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: