![](media/image1.wmf){width="8.375in" height="1.2340277777777777in"}

**National Invasive Species Council**

**Pathways Work Team**

Focus Group Conference Report

And Pathways Ranking Guide

June 21 -- 22, 2005

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="2.55625in" height="1.875in"}

Figure 1 Scientific name: *Boiga irregularis*. Common name: Brown Tree
Snake

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="2.740972222222222in"
height="2.0479166666666666in"}

Figure 2 Scientific name: *Anoplophora* *glabripennis.* Common name:
Asian Longhorned Beetle

![](media/image4.png){width="2.807638888888889in"
height="1.8611111111111112in"}

Figure 3 Scientific name: *Dreissena polymorpha*. Common name: Zebra
mussel

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="2.751388888888889in"
height="1.9979166666666666in"}

Figure 4 Scientific Name: *Eichhornia crassipes.* Common name: Water
hyacinth

![](media/image6.png)

**Pathways Work Team**

**Conference**

Sponsored by:

Richard Orr

Assistant Director for International Policy and Prevention

National Invasive Species Council (NISC)

1201 Eye Street NW Fifth Floor Room 79

Washington DC. 20005

and

Alan S. Green

Executive Director, Plant Health Programs

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

4700 River Road

Riverdale, MD 20737

In Collaboration with the

U. S. Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20240

and

U.S. Department of Commerce

14^th^ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20230

A limited number of printed copies are available from:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

301-734-8412

Electronic copies are available on the Internet through NISC at:

[http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov](http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/)

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Executive Summary** 4

Pathways Work Team 5

**CHAPTER 1-DESIGN VERSION 1** 6

Phase 1: Assignment 2002 6

Phase 1: System Design 2003 7

Phase 1: Design 1 Report 8

Phase 2: Design 1 Field Test 8

Phase 2: Design 1 Field Test Report 8

**CHAPTER 2-REDESIGN** 11

Conceptual Framework 11

Qualitative/Quantitative Assessment 11

Qualitative Assessment 11

Quantitative Assessment 14

In Search of Reliable Data 14

Managing Uncertainty 17

**CHAPTER 3- GUIDE VERSION 2** 19

Redesign 19

Pathway Evaluators 19

Stage I: Single Pathway Triage 19

Triage Process 19

Triage Process Chart 20

Triage Results Chart 20

Stage 2: Individual Pathway Scope 21

Eco-region Map 22

Stage 3: Pathway Characteristics 23

Stage 4: Pathway Risk Analysis 23

Uncertainty Factors 23

Risk Assessment Questions 24

Risk Consensus Score 32

Stage 5: Invasiveness Scale 33

Stage 6: Situational Modifiers 34

**CHAPTER 4-POLICY ACTION** 35

From Science to Pathway Policy 35

Interpreting Invasiveness Scales 35

NISC and Cross-Agency Analysis 36

Future Assessment Activities 36

**APPENDICES** 37

A: Sponsorship 37

B: Matrix-Agency Strategic Plans 38

C: Contacts List 39

D: Conference Research Materials 48

E: Conference Agenda 49

F: Reserved-Predictive Indices 50

G: Pathway Categorizations 51

H: Revised Pathway Diagrams 54

**Executive Summary**

This document represents the second version of a guide and process for
pathway definition, analysis and prioritization. It is expected that
this document will undergo another trial test and revision prior to full
implementation, though we strongly believe this is a 'workable' product
that only requires refinement.

Throughout this systems development process, the Pathways Work Team
struggled with several issues relevant to scientific data and public
policy. While this report in no way attempts to resolve such intricate
issues, it is essential that these considerations be brought to the
forefront for future decision-making efforts and as such are enumerated
below:

-   International competitiveness is impacted by invasive species

-   Pathway ranking combines community, government and corporate
    interests

-   Sound science, transparency and consistency are essential for
    formulating policy

-   Neutrality is essential in providing scientific advice to decision
    makers

-   Market and non-market forces must be analyzed for final decisions

-   Invasive species prevention is inherently an international activity

-   Methodology must include public, stakeholder and expert
    participation

-   Assessment is to provide common perspectives

-   Decisions must occur at individual agency levels

-   Outcome of the process is the characterization of relative risk of
    pathways

-   Policy makers must devise plans for pathway management, resource
    leveraging, policy development, budget decisions and technology
    transfer/development

> In conclusion, the Pathways Work Team strongly supported the position
> that policy decides the direction to take (with human health,
> commerce, and then ecosystems being the priorities for ranking), but
> science must maintain the focus. [^1]
>
> ![](media/image7.png){width="1.9583333333333333in"
> height="0.4444444444444444in"}Penny Kriesch, Chair
>
> National Invasive Species Council
>
> Prevention Committee
>
> Pathways Work Team

**Pathways Work Team**

Penny Kriesch

Agricultural Analyst

USDA APHIS

Faith Campbell

Senior Policy Representative

The Nature Conservancy

Jeffrey P. Fisher

Environmental and Scientific Affairs Analyst

Department of State

Susan D. Cohen

Policy Analyst

USDA APHIS

Sharon Gross

Assistant Program Coordinator

NISC

Pam Fuller

Center for Aquatic Resources Analyst

USGS

Jan Gilbreath

Office of International Affairs Analyst

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Vincent Guida

NOAA Fisheries Analyst

Department of Commerce

Michael Hennessey

Entomologist Pathways & Stndrd Team Ldr

USDA APHIS

Donald R. MacLean

Environmental Quality Analyst

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Kathy Metcalf

Director, Maritime Affairs

Chamber of Shipping of America

Mike Ripley

Environmental Coordinator

Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority

John L. Teem

Aquatic Nuisance Species Representative

National Aquaculture Association

Darci Vetter

Office of U.S. Trade Representative

Donna L. West

Senior Import Specialist

USDA APHIS

Alice Wywialowski,

Policy Analyst

USDA APHIS

**CHAPTER 1 -- DESIGN VERSION 1**

**Phase 1: Assignment -- 2002**

The Invasive Species Pathways Work Team was established in June 2002 by
the Invasive Species Advisory Committee to accomplish discreet tasks
contained within the National Invasive Species Management Plan.
Assignment scope extended to addressing issues related to unintentional
introductions of invasive species, specifically addressing those action
items numbered 16, 17, and 20, as directly recounted below:

> **16. Federal agencies will take the following steps to interdict
> pathways that are recognized as significant sources for the
> unintentional introduction of invasive species:**
>
> **a. By July 2001, NOAA, the Coast Guard, Interior, and EPA will
> sponsor research to develop new technologies for ballast water
> management, because the current method of ballast water
> management\--ballast water exchange\--is recognized as only an interim
> measure to address non-native species introductions.**
>
> **b. By January 2002, the U.S. Coast Guard will issue standards for
> approval of ballast water management technologies, because actual
> deployment of new ballast water technologies on ships is contingent on
> a standard by which to judge their efficacy.**
>
> **c. By January 2002, USDA will issue additional regulations to
> further reduce the risk of species introductions via solid wood
> packing materials.**
>
> **17. By January 2002, the Council will implement a process for
> identifying high priority invasive species that are likely to be
> introduced unintentionally, e.g., Mediterranean fruit fly and brown
> tree snake, and for which effective mitigation tools are needed.**
>
> **20. By January 2003, the Council will implement a system for
> evaluating invasive species pathways and will issue a report
> identifying, describing in reasonable detail, and ranking those
> pathways that it believes are the most significant. The report will
> discuss the most useful tools, methods, and monitoring systems for
> identifying pathways, including emerging or changing pathways, and for
> intervening and stopping introductions most efficiently.**

Agency collective experiences indicated the most effective method of
preventing unintentional introduction of non-native species was through
identifying the pathways by which they were introduced; with the need to
develop environmentally sound methods to interdict introductions. Past
experiences also indicated that some pathways are/were already known to
be significant sources of invasive species. For example, ballast water
is probably the largest single source of non-native species
introductions into coastal and estuarine waters. Wood packing materials
are a source of serious forest pests. As a first step in dealing with
unintentional introductions, the Pathways Work Team was instructed to
address these already known 'significant' pathways.

**Phase 1: System Design - 2003**

In response to these challenges, the Invasive Species Pathways Work Team
convened and developed methods for stratifying and evaluating all
pathways. This initial report was published on October 29, 2003 (see
[www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov](http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/)
postings) and was formally ratified by the National Invasive Species
Council during FY 2004.

Specific principles guided risk assessment and analysis. It was believed
that invasive species risk assessments should reflect the reality of
U.S. commerce and ecosystems. Thus, since U.S. Government Agencies'
regulatory decisions apply to a broad range of sometimes multiple
receiving habitats or endpoints (that range from large continent to
island environments) risk assessment could not singly focus on the
conditions of the expected site of first arrival.

As such, the Pathways Work Team developed core values or operating norms
that were to be imbued in the risk assessment portion of the guide. They
are as follows:

-   Methods and rationale to be transparent

-   Work products are to be open to public review

-   Methods to be expert reviewed via consensus evaluation

-   Products should be valid and reliable, as is operationally feasible

-   Methods will make use of expert opinion (qualitative) and incident
    datasets (quantitative) information

-   Methods will address all phases of invasion including transport,
    establishment, spread and impact

-   Assessments must recognize that species and ecosystems interact

-   Circumstances of the potential invasion can give varying importance
    to species or ecosystem traits

-   Methods must be able to capture the uncertainty and quality of data

-   When assessment relies on expert opinion, assessment be clear about
    the basis of that reliance and 'expert' qualifications

-   Methods must be realistic relative to available resources

It was also expressed that eventual policy decisions regarding pathway
priority should meet the following considerations:

-   Cost of actions should be weighed against benefits

-   Actions should be proactive and take advantage of opportunities

-   Special attention should be given to pathways that are not regulated

-   Pathways should be re-evaluated periodically since risks associated
    with any particular pathway can change over time due to changes in
    magnitude (propagule pressure), changes in sending or receiving
    ecosystem(s) and other factors

-   Pathway evaluation should be open and participatory; involving
    experts and stakeholders.

-   Broad-based involvement gives greater credibility for the finished
    product

The Pathways Work Team also noted that it is important to prioritize
preparation of risk assessments since pathways usually remain open until
the risk assessment is concluded. Agencies should conduct risk
assessments even if the NISC process of evaluating pathways is not
complete.

It was also determined that developed criteria for assessing risk
priority depended upon the probability or consequence of introduction.
At a minimum, this portion of the assessment should include the factors
below:

-   Pathway magnitude (number of species, inoculation strength and
    frequency, diversity of species carried via pathway)

-   Survivability or viability of organisms during transit

-   Likelihood of pathway to transmit invasive species that are
    difficult to detect or manage during transit in the pathway

-   Environmental comparability of origin and destination habitats

-   Ease of spread (via artificial or natural means) once present (i.e.,
    Does it have high reproductive rates? Is it highly mobile? Are there
    other factors that would facilitate its rapid spread)

-   Difficulty of control if the species becomes established

**Phase 1: Design 1 Report**

In synopsis, the Pathways Work Team report of October 2003 presented
three major products: (1) scientific and 'philosophical' concepts
forming the basis to pathway rankings; (2) a pathway factors assessment
tool; and (3) exemplar tree-diagrams or charts of pathway constructs
(see Chapter 3 and Appendices G and H of this document for updated
versions). It was determined at that point, due to limitations on
available and accurate quantitative data, assessment would have to be
based upon subjective, expert opinion, supported by existing literature
and invasive-specific datasets. For risk assessments, it was deemed
critical for pathway risk analysts to be able to attend to all relevant
taxonomic groups; that jurisdiction was limited to human-assisted
movement of organisms; and, that the instrument(s) should be
sufficiently flexible to address local to national perspectives, as well
as the full range of taxa and pathways. This 2003 report is available on
www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov

**Phase 2: Design 1 Field Test - 2005**

On June 21-22, 2005, the National Invasive Species Council, Pathways
Work Team sponsored an Invasive Species Pathways Focus Group Assessment
Conference. The Conference was held at USDA APHIS, Oklahoma Memorial
Conference Center, Riverdale, Maryland. The objectives of the conference
were two-fold: (1) to provide an avenue for Federal, state, tribal
governments, industry and academia to jointly analyze three specific
pathways that unintentionally introduce invasive species into U.S.
ecosystems and (2) to receive evaluative feedback on the validity and
efficacy of proposed pathway risk assessment methodology and diagrams.

The following processes were used to achieve conference objectives: (1)
convened expert focus groups comprised of government, industry and
academic experts to qualitatively evaluate the invasive risk levels
associated with air cargo, wood packing material and shipping
industry/ballast water pathways (which would address such invasive
species as brown tree snake, Asian longhorned beetle and zebra mussels);
(2) assessed quantitative pathway risk analysis datasets; and (3)
conducted a 'test' training session relevant to education of agency
personnel on invasiveness species.

The anticipated outcomes from the conference included the following: (1)
cross-agency and industry assessment of the threat of invasive species
introduced via the specified pathways; (2) evaluation of the validity
and efficacy of proposed pathway risk assessment methodologies; and, (3)
recommendations on future training and prioritization efforts.

Conference planners intended that results would provide data and
resultant analysis to agency decision makers to assist in collaborative
efforts such as resource leveraging, targeting of invasive populations,
and identification of gaps or inconsistencies between organizations that
may inhibit efforts to prevent unintentional introduction of invasive
species.

**Phase 2: Design 1 Field Test Report**

Feedback from these focus groups on the assessment tools, methods and
outcomes was highly productive but nearly overwhelming as it forced the
Pathways Work Team to reconstruct virtually all pathway assessment
methods and tools. As such, activities were deemed successful, as they
precluded the implementation of a product in need of significant
revisions. A by-product of this conference was the realization that the
assessment tools and methods will be a continually evolving process; as
sophistication of tools and supportive datasets improve.

There were a total of 42 conference attendees that participated in two
evaluations: (1) critical assessment of pathway tools; and (2)
evaluation of the process for administering the tools. Thirty-three
participants provided written comments regarding the pathway criteria
and ranking processes; thirteen provided feedback on conference
processes.

Conclusions were, despite three separate work groups, nearly unanimous
in suggested changes. Recommendations are provided below in synopsis
format:

***The Guide:*** Overall, the process and use of an assessment guide are
supported. However, participants indicated that extensive revisions
would be required. Revisions (as described below) fell into one of the 4
categories of: (a) assessment process; (b) assessment tool and
questions; (3) diagrams; and (4) evaluation scales:

> ***Assessment Process:*** It was the general consensus that the
> assessment tool should be completed by experts on an individual basis,
> then via focus group procedures. Revised methodology is contained in
> Chapter 3 of this report.
>
> ***Assessment Tool:*** Numerous additions or changes were recommended
> for the assessment tool - - and were so extensive that field test
> evaluations of wood packing material, air transport and ballast water
> cannot be said to be reliable or valid assessments based on conference
> focus group assessments. This is not to indicate that expert
> assessments made of the pathways were invalid, just that the tools
> used must be significantly revised to ensure credibility, validity and
> reliability. The following is an overview of salient points:

-   Specific invasive characteristics of a pathway's start, transition
    and endpoint(s) must be defined

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Geographic and eco-region issues are critical to assessments

-   Questions must be reworded to current assessment, only

-   Questions must contain more defined, specific language

-   Duplication of similar questions must be avoided to preclude unfair
    weighting of instrument

-   Uncertainty factors must be more thoroughly assessed

-   Terms and definitions should be included or indicated as same as
    ISPM Glossary of Terms

-   Scientific assessment is separate from policy, cost/benefit issues
    or action plans

-   Pathway characteristics need to be defined and coupled with
    species-specific invasive qualities

-   Evaluation should be done by a mix of experts

-   Need more intensive instruction as to how to complete the tools

> ***Diagrams***
>
> Suggestions for expanding the diagrams included the following
> pathways:

-   military baggage and gear

-   travelers (themselves)

-   pets and animals for entertainment

-   travel/tourism, cut flowers

-   fruits and vegetable commodities

-   domestic waste streams

-   movement of raw logs within U.S.

-   garbage transport

-   recreational boats and vessels (T12.2)

-   non-food aquaculture

-   animal liberation

> ***Evaluation Scales***

-   Rankings do not provide sufficient complexities for stratifying
    pathways

-   Scale of severity needs to be established (i.e., what is high versus
    low)

-   The average of categories doesn't give value. Need logistic
    regression analysis

-   Clarification is needed on certainty/uncertainty issues

-   Assessments must be accurate, reliable and predictive in orientation

The Pathways Work Team incorporated/amended all tools and methodologies
relative to the above recommendations. However, some of the comments
expressed needs that outstripped the current sophistication level of
information gathering and management. These recommendations will not be
overlooked or 'lost' but will have to be deferred to future revisions of
the guide and the incorporation of mathematical algorithms or indices
into database queries.

**CHAPTER 2 - REDESIGN**

**Conceptual Framework:** The underlying conceptual framework and issues
posed to the Pathways Work Team group via focus group feedback was: How
could NISC promote a methodology and infrastructure for cooperative
management of invasive species pathways in a matrix-method that crossed
Federal, state, tribal, local, academic and special interest group
lines? Subsidiary to this issue was the development of a way to rank
risk (i.e., scale of severity) or threat posed by a particular invasive.
This determination would bring resolution (at best) or at minimum,
prioritization, to competing interests as to which invasive(s) would
pose the greatest consensus risk to the entire U.S. populace (i.e., not
just a single stakeholder strata). In addition, the 'consensus on risk'
had to ensure prioritization gave precedent to human health, economy and
ecology issues, in respective order.

The work group early recognized that diligence in addressing scientific
pathway identification and prioritizing issues are essential; as the
ultimate outcome of all these recommendations - - namely the allocation
and assignment of Federal resources and programmatic priorities - - was
of great consequence to multiple stakeholders.

The national invasive species effort, in tandem with current trends of
international collaboration and resource management, must fulfill the
role of expert science in policy processes for multi-layered
decision-making. The construct of pathway assessments, therefore, had to
'break new ground' in developing a methodology that was democratic,
transparent, scientifically expert and yet geo-politically sensitive.
The methodology had to be sufficiently flexible so that it could be used
by various stakeholders on local, regional and national levels; while
giving platform for cross-organizational forums for integrated action
planning between those with shared national interests on a specific
pathway. The end-goal is a full systems-approach to invasive species
detection, management and mitigation.

**Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment**

The International Organization for Standardization defines risk as "the
combination of the chance of an event and its consequences" (IOS, 2002).
The Pathways Work Team made early agreement that pathway analysis and
prioritization would parallel risk assessment (i.e., the scientific
evaluation of the biological risks and potential consequences)
procedures. In addition, it was decided that questions regarding risk
management (i.e., a process of determining appropriate measures to
reduce risk) would also be included in assessment data as reduction of
risk practices directly impact severity of pathway invasiveness.
Ultimately, it was decided that pathway prioritization and analysis was
so broad in scope, it would require both quantitative and qualitative
methods to give the most accurate assessment based on existing
information and expertise.

> **Qualitative Assessment - The Proposed Process and Tools:** As
> delineated in the opening remarks made by Hilda Diazo-Soltero, USDA
> Invasive Species Liaison, the purpose of the June 21-22, 2005,
> Invasive Species Pathways conference was to trial test the process and
> instruments developed for assessment of national pathways. The
> processes and tools (recounted below) was the Pathways Work Team's
> best attempt at creating a democratic, scientific policy process that
> utilizes the best practices for qualitative and quantitative
> assessments; accommodating multi-layered factors and perspectives.
> Components of the process are further elucidated below: [^2]
>
> **Stage 1: Individual Expert Qualitative Review.** Initially,
> individual experts gathered and codified their first-hand information
> and expertise relative to a specific pathway. In their assessments,
> the experts openly explored pathway nuances germane to their working
> environment and orientation. In addition, these experts developed a
> pathway prioritization based on a 'full system' (i.e., full pathway
> cycle) context. This was particularly important as pathways are viewed
> as a series of events that may lead to the introduction of an invasive
> species. The first step of the method (i.e., individual participants
> first completing the assessment tool, independently) ensured that
> evaluators adequately represent their particular stakeholder group's
> perspectives and issues. (This approach is only effective if
> participants are well-qualified, content experts.) The questions
> contained in the assessment tool provided a structured protocol to
> guide individuals to make thorough observations via a set of targeted
> concepts and criteria that would be later used for consensus
> assessment.
>
> **Stage 2: Group Expert (Consensus) Qualitative Review.** The second
> stage of evaluation was accomplished by a pathway-specific focus group
> of experts that represented pathway-specific stakeholder groups.
> Expert determination was based on professional credentials,
> organizational liaisons, work history and academic credentials. These
> focus group reviews, in themselves, provided very different data from
> individual assessments. They enabled the capturing of multiple
> consensus perspectives of various stakeholders; creating a common
> vision or analysis of a specific pathway. This enabled identification
> of common aspects of a pathway while setting a group forum for
> addressing related issues.
>
> The pathway focus groups combined elements of both interview and
> participant observation; while capitalizing on collective group
> intelligence. Group interaction generated data and insights that most
> likely would not have emerged through individual evaluation.
>
> Based on conference outcomes, the Pathways Work Team recommends focus
> groups be limited to 8 to 12 persons; be managed by facilitator; and
> have a designated official recorder. This meeting format not only is
> conducive to reviewing the efficacy of the assessment tools and
> efficacy of quantitative datasets; but is conducive towards the
> emergence of new ideas.
>
> **Guiding the Focus Groups.** A challenge for these focus group
> proceedings was the gleaming of usable, consistent, descriptive
> statistics for cross-organization and pathway comparison. The
> assessment tool served as a topic guide to assist focus group
> facilitators in keeping various perspectives on a unified track. The
> tool also served as a road map in developing the joint findings and
> the final report.
>
> **Focus Group Facilitation**. Focus group participants were asked to
> reflect on the questions asked by the moderator; were permitted to
> hear one another's individual responses and then make additional
> comments beyond their own original responses. It was neither necessary
> to reach consensus nor to resolve disagreements as this effort was a
> 'field test' of the tools. The facilitators kept the discussion
> flowing and ensured that no one or more persons dominated the
> discussion. [^3] in the future, however, the facilitator(s)' role will
> be to seek consensus between participants on pathway risk
> prioritization (see Chapter 3 of this guide).
>
> **Focus Group Construct**. It was decided that one group per pathway
> was essential due to pathway complexities and the subsequent varied
> expertise required. Though a good rule is to conduct at least two
> focus groups per pathway to ensure response validity; in that pathways
> are limited in scope (i.e., a pathway can be succinctly defined and
> assessed) single focus group assessment were/are deemed sufficient.
> (This is not to say once evaluated, always evaluated. In fact, it is
> expected that pathways will be re-assessed, as needed, due to changing
> conditions.)
>
> **Recording Focus Group Data*. ***The procedures for recording focus
> group sessions were basic. The focus group facilitator was assigned a
> non-expert person designated as the recorder to take notes on both
> comments and assessments. A major advantage to this is the recorder
> focuses on observing and taking notes, while the facilitator
> concentrates on asking questions, facilitating group interaction,
> following up on ideas, and making smooth transition from issue to
> issue. It was understood that these results would be codified in a
> final report but without individual names or organizations attributed
> to specific comments.[^4] (Feedback from conference attendees on use
> of facilitators/recorders was assessed as highly favorable per a
> separate evaluative survey).
>
>  
>
> **Other Qualitative Methods - -Document Studies.** Though quantitative
> benchmarks/datasets were researched to assist pathway prioritization,
> a significant lack of data history caused use of one other method for
> pathway assessment - - document and scientific studies.
> Pathway-specific documents were supplied to participants several weeks
> prior to the conference to provide exemplar pathway cases and to
> create a common knowledge base for discussion and comparison.
> Successful, the Pathways Work Team encourages the augmentation of
> qualitative and quantitative datasets with document studies for all
> future pathway assessments.
>
> ***Quantitative***
>
> The goal of developing quantitative datasets is to give statistical
> indicators to aid in assessing the likelihood of invasive species
> entry or occurrence, establishment or spread of a pest or disease
> within the territory, phytosanitary measures which might be applied,
> and the associated potential biological and economic consequences or
> the evaluation of the potential for adverse effects on human or animal
> health. Assessment should first be rooted in the unmitigated
> (unmanaged) pest or disease risk but then modified to address
> mitigation/management practices. Biological, economic or ecosystem
> consequences should also be addressed, but in terms of merging risk
> 'science' with policy decisions.
>
> Specific risk factors for quantitative assessment included such
> factors as the following

-   Prevalence of a pest or disease agent in the exporting area

-   Geographic and environmental characteristics;

-   Sanitary and phytosanitary status of the adjoining or neighboring
    areas

-   Trading partners and practices

-   Regulatory infrastructure of the exporting country

-   Invasive species surveillance and monitoring system(s)

-   Pest or disease agent survival rate in transit

-   Interception data

-   Invasive species destination risk factors such as likelihood and
    consequences of a particular pest or disease agent surviving,
    multiplying, establishing and spreading in the territory of the
    importing country

-   Uncertainty about the organisms, the human error factor, or methods
    used

-   Distribution of the commodity or vectoring agents

-   Availability of susceptible hosts and/or competent vectors

> The relevant economic factors include:

-   The potential damage due to loss of production or sales in the event
    of the entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease

-   The cost of control and eradication

-   The relative cost-effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Cost-benefit analysis of mitigation versus consequence of
    introduction

> As previously indicated, quantitative data was unavailable, sporadic
> or incomplete. The Pathways Work Team could not, therefore,
> statistically define acceptable levels of risk but rather had to
> create evaluative scales of relative risk for pathway analysis. The
> Team recommended a special work group to be convened to develop
> statistical indices at a later date.

**Qualitative vs. Quantitative: The Search for Reliable Data**

The qualitative approach primarily uses categorical values for inputs
and outputs. The input variables were then assigned a particular ranking
such as low, moderate, or high risk. The Team also found that due to a
lack of valid, consistent datasets, pathway analysis would have to rely
more heavily upon qualitative (i.e., expert) opinion. It is anticipated
as data collection and predictive indices increase in sophistication,
there will be a shift towards more quantitative analysis - -but this
shift will only result after several edifications or 'design
evolvements' of this process. The complexities yet potential benefits
expressed by participants regarding quantitative assessments were
extensive and call for future statistics-based program development. The
section below, written by Laura Biven, (PhD, Applied Mathematics,
Advisor to Pathways Work Team) elucidates these future challenges. The
Team welcomes comments, feedback and discussion on the concepts posed in
the paper, below.

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

**Managing Uncertainty**

Reduction of uncertainty has always been the central goal of any
scientific effort. Uncertainty may result from a range of issues such as
follow:

-   flaws in methodology (i.e., measurement errors or lack of knowledge
    of the steps or elements of risk evaluation);

-   lack of expertise, coherence or error on part of risk assessor,
    biological unknowns of the invasive organisms/pathways;

-   insufficient information (i.e., lack of accurate/precise knowledge
    of the input values); or

-   political impediments.

What is critical to realize is that uncertainty need not be an
impediment to resolution of an issue. The risk perspectives developed
are based upon the state of scientific understanding of the pathway at a
particular time - - and reflect a state of confidence in that
understanding. Culture, organization, educative norms or values may
directly impact the level of uncertainty a risk assessor may experience,
but the process for pathway risk analysis must 'overcome' these
obstacles to create action.

As such, the Pathways Work Team decided the assessment process must
characterize the nature of uncertainty each assessor may have (on a per
question basis) with a requirement for assessors to devise a strategy to
either reduce the uncertainty associated with the question, or a method
to assess the pathway, with acceptable levels of uncertainty tolerated.

It is anticipated that individual uncertainty issues will be minimized
or ameliorated through the secondary, consensus process whereby broader
range (e.g., group) expertise, experience and knowledge will be
incorporated into final factor assessment. It is understood that group
expertise will replace individual uncertainty factors; and that if there
is general consensus of uncertainty on a particular risk factor, the
group may elect to raise or lower the risk 'score' of a pathway based
upon extrapolated reasoning. Risk assessment is not an absolute, but a
relative 'equation'.

Pathway analysis is in a sense, a way of democratizing science; as the
end goals are transparency, attention to specific scientific and
technological outputs and development of human socio-political (i.e.,
government) structures. The processes devised must be rigorous, relevant
and participatory. It is important evaluators accept that most important
decisions are made with a degree of uncertainty; but actions in light of
uncertainty are justified by a high level of commitment to set goals,
values and actions. Policy decisions are based on what the future should
look like for particular groups with an underlying acknowledgement that
realities may modify those future goals. Policy sets the direction to
take, but science creates and maintains the focus.[^5]

**CHAPTER 3 -- THE GUIDE VERSION 2**

**The Redesign**

The focus groups called for considerable restructuring of the pathway
assessment tool. What was recommended was the need to develop a
three-tiered methodology that adequately addressed policy direction,
risk science and interagency action planning. This methodology had to
ensure that the priorities of first, human health, second economy, and
then ecology (as defined in National Invasive Species Management Plan)
were accommodated.

Within the above recommended framework, the focus groups challenged the
Pathways Work Team to also devise a method to determine which individual
pathway(s) to first assess. There were concerns over unknown pathways;
false perceptions over severity or 'innocuous' nature of pathways; or
that the current instrument would result in little differentiation over
pathway risk. As such, and after great discussion on weighting
particular factors and creating scales of severity, the following phased
assessment is proposed. This method has not been tested via focus groups
and should be trial tested with appropriate revisions prior to full
implementation.

**Pathway Evaluators:** As defined previously, pathway prioritization is
matter for program experts. It is important to gather together a team of
individuals who can appropriately accomplish all tasks below. At a
minimum, a pathway assessment expert team list should be compiled that
includes information as to the experts' name, organization/associations,
areas of specialty, published papers, academic background, related work
history and contact information.

**The segment of this report that serves as**

**an instructional guide to pathway definition and prioritization**

**begins on the next page for ease of use (i.e., removal from)**

**the remainder of the conference report.**

**Stage I: Multiple Pathway Triage**

An initial question arose: How should agencies determine which pathway
should first be evaluated? What appeared to be a simple question was in
actuality, a complicated one, expressing the need for a preliminary
triage approach to pathway prioritization. Restated, stakeholders asked
the following:

> ***"How do we prioritize resources dedicated to the evaluation***
>
> ***of invasive species in light of multiple competing pathway***
>
> ***interests and yet to be determined pathway risk levels?***

The Pathways Work Team strongly felt that triage should be directly
relevant to agency mission and strategic priorities. Therefore at Stage
1, an agency-based group of two or more invasive species 'generalists'
are asked to convene to conduct the following preliminary evaluation:

**Triage Process**

**Step 1:** Review the inventory list/diagrams of all invasive species
pathways; adding any pathways to the list that may be undefined (see
Appendix G for list). Briefly define the pathway particulars (i.e.,
start point, endpoint, transitions, any materials, agents, etc., that
could vector invasives).

**Step 2:** Define agency mission, functions and responsibilities
relative to invasive species pathways

**Step 3:** Select and list all pathways that are pertinent to the
agency's mission

**Step 4:** Indicate, briefly, what particular invasives are associated
with each pathway. A list of potential invasive species categories is
provided below:

-   All hitchhiking organisms

-   All aquatic organisms

-   Fouling organisms (e.g., organisms that attach to boats, pilings,
    platforms, etc.)

-   Arthropods (e.g., insects, arachnids, crustaceans, etc.)

-   Mollusks (e.g., giant African snails, zebra mussels, etc.)

-   Plants and plant propagules (e.g., water hyacinth, Russian knapweed,
    etc.)

-   Plant pathogens (e.g., sudden oak death, etc.)

-   Phytoplankton (e.g., Amphidinium, dinoflagellates, etc.)

-   Vertebrates (e.g., snakeheads, gavials, rats, brown tree snakes,
    etc.)

-   Human and animal parasites (e.g., liver flukes, etc.)

-   Human and animal pathogens (e.g.,. salmonella, West Nile virus, foot
    and mouth disease, SARS, etc.)

**Step 5**: Assign each listed pathway to a threat level. The threat
levels are defined as:

> **Threat Level A** - - the pathway currently transmits an invasive
> species that poses a direct threat to human health
>
> **Threat Level B** - - the pathway currently transmits an invasive
> species that poses a direct threat to economic systems
>
> **Threat Level C** - - the pathway currently transmits an invasive
> species that poses a direct threat to ecological climes.
>
> **Note: By definition, an invasive species must fall within one of the
> above three categories. New species or exotics are continually
> entering the country via these selfsame pathways. But if they do not
> pose a threat, they do not meet the definition of invasive, for these
> purposes**.

Though some pathways may pose more than one level of threat, this is a
rough cut hierarchical assessment and therefore only one value, the most
pernicious (i.e., human health, then economy, and finally ecology) may
be assigned. As a frame of reference, ballast water carrying cholera
that dumps directly into drinking water would be a threat level of A.
Whereas that same water, if dumped into a stream that is not used for
any human or business purposes (i.e., where cholera contamination would
not impact health or economics), then the threat level could be C - - or
could even possibly result in the determination that in the particular
circumstance (or receiving point), it would not even be considered
invasive.

> **Triage Process Chart**

+------------------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------+
| **1.Pathway      | **2. Agency | **3.      | **4.     | **5.       |
| Name**           | Mission &   | Mission   | Invasive | Threat     |
|                  | Functions** | Related   | Tra      | Level**    |
|                  |             | IS        | nsmitted |            |
|                  |             | Pathways  | via      |            |
|                  |             | &         | P        |            |
|                  |             | Desc      | athway** |            |
|                  |             | ription** |          |            |
+------------------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------+
| T 1              | U.S. Coast  | T1.2.1    | Amp      | **A (Human |
| Transportation   | Guard       | Ship      | hidinium | Health     |
|                  | protects    | Ballast   |          | First      |
| T1.1 Air         | the public, | Wa        | Cholera  | P          |
|                  | environment | ter-Cargo |          | riority)** |
| T1.2 Water,      | & U.S.      | ship that |          |            |
| Aquatic          | economic    | begins    |          |            |
|                  | interests   | voyage in |          |            |
| T1.2.1 Ballast   | in ports,   | Kusadasi, |          |            |
| Water            | waterways,  | with      |          |            |
|                  | along the   | endpoint  |          |            |
| T1.2.2           | coast, on   | NYC.      |          |            |
| Hull/Surface     | in          |           |          |            |
|                  | ternational |           |          |            |
| T1/2.3 Stowaways | waters, or  |           |          |            |
|                  | in any      |           |          |            |
| T1.2.4           | maritime    |           |          |            |
| Superstructures  | region      |           |          |            |
|                  |             |           |          |            |
| T1.2.5           |             |           |          |            |
| Transportation   |             |           |          |            |
|                  |             |           |          |            |
| Relocation of    |             |           |          |            |
| Dredge           |             |           |          |            |
+------------------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------+
|                  |             | T1.2.2    | Zebra    | **B        |
|                  |             | Hul       | Mussels  | (Economy   |
|                  |             | l/Surface |          | Second     |
|                  |             | Fouling.  |          | P          |
|                  |             | Cruise    |          | riority)** |
|                  |             | ship      |          |            |
|                  |             | start     |          |            |
|                  |             | point     |          |            |
|                  |             | Miami, to |          |            |
|                  |             | Jamaica   |          |            |
|                  |             | and       |          |            |
|                  |             | Return    |          |            |
+------------------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------+
|                  |             | T1.2.5    | Water    | **C        |
|                  |             | Dredge    | hyacinth | (Ecology   |
|                  |             | R         |          | Third      |
|                  |             | elocation |          | p          |
|                  |             |           |          | riority)** |
|                  |             | Barge     |          |            |
|                  |             | traveling |          |            |
|                  |             | from      |          |            |
|                  |             | Hawaii to |          |            |
|                  |             | Oregon    |          |            |
+------------------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------+

> (Note: this is only an example and does not reflect full or accurate
> range of invasive species or
>
> pathway analysis for U.S. Coast Guard).
>
> The result of this triage is a prioritized list to determine which
> pathways to first assess. In this case, ship ballast water is first,
> followed by hull fouling, then dredge relocation.

**Stage II: Single Pathway Risk Assessment (By Individual then Focus
Group Review)**

**There are four steps to Single Pathway Risk Assessment: (1) pathway
definition, (2) pathway scope; (3) pathway risk level; (4) pathway risk
score.**

**\[The steps contained in Stages II and III are to first be completed
by individual experts, independently. These independent assessments are
then to be used by the experts as background information for completion
of a single focus group consensus decision for Stages II and III. \]**

1)  **Step 1: Indepth Pathway Definition**. At this stage, it is
    critical to DEFINE, not analyze, the characteristics of the pathway.
    Pathway definition includes the following:

    a.  Define the start point of the pathway, including all physical,
        geographical, ecological, etc., characteristics relevant to
        pathway invasiveness (i.e., ship starting at shipyard loading
        dock in Charleston, North Carolina where wood packing material
        originating from the U.S. is being used to transport motor
        parts).

    b.  Define any intermediary stop points (i.e., ship docks in New
        York City but crates remain on hold. Ship then travels to Miami,
        Florida)

    c.  Define endpoint of the pathway (i.e., crates are off-loaded at
        Miami port. Wood packing material is destroyed via wood chipper
        and motor parts distributed via truck to local stores).

    d.  Specifically define all invasives may be considered for pathway
        analysis. These include invasives from the following exemplar
        categories:

        i.  All hitchhiking organisms

        ii. All aquatic organisms

        iii. Fouling organisms (e.g., organisms that attach to boats,
             pilings, platforms, etc.)

        iv. Arthropods (e.g., insects, arachnids, crustaceans, etc.)

        v.  Mollusks (e.g., giant African snails, zebra mussels, etc.)

        vi. Plants and plant propagules (e.g., water hyacinth, Russian
            knapweed, etc.)

        vii. Plant pathogens (e.g., sudden oak death, etc.)

        viii. Phytoplankton (e.g., Amphidinium, dinoflagellates, etc.)

        ix. Vertebrates (e.g., snakeheads, gavials, rats, brown tree
            snakes, etc.)

        x.  Human and animal parasites (e.g., liver flukes, etc.)

        xi. Human and animal pathogens (e.g.,. salmonella, West Nile
            virus, foot and mouth disease, SARS, etc.)

> Pathway definitions should be brief, narratives or lists that give
> succinct facts (not opinion) regarding pathway characteristics.
> Defined characteristics for this pathway are:

**Pathway Title \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_(Description
Follows)\_\_\_\_\_\_**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1.  **Step 2: Pathway Scope Determination**

> The next step is to define the scope of the pathway. The underlying
> assumption for this factor for prioritizing pathways is: the broader
> the pathway (i.e., in terms of distance and ecoregions potentially
> contaminated), the greater the threat the pathway may pose. These
> categories are not absolutes but represent a general framework for
> scope determinations. Individual expertise, knowledge and discretion
> should be used in assigning scope level. There may be nuances
> regarding a particular invasive species or pathway that will warrant
> varying the scope category as defined. Ecoregion determinations,
> ultimately, are the responsibility of the assessing team. Specific
> pathways and associated invasive species may even call for
> redefinition of ecoregions. Any redefinition should be documented to
> provide basis for transparency in decision making. Assign the pathway
> scope using one of the following categories:
>
> **Level 0- - Single Event.** This is an internal state outbreak with
> no movement of invasives via a pathway.
>
> **Level I** - - **Interstate** (i.e., pathway crosses a state line)
> with invasive pathway movement across one or more ecoregions within a
> single state or movement between two state boundaries.
>
> **II Level** - - **Regional** (i.e., multi-interstate pathway) with
> invasive movement across two or more ecoregions and three or more
> state boundaries.
>
> **Level III** - - **Multiregional** - - invasive pathway movement
> across four or more ecoregions or
>
> between two or more regional boundaries.
>
> **Level IV** - - **National** - - invasive pathway movement across
> five or more ecoregions or between three or more regional boundaries
>
> **Level V** - - I**nternational** - - invasive pathway movement
> between the U.S., its territories and foreign countries. This pathway
> may range from single start and endpoint, to multiple 'stop points' of
> pathway from initial to final destination.

> **Assigned Pathway Scope Level: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.**
> Comments or rationale for pathway scope decision:
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***For the purposes of example and reference***

***The Pathways Work Team has provided***

***the following graphic depiction of***

***pathway related ecoregions* produced by**

**U.S. Geological Survey, www.nationalatlas.gov**

![](media/image8.png){width="7.071527777777778in"
height="8.877083333333333in"}

1.  **Step 3: Pathway Risk Level Analysis (Question-Based)**

Step 3 is the portion of pathway assessment where risk experts form a
science-based decision regarding the risks posed by a pathway. This
assessment represents the 'third cut' in prioritizing pathways. Expert
opinions are to be supported by quantitative datasets, expert literature
and scientific expertise. Pathway complexities and characteristics are
in constant change and flux - -motivated by shifting trade and market
patterns. As such, though future pathway risk assessments will strive
for greater quantifiable or formulaic assessments, expert opinion will
remain the key source of pathway risk determinations. Risk decisions are
guided by response to the following set of pre-determined analysis
questions.

Each question (again, a single/consensus response in whole numbers) must
be answered. The questions are geared to address such issues as
probability of introduction, probability of establishment, history of
invasiveness, available mitigation methods and invasive impacts. Issues
regarding action planning, policy and political implications for the
invasives are not part of this scientific risk assessment phase but
rather will be covered in the last portion, Invasive Species response,
action planning and communication efforts.

**Question 1: What is the pathway's history for frequency of introducing
invasive species?(***Frame of Reference: Extremely High frequency
ranking is defined, in relative terms, as introducing invasives that
have had either human health pandemic implications, have caused serious
economic impacts on major industries or have introduced invasives that
negatively impacted numerous ecological niches).*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

***Question 2: What level (0-5) of viable invasive species does this
pathway transport?** (Frame of Reference: Extremely High (i.e., ranking
of 5) infers a pathway capable of transferring 100 or more viable
invasives species in a single event).*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

***Question 3: What level (0-5) quantifies the number of viable
specimens per invasive species transmitted via that pathway?** (Frame of
Reference: Extremely High infers the pathway transmits numerous \[i.e.
100 plus) viable populations that can readily be established. Extremely
low infers that only 1-2 specimens capable of establishment/reproduction
are transmitted.*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ -------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr  
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain;  
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**                

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                          

  Lack of expertise                                                        

  Lack of coherence on                                                     
  issue                                                                    

  Biological unknowns                                                      

  Insufficient                                                             
  information                                                              

  Political                                                                
  impediments                                                              

  Other-Define                                                             
  -------------------- ------------ -------------------------------------- --

***Question 4: Based on the specific invasive species transmitted via
this pathway, what is the relative level of risk (0-5) of establishment
based upon the receiving endpoint (s) of the pathway (i.e., does the
pathway introduce organisms into hospitable environments?** (Frame of
Reference: A rating of 0 indicates the environment does not permit any
establishment of the invasive species. A rating of 5 indicates the
environment is a perfect match for the invasive species' natural habitat
with plentiful food sources and no natural predators or ecosystem
controls).*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

***Question 5: What is level or amount of invasive species environments
harbored by the pathway that would enhance viability of and opportunity
for transmission of invasive species?** (Frame of Reference: Is there
pathway substrate, trade material, or cargo? Does this volume represent
high/ medium low levels of incoming material for the pathway assessed?)*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------ --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole    
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   nbr from 0-5 where 1= slightly       
                                    uncertain; 5= highly uncertain) ­­**   

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                        

  Lack of expertise                                                      

  Lack of coherence on                                                   
  issue                                                                  

  Biological unknowns                                                    

  Insufficient                                                           
  information                                                            

  Political                                                              
  impediments                                                            

  Other-Define                                                           
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------ --

***Question 6: What is the level of invasive opportunities (1-5) posed
by this pathway due to the number of potential invasive species entry
points (i.e., single or multiple destination/transfer points)?** (Frame
of Reference: A level 5 ranking infers multiple entry points (4 or more)
that expand across the entire nation; whereas a level 1 assessment
infers single, localized entry point with minimal opportunity for
invasion)*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

***Question 7: How hospitable to invasive organisms is the pathway?**
(Frame of Reference: A rating of zero (0) means all invasive organisms
are dead upon arrival; 3 = most of the invasive species that entered the
pathway are still reproductively viable; 5 = invasive species are
thriving in transit and have expanded populations, colonies or have
enhanced their invasiveness capabilities).*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------ --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole    
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   nbr from 0-5 where 1= slightly       
                                    uncertain; 5= highly uncertain) ­­**   

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                        

  Lack of expertise                                                      

  Lack of coherence on                                                   
  issue                                                                  

  Biological unknowns                                                    

  Insufficient                                                           
  information                                                            

  Political                                                              
  impediments                                                            

  Other-Define                                                           
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------ --

***Question 8: What is the level or opportunities (0-5) for the pathway
to facilitate spread to uncontaminated shipments during transport or
during storage before/after transport (e.g., are shipments commingled
and is cross-contamination a possibility)?** (Frame of Reference: A
rating of 5 = 100% likelihood of co-mingled/cross contamination to
uncontaminated hospitable shipments during transport or via pre/post
transport/storage resulting in absolute dispersion of invasive
species.)*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

***Question 9: What is the level of prescreening effectiveness (e.g.
detection) of invasive species prior to or during transport via this
pathway?** (Frame of Reference: A rating of zero (0) equals indicates
that virtually all invasives are detected and mitigated prior to or
during transit. A rating of 5 indicates that there are no detection or
mitigation methods for the invasives prior to or during transit)*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

***Question 10: What is the level of difficulty (0-5) in detecting the
invasive species once introduced?** (Frame of reference: A rating of
zero (0) indicates that all invasives are detected immediately at the
pathway endpoint. A rating of 5 indicates that the invasive species
is/are so difficult to detect, there is a 100% likelihood they will be
disseminated throughout the nation and become permanently established
without detection)*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

***Question 11: What is the assessment level (0-5) of the pathway's
characteristics that would enable it to transport 'generalist' invasives
that are capable of surviving in multiple habitats?** (Frame of
Reference: An assessment of zero (0) indicates the pathway does not
transmit any generalists. An assessment of 5 indicates the majority of
invasives transmitted by this pathway are generalists with at least 3 or
more populations capable of surviving in any of the pathway endpoints.)*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------ --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole    
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   nbr from 0-5 where 1= slightly       
                                    uncertain; 5= highly uncertain) ­­**   

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                        

  Lack of expertise                                                      

  Lack of coherence on                                                   
  issue                                                                  

  Biological unknowns                                                    

  Insufficient                                                           
  information                                                            

  Political                                                              
  impediments                                                            

  Other-Define                                                           
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------ --

***Question 12: What is the level of risk of natural spread (rating of
0-5) posed by the invasive species transmitted via this pathway?**
(Frame of Reference: A rating of zero (0) indicates the pathway
transmits invasives with low reproductive rates or are fragile in any
ecosystem other than that of its origination. A ranking of 5 indicates
the pathway transmits invasives that are highly mobile, spread by wind,
water and have fast/high reproductive rates in multiple ecosystems.)*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

**Question 13: What is the level or risk of human/human activity (0-5)
in spreading the invasives transmitted via this pathway?** (Frame of
Reference: A rating of zero (0) indicates that humans or human
activities do not spread the invasive species. A rating of 5 indicates
humans or human activities are the primary agent for the rapid spread of
invasive species such as with Avian influenza).

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

**Question 14: What is the level of risk (0-5) of the pathway
introducing an invasive that is known to be invasive but not yet in the
U.S.?** (Frame of Reference: A rating of 0 indicates that the pathway
only transmits species that are already distributed throughout the
endpoint ecoregion; a rating of 3 indicates the pathway transmits
invasives that are in U.S ecoregions, but not in the endpoint of the
pathway. A ranking of 5 indicates the pathway transmits viable invasives
into pristine eco-systems.

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

***Question 15: What is the level (0-5) of available control options for
the invasives transmitted via this pathway?** (Frame of Reference: A
rating of zero (0) indicates there are comprehensive control options
that mitigate all invasives transmitted via the pathway. A rating of 5
indicates there are no control options for the invasives transmitted via
the pathway.)*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

***Question 16: What is the assessment of economic cost (0-5) of control
options for invasive species transmitted via this pathway?** (Frame of
Reference: A rating of zero (0) indicates control options are a part of
routine operations and therefore requires no additional funding. A
rating of 5 indicates control options are so expensive, it requires the
petitioning of external agency/multi-source emergency funding to
control/eradicate.)*

  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---
  **Level   **Level Descriptor**   **Level Determination (i.e.,        
  Nbr**                            0,1,2,3,4, or 5) (Assign a whole    
                                   number):**                          

  Level 0   No Risk                **Rationale**                       

  Level 1   Extremely Low Level of                                     
            Risk                                                       

  Level 2   Moderately Low Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 3   Medium Level of Risk                                       

  Level 4   Moderately High Level                                      
            of Risk                                                    

  Level 5   Extremely High Level                                       
            of Risk                                                    
  --------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------- ---

Is there uncertainty regarding this rating? If so, please complete the
chart below:

  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
  **Basis of           **Check All  **Uncertainty level (Assign whole nbr 
  Uncertainty**        Relevant**   from 0-5 where 1= slightly uncertain; 
                                    5= highly uncertain) ­­**               

  Flaws in methodology              **Rationale**                         

  Lack of expertise                                                       

  Lack of coherence on                                                    
  issue                                                                   

  Biological unknowns                                                     

  Insufficient                                                            
  information                                                             

  Political                                                               
  impediments                                                             

  Other-Define                                                            
  -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------- --

1.  **Step 4 Calculating Risk Individual/Consensus Score**

After each single question is provided a score, this portion of pathway
assessment requires the awarding of a final, overall assessment number
(i.e., 0-5). No partial numbers are to be awarded. The process for
awarding the single risk score follows:

  ---- ------------------------------------------------------------- -----
  A.   Tally overall pathway risk rating (Single/Consensus rating    
       0-5 expressed in whole number. Is the average of all per      
       question ratings.)                                            

  B.   Tally overall uncertainty ratings (Single/Consensus rating    
       0-5) expressed in whole number. Is the average of all per     
       question uncertainty ratings)                                 

  C.   Tally Revised/Final Pathway Risk Rating after considering     
       uncertainty issues. (Is usually the same as rating in #A -    
       -but not necessarily. Represents a compromise or adjusted     
       rating reflective of the best determination after             
       consideration of uncertainty. Is a whole number)              
  ---- ------------------------------------------------------------- -----

**Stage III- Invasiveness Scale (1-75)**

Based on the above analyses, there are now 3 major factors upon which to
assign a pathway ranking: impact category, pathway scale and pathway
risk factors. Using the chart below, assign a risk prioritization (on
scale of 1-75) for the pathway.

Example1: Ballast Water

  ------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
  **Impact Category**       **Pathway Scope**      **Pathway Risk Level**

  A Human                   V                      4
  ------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------

Example 2: Wood Packing Material

  --------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------
  **Impact Category**         **Pathway Scope**      **Pathway Risk
                                                     Level**

  B Economy                   V                      3
  --------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------

+--------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+-----------+
| *1.    | *2.   |       |       |       |       |     | **        |
| D      | S     |       |       |       |       |     | *NOTE:*** |
| efine* | elect |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | Pa    |       |       |       |       |     | ***Any    |
| *Risk  | thway |       |       |       |       |     | scope     |
| Impact | Scope |       |       |       |       |     | values of |
| Cat    | C     |       |       |       |       |     | 0         |
| egory* | olumn |       |       |       |       |     | indicate  |
|        | (     |       |       |       |       |     | a local   |
|        | i.e., |       |       |       |       |     | event and |
|        | V,    |       |       |       |       |     | as such   |
|        | IV,   |       |       |       |       |     | cannot be |
|        | II,   |       |       |       |       |     | c         |
|        | II or |       |       |       |       |     | lassified |
|        | I)*   |       |       |       |       |     | as a true |
|        |       |       |       |       |       |     | pathway.  |
|        | *3.   |       |       |       |       |     | However,  |
|        | S     |       |       |       |       |     | these     |
|        | elect |       |       |       |       |     | events    |
|        | Pa    |       |       |       |       |     | provide   |
|        | thway |       |       |       |       |     | areas for |
|        | Risk  |       |       |       |       |     | future    |
|        | Level |       |       |       |       |     | ob        |
|        | (     |       |       |       |       |     | servation |
|        | i.e., |       |       |       |       |     | or        |
|        | 5, 4, |       |       |       |       |     | query.*** |
|        | 3, 2  |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | or    |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | 1)*   |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        |       |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | *4.   |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | A     |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | ssign |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | Cor   |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | respo |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | nding |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | Rank  |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | Order |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | (     |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | i.e., |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | s     |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | ingle |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | in    |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | teger |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | bet   |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | ween* |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        |       |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | *the  |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | nu    |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | mbers |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | 1     |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | -75)* |       |       |       |       |     |           |
+--------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+-----------+
| ***A   | *     | *     | *     | *     | *     | *   |           |
| Le     | **75. | **70. | **65. | **60. | **55. | **0 |           |
| vel*** | V --  | IV -- | III   | II -- | I --  | --  |           |
|        | 5***  | 5***  | --    | 5***  | 5***  | 5   |           |
| **     |       |       | 5***  |       |       | *** |           |
| *Human | *     | *     |       | *     | *     |     |           |
| Hea    | **74. | **69. | *     | **59. | **54. | *   |           |
| lth*** | V --  | IV -- | **64. | II -- | I --  | **0 |           |
|        | 4***  | 4***  | III   | 4***  | 4***  | --  |           |
|        |       |       | --    |       |       | 4   |           |
|        | *     | *     | 4***  | *     | *     | *** |           |
|        | **73. | **68. |       | **58. | **53. |     |           |
|        | V --  | IV -- | *     | II -- | I --  | *   |           |
|        | 3***  | 3***  | **63. | 3***  | 3***  | **0 |           |
|        |       |       | III   |       |       | --  |           |
|        | *     | *     | --    | *     | *     | 3   |           |
|        | **72. | **67. | 3***  | **57. | **52. | *** |           |
|        | V --  | IV -- |       | II -- | I --  |     |           |
|        | 2***  | 2***  | *     | 2***  | 2***  | *   |           |
|        |       |       | **62. |       |       | **0 |           |
|        | *     | *     | III   | *     | *     | --  |           |
|        | **71. | **66. | --    | **56. | **51. | 2   |           |
|        | V -   | IV -- | 2***  | II -  | I --  | *** |           |
|        | 1***  | 1***  |       | 1***  | 1***  |     |           |
|        |       |       | *     |       |       | *   |           |
|        |       |       | **61. |       |       | **0 |           |
|        |       |       | III   |       |       | --  |           |
|        |       |       | --    |       |       | 1   |           |
|        |       |       | 1***  |       |       | *** |           |
+--------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+-----------+
| **B    | 50\.  | 45\.  | 40\.  | 35\.  | 30\.  | 0   |           |
| L      | V --  | IV -- | III   | II -- | I --  | --  |           |
| evel** | 5     | 5     | -- 5  | 5     | 5     | 5   |           |
|        |       |       |       |       |       |     |           |
| **Ec   | 49\.  | 44\.  | 39\.  | 34\.  | 29\.  | 0   |           |
| onomic | V --  | IV -- | III   | II -- | I --  | --  |           |
| Imp    | 4     | 4     | -- 4  | 4     | 4     | 4   |           |
| acts** |       |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | 48\.  | 43\.  | 38\.  | 33\.  | 28\.  | 0   |           |
|        | V --  | IV -- | III   | II -- | I --  | --  |           |
|        | 3     | 3     | -- 3  | 3     | 3     | 3   |           |
|        |       |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | 47\.  | 42\.  | 37\.  | 32\.  | 27\.  | 0   |           |
|        | V --  | IV -- | III   | II -- | I --  | --  |           |
|        | 2     | 2     | -- 2  | 2     | 2     | 2   |           |
|        |       |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        | 46\.  | 41\.  | 36\.  | 31\.  | 26\.  | 0   |           |
|        | V - 1 | IV -- | III   | II -  | I --  | --  |           |
|        |       | 1     | -- 1  | 1     | 1     | 1   |           |
+--------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+-----------+
| **C    | **25. | **20. | **15. | **10. | **5.  | **0 |           |
| L      | V --  | IV -- | III   | II -- | I --  | --  |           |
| evel** | 5**   | 5**   | --    | 5**   | 5**   | 5** |           |
|        |       |       | 5**   |       |       |     |           |
| **Ecol | **24. | **19. |       | **9.  | **4.  | **0 |           |
| ogical | V --  | IV -- | **14. | II -- | I --  | --  |           |
| Im     | 4**   | 4**   | III   | 4**   | 4**   | 4** |           |
| pact** |       |       | --    |       |       |     |           |
|        | **23  | **18. | 4**   | **8.  | **3.  | **0 |           |
|        | .V -- | IV -- |       | II -- | I --  | --  |           |
|        | 3**   | 3**   | **13. | 3**   | 3**   | 3** |           |
|        |       |       | III   |       |       |     |           |
|        | **22. | **17. | --    | **7.  | **2.  | **0 |           |
|        | V --  | IV -- | 3**   | II -- | I --  | --  |           |
|        | 2**   | 2**   |       | 2**   | 2**   | 2** |           |
|        |       |       | **12. |       |       |     |           |
|        | **21. | **16. | III   | **6.  | **1.  | **  |           |
|        | V -   | IV -- | --    | II -  | I --  | 0 - |           |
|        | 1**   | 1**   | 2**   | 1**   | 1**   | 1** |           |
|        |       |       |       |       |       |     |           |
|        |       |       | **11. |       |       |     |           |
|        |       |       | III   |       |       |     |           |
|        |       |       | --    |       |       |     |           |
|        |       |       | 1**   |       |       |     |           |
+--------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+-----------+

As such the initial ranking of the above exemplar pathways would be:

Ex 1: Ballast Water = Risk Ranking of 74

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Impact Category**     **Pathway Scope**       **Pathway Risk Level**

  A -- Human              V                       4
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Ex 2: Wood Packing = Risk Ranking of 48

  --------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
  **Impact Category**         **Pathway Scope**    **Pathway Risk Level**

  B -- Economy                V                    3
  --------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------

**Stage IV. Situational Modifiers of Pathway Risk Ranking**

As previously indicated, there are certain factors which should be
considered and then used to adjust the above rankings. The intent of the
system is to provide a method of stratifying risk based upon national
priorities (i.e., human, then economical and finally ecological impact),
pathway scope and pathway risk factors. These are all qualitative
measures for socio-political-economic systems. As such, the method must
be sufficiently flexible to modify these rankings based upon other
relevant factors. These relevant factors include the following:

1.  Does the pathway transport invasives that are known to cause impact
    to human infrastructures (i.e., plant that lowers property values)?

2.  Does the pathway transport invasives known to cause impacts to
    biologic/primary productivity/living industries (i.e., ecotourism,
    birding, aquatic recreation)?

3.  Does the Pathway transport invasives that are known to have
    political or public sensitivity beyond that scientifically
    associated with the pathway (i.e., sensationalism of 'killer bees',
    endangered species)?

> For instance, in the second example, the ranking was as below:
>
> Example 2: Wood Packing Material = Risk Ranking of 48

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Impact Category**     **Pathway Scope**       **Pathway Risk Level**

  B -- Economy            V                       3
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

However, if it is found that a new human health invasive is being
transmitted through similar foreign pathways that intersect with this
particular U.S. pathway, it might be advisable to reevaluate the impact
category to the "A" level. The final risk ranking would then be
reevaluated as 73 - -at the top of the list.

**CHAPTER 4 - CONCLUSIONS FOR POLICY AND ACTION**

**From Science to Pathway Policy**

In the process of developing the pathway diagrams, assessment tool, and
assessment methodology, the Pathways Work Team struggled with several
issues relevant to scientific data and public policy. While this report
in no way attempts to resolve such intricate issues, it is essential
that these considerations be brought to the forefront for future
decision-making efforts and as such are enumerated below:

-   There is a need to maximize the contributions of science for
    commercial/societal ends.

-   International competitiveness is impacted by invasive species.

-   Science-based decision-making should be open to public scrutiny.

-   Pathway ranking combines community, government and corporate
    interests.

-   Sound science, transparency and consistency are essential for
    formulating policy.

-   Need neutrality in scientific advice to decision makers.

-   Private sector has a role in setting the agenda.

-   Invasive Species prevention is inherently an international activity.

-   Methodology must include public and expert participation.

-   Process for evaluating pathway risks is as important as assessment
    tools/criteria

-   Outcome of process is the characterization of relative risk of
    pathway. It is up to policy makers to later devise plans for pathway
    management, resource leveraging, policy development, budget
    decisions and technology transfer/development.

-   Invasiveness is predictable and can be controlled.

-   Science can help understand the current condition under which
    decisions are being made and can define potential future
    consequences of those decisions.

-   Uncertainty issues must be addressed and include such aspects as
    lack of coherence, lack of scientific data, areas of inaction, need
    for clarification, the state of confidence a scientist has regarding
    a particular phenomenon, diversity of values or interests, different
    definition of objectives; or different definition of measures.

-   Most important decisions are made with a high degree of uncertainty
    but are justified by high level of commitment to set goals and
    values.

-   Policy decisions are based on what the future should look like for
    particular groups; with consideration made of 'current situation'
    issues.

The bottom line agreed upon by all was that policy decides the direction
to take, but science maintains the focus. [^6]

**Interpreting Invasiveness Scales**

The next, logical question, therefore, is what does the above evaluation
accomplish. The uses for the pathway prioritization scale include the
following:

(1) **Common Value of Human Health First, Economy then Ecology**.
    Regardless of various agency/industry mission or priorities, this
    method of pathway prioritization creates a common value: human
    health is the most salient concern followed by economy, then
    ecology.

(2) **Mission Based Priorities**. Managing and prioritizing pathways has
    to be inextricably linked to organization mission and goals. This
    pathway prioritization method is a tool to assist agencies in
    defining and addressing invasive species issues - - and is not a
    'stand alone' arbitrary exercise.

(3) **Ecoregion Integration.** Using an ecoregion approach enables
    ecological issues to be imbued in the process, while giving latitude
    in definition of pathways based upon actual impact as opposed to
    regional governmental boundaries.

**NISC and Cross-Agency Analysis**

Once agencies have gone through the first 'triage' of pathway
prioritization, it is anticipated these results will be shared with the
National Invasive Species Council. NISC can then inform the various
agencies as to which pathways they share with similar priorities. This
'matching' would then enable strategic grouping of organizations and
experts for matrixed, systemic pathway prioritization and analysis,
nationwide. And again, this tool could be the focus for that analysis. A
long term goal would be for these mechanisms to eventually evolve into
an online library of benchmarked pathway risk analyses and datasets.
Appendix B contains recommended issues/question that should be addressed
in cross-agency decisions.

**Future Pathway Assessment Activities**

The Pathways Work Team strongly feels that, though this is a great leap
in sophistication of pathways prioritization efforts, we still have a
long way to go - -particularly in the area of database integration and
developing predictive statistical algorithms.

As such, this second edition of the ranking methods will also have to be
field tested via focus groups to accomplish further refinements. We
expect there to be at least two more edifications prior to "perfection".
The Pathways Work Team found that each phase or format has to be 'tried
and true' by users; though the consensus was - - we're on the right
track.

Comments regarding this guide

may be forwarded to

National Invasive Species Council

Prevention Committee

Pathways Working Team

via e-mail to:

penny.e.kriesch@aphis.usda.gov

**APPENDIX A: Sponsorship**

This conference was co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of Interior,
National Invasive Species Council, Prevention Committee, the Pathways
Working Group and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health and Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. An
immeasurable amount of gratitude is expressed to the following
cooperators, advisors, and experts that so diligently dedicated their
resources for invasive species pathways activities:

> Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
>
> Chamber of Shipping of America
>
> Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
>
> Colorado State University
>
> Ecological Society of America
>
> Environment Protection Agency
>
> Florida Department of Agriculture &Consumer Services
>
> Florida Gulf Coast University
>
> International Joint Commission
>
> International Union of Concerned Scientists
>
> Louisiana State University
>
> Maine Lakes Conservancy Institute
>
> Minnesota Crop Improvement Association
>
> National Aeronautics Space Administration
>
> National Aquaculture Association
>
> National Association State Departments of Agriculture
>
> National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
>
> Native American Fish and Wildlife Society
>
> North American Brown Tree Snake Control Team, Texas A&M University
>
> North American Weed Management Association
>
> North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
>
> Northeast Midwest Institute
>
> Ocean Conservancy
>
> Office of Secretary of Defense- Armed Forces Pest Management Board
>
> Oregon Department of Agriculture
>
> Oregon State University
>
> Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc.
>
> Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
>
> Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
>
> Taylor Shellfish Farms
>
> The Nature Conservancy
>
> University of Florida
>
> University of Georgia
>
> U.S. Coast Guard
>
> U.S. Geological Survey
>
> U.S. Department of Agriculture
>
> U.S. Department of Commerce
>
> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
>
> U.S. Department of Homeland Security
>
> U.S. Department of the Interior
>
> U.S. Department of State
>
> U.S. Department of Transportation
>
> U.S. Trade Representative

**APPENDIX B: Matrix-Agency Strategic Planning Considerations**

The Pathways Work Team was charged with developing methodologies for
assessing the relative risk of invasive species via distinct pathways.
This process is not a policy decision-making effort but one wherein
joint perspective of relative risk is developed by all persons with
vested interest. However, the Team does recommend the following
questions be responded to by appropriate parties to further the pathway
analysis towards its eventual outcome: policy decisions, resource
leveraging, budget actions, and scientific technology transfer and
development in an integrated industry, public and government
environment:

***Policy and Program Conduct***

What policy/program will or should be created to carry out the pathway
findings/recommendations?

Who is responsible for data collection, analysis and reporting?

What entities monitor assessment/program activities?

What entities will periodically review and evaluate the program and its
elements?

What is the cost benefit to proposed actions?

What are the indicators that actions are achieving the desired outcomes?

What are the criteria for evaluation success of pathway management?

***Public Reporting***

How are results/outcomes shared among various vested stakeholders?

What is the best method for sharing information with the stakeholders?

***Databases***

What databases exist that can be used for pathway analysis?

What is the best structure for integrating the information from the
databases?

What elements need to be collected and used?

***Budget***

What are the fiscal issues that need to be incorporated into the policy
to foster institutional excellence (i.e., Government Performance Results
Act)?

***Strategic Planning***

Who is responsible for developing and carrying out
cross-agency/stakeholder strategic plans for invasive species
prevention?

What incentives can be developed to ensure compliance with strategic
objectives, tasks and deliverables?

**APPENDIX C: Contacts List**

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--A\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Allen Auclair

U.S. Army Garrison

Aberdeen Proving Ground

Directorate of Installation Operations

U.S. Army Environmental Center

Installation Restoration Division

5179 Hoadley Road

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401

Phone: 410-306-1146

Fax: 410-436-2483

<amssloglo@apg.army.mil>

Kay Austin

International Joint Commission

1250 23^rd^ Street, NW Suite 100

Washington, DC 20440

<austink@ijc.org>

phone: 202-736-9011

fax 202-467-0746

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--B\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Dr. George K Beck

Colorado State University

Department of BioAgricultural Sciences

and Pest Management

Room 116 Weed Lab

Plant Science Building

Fort Collins, CO 80523-117

Phone 970-491-7568

Fax 970-491-3862

Email: <GeorgeBeck@Colostate.edu>

Gary M Beil

Minnesota Crop Improvement Association

1900 Hendon Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

Phone 1-800-510-6242

Fax 612-625-3748

Email: <beilx001@umn.edu>

John Berry

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)

1120 Connecticut Ave., NW

Suite 900

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-857-0166

Fax: 202-857-0762

Herbert T. Bolton

U.S. Army Environmental Center

ATTN: SFIM-AEDC-CDC

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 27010

Or

USDA/CSREES

Mailstop 2220

1400 Independence Ave., S.W.

\\Washington, D.C. 20250-2220

Elizabeth C. Bourget

International Joint Commission

Secretary, U.S. Section

1250- 23rd Street, NW Suite 100

Washington, DC 20037

Phone 202-736-9008

Fax 202-467-0746

Email: <bourgetl@washington.ijc.org>

Terry L. Bourgoin

Director , Division of Plant Industry

Maine Dept. of Agriculture

Deering Bldg AMHI Complex

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0028

Phone: 207-287-3891

Fax: 207-287-7548

E-mail: terry.bourgoin@state.me.us

E. Shippen Bright

Maine Lakes Conservancy Institute

P.O. Box 55

Nobleboro, ME 04555

Phone 207-563-5253

e-mail: Director@mlci.org

Kerry Britton

USDA Forest Service

Forest Health Protection

1601 N. Kent Street

Arlington, VA 22209

Phone: 703-605-5347

Fax: 703-605-5353

Email: <kbritton01@fs.fed.us>

David Brooks

U.S. Trade Representative

202-395-9579

dbrooks@ustr.gov

A Gordon Brown

Department of Interior

National Invasive Species Council

1201 Eye Street, NW; 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202-354-1878

Fax 202-371-1751

Email. <A_Gordon_Brown@ios.doi.gov>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--C\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Faith T. Campbell, Ph.D.

Senior Policy Representative

Introduced Forest Insects and Diseases

The Nature Conservancy

4245 North Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203

Phone: (703) 841-4881

FAX: (703) 841-2722

E-mail: phytodoer@aol.com

fcampbell@tnc.org

Earl Campbell

Fish Wildlife Services

Phone: 808-792-9414

Cell: 808-226-6076

Email: <earl_campbell@fws.gov>

Jonathan Champion

<jchampion@nemw.org> *for*

Allegra Cangelosi

Senior Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest Institute

218 D St.

Washington, DC 20003

Phone: 202-464-4007

FAX: 202-544-0043

E-mail: acangelo@nemw.org

Deborah J. Cavett (Facilitator )

Director, Interagency Initiatives

Science and Education Resources Development

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service

Phone: 202-720-6346

FAX: 202-720-3945

Mailing Address: 1400 Independence Ave SW Stop 2250; Washington, DC
20250

Express mail Delivery: 800 9th Street SW Rm 3312

Washington, DC 20024

Craig Clark

USDA APHIS; Wildlife Services

Phone 671-635-4400

Craig.s.clark@aphis.usda.gov

Andrew Cohen

7770 Pardee Lane; 2nd Floor

Oakland, CA 94621-1424

Phone: 510-746-7637

Fax: 510-746-7300

e-mail: acohen@sfei.org

Susan D. Cohen

USDA APHIS PPD, 3C42

4700 River Road, Unit #117

Riverdale, MD 20737

Phone: (301) 734-5929

FAX: (301) 734-5899

E-mail: susan.d.cohen@aphis.usda.gov

Wilhem Colemar

<colemar@doacs.state.fl.us> ;

phone 850-488-4033

Diane Cooper

Taylor Shellfish Farms

SE 130 Lynch Road

Shelton, WA 98584

Phone 360-426-6178

Fax 360-427-0327

<dianec@taylorshellfish.com>

Joseph Corn

University of Georgia

SE Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study

Wildlife Health Building

College of Veterinary Medicine

Athens, GA 30602-7393

706-542-1741

<jcorn@vet.uga.edu>

Gene Cross, Plant Pest Administrator

Plant Industry Division

NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

National Plant Board Liaison

1060 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, ND 27699-1060

\(919\) 733-6930, ext. 213

<Gene.Cross@ncmail.net>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--D\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Hilda Diaz-Soltero

USDA Senior Invasive Species Coordinator

1201 Eye Ste. N.W. 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

Phone 202-513-7249

Fax 202-371-1751

Email: <hdiazsoltero@fs.fed.us>

Bill Dickerson

NC Depart of Agriculture and Consumer Services

National Plant Board Liaison

1060 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, ND 27699-1060

Phone 919-733-3933

Fax 919-733-1041

Email: <bill.dickerson@ncmail.net>

Robert Doudrick

USDA Forest Service

North Central Research Station

1992 Folwell Avenue

St Paul, MN 55108

Phone: 651-649-5295

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--E\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Pete Eagan

Armed Forces Pest Management Board

Forest Glen Section

WRAMC, Bldg 172

Washington, DC 2307-5001

Phone 301-295-7476

Email: <Peter.egan@osd.mil>

Roger Eberhardt

Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan DEQ

Hollister Building, 6th Floor

106 West Allegan Street

P.O. Box 30473

Lansing, MI 48909

Phone 517-335-4056/

Fax --517-335-4531

Direct line 517-335-4227

Email: <eberharr@michigan.gov>

Orlo (Bob) Ehart

Animal and Plant Health Safeguarding Coordinator

NASDA, Suite 1020

1156 15^th^ Street., NW

Washington, DC 20005-1711

Phone; 202-296-9680 ext 214

Fax: 202-296-9686

Email: <bob@nasda.org>

Rachel Eichelberger

U.S. Department of Interior

National Invasive Species Council

U.S. Department of Interior (OS/SIO/NISC)

Mailing Address: 1849 C Street. NW

Washington, DC 20240

Physical Address: 1201 Eye Street NW

Fifth Floor Room 79

Washington DC. 20005

<rachel_eichelberger@ios.doi.gov>

Lucius G. Eldredge

Pacific Science Association

The Bishop Museum

1525 Bernice Street

Honolulu, HI 96817

Phone 808-848-4124

Fax 808-847-8252

Email: <psa@bishopmuseum.org>

Elizabeth Etchells

Deputy Director for Environmental Reviews

USTR -- Environment and Natural Resources

Phone: 202-395-6130

e-mail: eetchells@ustr.gov

Dr. Everett

U.S. Coast Guard

Aquatic Nuisance Species Program

Environmental Standards Division (G-MSO-4) 2100 2^nd^ Street, S.W.

Phone: 202-267-2243

Email: <reverett@comdt.uscg.mil>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--F\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Christopher Fisher

Colville Confederated Tribes

Fed Ex 23 Brook Tracts Road, Omak, WA 98841

P.O. Box 150, Nespelem, WA 99155

Phone 888-881-7684 ex 2110

509-634-2200

fax 509-634-4116

email: <chris.fisher@colvilletribes.com>

Dr. Jeffrey P. Fisher

Ecology and Conservation Officer

Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientific Affairs

U.S. Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520

Phone: (202) 647-6867

FAX: (202) 736-7351

E-mail: FisherJP@state.gov

Pam Fuller

U.S. Geological Survey -- Bio. Res. Discipline

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Program

Center for Aquatic Resources Studies

7920 NW 71st Street

Gainesville, FL 32653

Phone: (352) 264-3481

FAX: (352) 378-4956

E-mail: Pam_Fuller@usgs.gov

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--G\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Richard Gaskalla

Director Division of Plant Industry

Florida Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services

P. O. Box 147100

Gainesville, FL 32614-7100

Phone: 352-372-3505

Fax: 352-955-2300

E-mail: gaskalr@doacs.state.fl.us

Jan Gilbreath

Trade Team; Ofc of International Affairs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C.

Phone: (202) 564-6279

FAX: (202) 565-2409

Cell: (703) 587-9083

E-mail: gilbreath.jan@epa.gov

Sharon K. Gross

Asst. Prgm Coord \-- Invasive Species

U.S.G.S.-- Bio. Res. Discipline

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 301

Reston, VA 20192

Phone: (703) 648-4076

FAX: (703) 648-4238 (or 4039)

E-mail: sgross@usgs.gov

Vincent G. Guida, PhD

Research Fisheries Biologist

US Department of Commerce

NOAA Fisheries

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

J.J. Howard Laboratory

Highlands, NJ 07732

Phone: (732) 872-3042

FAX: (732) 872-3128

E-mail: <vincent.guida@noaa.go>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--H\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Robert Haack

USDA Forest Service

North Central Research Station

1992 Folwell Avenue

St. Paul; Minnesota 55108-1034

Phone 517-355-7740 ex 108

<rhaack@fs.fed.us>

Scott Hardin

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Exotic Species Coordination Section

620 South Meridian Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600

Email: scott.hardin@myFWC.com

Phone: 850-488-4068

FAX: 850-413-0381

Catherine Hazlewood

The Ocean Conservancy

2029 K Ste NW

Wash,. DC 20006

Phone: 202-429-5609

Fax 202-872-0619

Email: <chazlewood@oceanconservancy.org>

Dr. S.E. Henke

North American Brown Tree Snake Control Team (NABTSCT)

Department of Animal and Wildlife Service

Texas A&M University -- Kingsville

Caesar Wildlife Research Institute

700 University Blvd, MSC 218

Kingsville, Texas 783-8202

Phone 361-593-3689

Fax 361-593-3788

Email: <scott.henke@tamuk.edu>

Michael Hennessey, Ph.D., (Facilitator)

Entomologist Pathways & Standards Team Ldr

USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST

Plant Epidemiology & Risk Analysis Laboratory

1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300

Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-5202

Phone: (919) 855-7514

FAX: (919) 855-7595

E-mail: Michael.k.Hennessey@aphis.usda.gov

Jim Hester

Agency Environment Coordinator

USAID

Bureau Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade

1350 Pennsylvania, Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20523

Phone 202-712-5176

Email: <jhester@usaid.gov>

Dan Hilburn

Administrator, Plant Division

Oregon Department of Agriculture

635 Capitol St., NE

Salem, OR 97301-2532

Phone: 503-986-4663

Fax: 503-986-4786

E-mail: dhilburn@oda.state.or.us

Jeffrey E. Hill

Associate Research Faculty

Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory

University of Florida

1408 24th Street SE

Ruskin, FL 33570

Phone: 813 671-5230 x 118

Fax 813-671-5234

Email <jehill@ifas.ufl.edu>

Sandra Howard

Ofc of the Assistant Secretary for

Planning and Evaluation

U.S. DHHS

200 Independence Ave., SW, MS 445F

Washington, DC 20201

Phone 202-690-5874

Fax 202-205-8835

Email: <Sandra.howard@hhs.gov>

Dr. Martin Hugh-Jones

Louisiana State University

Department of Pathobiological Sciences

School of Veterinary Medicine

Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Phone: 225-578-5599

Fax: 2258-578-9701

Email: mehj@vetmed.lsu.edu

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--J\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Jerome A Jackson

Florida Gulf Coast University

Whitaker Center for Science/Math and Technical Education; College of
Arts and Sciences; Whitaker Hall Room 222

10501 FGCU Boulevard South

Fort Myers, FL 33965-6565

Phone: 239-590-7193

Email: <jjackson@fgcu.edu>

Dr. Whitman Miller *For* Susan Jiacinto

Smithsonian Environmental Res Center

P.O. Box 28; 647 Contees Wharf Rd

Edgewater, MD 21037-0028

Phone: 443-482-2400

Fax: 443-482-2380

<jiacintos@si.edu>

Kathleen J.R. Johnson

Oregon Department of Agriculture

Insect Pest Prevention &Mgmt Section

Plant Division

635 Capitol St. NE\
Salem, OR 97301

phone: 503-986-4636

800-525-0137

fax 503-986-4786

email <kjohnson@oda.state.or.us>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--K\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Timothy R.E. Keeney

ANSTF

Deppartment Ass't Sec of Oceans and Atmosphere

Dept of Commerce, NOAA

Herbert Hoover Bldg., Room 5804

14th St and Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20230

Phone 305-292-0311

e-mail <Timothy.Keeney.Jr@noaa.gov>

Henry Kelly

Federation of American Scientists

1717 K Street NW Suite 209

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-546-3300

Fax: 202-675-1010

Sheilah Kennedy

North American Weed Management Association

P.O. Box 1910, 461 E Agate

Granby, CO 80446-1910

Of P.O. Box 4

Kanogan, WA 98840-0004

Phone: 970-887-1228

Fax 970-887-1229

Cell 509-322-6909

Contact: Charles Henry at <agwest@rkymtnhi.com>

Arnold Konheim

Office of the Secretary

U.S. Department of Transportation

400 7th Street SW Room 10309G

Washington, DC 20590

Phone 202-366-4849

Fax 202-366-7618

<Arnold.konheim@dot.gov>

Richard W. Krichhoff

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

Washington Office

1156 15^th^ Street, NW Suite1020

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202-296-6980

Fax: 202-296-9686

Penny E. Kriesch (Chair)

Agricultural Analyst

USDA APHIS PPQ PPCI

4700 River Road; Unit 156; Suite 4C73

Riverdale, Maryland 20737

Phone: (301) 734-8412

FAX: (301) 734-3396

E-mail: penny.e.kriesch@aphis.usda.gov

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--L\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Lindsey Elizabeth Etchells

*for* Mark Linscott

USTR

Environment and Natural Resources

600 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20508

Phone 202-395-7320

Email: <mlinscott@ustr.gov>; <akyler@ustr.gov>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--M\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Donald R. MacLean

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Environmental Quality

Branch of Invasive Species

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 300

Arlington, VA 22203

Phone: (703) 358-2108

FAX: (703) 358-1800

E-mail: <don_maclean@fws.gov>

Randy MacMillan

National Aquaculture Association

111 W. Washington Street, Suite

Charles Town, WV 25414

Phone: 304-728-2167

Fax: 304-728-2196

Email: <naa@frontiernet.net>

Steven McCormick

The Nature Conservancy

4245 North Fairfax Drive

Suite 100

Arlington, VA 22203-1606

Jerry Melillo

Ecological Society of America

1707 H Street NW; Suite 400

Washington, DC 20006

Phone 202-833-8773

Direct phone: 508-289-7494

Fax 202-833-8775

Email: <jmelillo@mbl.edu>

Kathy Metcalf

Director, Maritime Affairs

Chamber of Shipping of America

1730 M Street, NW; Suite 407

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202.775.4399

Fax: 202.659.3795

E-Mail: KMetcalf@knowships.org

N. Marshall Meyers

Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council; Suite 400; 1220 19th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Phone 202-452-1525

Fax 202-293-4377

Email: <mmeyers@pijac.org>

Dr. A. Whitman Miller

Assistant Director

SERC Invasions Research Program

National Ballast Information Clearinghouse.

P.O. Box 28; 647 Contees Wharf Road

Edgewater, MD 21037-0028

Phone: 443-482-2208

Fax: 443-482-2295

e-mail: miller@si.edu

LCDR Kathy Moore

Office of Operating and Environmental Standards

Division Chief, Aquatic Nuisance Species Program

U.S. Coast Guard (G-MSO-4)

2100 Second Street SW; Room 1601

Washington, DC 20593-0001

Phone: 202-267-0214

Bob Myers

USDA APHIS, Wildlife Services

4700 River Road, Cubicle 6A69

Riverdale, MD 20737

Phone: 301-734-5920

Email: Robert.p.myers@aphis.usda.gov

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--N\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Douglas Neumann

Office of Ecology and Terrestrial Conservation

U.S. Department of State

2201 C. St. NW Room 4333

Washington DC 20520-6310

Phone: 202-647-1804

Email: <neumanndb@state.gov>

Ira New Breast

Native American Fish and Wildlife Society

8333 Greenwood Blvd

Denver, CO 80221

Phone 303-466-1725

Laurie Montour, project coordinator

Email: <iranb@nafws.org>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--O\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Carol L. Okada

Hawaii Department of Agriculture

1849 Auiki Street

Honolulu, HI 96819

Phone: 808-832-0566

Fax: 808-832-0584

Carol.l.okada@hawaii.gov

Charles R. O'Neill

New York Sea Grant Program

Great Lakes Program Coordinator

Phone 585-395-2516

Or 800-285-2285

Fax: 585-395-2466

Email : <cro4@cornell.edu>

Richard Orr (Guest Speaker)

Asst. Director for Int. Policy and Prevention

National Invasive Species Council

U.S. Department of Interior (OS/SIO/NISC)

Mailing Address: 1849 C Street. NW

Washington, DC 20240

Physical Address: 1201 Eye Street NW

Fifth Floor Room 79

Washington DC. 20005

Phone: (202) 354-1882

FAX: (202) 371-1751

E-mail: richard_orr@ios.doi.gov

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--P\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Mamie Parker

ANSTF; Fishers and Habitat Conservation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Interior Building, Room 3245

1849 C Street. NW

Washington DC 20240

Phone 202-208-6394

Fax: 202-2087-4674

Email: mamie <parker@fws.gov>. Is sending Everett Wilson, email:
<Everett_wilson@fws.gov>

Neelam Patel

Environmental Protection Agency

patel.neelam-r@epa.gov

Parul Patel

Offshore Pest Information System

OPIS Program Manager

Pest Detection & Mgmt Programs

USDA APHIS PPQ

4700 River Road; Unit 140

Riverdale, MD 20737

Phone: 301-734-8965

Fax: 301-734-8584

e-mail: parul.r.patel@aphis.usda.gov

Bivan Patnaik

Office of Operating and Environmental Standards

Ballast Water Management Commandant

U.S. Coast Guard (G-MSO-4)

2100 Second Street SW; Room 1601

Washington, DC 20593-0001

Phone: 202-267-0214

Gad Perry

Texas Tech

Phone: 806-742-2841 ex 228

Email: gad.perry \@ttu.edu

Mike Pitzler

USDA APHIS

Wildlife Services

3375 Koapaka Street Suite H-420

Honolulu, HI 96819

Phone: 808-861-8576

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--R\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Craig Regelbrugge

American Nursery and Landscape Association

1000 Vermont Avenue, 3rd Floor

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202-789-2900

Fax: 202-789-1893

e-mail: <cregelbrugge@anla.org>

Sarah Reichard

Center For Urban Horticulture

University of Washington

P.O Box 354115

Seattle, WA 98195-4115

Phone 206-616-5020

<reichard@u.washington.edu>

David F. Reid, Ph.D.

Dir, NOAA, National Center for Research on

Aquatic Invasive Species, U.S. Department of Commerce; Great Lakes
Environmental Res Lab

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2945

Voice: (734) 741-2019

FAX: (734) 741-2055

E-mail: david.reid@noaa.gov

Connie Riherd

Assistant Director

Florida Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services

P. O. Box 147100

Gainesville, FL 32614-7100

352-372-3505 ext. 108

riherdc@doacs.state.fl.us

Lucinda Riley, J.D.

DHS/CBP, Director of Policy and Programs ; Agriculture Inspection Policy
and Programs

Tel. (202)-344-2433

Fax: (202)344-1442

LUCINDA.Riley@dhs.gov

Michael Ripley

Environmental Coordinator

Inter-Tribal Fisheries & Assessment Program

Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority

179 West Three Mile Road

Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783

Tel. (906) 632-0072

Fax. (906) 632-1141

mripley@sault.com

Anwar Rizvi

Senior Plant Pathologist

USDA APHIS PPQ ISPM

4700 River Road; Unit 134

Riverdale, MD 20737-1236

phone: 301-734-4313;

fax: 301-734-8584

e-mail: anwar.s.rizvi@aphis.usda.gov

Erich Rudyj (Facilitator)

USDA APHIS PPQ PPCI

4700 River Road

Riverdale, MD 20737

301-734-6748

Roger Rufe

Ocean Conservancy

2029 K Street

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: 202-429-5609

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--S\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Jeffrey Schardt

Florida Department of Environmental Protection; 3900 Commonwealth
Boulevard, MS 100

Tallahassee, FL 32397

Phone 850-245-2809

Fax 850-245-2128

<Jeff.schardt@dep.state.fl.us>

Anne Sergeant

National Center for Environmental Assessment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HQ Ariel Rio Bldg; 8601 N;

1200 PA Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone 202-564-3249

Fax: 202-564-2018

Email: sergeant.anne@epa.gov

Edwin Sheffner

Applied Sciences Program, ICFS

Science Mission Directorate

Sun Earth System Division

NASA Headquarters; Mail 5L79

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20546-0001

Email: <Edwin.j.sheffner@nasa.gov>

Thomas Sim

Administrator

Plant Protection and Weed Control Program

Kansas Department of Agriculture

PO Box 19282

Topeka, KS 66619-1282

Phone: 785-862-2180

Fax: 785-862-2182

E-mail: tsim@kda.state.ks.us

Michael Simon

USDA APHIS PPQ; Unit 11

Kahului Airport; Kahului, HI 96732

Phone 808-877-8757

Fax 808-877-9086

Michael Slimak

National Center for Environmental Assessment; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency HQ; Ariel Rio Bldg; 8601 N; 1200 PA Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone 202-564-3349

Fax: 202-564-2018

Email: <slimak.michael@epa.gov>

Colin D. Stewart, PhD

USDA APHIS Veterinary Service

National Center for Import/Export

4700 River Road, Unit 39

Riverdale, MD 20737-1231

Phone: 301-734-0650

Fax: 301-734-8226

e-mail: colin.stewart@aphis.usda.gov

Jeffrey Stone

Oregon State University

Department of Botany and Plant Pathology; Cordley 2082

Corvallis, OR 97331.2902

Phone: 541-737-3451

Fax: 541-737-3573

<stonej@science.oregonstate.edu>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--T\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Al Tasker

USDA APHIS PPQ

ISPM; Suite 5A45

4700 River Road

Riverdale, MD 20737

301-734-5708

John L. Teem, Ph.D.

National Aquaculture Association

Aquatic Nuisance Species Representative

111 W. Washington St. Ste 1

Charles Town, W.V. 25414

Direct Mail: FDACS/Aquaculture, 1203

Governor's Square Blvd.,

Tallahassee FL 32301

Phone: (850) 410-0867

FAX: (850) 410-0893

E-mail: teemj@doacs.state.fl.us

Ralph Their

USDA Forest Service

Forest Health Protection

1601 N. Kent Street

Arlington, VA 2209

Phone: 703-605-5336

Fax: 703-605-5353

Mark Tuchman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Great Lakes National Program Office

77 West Jackson Blvd. G0J

Chicago, IL 60604-3590

Phone 312-353-1369

Email: <tuchman.marc@epa.gov>

John Turner

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental

and Scientific Affairs

U.S. Department of State (OES/OA/MLP)

2201 C. Ste. NW; Room 7831

Washington, DC 20520

Phone 202-647-1554

Email: <ferdinandcc@state.gov> or pannellmx@state.gov

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--V\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Bob Venette

USDA Forest Service

North Central Research Station

1992 Folwell Avenue

St. Paul; Minnesota 55108-1034

Phone 651-649-5028

Fax 651-649-5256

Venet001@umn.edu

Dave Vesely

Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc

P. O. Box 1061

Corvallis, OR 97339

Phone 541-745-5025

Fax: 541-745-5841

Email: <dvesely@pwri.com>

David Brooks *for* Darci Vetter

Director for Sustainable Development

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

600 17th St, NW

Washington, DC 20508

Phone: 202-395-9629

FAX: 202-395-9517

E-mail: dvetter@ustr.gov

Dan Vice

Ass't State Director

USDA Wildlife Services

HI/GU/Pacific Islands

e-mail: <Daniel.s.vice@aphis.usda.gov>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--W\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

John Waugh

International Union for Conservation of

Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)

1630 Connecticut Ave NW; 3^rd^ Flr\
Washington, DC 20009

Donna West

USDA/APHIS/PPQ

Senior Import Specialist

4700 River Road; 4C68

Riverdale, MD 20737

Phone: 301-734-5298

FAX: 301-734-3249

E-mail: Donna.L.West@aphis.usda.gov

Randy Westbrooks

U.S. Geologic Survey

233 Border Belt Drive; P.O. Box 279

Whiteville, NC 28472

Phone: (910) 640-6435

FAX: (910) 648-6763

E-mail: rwestbrooks@usgs.gov

Dean Wilkinson

Department of Commerce Liaison

National Invasive Species Council

1201 Eye Street, NW 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

Phone 202-513-7243

Fax 202-371-1751

Email <dean_wilkinson@ios.doi.gov>

Sherman Wilhelm (Replaced by Zajicek)

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Div of
Aquaculture; 1203 Governors Sq Blvd, 5th Floor;

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Phone 850-488-5471

Fax 850-410-0893

Email: <wilhels@doacs.state.fl.us>

Lyle Wong

Phone: 808-973-9535

Email <lwongpi@yahoo.com>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--Z\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Paul W. Zajicek

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Division of Aquaculture

1203 Governors Sq Blvd, 5^th^ Floor

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Phone: 850-488-0893

Fax 850-410-0893

Email: zajicep@doacs.state.fl.us

Hamdallah Zedan

Global Invasive Species Program Secretariat

413 St-Jacques Street, 8th Flr, Ofc 800

Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H2Y 1N9

Phone 514-288-2220

Fax 514-288-6588

Email: <secretarial@biodiv.org>

**APPENDIX D:** **Conference Background Research Materials List:**

1.  HAACK 2001 Intercepted Scolytidae (Coleoptera) at U.S. ports of
    entry: 1985--2000

2.  APHIS Intercept 1 yr dunnage SWPM counts

3.  APHIS intercept tiles SWPM counts

4.  F.J. GAY 1969 Article - - Species Introduced by Man

5.  APHIS PIN 309 Ad Hoc Report Results on Air Transport

6.  Quarantine Risk Associated with Air Cargo Containers by P.D. Gadgil,
    L.S. Bulman and K.L. Glassey, July 2002

7.  Insect Survival in Jet Aircraft by W. N. Sullivan, 1958

8.  MIA cargo aircraft risk analysis

9.  MIA cargo aircraft establishment

10. MIA cargo aircraft inspections analysis

11. MIA optimizing cargo inspections

12. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2268
    dated 1999 by Michel Harvey, Michel Gilbert, Danile Gauthier and
    Donald M. Reid

13. Genetic Identification and Implications of Another Invasive Species
    of Dreissenid Mussel in the Great Lakes by Bernie May and J. Ellen
    Marsden 1992

14. Mid-ocean exchange of container vessel ballast water. 2: Effects of
    vessel type in the transport of diatoms and dinoflagelaltes from
    Manzanillo, Mexico, to Hong Kong, China by Dickman dated 1999

15. Ballast-mediated animal introductions in the Laurentian Great Lakes:
    retrospective and prospective analyses by Igor A. Grigorovich,
    Robert I. Colautti, Edward L. Mills, Kristen Holeck, Albert G.
    Ballert, and Hugh J. MacIsaac 2003

16. Identifying hazards in complex ecological systems. Part 1:
    fault-tree analysis for biological invasions Keith R. Hayes 2002

17. Global hot spots of biological invasions: evaluating options for
    ballast-water management, John M. Drake and David M. Lodge 2004

\[Note: Information provided in this report was collected from multiple
sources during conference and via interviews. Should any of the provided
information require further footnote, please contact Penny Kriesch at
<penny.e.kriesch@aphis.usda.gov> for report notation.\]

**APPENDIX E: Conference Agenda**

Agenda

National Invasive Species Council

Pathway Assessment Conference

(Air Transport, Ballast Water, Wood Packing Material)

USDA APHIS Oklahoma Memorial Conference Center

Riverdale, Maryland, June 21-22, 2005

Day One -- June 21, 2005

8:30 Coffee

9:00 Welcome Penny Kriesch, USDA APHIS-NISC Prevention Cmte

9:10 National Invasive Species Program Richard Orr, Assistant Director
for International

> Policy/Prevention, National Invasive Species Council, (NISC) U.S.
> Department of Interior

9:30 Pathways Analysis Project Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Senior USDA Invasive
Species

> Coordinator USDA Liaison, NISC

10:00 Instructions to Work Groups Facilitation Team (Penny Kriesch)

10:15 Break Adjourn to Work Groups

10:30 Individual Focus Groups Conference-Rooms A/B/C

12:00 Training- Invasive Species Jeffrey P. Fisher, PhD, International
Trade and Trends

> U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International
> Environmental & Scientific Affairs

Lunch

1:30 Focus Groups (In-Room break) Conference-Rooms A/B/C

3:30 Reconvene in Large Group Pathway Focus Group Leads

Issues, Challenges, Next Steps Conference Center Main Room

4:00 Adjourn

Day Two -- June 22, 2005

8:30 Coffee

9:00 Invasive Species: Data Mining Susan Cohen, PhD, USDA APHIS
Policy/Program Dev

9:15 Work Group Break-Outs Conference-Rooms A/B/C

12:00 Training Video Al Tasker, USDA APHIS, Noxious Weed Coordinator

1:30 Focus Groups (In-Room Break) Conference-Rooms A/B/C

2:30 Focus Group Report Outs Pathway Focus Group Leads-

Conference Center Main Room

3:30 The Next Challenges for Faith Campbell

Pathway Prioritization The Nature Conservancy

3:45 Thanks and Adjourn Penny Kriesch

**APPENDIX F -- Reserved For Future Development of Predictive Algorithms
and**

**Integrated Database Design**

**APPENDIX G: Revised Pathway Diagrams**

**Diagrammed Pathway Categorizations**

**(T) Transportation**

T 1 Modes of Transportation

> T1.1 Air
>
> T1.2 Water/Aquatic
>
> T1.2.1 Ship Ballast Water
>
> T1.2.2 Hull/Surface Fouling (i.e., Recreational Boats and Vessels)
>
> T1.2.3 Stowaways in Holds
>
> T1.2.4 Superstructures/Structures Above Water Line
>
> T1.2.5 Transportation/Relocation of Dredge Spoil Material
>
> T1.3 Land Terrestrial
>
> T1.3.1 Cars, Buses, Trucks, ATVs. Trailers for recreational boats
>
> T1.3.2 Trains, Subways, Metros, Monorails
>
> T1.3.3 Construction/Firefighting Vehicles
>
> T1.3.4 Hikers, Horses Pets

T2 Military Travel and Transportation of Military Vehicles

> T2.1 Baggage/Gear
>
> T2.2 Equipment

T3 Items used in the Shipping Process

> T3.1 Containers
>
> T3.2 Packing Materials
>
> T3.2.1 Wood Packing Materials
>
> T3.2.2 Seaweed
>
> T3.2.3 Other Plant Materials
>
> T3.2.4 Sand/Earth

T4 Mail/Internet Overnight shipping

T5 Travel Tourism/Relocation

> T5.1 Travelers Themselves
>
> T5.2 Baggage/Gear
>
> T5.3 Pets/Plants and Animals Transported for Entertainment
>
> T5.4 Travel Consumables
>
> T5.5 Service Industries

**(L) Living Industry**

L1 Plant Pathways

> L1.1 Importation of Plants for Research
>
> L1.2 Potting Soils, Growing Mediums, Sods and Other Materials
>
> L1.3 Plant Trade (agricultural nursery, landscape, floral, raw logs)
>
> L1.3.1 Plant Parts
>
> L1.3.1.1 Above-Ground Plant Parts
>
> L1.3.1.2 Below Ground Plant Parts
>
> L1.3.1.3 Seeds and the Seed Trade
>
> L1.3.1.4 Aquatic Propagules
>
> L1.3.2 Whole Plants

L2 Food Pathways

> L2.1 Live Seafood
>
> L2.2 Other Live Food Animals
>
> L2.3 Plants and Plant Parts as Food

L3 Non-Food Animal Pathways

> L3.1 Bait
>
> L3.2 Pet/Aquarium Trade
>
> L3.3 Aquaculture
>
> L3.4 Non-Pet Animals
>
> L3.5 Release of Organisms for Religious, Cultural or Other Reasons

L4 Nonliving Animal and Plant Related Pathways

> L4.1 Processed and Partially Processed Meat and Meat Processing Waste
>
> L4.2 Frozen Seafood
>
> L4.3 Minimally Processed Animal Products
>
> L4.4 Minimally Processed Plant Products

\(M\) Miscellaneous

M1 Biocontrol

M2 Other Aquatic Pathways

> M2.1 Interconnected Waterways
>
> M2.1.1 Freshwater Canals
>
> M2.1.2 Marine/Estuarine Canals
>
> M2.1.3 Domestic Waste Streams
>
> M2.2 Interbasin Transfers

M3 Natural Spread of Established Populations

M4 Ecosystem Disturbance

M4.1 Long-Term (highway and utility rights-of-way, clearing, logging)

M4.2 Short Term (habitat restoration, enhancement, prescribed burning)

M5 Garbage

> M5.1 Garbage Transport
>
> M5.2 Garbage Landfill
>
> **APPENDIX H-Pathways Diagrams**

**RESERVED**

[^1]: Source: Arizona State University Consortium for Science, Policy
    and Outcomes, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

[^2]: See *User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation* (NSF 93-152)
    as paraphrased and applied to remainder of section.

[^3]: *User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation* (NSF 93-152).

[^4]: *User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation* (NSF 93-152).

[^5]: Source: Arizona State University Consortium for Science, Policy
    and Outcomes, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

[^6]: Source: Arizona State University Consortium for Science, Policy
    and Outcomes, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences