addition to these required control efforts, the heads of federal
departments or agencies are authorized and directed to permit officials
from any state in which there is in effect a control program for
noxious plants to enter upon any federal lands under their control or
jurisdiction and destroy noxious plants if certain conditions are
met.[Footnote 42] Federal agencies also have a number of other
statutory authorities under which they can undertake control efforts
for invasive weeds. For example, under the Endangered Species Act,
federal agencies are required to establish and implement a program to
conserve fish, wildlife, and plants. Conservation can include habitat
maintenance and thus invasive weed control efforts.[Footnote 43]
Finally, the Executive Order directs agencies, as permitted by law, to
detect, respond rapidly to, and control invasive species in a cost-
effective and environmentally sound manner.
Terms Used by States for Invasive Weeds:
All of the states but Alaska use the term "noxious weed," but the
states vary in the manner in which they define a noxious weed (see
table 5 at the end of this appendix for a complete listing of the
states' noxious weed definitions). Twenty-nine states define noxious
weeds either in statute or in regulation (26 and 3 states,
respectively). Thirteen states do not have a general definition of what
a noxious weed is, but rather list particular weeds as noxious in
statute (11 states) or in regulation (2 states). Eight states use the
term noxious weed, but only with regard to their weed seed
laws.[Footnote 44]
For the 26 states that statutorily define a "noxious weed," the
specificity and scope of their definitions, and thus, the regulatory
authority delegated to state agencies in designating noxious weeds
varies (see table 4). Some states' noxious weed definitions are so
focused on agricultural harm that invasive weeds that cause harm to the
natural environment could be statutorily excluded from being regulated
as a noxious weed. Although definitions that include harm to land or
other property could potentially cover weeds that cause harm to natural
resources or the environment, it is only clear that such weeds would be
covered under the states' definitions that specifically include the
concept of harm caused to natural resources or the environment.
Table 4: Summary of Provisions in 26 States' Statutory Definitions:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state statutes.
Note: By way of comparison, the federal definition of a noxious weed
specifically includes plants that cause harm to agriculture, crops,
livestock or poultry; environment and natural ecosystems; and public
health.
[A] Statutory definitions in Arkansas, Nebraska, and Texas do not
specifically include any of the items noted in the table. For these
definitions, see table 5.
[End of table]
The 24 states that do not have statutory definitions define or identify
noxious weeds in a variety of ways:
* Regulatory definitions. Three states provide general definitions for
noxious weeds in regulations. South Dakota defines a noxious weed in
regulation as "a weed which the [weed control] commission has
designated as sufficiently detrimental to the state to warrant
enforcement of control measures" and possesses some specific invasive
characteristics. A North Carolina regulation defines a noxious weed as
"any plant in any stage of development, including parasitic plants
whose presence whether direct or indirect, is detrimental to crops or
other desirable plants, livestock, land, or other property, or is
injurious to the public health." Vermont defines a "noxious weed" in
regulation almost identically to North Carolina, but also includes
plants that are detrimental to the environment.
* Statutory lists. Eleven states (Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin) do not provide a definition for a noxious weed in either
statute or regulation, but instead have statutes that list specific
plants considered to be noxious weeds. Kentucky uses the term "noxious
weed" but does not provide a definition for the term, stating only that
it includes Johnsongrass and pests.
* Regulatory lists. Ohio and Oregon do not define noxious weeds in
statute or regulation, but instead list specific noxious weeds in
regulations.
* Weed seed laws. Eight states (Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) only use
the term noxious weed with respect to their noxious weed seed laws.
Noxious weed seed laws generally restrict or prohibit the sale of the
seeds of noxious weeds, either as a product in their own right or as
contaminants of other seeds or agricultural products.[Footnote 45]
Alaska has a law providing for the eradication of "obnoxious weeds" in
addition to its weed seed law, but has no statutory or regulatory list
of such weeds.
In addition to the states identified above as having statutory or
regulatory lists rather than definitions of noxious weeds, most of the
other states also have noxious weed lists. As detailed in state
statutes or regulations, the states' noxious weed lists differ greatly
in length, from one noxious weed in Louisiana and Kentucky to 133
noxious weeds in California (see table 5). It is important to note,
however, that the number of noxious weeds listed may not portray the
complete picture of a state's efforts to control invasive weeds for
several reasons. First, one state may list an entire genus as a noxious
weed (which could include numerous individual species or taxa of
weeds), while another state may list only particular species or
varieties of plants within that genus but list them as separate entries
on a noxious weed list. For example, Iowa lists all species within the
Carduus genus as a single entry on its noxious weed list, while
California lists certain Carduus species separately. Second, some
states take control actions against invasive weeds in addition to those
identified as noxious weeds in their statutes and regulations.[Footnote
46] For example, in addition to its list of noxious weeds, Illinois
lists 10 exotic weeds that are subject to control efforts. Department
of Natural Resources officials in Maryland also told us that they have
authority to manage any weed species that threaten the lands they
manage, regardless of whether it is listed as noxious. Lastly,
localities may have their own noxious weed lists or undertake control
efforts for weeds that do not appear on the states' lists.
In addition, the states may categorize or use their noxious weed lists
in various ways that can affect state control efforts. Ten states'
statutes and regulations categorize listed noxious weeds into
particular definitional classifications.[Footnote 47] In further
classifying noxious weeds, the states may make a distinction in the
types of control efforts that are authorized. For example, Colorado has
three classes of noxious weeds--List A, List B, and List C--defined as
follows:
* List A noxious weeds are rare noxious weed species that are subject
to eradication wherever detected statewide in order to protect
neighboring lands and the state as a whole.
* List B noxious weeds are species with discrete statewide
distributions that are subject to eradication, containment, or
suppression in portions of the state designated by the commissioner in
order to stop the continued spread of these species.
* List C noxious weeds are widespread and well-established noxious weed
species for which control is recommended but not required by the state,
although local governing bodies may require management.[Footnote 48]
Thus, in Colorado, List C noxious weeds are not subject to the same
control requirements as List A and B noxious weeds. States also use
their noxious weed lists and implement the noxious weed definitions in
a variety of ways. For example, noxious weed lists can represent weeds
under quarantine, weeds subject to import or sale restrictions, weeds
for which control is required, or weeds for which control is
authorized.
Aside from the definitions or lists that stipulate what a noxious weed
is, other legal provisions may detail how, where, and by whom control
efforts can be carried out.
Some states have laws that specifically restrict control efforts to
certain noxious weeds. For example:
* In Hawaii, a number of regulatory criteria must be met. To be
designated as a noxious weed for eradication and control projects, a
plant species must be one that (1) is not effectively controlled by
present day technology or by available herbicides currently registered
for use under Hawaii law; (2) is effectively controlled only by
extraordinary efforts such as repeated herbicidal applications at high
dosage rates; or (3) is effectively controlled only by additional
effort over and beyond the normal weed maintenance effort required for
the production or management of certain crops and pasturelands,
recreation areas, forest lands, or conservation areas.[Footnote 49] In
addition, the plant species must meet certain criteria regarding
distribution and spread, growth characteristics, reproduction, and
detrimental effects.[Footnote 50]
* Nevada is divided into weed control districts, and the weeds subject
to control vary by these districts. For example, all state-designated
noxious weeds are subject to control in Nevada's Ruby Weed Control
District, but only four weeds are subject to control in the Lovelock
Valley Weed Control District.[Footnote 51] While in some cases the
control districts restrict which weeds on the noxious weed list can be
controlled, in other cases some weeds that are not listed on the Nevada
designated noxious weed list are nonetheless subject to control in
Nevada's control districts.
Some states must take particular actions before undertaking control or
eradication projects on noxious or invasive weeds. For example, the
Maryland Secretary of Agriculture may declare a quarantine to control
or eradicate exotic plants, but a public hearing must first be
held.[Footnote 52] In Illinois, governing bodies of each county are
required to establish coordinated programs and to publish notices for
the control and eradication of noxious weeds.
Moreover, some state laws define "control," providing for the scope of
control or eradication efforts authorized in the state. For example,
Nebraska defines "control" in a fairly broad manner as "the prevention,
suppression, or limitation of the growth, spread, propagation, or
development or the eradication of weeds."[Footnote 53] Controlling a
noxious weed in Hawaii, however, is defined in a more limited manner as
"limit[ing] the spread of a specific noxious weed and . . . reduc[ing]
its density to a degree where its injurious, harmful, or deleterious
effect is reduced to a tolerable level."[Footnote 54]
Table 5: States' Definitions of Noxious Weeds:
State: Ala;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any living stage, including, but not
limited to, seeds and productive parts of a parasitic or other plant of
a kind, or subdivision of a kind, which may be a serious agricultural
threat in Alabama. Evidence of noxious weed shall be considered a
public nuisance;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: Yes;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 28 plus federal list.
State: Alaska;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: N/A[B];
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: Ariz;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any species of plant that is, or is liable
to be, detrimental or destructive and difficult to control or eradicate
and shall include any species that the director [of the Department of
Agriculture], after investigation and hearing, shall determine to be a
noxious weed;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: Yes;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 54.
State: Ark;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: The board in its rules and regulations...
shall list the insect pests, diseases, and noxious weeds, of which it
shall find that the introduction into or the dissemination within the
state should be prevented in order to safeguard the plants and plant
products of this state, and the list shall include the plants and plant
products or other substances on or in which these pests may be carried;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 35.
State: Calif;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any species of plant that is, or is liable
to be, troublesome, aggressive, intrusive, detrimental, or destructive
to agriculture, silviculture, or important native species, and
difficult to control or eradicate, which the director, by regulation,
designates to be a noxious weed. In determining whether or not a
species shall be designated a noxious weed for the purposes of
protecting silviculture or important native plant species, the director
shall not make that designation if the designation will be detrimental
to agriculture;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 133.
State: Colo;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: An alien plant or parts of an alien plant
that have been designated by rule as being noxious or has been declared
a noxious weed by a local advisory board, and meets one or more of the
following criteria:
a. aggressively invades or is detrimental to economic crops or native
plant communities;
b. is poisonous to livestock;
c. is a carrier of detrimental insects, diseases, or parasites;
d. the direct or indirect effect of the presence of this plant is
detrimental to the environmentally sound management of natural or
agricultural ecosystems;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: Yes;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 84.
State: Conn;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: N/A[C, D];
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: Del;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: The Department [of Agriculture] shall
designate species of weeds which adversely affect or threaten
agriculture production as noxious weeds, and may promulgate such rules
and regulations as in its judgment are necessary to carry into effect
the provisions of this chapter and may alter or suspend such rules when
necessary;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 4.
State: Fla;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any living stage, including, but not
limited to, seeds and productive parts, of a parasitic or other plant
of a kind, or subdivision of a kind, which may be a serious
agricultural threat in Florida or have a negative impact on the plant
species protected under [a certain provision of Florida law];
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 67.
State: Ga;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: N/A[C];
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: Hawaii;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any plant species which is, or which may be
likely to become, injurious, harmful, or deleterious to the
agricultural, horticultural, aquacultural, or livestock industry of the
state and to forest and recreational areas and conservation districts
of the state, as determined and designated by the department from time
to time;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 79[E].
State: Idaho;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any plant having the potential to cause
injury to public health, crops, livestock, land or other property;
and which is designated as noxious by the director;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 36.
State: Ill;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any plant which is determined by the
Director [of the Department of Agriculture], the Dean of the College of
Agriculture of the University of Illinois and the Director of the
Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of Illinois, to be
injurious to public health, crops, livestock, land or other property;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 8[F].
State: Ind;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 4[G].
State: Iowa;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: Yes;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 25.
State: Kans;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 12[H].
State: Ky;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 1[I].
State: La;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 1[J].
State: Maine;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: N/A[C];
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: Md;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 3.
State: Mass;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: N/A[C];
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: Mich;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 10[K].
State: Minn;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: An annual, biennial, or perennial plant
that the commissioner designates to be injurious to public health, the
environment, public roads, crops, livestock, or other property;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: Yes;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 13 plus federal list[L].
State: Miss;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: A plant species or classified group of
plants declared by the Bureau of Plant Industry to be a public nuisance
or to be especially injurious to the environment, to agricultural and
horticultural production, or to wildlife and which should be controlled
and the dissemination of which prevented;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 8.
State: Mo;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 8[M].
State: Mont;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any exotic plant species established or
that may be introduced in the state that may render land unfit for
agriculture, forestry, livestock, wildlife, or other beneficial uses or
that may harm native plant communities and that is designated:
1. as a statewide noxious weed by rule of the department;
or;
2. as a district noxious weed by a board, following public notice of
intent and a public hearing;
A weed designated by rule of the department as a statewide noxious weed
must be considered noxious in every district of the state;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: Yes;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 27.
State: Nebr;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any weeds designated and listed as noxious
in rules and regulations adopted and promulgated by the director [of
agriculture];
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 5.
State: Nev;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any species of plant which is, or is likely
to be, detrimental or destructive and difficult to control or
eradicate;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 45[N].
State: N.H;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: N/A[C];
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: N.J;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: N/A[C];
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: N. Mex;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: New Mexico has two statutory definitions of
a noxious weed:
1. Any weed or plant which the board of county commissioners acting as
the governing body of the district, and with the advice of the county
agent, declares to be harmful or to possess noxious characteristics;
2. A plant species that is not indigenous to New Mexico and that has
been targeted pursuant to the Noxious Weed Management Act for
management or control because of its negative impact on the economy or
the environment;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: N.Y;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any living stage (including, but not
limited to, seeds and reproductive parts) of any parasitic or other
plant of a kind, or subdivision of a kind, which is of foreign origin,
is new to or not widely prevalent in this state, and can directly or
indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, livestock, or poultry or
other interests of agriculture, including irrigation;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 4[O].
State: N.C;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Regulation;
Definition of noxious weed: Any plant in any stage of development,
including parasitic plants whose presence whether direct or indirect,
is detrimental to crops or other desirable plants, livestock, land, or
other property, or is injurious to the public health;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: Yes;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 15 plus federal list.
State: N. Dak;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any plant propagated by either seed or
vegetative parts which is determined by the commissioner after
consulting with the North Dakota state university extension service, or
a county weed board after consulting with the county extension agent,
to be injurious to public health, crops, livestock, land, or other
property;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 12.
State: Ohio;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Regulatory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 14.
State: Okla;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 3.
State: Oreg;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Regulatory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: Yes;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 97[P].
State: Pa;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: A plant that is determined to be injurious,
to public health, crops, livestock, agricultural land or other
property. The noxious weed control list shall include but not be
limited to [four certain weeds];
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 13.
State: R.I;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: N/A[C];
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: S.C;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any living stage of any plant including
seed or reproductive parts thereof or parasitic plants or parts thereof
which is determined by the Commissioner of Agriculture to be directly
or indirectly injurious to public health, crops, livestock, or
agriculture, including but not limited to waterways and irrigation
canals;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 9.
State: S. Dak;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Regulation;
Definition of noxious weed: A weed which the [Weed Control] commission
has designated as sufficiently detrimental to the state to warrant
enforcement of control measures. The weed must possess the following
characteristics:
(1) the weed is a perennial;
(2) the weed is capable of unique and rapid spreading and growth under
adverse conditions;
(3) the weed is not controllable without special preventative chemical,
mechanical, biological, and cultural practices;
(4) the weed is capable of materially reducing the production of crops
or livestock;
(5) the weed is capable of decreasing the value of the land;
and (6) the weed is not native to the state;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 7[Q].
State: Tenn;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 2[R].
State: Tex;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: A weed or plant is considered to be a
noxious weed if declared to be a noxious weed by:
1. a law of this state;
or; 2. the department acting under the authority of [state law];
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: Utah;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any plant the commissioner [of agriculture]
determines to be especially injurious to public health, crops,
livestock, land, or other property;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 18.
State: Vt;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Regulation;
Definition of noxious weed: Any plant in any stage of development,
including parasitic plants whose presence whether direct or indirect,
is detrimental to the environment, crops or other desirable plants,
livestock, land, or other property, or is injurious to the public
health;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: Yes;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 32 plus federal list.
State: Va;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any living plant, not widely disseminated,
or part thereof, declared by the Board [of Agriculture and Consumer
Services] through rules and regulations under this chapter, to be
detrimental to crops, surface waters, including lakes, or other
desirable plants, livestock, land, or other property, or to be
injurious to public health or the economy;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
State: Wash;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Washington has two statutory definitions
for a noxious weed:
1. A plant that when established is highly destructive, competitive, or
difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices;
2. A living stage, including, but not limited to, seeds and
reproductive parts, of a parasitic or other plant of a kind that
presents a threat to Washington agriculture or environment;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: Yes;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 124[S].
State: W.VA;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Any living plant, or part thereof, declared
by the commissioner [of Agriculture], after public hearing, to be
detrimental to crops, other desirable plants, waterways, livestock,
land or other property, or to be injurious to public health or the
economy;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 7[T].
State: Wis;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statutory list;
Definition of noxious weed: N/A;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: 3[O].
State: Wyo;
Manner in which state defines noxious weed: Statute;
Definition of noxious weed: Weeds, seeds, or other plant parts that are
considered detrimental, destructive, injurious, or poisonous, either by
virtue of their direct effect or as carriers of diseases or parasites
that exist within this state, and are on the designated list;
Further categorizations of noxious weeds[A]: No;
Number of listed noxious weeds: N/A.
Source: GAO analysis of state laws and regulations.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
[A] Indicates whether a state has a statutory or regulatory provision
further classifying its noxious weeds--such as by designating them as
Class A, Class B, and Class C noxious weeds.
[B] Alaska uses the term "obnoxious weed" instead, only using the term
"noxious weed" in relation to its weed seed law.
[C] These states only use the term noxious weed in conjunction with
their noxious weed seed laws.
[D] Connecticut uses the term invasive plant. The Commissioner of
Environmental Protection is to prepare and maintain a list of nonnative
plant species and distribute it on an annual basis.
[E] Some of these weeds are listed only for control on certain islands.
[F] Two of these noxious weeds are only declared noxious within the
corporate limits of cities, villages, and incorporated towns. Illinois
also lists kudzu--which is a state noxious weed--and 9 other plants as
exotic weeds.
[G] Indiana lists these same 4 noxious weeds as detrimental plants.
Indiana also controls kudzu separately as a pest or pathogen.
[H] The board of county commissioners may also declare 2 other plants
to be noxious weeds within county borders.
[I] Kentucky lists another plant as a noxious weed that the Department
of Transportation must control, as well as 5 other plants it does not
designate as noxious weeds.
[J] This plant is actually listed as a noxious plant.
[K] The Michigan statute lists 10 noxious weeds, but also includes any
other plant that in the opinion of the governing body of any county,
city, or village, coming under the provisions of the act is regarded as
a common nuisance.
[L] Minnesota only includes the terrestrial and parasitic weeds from
the federal list.
[M] The Missouri statute also states that the term noxious weed
includes any other weed designated as noxious by the rules and
regulations of the Department of Agriculture.
[N] Some of these weeds are designated for control only in certain
counties.
[O] Lists these as included among noxious weeds in the state sanitary
code.
[P] Oregon excludes Japanese blood grass, which is on the federal list.
Oregon also lists 5 weeds, 2 of which are not on the quarantine list of
97 weeds, as noxious when found in nursery stock.
[Q] South Dakota regulations also specifically authorize 19 weeds to be
designated as locally noxious weeds or pests.
[R] These weeds are subject to eradication and control when growing on
state highway rights-of-way.
[S] Sixty-five of these weeds are designated as Class B noxious weeds
and are subject to control only in certain regions of the state.
[T] One of these noxious weeds is only designated as such for certain
counties.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Weed Management in the Five States Reviewed:
This appendix provides detailed information on the weed management in
the five states we reviewed: California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, and
Mississippi. It describes the weed species posing serious threats in
the states; the legal framework for invasive weeds; federal agencies'
activities on lands they manage in the states; state, county, and
municipal governments' responsibilities; and cooperative and private
entities' activities.
California:
California has a state weed coordinator, an invasive plant council, and
a strategic plan that addresses weeds.
Weed species posing serious threats in the state. According to the
state's weed action plan, noxious and invasive weeds infest over 20
million acres in California and result in hundreds of millions of
dollars in control costs and lost productivity. California's noxious
weed list includes 133 species. According to the state weed
coordinator, the weeds that pose the biggest problems in the state
include yellow star thistle, Arundo donax (also known as giant reed),
perennial pepperweed, and several species of broom. Perennial
pepperweed (also known as tall white top) has infested about 10 million
acres in central California. Several species of broom--French, Spanish,
Portuguese, and Scotch--invaded California more than 70 years ago.
Broom crowds out other habitat and damages agriculture, timber,
livestock, and other industries. It also increases fire susceptibility
because it contains volatile organic compounds that allow it to burn
when either green or dry.
Legal framework relevant to invasive and noxious weeds. California
administers a pest prevention system designed to protect agriculture
from damaging agricultural pests--including weeds--and protect natural
environments. Key implementers of the system include the California
Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), county departments of
agriculture, and USDA. State law defines noxious weeds and gives the
Department of Food and Agriculture primary responsibility for their
control. CDFA has established through regulation a noxious weed list
that includes over 130 plant species. In addition, CDFA policy is to
classify those weeds on the basis of how widespread they are.[Footnote
55] The classification determines the extent to which the department
undertakes control or other action on the weeds. The California Seed
Law also gives the CDFA authority to regulate noxious weed seeds found
in agricultural or vegetable seed.
In 1999, the Noxious Weed Subcommittee of the state's California Range
Management Advisory Committee published the Strategic Plan for the
Coordinated Management of Noxious Weeds in California. This plan was
focused on cooperative weed management areas; following the plan, the
state legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1168 in 1999 and Senate Bill
1740 in 2000, to provide funding for development of such areas. In
2002, the California Invasive Weed Awareness Coalition, a consortium of
businesses and nongovernmental organizations that works to increase
awareness of noxious and invasive weeds and resources for weed
prevention and control, asked the CDFA to take the lead in developing a
statewide plan that would be focused more broadly on invasive weed
management. In 2004, the department published the California Noxious
and Invasive Weed Action Plan. The ultimate goal of this plan is to
protect and enhance the economy, natural environment, and safety of the
citizens of California through greater awareness, cooperation, and
action in the prevention and control of noxious and invasive weeds.
Federal weed management infrastructure in the state. Three of the
federal land management agencies we reviewed are active in weed
management. The Forest Service manages approximately 20 million acres
in California and estimates that approximately 300,000 acres are
infested with weeds. The regional office in California and each forest
unit have a designated weed coordinator. Forest Service budgeted about
$600,000 in fiscal year 2004 to treat invasive weeds. The Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) is responsible for 17 million acres of land and
estimates that about 1.8 million acres are infested with noxious or
priority weeds (priority weeds are not on the state's list of noxious
weeds but are of concern). BLM has a management plan for weeds and an
agency weed coordinator for California. Its current weed budget is
about $625,000. The National Park Service deploys the California Exotic
Plant Management Team to control weeds on 12 parks encompassing almost
2.4 million acres.
State, county, and municipal governments' weed management
infrastructure. The California Department of Food and Agriculture is
the state's lead agency in noxious weed control. It is responsible for
maintaining the list of officially designated noxious weeds and
regulating their movement in commerce. It also implements the state's
pest prevention system, which it coordinates with county departments of
agriculture and USDA. Furthermore, the CDFA coordinates with counties'
eradication efforts for high-priority noxious weeds and provides
partial funding, oversight, and guidance to county-based weed
management areas. The current CDFA expenditure for targeted noxious and
invasive weed management in California is approximately $2 million
annually. At least five other state agencies also control for invasive
weeds. The Department of Parks and Recreation manages 1.4 million
acres. According to a 2004 inventory, approximately 100,000 acres of
these are infested with invasive weeds. In addition, the Department of
Fish and Game manages almost 970,000 acres of fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2003, state department personnel worked to control 68
invasive weed species on their lands. The California Bay-Delta
Authority distributed over $2.6 million for weed control, management
and research activities during fiscal year 2004. Species addressed
included Arundo donax, purple loosestrife, Brazilian elodea, and
perennial pepperweed. Since 1999, the state's Wildlife Conservation
Board has also provided over $5 million to restore riparian areas in 11
counties, particularly by removing invasive weeds. The state is
spending about $10 million annually to treat Arundo donax in Orange
County and $100,000 to study the agricultural productivity lost because
of yellow star thistle.
Many county agricultural commissioners carry out regulatory and other
weed eradication and control programs, generally in coordination with
CDFA and the local weed management area. County programs typically
focus on high priority weeds (those rated "A"), such as musk thistle
and spotted knapweed. Lower priority weeds (those rated "B" and "C"
because they are more widespread) may also be subject to local control,
especially when they are just beginning to invade a county. Counties
have increased their efforts in recent years to detect and inventory
using electronic systems, which has led to the discovery of new
populations of listed weeds. Counties also manage biological control
programs in cooperation with CDFA, and some counties participate in
weed management areas, roadside weed control, and weed control for fire
abatement purposes. Estimated funding for weed programs in county
agriculture departments was about $4 million last year, putting the
statewide expenditure at about $6 million.
According to the state's 2004 weed action plan, not many cities have
weed control programs that can be thought of as dealing with targeted
noxious or invasive weeds. The plan does note that some municipalities
do have strict mandatory abatement programs to control weeds, but they
are designed to alleviate fire risk and unsightliness.
Cooperative and private entities. At least 50 of the 58 counties in
California are involved in weed management areas. These areas focus on
education and local outreach, including workshops and demonstration
projects; detecting, surveying and mapping weeds; setting priorities
for weed management and conducting strategic planning; fostering
cooperative weed control projects; and writing grants. Personnel from
county agricultural departments most commonly lead weed management
areas, although resource conservation districts and state or federal
agency employees also take the primary leadership role in many
counties. Each weed management area received approximately $80,000 in
state funding from 1999 through 2004, for a total of about $4.5
million. However, the state funding for the program ended in June 2004.
The weed management areas raised over $5 million in grants, local
matches, and in-kind donations.
In 1998, Mendocino County officials helped found the International
Broom Initiative, which includes California, Hawaii, Oregon,
Washington, Australia, New Zealand, and France. In California, both
public and private sectors have joined to fund this initiative.
Additionally, the initiative has recently obtained federal funds
because of the problems broom is causing, especially along the coasts.
Colorado:
Colorado has a state weed coordinator, a noxious weed advisory
committee, and a state strategic plan for weeds.
Weed species posing serious threats. Regulations under Colorado's
Noxious Weed Act designate 71 weed species as state noxious weeds. For
example, yellow star thistle is listed because it causes chewing
disease and death in horses. Purple loosestrife is listed because it
rapidly displaces habitat and feed for wildlife; spawning fish, ducks,
cranes, and turtles leave when loosestrife invades an area. Whitetop,
also known as hoary cress, is another major noxious weed threat. Its
deep and creeping rootstalks make it difficult to control because
cultivation tends to spread root pieces that start new plants.
Legal framework for invasive and noxious weeds. Until the enactment of
the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act, weed management focused almost
entirely on controlling weeds in agricultural areas. This act, however,
broadly addresses the effect of nonnative plants on the economy and
environment. The state law classifies weeds depending upon how
widespread they are, among other things, and tailors its management of
them accordingly. It also required each county to have a weed advisory
board. A 1996 amendment to the act created a statewide weed coordinator
and established the Colorado Noxious Weed Management Fund to provide
financial resources to communities, weed control districts, or other
entities engaged in cooperative noxious weed management efforts. An
amendment to the act in 2003 created a statewide noxious weed advisory
committee.
The Department of Agriculture, in coordination with over 40 other
state, local, and federal agencies, as well as private entities,
formulated a strategic plan to address the spread of noxious weeds.
According to the plan, during the 21st century, the state seeks to stop
the spread of noxious weed species and restore degraded lands that have
exceptional agricultural and environmental value.
Federal weed control infrastructure within the state. BLM and the
Forest Service manage 94 percent of all the federal land in Colorado.
These lands are generally not used for agriculture but are often used
for grazing livestock. The Fish and Wildlife Service also manages six
refuges throughout the state. All three agencies have active weed
management programs to control weeds on their own lands and to support
the weed control efforts of nonfederal agencies and organizations. They
plan and implement weed control projects on public lands in a
decentralized manner; most units conduct weed management as part of
another program, such as range or vegetation management. In fiscal year
2004, BLM, Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service provided
an estimated $537,000, $500,000, and $564,000, respectively, to weed
control on federal lands within Colorado.
State, county, and municipal governments' weed control infrastructure.
The Departments of Agriculture and of Natural Resources are the states'
primary weed control agencies. They work on state-owned lands and help
coordinate the activities of other state entities involved in weed
management. Between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, the state's Noxious
Weed Management Fund provided approximately $1.3 million for noxious
weed management, education, and mapping. On average, every dollar of
the state's investment was matched more than 5 to 1 with private,
local, other state, and federal resources. Because requests for funding
always exceeded the resources available, the Department of Agriculture,
which administers the fund, made awards on a competitive basis,
following the recommendations of a committee of weed management
professionals. The applications were scored on such factors as the
nature of partnerships formed, urgency of the problem, projected impact
of the project, and use of sensible and integrated pest management
strategies. However, in 2003, the state discontinued its contributions
to the fund because of state budget shortfalls.
The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for weed management
on some state lands and is also the lead state agency for controlling
tamarisk--a state executive order establishes tamarisk eradication as a
priority. The department recently published the state's strategic plan
for the eradication of tamarisk by 2013. In addition, the department
oversees weed management on state lands managed by the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation and the Division of Wildlife.
In addition to the Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
the state's Department of Higher Education plays a major role in the
implementation of the state's strategic weed management plans by
supporting education, research, and outreach. Colorado State
University's agricultural research station and cooperative extension
service play a major role in research and outreach. Also, the state
Department of Transportation incorporates weed management principles
into the construction, operation, and maintenance programs on the state
highways. For fiscal year 2002, the Colorado Department of
Transportation's weed control funding was estimated to be $3 million.
Other weed management activities are organized along county lines. Most
of Colorado's counties have a weed board and weed supervisor. The
counties maintain most of the state's transportation corridors and also
work with private landowners to manage their own weeds. We did not
attempt to obtain information on funding in all of the state's
counties.
Few municipal governments have dedicated weed control programs,
according to the state weed coordinator. To the extent that cities own
and manage parks and other public lands, weed control is part of
general maintenance. For example, the city of Steamboat Springs employs
an open space supervisor who manages weeds part time.
Cooperative and private entities. Cooperative weed management areas now
cover about half the state; state funding has supported these areas.
For example, in 1998, the Colorado Noxious Weed Management Fund
provided a $5,000 grant to organizations in the Upper Arkansas River
Valley, located in the south central part of the state, as an incentive
to create a watershedwide partnership to coordinate weed management
planning. As a result, a weed management area representing eight
counties was formed. The area received about $92,000 between 1999 and
2002 to, among other things, purchase equipment and supplies to control
such weeds as leafy spurge and knapweed.
Idaho:
Idaho has a state weed coordinator, an invasive species council, and a
strategic plan that addresses weeds.
Weed species posing serious threats in the state. Idaho lists 36
noxious weeds, and the state is in the process of ranking them in order
of priority for treatment. Some of the most serious threats are yellow
star thistle, which is now found throughout the state, and several
species of hawkweeds, knapweeds, and knotweeds, all of which diminish
the health of rangeland. Recent invaders that could have a serious
impact on Idaho lands are Japanese knotweed and tamarisk, both
aggressive weeds capable of crowding out other vegetation and animal
habitat. Neither is on the state's noxious weed list.
Legal framework relevant for invasive and noxious weeds. The state's
noxious weed law gives the Idaho Department of Agriculture the
authority to designate noxious weeds and devise rules and regulations
to carry out the provisions of the law.[Footnote 56] The law also
establishes a state weed coordinator to carry out these duties and
responsibilities for the director of the Department of Agriculture. The
law places the responsibility for controlling weeds upon all
landowners, and requires county weed superintendents to inspect lands
for weeds and take enforcement actions, when necessary. Idaho also has
a seed law that authorizes the Department of Agriculture to regulate
and control the spread of noxious weed seeds through inspection,
testing, and stopping the sale of contaminated agricultural seeds.
In 1996, the Department of Agriculture sponsored a workshop that
resulted in an agreement between the public and private sector to
develop a statewide strategic plan and noxious weed list, and to
cooperate in identifying problems and better ways to use resources. In
February 1999, Idaho published its strategic plan to heighten the
general public's awareness about the damage nonnative weeds were
causing to state lands and to establish statewide cooperation to halt
their spread and restore infested lands and waters. The plan also
recommended the statewide formation of cooperative weed management
areas. Through a 2001 gubernatorial executive order, Idaho established
an invasive species council to provide statewide policy direction and
planning.
Federal weed management infrastructure within the state. The Forest
Service and BLM own 20.5 million and 11.8 million acres, respectively,
of noncultivated forest and rangeland. In addition to conducting work
on their own lands, both agencies distribute federal funds to state
agencies and cooperative weed management areas in Idaho. Since 1999,
Idaho has received about $500,000 per year in federal funds through
BLM's land resources appropriation account at the direction of House
and Senate appropriations committees. Beginning in fiscal year 2001,
the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry Program also started
providing funds to the state Department of Agriculture for weed
management, including $812,578 in fiscal year 2004. Over the past 5
years, federal funds have constituted about 72 percent of the total
funds state agencies have used for weed management. Forest Service and
BLM staff also assist state weed officials in designing their yearly
weed management programs. Additionally, federal staff make in-kind
contributions by donating equipment, volunteer labor, and other
services. For example, federal employees volunteer during weed workdays
conducted on both federal and nonfederal lands.
State, county, and municipal governments' weed management
infrastructure. The director of the Department of Agriculture is
responsible for enforcing the state's noxious weed law and distributing
federal funds. In fiscal year 2004, the department spent about $388,000
on weed management. The director has a state noxious weed advisory
committee to assist in developing, modifying, and directing a statewide
noxious weed management strategy, and in helping evaluate cost-share
projects and research proposals. The director also can call for annual
weed plans and end-of-year reports from each county, cooperative weed
management area, and other state departments. In addition to working
with weed management areas and counties, state agencies participate in
other multijurisdictional efforts. For example, state agencies belong
to the Hawkweed Biological Control Consortium, along with BLM, Forest
Service, and government agencies in Montana, Washington, and British
Columbia, Canada.
At the county level, weed management usually consists of a board of
county commissioners and weed management area volunteers. The
commissioners allot county departments their general budget, and the
departments in turn determine the amount of funds they will use to
treat weeds as part of their general property maintenance. The
commissioners also contribute to local weed management areas and work
with them to obtain federal weed management cost-share funds.
Additionally, counties usually support weed management by providing
herbicides during "weed workdays," when volunteers from public and
private entities come together to treat infested areas across
jurisdictional boundaries.
In the three counties we reviewed, infrastructure and funding for weeds
varied depending on the tax base. For example, Ada County's tax base is
large enough to support seven full-time employees. Since the county
does not require external funds, it does not belong to a cooperative
weed management area. In contrast, Adams County has found it difficult
to establish and maintain a weed management infrastructure because it
has fewer tax dollars. (Adams's tax base is smaller because the federal
government owns about 65 percent of the county and it has a smaller
population.) It hired a weed superintendent in 2003, when it obtained
federal and state dollars to fund the position. Washington County has
three full-time employees devoted to weed control. One project the
county has managed with federal funds uses goats to graze on leafy
spurge, although officials commented to us that the county had to
provide all initial funding because the federal funds arrived about 8
months after they were committed.
Idaho municipalities do not have active weed management programs or
full-time weed managers. Instead, municipalities generally have
agreements with either counties or weed management areas to treat
noxious weeds on municipal property not covered by their own
departments as part of general maintenance. Municipalities have
nuisance ordinances that restrict the height of weeds and require weed
cleanup to avoid fire hazards on private property. Additionally, they
sponsor community cleanup days in which federal, county, and local
government employees and volunteers participate.
Cooperative and private entities. Cooperative weed management areas are
the key component of Idaho's strategic weed plan. The Department of
Agriculture uses the areas to distribute federal and state weed funds
based on the quality of their grant proposals. Each weed management
area has its own steering committee to advise members on developing and
implementing integrated weed management plans and strategies. A few
Idaho counties are not part of a weed management area either because
they do not require external funds or because they do not have the
grassroots support to form one. According to officials, a few counties
have refused to participate because the federal government will not
commit to a partnership and provide consistent financial assistance.
The Nature Conservancy is a nongovernmental organization active in weed
management in Idaho. It has worked with weed managers from all sectors
on both private and public lands and has emerged as a principal in
providing leadership and resources in the state. Conservancy staff
chair the Idaho Weed Awareness Campaign and the Idaho Weed Coordinating
Committee. On the ground, The Nature Conservancy is using new
technologies such as the Global Positioning System and geographic
information systems, as well as partnerships and public awareness
campaigns, to detect, prevent, and control weeds.
Maryland:
Maryland has an invasive species council but not a state weed
coordinator or a strategic plan that addresses weeds.
Weed species posing serious threats. The invasive species council names
34 invasive plant species of concern in Maryland. Several of these
species stand out as being particularly harmful. For example, according
to state estimates, thistles (five species), Johnsongrass and
shattercane cause $15 million in agricultural losses annually. Other
weeds, such as garlic mustard, kudzu, and mile-a-minute, are problems
in forests and other natural areas.
Legal framework for invasive and noxious weeds. Maryland has had a
noxious weed law since 1969, which lists Johnsongrass, shatttercane,
and thistles (including musk, nodding, Canada, bull, and plumeless
thistle) as noxious weeds that are regulated by the Department of
Agriculture. The law emphasizes protecting agricultural lands from
harmful weeds. It requires landowners to control or eradicate any
infestations of listed weeds and prohibits the transport of noxious
weeds in any form capable of growth. In 2004, owing to control costs,
the Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources opposed an attempt
in the state legislature to add mile-a-minute weed to the noxious weed
list. According to an analysis of the proposal, adding the weed to the
list--it grows in every county--would cost the state government an
estimated $1.5 million per year to assist counties and private
landowners with control efforts.
Federal weed control infrastructure in the state. Of the four land
management agencies we reviewed, the National Park Service and the Fish
and Wildlife Service have the most significant land holdings in
Maryland. The National Park Service's National Capital Region Exotic
Plant Management Team carries out weed control on five national parks
that total about 42,000 acres. In addition to scheduling activities
based on the needs of individual parks, the team can quickly respond to
infestations, thus filling a rapid response role. Individual park
units, however, are responsible for general maintenance on invasive
weeds on a routine basis. To do so, these units use funding from their
vegetation management fund.
The Fish and Wildlife Service manages five national wildlife refuges in
Maryland totaling about 44,000 acres. The refuges are responsible for
managing weed infestations found on their lands. For example, the
Patuxent Research Refuge uses its biological resources staff and its
facilities management staff to conduct weed control activities on its
more than 12,000 acres. Because weed efforts are part of general refuge
maintenance, refuge officials were unable to estimate how much they
spend on weed management.
State, county, and municipal governments' weed control infrastructure.
Three departments engage in weed control. The Department of Agriculture
has a staff of six weed supervisors who work with 20 of the state's 23
counties to manage weeds--primarily those on the noxious weed list--on
agricultural and nonagricultural lands. The department provides grants
that the counties match or exceed--about $80,000 in fiscal year 2004,
with counties contributing about $200,000. For example, the department
granted $3,500 in 2004 to Carroll County, while the county contributed
$18,000 for weed management. The county weed coordinators look for
infestations in their counties and work with landowners to remove them.
Some of the 20 counties also have a spraying program to conduct weed
control for private or public landowners in return for a fee, as well
as to treat weeds on county lands. The Department of Agriculture's
fiscal year 2004 budget for weed control, including the county grant
programs, was $310,000.
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. Funding for these
efforts comes from general operating budgets; the department was not
able to estimate how much it spends. The department is currently
exploring the creation of "weed teams" similar to ones used by the
National Park Service.
At the Department of Transportation, the highway administration is
responsible for weed control on 5,700 miles of state-managed roads.
According to an administration official responsible for vegetation
management, an estimated 40 percent of those roads are infested with
state-listed noxious weeds. In addition, the administration conducts
control efforts for weeds that are not on the state list. In fiscal
year 2004, the administration spent $2 million on vegetation
management, of which less than $50,000 was for control of thistles,
Johnsongrass, and phragmites (the latter of which is not on the state's
noxious weed list).
In addition to joint efforts with the Department of Agriculture, some
counties have their own weed management programs. For example,
Montgomery County has a voluntary "Weed Warriors" program to control
weeds on about 32,500 acres of county parklands. The park system has a
few natural resources staff who work part time on weeds, as well as
maintenance crews, but it does not set aside any funding specifically
for weed management.
According to state officials we spoke with, municipalities in Maryland
are generally not active in weed management. In Baltimore, however, the
city's Department of Recreation and Parks recently began work to
control weeds in city parks, and in 2004 received a Pulling Together
Initiative grant for $39,500. The city will, as a result of that grant,
conduct weed control on six different sites. Weed efforts in the city
are otherwise few in number. The city of Frederick requires landowners
to cut down weeds that the city determines to be a nuisance. If the
owner does not comply with such an order, the city can perform that
work and charge the landowner for it.
Cooperative and private entities. The Maryland Invasive Species
Council, begun in 2000, includes members representing state, federal
and private interests. The council shares ideas and knowledge and helps
increase public awareness of invasive species issues, but is not
statutorily established. According to state officials, however,
Maryland does not have any cooperative weed management areas and the
high degree of urbanization and fragmented land ownership makes the
creation of these types of collaborative entities difficult.
Private landowners can receive support for weed management from various
sources. For example, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
and the state's Department of Natural Resources provide cost-share
funds to landowners for phragmites control. Nongovernmental landowner
organizations such as The Nature Conservancy manage noxious and other
weeds on their lands. The conservancy owns 31 preserves in the state
totaling 62,000 acres; it uses its own resources, as well as volunteer
labor, to control weeds. Other groups, such as the Maryland Native
Plant Society, run volunteer efforts to control weeds on public lands
throughout the state.
Mississippi:
Mississippi does not have a state weed coordinator, an invasive species
council, or a strategic plan for addressing weeds.
Weed species posing serious threats. The state lists eight species of
noxious weeds: Brazilian satintail, Chinese tallow tree, cogongrass,
giant salvinia, hydrilla, itchgrass, kudzu, and tropical soda apple.
Six of these weeds are also on the federal noxious weed list (Chinese
tallow tree and kudzu are not). Cogongrass, which has been named the
seventh worst weed in the world, is found in more than half of
Mississippi's counties, and kudzu is a major problem primarily in the
northern part of the state. Other weeds of concern harm agricultural
and natural areas in Mississippi, such as Chinese tallow tree,
smutgrass, and tropical soda apple, but most of the weed control work
concerns either cogongrass or kudzu.
Legal framework for invasive and noxious weeds. In 2004, Mississippi
amended its Plant Pest Act regulations to list the eight noxious weeds.
The Department of Agriculture and Commerce regulates the transportation
of the listed weeds and inspects for them at nurseries. However, the
law does not require Mississippi landowners to manage any infestations
of listed noxious weeds on their property.
Federal weed control infrastructure within the state. Mississippi is
host to federal lands managed by three of the land management agencies
we reviewed. The Forest Service manages about 1.1 million acres in six
national forests. Its Southeastern regional office provides advice and
guidance to individual forests and districts. The Forest Service funds
weed management out of general vegetation management funds. For
example, the Holly Springs National Forest's major weed problem is
kudzu, which infests about 22,500 of its 150,000 acres. Holly Springs
used about $42,000 from its overall vegetation management budget to
treat 185 acres of kudzu in fiscal year 2004. According to forest
officials, they are limited in their ability to treat kudzu because
they have not analyzed the potential impact of treating the kudzu with
herbicides, as the National Environmental Policy Act requires.
In contrast to the efforts on kudzu, the national forests in
Mississippi have worked together to create a "programmatic"
environmental assessment to use herbicides on cogongrass. While the
forests still have to conduct site-specific assessments in certain
areas, the programmatic assessment streamlines the process for
cogongrass treatment in many areas of the Mississippi National Forest.
According to the Forest Service, this means that infestations, when
found, can be controlled in a timely manner. According to the
environmental assessment, it can take up to three years to conduct the
analysis and public notification to comply with the environmental
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, during which
time an infestation is likely to spread further.
The National Park Service's Gulf Coast Exotic Plant Management Team is
responsible for conducting weed control on three national park units in
Mississippi covering about 88,000 acres. The team has targeted kudzu
infestations for control along the Natchez Trace Parkway and in
Vicksburg National Military Park. Additionally, the team has targeted
Chinese tallow tree, Chinese privet, and Japanese honeysuckle for
control on Gulf Islands National Seashore.
The Fish and Wildlife Service manages 14 national wildlife refuges in
Mississippi. Individual refuges are responsible for managing weeds on
their own land and use funds from refuge operations and invasive
species funds. The regional office assists refuges in developing long-
term comprehensive conservation plans and provides other guidance to
refuges. As an example of a conservation plan, the plan for the Noxubee
National Wildlife Refuge discusses efforts to control exotic and
invasive plants, including its use of monitoring and integrated pest
management.
State, county, and municipal governments' weed control infrastructure.
Three state entities engage in weed control. The Department of
Agriculture and Commerce is in charge of implementing the state's
noxious weed law and is the lead agency in the state's cogongrass task
force. Its regulatory activities include restricting the transportation
of listed weeds and conducting nursery inspections to look for seeds of
the listed weeds. While the department provided close to $100,000 from
its own budget in fiscal year 2004 for weed management efforts, it has
also relied on federal grants to help control cogongrass. For example,
it received a $25,000 grant from the Pulling Together Initiative in
2004 to supply private landowners with herbicides for spraying
cogongrass. The department also has received about $220,000 from USDA's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to control cogongrass. With
this funding, it provided cost-share funds to a total of 218 landowners
in 2004 (the department received applications from 600 landowners).
The Department of Transportation controls weeds along state-owned
roadways--of which there are 27,270 miles--and spent about $2.5 million
on chemical weed control in fiscal year 2003 out of its general
operating budget.
The Forestry Commission in Mississippi conducts weed control on about
500,000 acres of state-managed forests, as well as on privately owned
nonindustrial forests in exchange for fees. Since the commission is
mostly concerned about timber production, it focuses on controlling
weeds that affect timber harvests. The Forest Service's State and
Private Forestry program provides much of the commission's funding for
weed management, including about $25,000 in fiscal year 2004. Private
landowners reimbursed the commission about $177,000 for weed management
work its crews did in fiscal year 2004.
State officials said that neither counties nor municipalities are
active in weed management in Mississippi.
Cooperative and private entities. The Mississippi Exotic Plant Pest
Council, which consists of over 30 organizations, was formed to raise
awareness about invasive weeds and share knowledge. While the state
does not have weed management areas, it does have species-specific
groups. For example, a group of 17 federal, state, and local entities
formed a cogongrass task force in 2002 to cooperatively fight the weed.
In addition, the district ranger at Holly Springs National Forest took
the initiative to form a kudzu-specific group. Though this group is not
formal, members are interested in educating the public and sharing
knowledge about kudzu control. In addition, some federal, state, and
nongovernmental entities have formed an alliance to more effectively
share information and coordinate invasive species management activities
in Mississippi.
Private landowners, including nongovernmental organizations, are also
involved in weed management. The Nature Conservancy, for example,
manages weeds on about 10,000 acres of land it owns. Its wetland
mitigation program, in which developers pay a fee for wetland
restoration to offset wetland losses due to development, is a source
for some of its weed management funding, according to a Conservancy
official in Mississippi. Some private landowners have also received
funding from government sources. For example, USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service's Environmental Quality Incentives Program
provided $165,000 in cost-share funds to 82 Mississippi landowners in
fiscal year 2003 and, as noted earlier, the state Department of
Agriculture and Commerce offered a $220,000 cost-share program for
cogongrass. Additionally, the Forestry Commission provides cost-share
funds, through its Forest Resource Development Program, to forest
owners for weed management. In fiscal year 2004, this program provided
about $900,000 for forest regeneration and improvement activities,
including weed management.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Description of Federal Agency Programs Supporting Invasive
Weed Management Work on Nonfederal Lands:
Table 6 identifies major programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the Department of the Interior that directly support weed
control, the objectives of those programs, the estimated amount of
funding provided, and the overall amount of funding available through
the program.
Table 6: USDA and Interior Funding Programs Known to Have Provided
Support for Invasive Weed Management by Nonfederal Entities, Fiscal
Year 2004:
Entity: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation;
Program and objectives: Pulling Together Initiative[A]; Objective: to
build capacity at the local level to manage invasive weeds by
supporting the creation of weed management areas;
Recipients: Private nonprofit organizations, local, county, and state
government agencies, and field staff of federal agencies;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $1.3 million;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $1.3 million.
Entity: Montana State University[B];
Program and objectives: Center for Invasive Plant Management CWMA
Grants[C]; Objective: support the establishment or enhancement of weed
management areas;
Recipients: Must be actively involved in establishing or enhancing a
weed management area in the western United States;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $121,660;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $121,660.
Entity: Interior: Departmentwide;
Program and objectives: Cooperative Conservation Initiative
Conservation Challenge Cost Share; (managed by BLM, NPS, and FWS);
Objectives:
BLM--to leverage federal dollars with private and state funding for
conservation efforts, benefiting resources on BLM lands;
NPS--to increase the participation of neighboring communities and
qualified partners in preserving and improving the cultural, natural,
and recreation resources for which the service is responsible;
FWS--to foster innovative and creative cooperative efforts to restore
natural resources and establish or expand wildlife habitat, with an
emphasis on federal lands and resources; Recipients: Private and public
organizations, tribal interests, and individuals;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $7.7 million;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $21.2 million.
Entity: Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Program and objectives: Partners for Fish and Wildlife; Objective: This
voluntary habitat restoration program provides financial assistance and
restoration expertise to private landowners, tribes, and others who
desire to improve the condition of fish and wildlife habitat on their
land;
Recipients: All private lands, including tribal, Hawaiian homelands,
and other nonfederal and nonstate entities;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $7.3 million;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $42.4 million.
Entity: Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Program and objectives: Tribal Wildlife Grants; Objective: to develop
wildlife conservation plans and on-the-ground conservation projects
benefiting at-risk species. Invasive species control is not the main
purpose;
Recipients: Federally recognized tribes;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $478,000;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $5.9 million.
Entity: Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Program and objectives: Private Stewardship Grants; Objective: to
provide financial assistance for on-the-ground conservation projects on
private lands to benefit at-risk species. Projects that benefit at-
risk species through invasive species control may be eligible;
Recipients: USDA: Groups and individuals engaged in conservation
activities on private lands;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $2.4 million;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $7.4 million.
Entity: USDA: Forest Service;
Program and objectives: Cooperative Forest Health Management Program;
Objective: to support and maintain forest health, which includes
developing weed management programs on state and private land;
Recipients: Cooperative weed management areas, states, and nonprofit
organizations;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $5.2 million;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $44.7 million.
Entity: USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program and objectives: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; Objective:
This voluntary program helps people develop and improve wildlife
habitat primarily on private land;
Recipients: Private landowners, owners of federal land when the primary
benefit is on private or tribal lands, state land, local government
land on a limited basis, owners of tribal land;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: No estimate available ($4 million
estimated for 2003);
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: No estimate available ($21.2
million in 2003).
Entity: USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program and objectives: Environmental Quality Incentives Program;
Objective: to provide a voluntary conservation program for farmers and
ranchers that promotes agricultural production and environmental
quality as compatible national goals. The program offers financial and
technical help to assist participants install or implement structural
and management practices on eligible agricultural land;
Recipients: Persons who are engaged in livestock or agricultural
production on eligible land;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: No estimate available ($8.2 million for
2003);
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: No estimate available ($627
million in 2003).
Entity: USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program and objectives: Agricultural Management Assistance Program;
Objective: to provide cost-share assistance to agricultural producers
to address issues such as water management, water quality, and erosion
control by incorporating conservation into their farming operations.
Producers may construct or improve water management structures or
irrigation structures; plant trees for windbreaks or to improve water
quality; and mitigate risk through production diversification or
resource conservation practices, including soil erosion control,
integrated pest management, or organic farming;
Recipients: Agricultural producers;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: No estimate available ($7,000 estimated
for 2003);
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: No estimate available ($9.9
million in 2003).
Entity: USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program and objectives: Conservation Innovation Grants; Objective: to
stimulate the development and adoption of innovative conservation
approaches and technologies while leveraging federal investment in
environmental enhancement and protection in conjunction with
agricultural production;
Recipients: Nonfederal governmental or nongovernmental organizations,
tribes, or individuals;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: $93,750;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $14.3 million.
Entity: USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program and objectives: Wetlands Reserve Program; Objective: to offer
landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on
their property;
Recipients: Landowners of nonfederal lands and tribes;
Fiscal year 2004: Weed funding: Unknown: NRCS reported that the program
supported weed management, but could not estimate expenditures;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $274.8 million.
Sources: USDA and Interior.
[A] Funded by Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, and National
Park Service; USDA's Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service;
and the Department of Defense.
[B] The Senate and House Appropriations Committees have directed funds
from BLM's land resources appropriations account to go to the center.
[C] Grant program created by Montana State University and the Center
for Invasive Plant Management, not by BLM or Congress.
[End of table]
In addition to the federal natural resource conservation programs known
to provide support for weed management, others could potentially be
used for that purpose. The programs listed in table 7 are those that
USDA and Interior have identified as being potential sources of
funding.
Table 7: USDA and Interior Funding Sources That Could Potentially
Support Invasive Weed Management by Nonfederal Entities:
Entity: Interior: Departmentwide;
Program and objectives: Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program; Objective:
to reduce hazardous fuels to reduce the threat of catastrophic
wildfire;
Recipients: State and local governments and nongovernmental
organizations;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $183.9 million.
Entity: Interior: National Park Service;
Program and objectives: Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance
Program; Objective: to work with community groups and local and state
governments to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails
and greenways. Invasive species control is not the main purpose;
Recipients: Local government agencies and nonprofit organizations;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $8.2 million.
Entity: Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Program and objectives: Landowner Incentive Program; Objective: to
establish or supplement existing landowner incentive programs that
provide technical or financial assistance, including habitat protection
and restoration, to private landowners to benefit species at risk.
Projects that achieve this through invasive species control may be
eligible;
Recipients: States;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $25.9 million.
Entity: Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Program and objectives: Tribal Landowner Incentive Program; Objective:
to develop on-the-ground conservation projects benefiting species at
risk. Projects that achieve this through invasive species control may
be eligible;
Recipients: Federally recognized tribes;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $2.9 million.
Entity: Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Program and objectives: Wildlife Restoration Program; Objective: to
provide funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation, and
improvement of wildlife habitat, wildlife management research, and the
distribution of information produced by the projects. Invasive species
control is not the main purpose;
Recipients: States;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $194.9 million.
Entity: Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Program and objectives: State Wildlife Grants; Objective: to develop
wildlife conservation plans and on-the-ground conservation projects.
Invasive species control is not the main purpose;
Recipients: States;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $61.1 million.
Entity: Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Program and objectives: North American Wetlands Conservation Act;
Objective: to provide funding assistance to promote conservation or
wetlands and associated habitats for migratory birds and other
wildlife. Invasive species control is not the main purpose;
Recipients: Private and public organizations and individuals who have
developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in
the United States, Canada, and Mexico;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $37.5 million.
Entity: USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program and objectives: Grassland Reserve Program; Objective: to help
landowners restore and protect grassland, rangeland, pastureland,
shrubland, and certain other lands and provide assistance for
rehabilitating grasslands;
Recipients: Private and tribal landowners;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $69.4 million.
Entity: USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program and objectives: Conservation Technical Assistance; Objective:
to provide technical assistance for planning and implementing natural
resource solutions to reduce erosion, improve soil health, improve
water quantity and quality, improve and conserve wetlands, enhance fish
and wildlife habitat, improve air quality, improve pasture and range
health, reduce upstream flooding, improve woodlands, and address other
natural resource issues;
Recipients: Private land users, communities, units of state and local
government, and other federal agencies;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: No estimate available.
Entity: Farm Service Agency/Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program and objectives: Conservation Reserve Program; Objective: to
reduce soil erosion, protect the nation's ability to produce food and
fiber, improve water quality, establish wildlife habitat, and enhance
forest and wetland resources. It encourages farmers to convert
environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, including native
grasses;
Recipients: Individuals or groups who have owned certain types of
cropland or pastureland;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: $1.7 billion.
Entity: Farm Service Agency/Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Program and objectives: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program;
Objective: This voluntary land retirement program helps agricultural
producers protect environmentally sensitive land, decrease erosion,
restore wildlife habitat, and safeguard ground and surface water;
Recipients: A partnership among farm producers;
tribal, state, and federal governments;
and, in some cases, private groups;
Fiscal year 2004 total program funding: Funded out of the Conservation
Reserve Program.
Sources: USDA and Interior.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET:
Washington, DC 20240:
FEB - 9 2005:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Nazarro:
The Department of the Interior (Department) is pleased to provide
comments in support of the February, 2005 draft report entitled,
"Invasive Species: Cooperation and Coordination are Important for
Effective Management of Invasive Weeds." This report adds to the body
of substantial information calling for expanded cooperative and
collaborative efforts at all levels of government to control and
eradicate invasive plants - all with the goal to restore natural and
agricultural areas adversely impacted across our great nation.
The Department plays an expanding role in invasive species management
within a broader conservation agenda including collaboration,
consultation, and cooperation with partners. We are pleased to see the
report emphasize these approaches. One such, notable example is an
inclusive alliance of cooperating agencies, Tribes, Federal and State
organizations, and individuals across the West who have banded together
to form Team Tamarisk a group devoted to controlling tamarisk and
associated non-native invasive plants. Tamarisk is an especially
tenacious, undesirable invasive shrub that can cause a wide variety of
economic, environmental, and public health and safety problems. It
annually consumes an extra 2-3 million acre-feet of water out of
western rivers in comparison to the consumption of native vegetation,
stealing this precious resource from fish, wildlife, farmers, and
faucets in western cities. It also burns even when it is green, making
it a year-round fire hazard. Team Tamarisk is fighting the tamarisk
wars head-on, developing a strategic approach to eliminate this
nuisance. At a landmark conference sponsored in March 2004 by the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, the National Invasive
Species Council, the National Association of Counties, and numerous
other organizations and agencies, more than 400 individuals came
together to develop a set of principles to help guide tamarisk control
work. By working together, we can make progress in addressing this
invasive species challenges.
We further commend the attention paid to natural or non-production
areas as significant contributors to our nation's biological and
natural resources heritage. Historically, these areas have not received
as much attention as areas raising commodities.
The Department supports the recommendation of the report: that the
Secretary of Agriculture assure collaboration within and among the
several USDA and DOI agencies and bureaus having experience with
invasive weeds for (1) developing funding allocation models informed by
lessons learned in previous efforts, and (2) determining in
consultation with other technical advisor experts which entities should
receive additional funding under the Noxious Weed Control and
Eradication Act of 2004.
The Secretary, as co-chair of the National Invasive Species Council
(NISC) along with the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture, supports
approaching this issue through NISC and its Invasive Species Advisory
Committee.
We note that the report states "we use the term "invasive weeds" to
refer to all native and nonnative terrestrial plants that could
threaten the environment." This definition of invasive plant used in
the GAO report is different from the definition of invasive species
established by EO 13112 which defines an "invasive species"... as an
alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health." EO 13112 defines "alien
species"... with respect to a particular ecosystem, any species,
including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable
of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem."
Four Interior bureaus - the Bureau of Land Management, the National
Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Geological Survey - have reviewed the report, provided comments and
some technical corrections relating to funding data and the number of
acres infested by weeds. I trust that you will incorporate them as you
see fit in the final report either by addendum or by updating certain
tables in the body of the text.
If you have further questions, please contact Dr. James Tate, Science
Advisor to the Secretary, at (202) 208-7351.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
P. Lynn Scarlett:
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget:
Enclosure:
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
letter dated February 9, 2005.
GAO Comments:
1. We recognize that the definition of invasive weeds we use in the
report is inconsistent with the definition of invasive species in
Executive Order 13112. The primary difference is that our definition
includes species that are native to a particular ecosystem whereas the
Executive Order includes only those that are nonnative. We chose to use
the broader definition because we were gathering information on
entities that manage weeds in general, and not just those that are
nonnative. This distinction has been added to the report.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Trish McClure, (202) 512-6318:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Ross Campbell, Judy Pagano,
Matt Rosenberg, Dawn Shorey, Carol Shulman, Maria Vargas, and Amy
Webbink made key contributions to this report.
(360464):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment Needed
to Effectively Manage the Problem, GAO-03-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22,
2002); Invasive Species: Federal and Selected State Funding to Address
Harmful, Nonnative Species, GAO/RCED-00-219 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 24,
2000).
[2] Taxonomy is defined as the orderly classification of organisms
according to their presumed natural relationships.
[3] The National Strategy for Management of Invasive Species, National
Wildlife Refuge System (April 23, 2003).
[4] The Plant Conservation Alliance is a consortium of 10 federal
agencies and over 220 nonfederal cooperators representing various
disciplines within the conservation field, including biologists,
botanists, habitat preservationists, horticulturists, soil scientists,
nonprofit organizations, and concerned citizens.
[5] Other major federal land management agencies include the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (55.7 million acres), the Bureau of Reclamation (8.7
million acres), and the Department of Defense (24 million acres owned
in the United States).
[6] As many as 23 agencies have taken an active role in some aspect of
invasive species management. Key departments in addition to USDA and
Interior include Commerce, State, and Defense. The State Department
coordinates formulation of U.S. positions on invasive species in
international conventions and treaties. Commerce has the authority to
protect marine sanctuaries and funds research and outreach on aquatic
invasive species. Defense controls invasive species on military
installations, controls movement of species during military operations,
and, through the Corps of Engineers, researches and manages aquatic
invasive species. Others involved include the Coast Guard, which
regulates ballast water, a source of aquatic invasive species, and the
Department of Transportation, which oversees highway projects,
including vegetation management.
[7] 7 U.S.C. § 2814.
[8] 7 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq. The act repealed and consolidated the
authorities in the Plant Quarantine Act, Federal Plant Pest Act,
Federal Noxious Weed Act, as well as some other plant-related statutes.
[9] The term taxa, the plural form of taxon, refers to a group of
organisms constituting one of the categories or formal units in
taxonomic classification, such as genus or species.
[10] In 2002, we reported on the plan and the progress agencies had
made implementing it. See GAO, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and
Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem, GAO-03-1
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 2002).
[11] The National Invasive Species Council, which now comprises the
heads of 13 federal departments and agencies, provides national
leadership and coordination in federal invasive species activities.
Council members include the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State,
Transportation, the Interior, and the Treasury, as well as the
administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Coordinator of
the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Trade
Representative.
[12] Biological control is the use of an animal, insect, or disease to
reduce the population of an invasive species. Ideally, the controlling
animal, insect, or disease affects only the target species.
[13] Weed councils generally include federal, state, local, and tribal
agencies, and citizens.
[14] To promote and facilitate these volunteer efforts, Interior and
USDA are partners with other agencies in maintaining a Web site that
links the public to a variety of volunteer opportunities, including
weed and invasive species control, offered by federal agencies. As of
December 2004, the Web site database contained 161 links related to
weed and invasive species control. See
http://www.volunteer.gov/gov/index.cfm.
[15] The National Wildlife Refuge Association is a nonprofit
organization whose mission is to provide support to, and advocate on
behalf of, national wildlife refuges.
[16] As recommended by the National Invasive Species Council and with
encouragement from the Office of Management and Budget, the land
management agencies--along with the other member agencies within the
council--prepared what is known as the interagency invasive species
performance budget, or cross-cut budget, beginning in fiscal year 2004.
The budget, however, includes activities related to all types of
invasive species, not just weeds. In addition, the cross-cut budget has
not included all funding that agencies direct to invasive species
control through grant programs. Therefore, this budget document cannot
be used to identify an agency's total expenditures on invasive weeds
specifically.
[17] The Fish and Wildlife Service started to gather data on invasive
weed activity costs midway through fiscal year 2004. Agency officials
caution that the data collection system is not mature.
[18] Agencies distribute the funds in a variety of forms, including
grants, cost-share agreements, easements, and rental payments. In some
instances, an agreement between the agency and recipient is short-lived
(a year or two), while in other instances the recipient enters into a
long-term agreement (five years or more) to carry out certain
conservation measures.
[19] The foundation reports that to date, the Pulling Together
Initiative has awarded $9.7 million to 301 projects nationwide.
Leveraged by an additional $19.9 million in partner contributions,
these grants have resulted in a total of $29.6 million for local
communities fighting invasive weeds.
[20] Two grants to Colorado and one grant to California also cover work
to be done in neighboring states. In addition, a grant awarded to a
county in Oregon will support work in California.
[21] Montana State University uses 10 percent of these funds for
overhead expenses. The Senate Committee on Appropriations has directed
$750,000 of BLM's fiscal year 2005 land resources appropriation to go
to the center.
[22] S. 2598, The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2004;
and H.R. 2707, The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Assessment and
Demonstration Act.
[23] The agency's appropriation for research and education is about
$661 million for fiscal year 2005, including $181 million for
competitive research grants, which goes to the National Research
Initiative.
[24] The seven states were California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,
Maryland, Michigan, and New York. The range of expenditures on all
invasive species for these states in fiscal year 2000 was $1.8 million
to $127.6 million. Expenditures in Maryland and Idaho were among the
lowest, at $1.8 million and $3.8 million, respectively. California had
the second-largest expenditure among the seven at $87.2 million in
fiscal year 2000. See GAO/RCED-00-219.
[25] Requirements for matching funds vary by grant program. For
example, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife
grant program is flexible but seeks a 50 percent match, while USDA's
Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program requires a 25 percent match.
[26] The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to
assess and report on the likely environmental impacts of any major
actions they propose that significantly impact environmental quality.
If a proposed activity is expected to significantly impact the
environment, the agency is required to prepare an environmental impact
statement. If, however, a proposed activity is unlikely to have a
significant effect on the environment, the agency is not required to
prepare an environmental impact statement--such activities are
classified as categorical exclusions.
[27] However, more than one-third of officials we asked did not respond
to our questions regarding a new funding program; some said they did
not have well-formed opinions on the matter.
[28] Additionally, 7 of 9 other officials we interviewed without an
interview guide favored expanding an existing program.
[29] Nine of 14 other officials we interviewed without an interview
guide said that USDA or one of its agencies should manage the program.
[30] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population, because in a nonprobability sample, some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
[31] See Clare Shine, Nattley Williams, and Lothar Gundling; A Guide to
Designing Legal and Institutional Frameworks on Invasive Species
(Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Environmental Law Centre, 2000), 2: "The
common denominator of such terms is often the concept of adverse
impact, in the form of damage inflicted on the receiving species, site,
or ecosystem."
[32] Exec. Order No. 13112, Invasive Species, § 1, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183
(Feb. 3, 1999).
[33] Plant Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 106-224, § 403 (2000) (codified
at 7 U.S.C. § 7702(10)).
[34] The previous definition of a noxious weed was contained in the
Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, which, as discussed in footnote 5,
was repealed in the Plant Protection Act.
[35] Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-629, § 15, as
added by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990,
Pub. L. No. 101-624, § 1453 (1990) (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2814). The
Plant Protection Act repealed the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 but
left this provision intact.
[36] A Guide to Designing Legal and Institutional Frameworks on
Invasive Species, 1-2.
[37] The Plant Protection Act's definition of a noxious weed includes
both plants and plant products. The act defines a "plant" as "any plant
(including any plant part) for or capable of propagation, including a
tree, a tissue culture, a plantlet culture, pollen, a shrub, a vine, a
cutting, a graft, a scion, a bud, a bulb, a root, and a seed." A "plant
product" is defined as "any flower, fruit, vegetable, root, bulb, seed,
or other plant part that is not included in the definition of plant; or
. . . any manufactured or processed plant or plant part." In defining
an invasive species, the Executive Order includes the seeds, eggs,
spores, or other biological material capable of propagating the
species.
[38] Parks and Noxious Weed Legislation: Hearing Before the Nat'l
Parks, Recreation and Pub. Lands Subcomm., Comm. on House Res. (2004)
(statement of Fred V. Grau, Jr., President, Grasslyn, Inc.); Problem of
Invasive Species: Hearing on H.R. 1080 and H.R. 119 Before the Subcomm.
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Comm. on House Res.
(2003) (statement of Bill Pauli, President, California Farm Bureau
Federation).
[39] This practice stems from USDA's interpretation of the
International Plant Protection Convention. See APHIS, Guide to the
Listing Process for Federal Noxious Weeds, available at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/weeds/listingguide.pdf. See also 69 Fed.
Reg. 62419, 62420 (Oct. 26, 2004). While USDA only has authority to
take remedial action against noxious weeds that are "new to or not
known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout the
United States," it is not similarly restricted by the Plant Protection
Act in what weeds it lists as noxious. This is an important distinction
because, as discussed earlier, the noxious weed list is incorporated
into the undesirable plants definition and affects the authority of
other federal agencies to take control actions.
[40] However, APHIS recently asked for public comment on its receipt of
two petitions requesting the addition of either the entire Caulerpa
genus or all strains of Caulerpa taxifolia to the list of noxious
weeds. Currently, only the Mediterranean strain is regulated, although
USDA noted in its proposed rulemaking that the way in which it is
listed as a noxious weed could be confusing. See 69 Fed. Reg. 62419
(Oct. 26, 2004).
[41] There is an exception to these requirements if similar programs
are not being implemented generally on state or private lands in the
same area.
[42] These conditions are that (1) such entry is in accordance with a
program submitted to and approved by the federal department or agency,
(2) the means by which noxious plants are destroyed are acceptable to
the head of the federal department or agency, and (3) the same
procedure required by the state program with respect to privately owned
land has been followed. 43 U.S.C. § 1241.
[43] For a more detailed list of statutory authorities under which
agencies may undertake invasive species control efforts, see National
Invasive Species Council, National Management Plan, app. 3 (Washington,
D.C., 2001).
[44] While weed seed laws are important in preventing the spread of
invasive weeds, this appendix focuses on noxious weed laws and does not
discuss the definitions of noxious weeds for seed law purposes. Some
states use different definitions or have different lists of noxious
weeds for weed seed laws.
[45] As indicated earlier, this appendix focuses on noxious weed laws
and does not discuss the definitions of noxious weeds for seed law
purposes. Some states use different definitions or have different lists
of noxious weeds for weed seed laws.
[46] See http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/noxious_all.cgi for a federal
and state composite list of noxious weeds.
[47] See table 5. California, as discussed in the report, also
classifies its noxious weeds, but it does not do so in either statute
or regulation.
[48] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 35-5.5-108.
[49] Haw. Admin. Code § 4-68-7.
[50] Haw. Admin. Code §§ 4-68-4, -5, -6, -8.
[51] Nev. Admin. Code §§ 555.040, 555.080.
[52] Md. Code Ann., Agric. § 9-402.
[53] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-953.
[54] Haw. Stat. § 152-1.
[55] The ratings include A, B, C, D, and Q weeds. A, B, and C
designations reflect how widespread a species is; the level of
regulation and control applied is inversely related to how widespread
they are. Q rated weeds are those undergoing review to determine an
appropriate rating. D rated weeds are not considered significant weeds.
The ratings can be modified on the basis of the severity of the threat
the weed poses.
[56] Idaho Code § 22-2403.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
