**USDA AVOIDING HARM FROM INVASIVE SPECIES IN FY 2007 (USDA Do No Harm
2007 Report)**

**A USDA Report to the Invasive Species Advisory Committee and the
National Invasive Species Council**

March 20, 2008

There are eight U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies that work
on invasive species issues: the Agricultural Research Service (ARS);
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES); Economic Research
Service (ERS); Farm Service Agency (FSA); Foreign Agricultural Service
(FAS); USDA Forest Service (FS) and Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS).

Previous USDA Do No Harm Reports cover: (1) fiscal year (FY) 2004
activities; (2) FY 2005 activities for ARS, APHIS, CSREES, ERA and NRCS
(first report dated October 2004); (3) FY 2005 activities for the Forest
Service (report dated February 2005); (4) FY 2006 activities for
ARS/NAL, CSREES, ERS, NRCS and USFS (report dated March 2007); (5) FY
2006 activities for APHIS (report dated August 20, 2007); and FY 2006
activities for ARS (report dated September 22, 2007).

**This is the seventh "USDA Do No Harm Report" to the Invasive Species
Advisory Committee and the National Invasive Species Council. It covers
the FY 2007 activities for ARS, ARS/NAL, APHIS, CSREES, ERS, FAS, FS,
and NRCS.**

The report is divided by agency activities. Each agency will report on:

> a\) Invasive species program activities the agency is carrying out to
> do no harm;
>
> b\) The way in which, when the agency carries out other programs
> activities, they are also designed and implemented to do no harm;
>
> c\) Activities that are doing harm and future actions the agency will
> take to change the activities so that they do no harm.

Within the above categories, the agency will include its own agency
activities, as well as activities where the agency is coordinating
and/or collaborating with another federal agency, per the mandate of the
Invasive Species Executive Order (EO 13112).

I. USDA Research Agencies:

A. Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

> The **Agricultural Research Service** (ARS) has significant
> involvement in pest management, including invasive species. Research
> infrastructure dedicated to pest management includes personnel and
> facilities in domestic and foreign laboratories that also provide
> support to other agencies, organizations, and state governments. ARS
> commitment to avoiding harm by invasive species has been evident over
> the past five years, in which agency scientists identified nearly 2000
> species of invasive and potentially invasive aphids, scale insects,
> thrips, and mites of economic importance to U.S. agriculture.
>
> **1. Activities that do no harm**

-   [E-Government: Invasivespeciesinfo.gov]{.underline}: Invasive
    species activities have grown exponentially in the last several
    years, and a central website to share information was required by
    the National Invasive Species Management Plan. ARS, through its
    National Agricultural Library (NAL), developed and maintained the
    website (http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/). This site provides
    general one-stop searching for information as well as increasing
    public awareness about invasive species, with links to more than
    15,000 unique Web-based resources.

> The Web site content has grown more than 6,000 percent since its
> launch in the summer of 2000, Web site usage continues to grow with
> more than 7 million page views in the last 12 months. Responding to
> this growth, the site underwent a major redesign in 2006, which
> resulted in a dramatic increase in customer satisfaction score as
> measured by the American Consumer Satisfaction Index.
>
> Access to current invasive species related news through the Web site
> was enhanced with the addition of news feeds from various sources and
> invasive species related blogs. Customers can also automatically learn
> about the latest changes to the www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov Web site
> through an RSS feed.

-   [Biological control/host-specificity testing]{.underline}:
    Biological control underpins the ARS research effort in Integrated
    Pest Management (IPM). Classical biological control has provided
    great dividends (over \$20 billion saved per year in insect control
    costs in the United States alone). Savings are comparable in weed
    biological control.

> For example, ARS entomologists examined parasitic microsporidia to
> curb fire ant populations. Worker ants transferred spores of the
> parasites to the queen, diminishing egg production. The
> microsporidium, *Vairimorpha invictae*, was shown to successfully
> destroyed fire ant colonies, but did not infect non-fire ants or other
> arthropods examined thus far. Entomopathogenic nematodes were found to
> be effective for control of other stone fruit pests, such as the plum
> curculio, *Conotrachelus nenuphar*, and peachtree borer, *Synanthedon
> exitiosa*. ARS discovered new entomopathogenic fungi, such as
> *Beauveria bassiana* strains with superior virulence to pecan weevil.
> Scientists also developed methods to enhance concurrent application of
> *B. bassiana* and fungicides. ARS is using the sterile insect
> technique (SIT) to control the South American cactus moth, released 50
> years ago in the West Indies for cactus control, and now a threat to
> the prickly pear cactus, which is native to the southern United States
> and Mexico.
>
> Prior to release of any biological control agent, ARS' first rule is
> to do no harm. We do not want to release agents that might harm
> non-target organisms. For over 120 years, biological control
> ecologists have developed and modified a series of tests that take
> several years to complete before a biological control agent of weeds
> or insects is determined to be safe for release to the environment. To
> ensure that damage to non-target species is short-term and
> insignificant, ARS is committed to long-term monitoring of the effects
> of biological control agents and on potential non-target species. The
> goal of the research is to find an organism that feeds and/or
> reproduces entirely or primarily on the target invasive pest species.

-   [Areawide pest management programs:]{.underline} ARS areawide pest
    management programs involve coordinated research and management
    activity with grower participation to suppress or maintain a pest at
    low population levels over large areas through environmentally
    sound, effective and economical approaches. Approaches Number range
    CHAPTERinclude biological and cultural control and other sustainable
    agriculture practices. Number range CHAPTERARS is demonstrating that
    IPM and areawide pest management systems, employing biologically
    based or pest-specific methods, can substantially substitute for,
    and decrease the risks from, the most hazardous chemical pesticides
    and simultaneously increase economic benefits for agriculture.

> For example, ARS is using remote sensing to delineate Arundo's
> distribution and density along the Rio Grande and its tributaries, and
> is exploring biological control approaches using insects from the
> native range of *A. donax*. Three insects, including *Tetramesa
> romana*, a wasp that's harmless to humans and animals, wormlike larvae
> of Cryptonevra flies and a scale insect (*Rhizaspidiotus donacis*)
> seem the most promising candidates. ARS also developed a diet for
> screwworms (*Cochliomyia hominivorax*) suitable for mass rearing of
> male screwworm flies as part of the effort to eradicate this pest.
> Once reared, young males are made sexually sterile and then
> air-shipped to other facilities for release. Mating between native
> females and sterilized males produces no offspring, thereby
> diminishing populations. ARS also developed a cost-effective and
> consistent system of annual grass control that facilitated region-wide
> implementation of reduced tillage peanut production. This required
> optimizing application parameters to achieve acceptable weed control
> with minimal crop injury.

-   [Pesticide risk reduction]{.underline}: In addition to the
    development of biological control, cultural, and areawide pest
    management approaches, ARS has made progress in developing a variety
    of technologies and approaches to reduce the risks of non-target
    effects associated with conventional pesticides. These include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Application technology]{.underline}: ARS research has contributed
    to development of application systems, drift management, efficacy
    enhancement, and remote sensing. Also, remote sensing systems are
    used to target areas in the field where pests are present so that
    insecticide spray can be directed to only those areas. Examples for
    2007 include successes in efforts to control several invasive plant
    species. Smooth cordgrass (*Spartina alterniflora*) has invaded
    areas in California and Washington, and although this plant can be
    controlled with foliar herbicides, their use is confined to
    relatively narrow time windows due to nesting of protected birds, as
    well as the need to treat actively growing shoots. ARS demonstrated
    the potential for acetic acid to suppress sprouting of cordgrass
    from over wintering rhizomes and reduce potential for seed
    dispersal. ARS also determine parameters for efficacious control of
    the invasive weeds bird vetch, white sweetclover, orange hawkweed
    and yellow toadflax, which have been rapidly spreading along
    roadways and urban areas in Alaska.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Software for pest management science]{.underline}: ARS has a long
    history of applying computational approaches to a broad range of
    agricultural problems, leading to the development of numerous
    computer models, ranging from weather simulators and environmental
    fate predictors to databases for predicting disease susceptibility.
    Models, such as WeedCast, WheatScout, and WeedSite are available for
    free to assist in managing weeds. WeedCast forecasts weed growth for
    the purpose of making weed management decisions, whereas WheatScout
    is a decision aid that predicts the effects of a variety of
    herbicides on green foxtail and wild oat in wheat crops. WeedSite
    evaluates the effects of site specific weed management on irrigated
    corn cropping systems. In addition to these products, ARS modeling
    approaches are used to advance our understanding of the basic
    biology of invasive organisms. For FY 2007, ARS developed equations
    for estimating aboveground biomass of giant reed (*Arundo donax*)
    from stem counts and heights. These equations will be useful in
    developing strategies to minimize vegetative spread or
    re-establishment of this plant in managed sites. ARS also created a
    seed dispersal-based model that enhances the ability to design
    comprehensive science-based prevention programs to minimize invasion
    of crested wheatgrass stands by medusahead.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Agrochemical fate]{.underline}: ARS research on understanding
    agrochemical fate and transport prevents and mitigates adverse
    environmental impacts. Research results have led to the development
    of science-based management practices that protect vulnerable areas
    of the ecosystem. With the development of better predictive tools
    and Global Information System (GIS)-based modeling, risks can be
    assessed at the basin and watershed levels, and management
    strategies can be identified that minimize negative environmental
    impacts. Basic information on herbicide fate mechanisms and factors
    controlling these mechanisms provides the basis of some of these
    predictive tools. For example, long winters, frozen soils, and a
    different soil micro-flora at high latitudes suggest slower
    herbicide breakdown, resulting in increased soil movement and
    herbicide half-lives. ARS measured the transformation and movement
    of 2, 4-D and Triclopyr in Alaska with the goals of developing
    recommendations for herbicide use in arctic soils and gaining
    insights into chemical and microbial behavior at high latitudes.

-   [Weed growth at elevated atmospheric CO~2~
    concentrations]{.underline}. ARS demonstrated that weeds can
    engineer the soil to favor their invasiveness (e.g., ameliorating
    saline-sodic soils) and that some weeds (such as *Bromus tectorum*)
    are stimulated by elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide, suggesting
    that atmospheric carbon dioxide can render some invasive weeds more
    competitive.

-   [Eliminating barriers for the use of safer herbicides and reducing
    herbicide inputs]{.underline}. Adopting safer herbicide technology
    can be slowed by lack of registration data on minor crops, and in
    some cases, inter-varietal differences in herbicide sensitivity.

> More than 600 fruits, vegetables, nuts, berries, herbs, nursery
> plants, and ornamentals are classified as minor crops in the United
> States based on their limited production acreages. However, these
> minor crops have a farm gate value of almost \$40 billion, which
> represents 40% of all crop value in the United States. Unfortunately,
> there is little or no economic incentive for chemical registrants to
> develop the data to register herbicides on these crops. The IR-4
> Project between the USDA (CSREES and ARS) and the land grant
> university system conducts field trials and residue analyses to
> develop food safety data on minor crops that result in the clearance
> of effective pesticides by the Environmental Protection Agency. During
> the past five years, ARS has participated in 263 trials of herbicides
> on vegetables, fruits, and other specialty crops; 699 on florist and
> nursery crops; and 220 on ornamentals, establishing tolerances for 60
> crops involving 26 herbicides. The tolerances are used by pesticide
> registrants to add new uses to their labels to provide growers with
> safer, more effective and less environmentally disruptive methods to
> reduce crop losses and maintain yield and quality. These data
> supported 150 herbicide registrations on florist and nursery crops,
> and 24 on 100 ornamental crops.
>
> For FY 2007, ARS demonstrated the economic/agronomic efficacy of
> growing novel indica-based, weed-suppressive rice varieties with
> reduced herbicide inputs to control weedy red rice and barnyardgrass.
> ARS also provided research to advance the concept of invasion
> resistant plant communities. Findings suggested that desired
> communities can resist invasion if designed/managed to maximize niche
> occupation, thus lessening the likelihood of invasion by allowing
> desired species to capture the majority of resources prior to an
> invasive plant's arrival/establishment.

-   [Host plant resistance]{.underline}: Host plant resistance is an
    efficient, economical, and environmentally safe approach to manage
    many pests and diseases. ARS has made significant contributions to
    the development of germplasm resistant to pests and disease. These
    plant varieties are a major component of sustainable agricultural
    production. In FY 2007, ARS found that volatile chemicals released
    by grapes may affect feeding preferences of glassy-winged sharp
    shooter (GWSS). These results have implications for the epidemiology
    of Pierce's Disease. ARS researchers also evaluated more than 400
    maize lines for resistance to western corn rootworms and identified
    several lines with resistance potential. This information is
    necessary for developing new resistant host plants that can be
    included in pest management programs. Additional work identified and
    characterized resistance to soybean aphid (SBA) in several soybean
    lines that are now included in breeding programs aimed at developing
    resistant varieties. The genetically engineered ARS Plum tree (Honey
    Sweet) has resistance to the highly destructive plum pox virus
    (PPV). The tree has been deregulated by APHIS, thus ARS has moved to
    the next stage in development, distribution to cooperators to
    examine how the trees grow under a variety of conditions.

# [Pathogen detection]{.underline}: A **new generation of diagnostic tests is needed to detect emerging disease pathogens of plants and animals and their toxins, identify new variants of known disease pathogens, control or eradicate zoonotic diseases, and control diseases that impact production and trade.** As examples, for FY 2007, ARS initiated a proteomic/genomic project to find biomarkers for streamlined screening of microbial resistance mechanisms and plant chemicals that may alter insect immune defenses. The genomic resources generated by this project will be publicly available on-line to all scientists worldwide. As part of a study to investigate the failure of the nematode *Heterorhabditis marelatus* to control Colorado Potato Beetle (CPB), ARS determined that body cavities of the CPB that were killed had been colonized by enteric bacteria of the beetle, limiting the growth of *Photorhabdus temperate*, a bacterium that has a symbiotic relationship with the nematode. Suppression of the bacterial symbiont limited reproduction of the nematode, thus reducing its effectiveness. This discovery provided an inexpensive means of screening candidate species for antagonism by enteric CPB bacteria before initiating costly field trials.

-   [Pest and pathogen biology]{.underline}: Understanding pest and
    pathogen biology and ecology underpins all work toward effective
    pest control, and concomitant preservation of habitat by elimination
    or management of invasive species. For example, the bollworm,
    *Helicoverpa zea*, exhibits a natural tolerance for *Bacillus
    thuringiensis* (Bt) proteins, thus evolution of resistance to Bt
    cotton and corn are a major concern. ARS research showed that Bt
    field corn does not appear to influence selection for Cry1A toxin
    resistance in bollworm, which will be important for future
    regulatory decisions regarding refuge requirements for Bt corn in
    cotton-producing states.

-   [Molecular genetic analysis of insects and pathogens]{.underline}:
    ARS has been responsible for advances in the identification and
    analysis of genetic systems involved in insect development,
    reproduction and behavior which enable the identification of new
    targets for control as well as the development of highly specific
    insecticidal products. Other ARS studies have developed gene
    transfer technology to understand these biological processes through
    functional genomics, and transgenic strains for possible use in
    biological control. ARS has also developed molecular markers and
    methodologies to identify and track insect populations and disease
    outbreaks. For example, ARS demonstrated that prostaglandins,
    compounds that act in insect immune defense reactions, influence
    gene expression in insect cells. This finding illuminates a new and
    workable strategy to research how prostaglandins work in insects.
    ARS determined a genetic basis for trait deterioration in
    entomopathogenic nematodes and discovered that the nematodes and
    their associated bacteria contribute to deterioration of their
    symbiotic complex. Further, methodology was developed to overcome
    the problem through creation of selected inbred lines and enhanced
    cryopreservation techniques. Commercial nematode producers can use
    the technology to maintain biological control efficacy in their
    organisms.

-   [Range restoration]{.underline}*.* ARS scientists studied the
    consequences of various range restoration techniques. Among the most
    common, disking (which breaks up root systems) allows competing
    vegetation to thrive. Unfortunately, because disking disturbs the
    soil, it creates a nitrogen-rich environment that can easily be
    exploited by rapidly growing weeds. Results showed that minimizing
    soil disturbance and lowering the nitrogen supply quickly will help
    native species flourish.

> **2. Other ARS Research activities also designed to do no harm:**

-   [Invasivespecies.gov Web site links:]{.underline} The
    Invasivespecies.gov Web site links to relevant Internet resources of
    many of the forty federal agencies that are members of the National
    Invasive Species Council.

-   [Invasive species listserv:]{.underline} The National Agricultural
    Library is hosting an invasive species listserv for the public
    affairs officers that work on invasive species issues in Council
    agencies.

-   [Information management support to ITAP:]{.underline} NAL provides
    information management support for the Invasive Terrestrial Animal
    and Pathogen (ITAP), a Federal scientific and technical interagency
    advisory group.

-   [Overseas laboratories/quarantine facilities]{.underline}: Classical
    biological control is the use of natural enemies derived from a
    pest's point of origin. It offers the possibility for permanent,
    cost effective suppression of weeds and insect pests. The ARS
    Overseas Biological Control Laboratories are located in Australia,
    China, Argentina and France and work as a cohesive network. Their
    collective mission is to identify, develop and ship natural enemies
    to stateside collaborators for use in U.S. programs designed to
    combat invasive species. Accordingly, they represent the beginning
    of a pipeline of effective biological control agents and numerous
    stateside programs rely upon them. The ARS Overseas Laboratories
    have a rich history of success in this regard, having contributed
    numerous biocontrol agents now in use. For example, *Oxyops
    vitiosa*, a beetle released in 1997 that attacks leaves of the
    invasive paperbark tree (Melaleuca), has diminished the densities of
    these trees by 70% in parts of south Florida. The olive fruit fly
    was first reported in California in 1998 and is now established in
    olive growing regions in the central part of the state. By 2005, ARS
    had conducted exploration (southern Africa) identification, testing,
    and release of natural enemies (parasitoid wasps) of the olive fruit
    fly. This represents a very rapid response to a serious agriculture
    problem. The European Biological Control Laboratory (EBCL) in FY
    2007 also contributed to studies on frequencies of occurrence of
    genetic determinants involved in resistance of insects to chemical
    and microbial pesticides. In particular, the development of
    microsatellite markers was of considerable importance. Generally
    speaking, a microsatellite is a specific sequence of DNA bases that
    contains tandem repeats. By looking at the variation of
    microsatellites in populations, inferences can be made about the
    structures of the populations, their genetic drift, or the date of a
    last common ancestor.

> Besides state universities, the ARS overseas laboratories also
> maintain formal collaborations with APHIS, the U.S. Forest Service,
> the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the
> Bureau of Indian and many universities and State Departments of
> Agriculture.
>
> Related to this overseas work, ARS maintains insects in quarantine
> facilities that meet Federal safety specifications to preclude insect
> introduction into the host country. When beneficial insects arrive
> from overseas, they are again carefully sorted, screened for parasites
> and reared. This work is also done in quarantine facilities. ARS
> operates laboratories with quarantine facilities in Albany,
> California, Stoneville, Mississippi, and Temple, Texas. New quarantine
> facilities are due to open in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and Sidney,
> Montana. ARS collaborates with universities and other state and
> Federal agencies that manage additional quarantine facilities,
> including a long-term program at Gainesville, Florida. Each quarantine
> facility uses a variety of traps, doors, entryways and sanitizing
> procedures to keep the insects secure until they are proven safe for
> release into the U.S.

-   [Risk analysis checklist for importation and release into the
    environment of biological control agents]{.underline}: ARS has
    standardized its procedures relating to conducting tests for the
    release of biological control agents under the requirements of the
    National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). This is currently
    coordinated by the ARS Biological Control Documentation Center, in
    conjunction with APHIS, the agency with authority to approve
    releases. The Center also stores and retrieves information on
    invertebrate and microbial biological control agents of
    invertebrate, weed and microbial pests, thereby documenting movement
    of any agents into the U.S.

-   [Systematics]{.underline}: The expertise of ARS scientists in
    systematics (i.e., systematists) enables us to predict, effectively
    prevent, and manage the introduction and expansion of invasive
    species to ensure environmental and agricultural security and
    sustainability. In FY 2007, based in part on in-house research, ARS
    scientists contributed twenty chapters, to the Manual of Central
    American Diptera, which will be a primary reference for
    identification of flies originating from tropical Mexico to South
    America. This is the first comprehensive treatment of the fly fauna
    of any Latin American area. ARS contributions cover many
    agriculturally important taxa, including pests (fruit flies),
    pollinators (flower flies), and predators and parasitoids useful for
    biological control (tachinids and cryptochetids). The book, which
    will likely be published in 2008, will be used by scientists, action
    agencies (e.g., APHIS), and others who need basic information about
    flies from tropical America. Such basic advancements facilitate
    identification of organisms of interest to numerous agencies. For
    example, in Fiscal Year 2004 alone, ARS scientists in Beltsville,
    Maryland, provided 11,145 identifications (5,083 of URGENT priority)
    to a broad array of organizations. The vast majority of
    identifications are provided to the USDA Animal and Plant Health
    Inspection Service/Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS/PPQ).

> In other Federal work, ARS participates in the Federal Interagency
> Committee for Invasive Terrestrial Animals and Pathogens. The ITAP
> focus is in the areas of research, monitoring, and management of
> terrestrial invasive invertebrates, vertebrates and their pathogens,
> plant pathogens, and systematics.
>
> **3. Activities that are doing harm, and future agency actions to
> change them so that they do not continue to do harm.**
>
> None. As the principal in-house research agency for the United States
> Department of Agriculture, ARS conducts research to develop and
> transfer solutions to agricultural problems of high national priority.
> ARS scientific studies provide data and develop tools that enable
> America to change potentially harmful actions into those that do no
> harm while still meeting the challenge posed by invasive species.

A.  **[ARS National Agricultural Library (NAL)]{.underline}:**

# Activities to do no harm

a.  [E-Government: Invasivespecies.gov:]{.underline} A central website
    to share information was required by the National Invasive Species
    Management Plan and Executive Order 13112. ARS, through its National
    Agricultural Library (NAL), developed and maintained the website
    (<http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/>). This site serves as the
    official reference gateway for information about invasive species;
    with links to more than 15,000 unique Web-based resources. "Hits" to
    the Web site increased to nearly 7.5 million in FY 2007. The Web
    site is highly ranked with search engines, consistently listing in
    the top ten results in Google searches.

> The conference calendar is widely used and referenced as a resource on
> many other Web sites. Customers can now sign up for alerts to Web site
> changes, either through their Web browsers or by E-mail. Sixty-one
> percent of customers found all or nearly all the information they were
> looking for on the Web site. Customer satisfaction scores dramatically
> improved since 2005. Customers accessing the Web site cross the
> spectrum, including: students, university faculty, business &
> industry, state and local governments, Federal agencies, non-profits,
> farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural producers, and librarians.
> Nearly 10% of the Web site's customers visit the site daily
>
> NAL continues to support the Council's
> [www.invasivespecies.gov](http://www.invasivespecies.gov/) Web site
> until such time when Council staffs are prepared to take over
> management of the site.

# Other NAL Activities, also designed to do no harm

> [a. Invasivespeciesinfo.gov Web site links:]{.underline} The
> Invasivespeciesinfo.gov Web site links to 247 programs and offices of
> the federal agencies that are members of the National Invasive Species
> Council; 9 Federal Programs; and five independent agencies.

b[. Information management support to ITAP:]{.underline} NAL continues
to provide information management support for the Invasive Terrestrial
Animal and Pathogen (ITAP), the Federal scientific and technical
interagency group. This support includes:

-   A SharePoint site to serve as a secure collaborative work space for
    ITAP and its subcommittees.

-   A prototype Web site was created, the site is expected to be
    publicly launched within the next year.

    -   A Web site subcommittee was established; and

    -   A two-year work plan developed.

-   A listserv of ITAP members is maintained to facilitate ITAP-wide
    communication.

> 3\. Activities that are doing harm, and future agency actions to
> change them so that they do not continue to do harm

None.

> **B. [Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
> (CSREES)]{.underline}**

#  1. Activities to do no harm

> a\. [Technical Advisory Group for the Biological Control of
> Weeds:]{.underline} CSREES is a member of the Technical Advisory Group
> (TAG) for the Biological Control of Weeds. This advisory group is made
> up of representatives from various Federal agencies that evaluate
> candidate biological control agents for their economic, environmental,
> and ecological safety. Should the candidate biocontrol agents receive
> approval for release against a given target weed, this helps ensure
> that harmful non-target effects from the natural enemies are
> minimized. TAG advises APHIS.
>
> b\. [National Animal and Plant Diagnostic Laboratory
> Networks:]{.underline} **The safety of U.S. plant and animal
> production systems depends on our ability to rapidly identify foreign
> pathogens and other pests, whether introduced intentionally (through
> bio-terrorism) or unintentionally. CSREES has established two national
> networks of existing diagnostic laboratories to rapidly and accurately
> detect and report pathogens of national interest and to provide timely
> information and training to state university diagnostic
> laboratories.**
>
> The National Plant Diagnostic Network is led by five regional
> laboratories (Cornell University, University of Florida, Michigan
> State University, Kansas State University, and University of
> California-Davis) and one support laboratory (at Texas Tech.
> University). 
>
> [The National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) is led by five
> core labs]{.underline} (University of Georgia, Texas A&M, University
> of California-Davis, University of Wisconsin, and Colorado State
> University), seven satellite labs (Cornell University, Rollins
> Laboratory in North Carolina, Louisiana State University, University
> of Florida, Arizona State University, Washington State University, and
> Iowa State University), and one support lab (Oklahoma State
> University).  These facilities will help to link growers, field
> consultants and other university diagnostic labs to coordinate
> regional detection and provide inter-regional communication in the
> event of an outbreak.
>
> The objective of the NAHLN is to establish a national network of
> diagnostic laboratories to increase the nation's capability and
> capacity to detect foreign animal diseases. The network is a
> cooperative effort between two USDA agencies, CSREES and APHIS, and
> the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians. It
> is a multi-faceted network comprised of sets of laboratories that
> focus on different diseases using common testing methods and software
> platforms to process diagnostic requests and share information.

#  2. Other Agency Activities, also designed to do no harm

> a\. [Integrated Pest Management**:**]{.underline} Section 15 of the
> Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, and the Executive Order 13112 on
> Invasive Species (signed in 1999) direct Federal agencies to use an
> integrated pest management (IPM) approach for the management of
> undesirable plants on Federal lands using all available tools,
> including: education; preventive measures; cultural, mechanical,
> physical, biological and chemical control; and general land management
> practices such as revegetation, manipulation of livestock or wildlife
> grazing, and improvement of livestock and wildlife habitat.
>
> Integrated Pest Management provides a sustainable approach to managing
> pests by combining biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools
> in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks. The
> adoption and utilization of IPM is being encouraged through other
> legislative authorities within Federal departments. For example, US
> Code (Title 7, Chapter 6, Subchapter II, Sec. 136r-1. Integrated Pest
> Management**)** states: \"The Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation
> with the Administrator, shall implement research, demonstration and
> education programs to support adoption of Integrated Pest
> Management.\" It further states \"Federal agencies shall use
> Integrated Pest Management Techniques in carrying out pest management
> activities and shall promote Integrated Pest Management through
> procurement and regulatory policies and other activities. IPM is also
> being encouraged across Federal agencies within the Department of the
> Interior.
>
> Because of the complexity of economic, social, and environmental
> issues associated with invasive species management, and the biological
> and ecological attributes associated with each particular invasive
> species, programs that are based on a combination of technologies tend
> to be most successful and sustainable. As indicated in the National
> Invasive Species Council's (NISC) National Invasive Species Management
> Plan of 2001, the IPM approach considers the best available scientific
> information, updated target population monitoring data, and the
> environmental effects of control methods in selecting a range of
> complementary technologies and methods to implement to achieve a
> desired objective. Some of the factors to consider in selecting
> control methodologies include environmental compatibility, efficacy,
> cost-effectiveness, inter-compatibility of different types of control
> measures, practicality and safety. The adoption of an IPM approach for
> invasive species management will certainly help minimize harm to the
> environment, human health and wildlife.

3\. Activities that are doing harm and future agency

actions to change them so that they do not continue to

do harm

> a\. [Pesticide use that has negative impacts:]{.underline}
> Conventional pest management strategies using pesticides are still
> emphasized in the management of invasive species with potential
> negative side effects to humans, the environment and wildlife. CSREES
> is helping to facilitate the adoption of an Integrated Pest Management
> Roadmap (IPM Roadmap) that will certainly help minimize harm to
> non-target species and the environment.
>
> The goal of the IPM Road Map is to increase nationwide communication
> and efficiency through information exchanges among Federal and
> non-Federal IPM practitioners and service providers including land
> managers, growers, structural pest managers, and public and wildlife
> health officials. Development of the Road Map for the National
> Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program began in February 2002, with
> continuous input from numerous IPM experts, practitioners, and
> stakeholders. The Road Map identifies strategic directions for IPM
> research, implementation, and measurement for pests in all major
> settings, throughout the nation. This includes pest management for
> areas including agricultural, structural, ornamental, turf, museums,
> public and wildlife health pests, and encompasses terrestrial and
> aquatic invasive species.
>
> The goal of the National IPM Program is to increase the economic
> benefits of adopting IPM practices and to reduce potential risks to
> human health and the environment caused by the pests themselves or by
> the use of inappropriate pest management practices.
>
> b\. [Pest Management Grant Programs]{.underline}: CSREES has several
> competitive grant programs designed to emphasize IPM, while reducing
> pesticide residues on food and in the environment. These include the
> Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program, Crops at Risk Program, Pest
> Management Alternatives Program, Integrated Organic Program, Methyl
> Bromide Transitions Program, Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program,
> and the IPM Centers. The emphasis of IPM and bio-based pest management
> in these CSREES competitive grant programs will certainly help
> minimize harmful side effects to non-target species and the
> environment when these strategies are used in invasive species
> management.
>
> c\. [IPM Training Consortium for Federal Employees]{.underline}:
> CSREES is facilitating the development of an IPM Training Consortium
> to provide IPM training to Federal workers involved in pest management
> issues and activities. Increasing the quality and consistency of IPM
> training among Federal agencies and their adoption of an IPM approach
> for invasive species management will certainly help minimize harm to
> the environment, to human health, and to wildlife.
>
> d\. [Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education
> (PIPE):]{.underline} PIPE is a reporting and tracking system,
> developed collaboratively with the USDA Risk Management Agency, to
> manage pest and disease information flow via the Web.
>
> The PIPE system provides real-time useful information to U.S. crop
> producers, and a "one stop shopping" center for timely, unbiased,
> national, and local pest information. PIPE fosters good farming
> practices by encouraging growers to: avoid unnecessary or ill-timed
> chemical applications; use the proper control tactics with the proper
> timing to manage crop loss risk; and document practices for crop
> insurance purposes. The PIPE system for soybean rust saved growers
> hundreds of millions of dollars in 2007 by providing real-time
> information that enabled the growers to avoid unnecessary chemical
> applications.

C.  **[Economic Research Service (ERS)]{.underline}**

**1. Activities to do no harm**

> ERS is the main source of economic information and research from the
> U.S. Department of Agriculture. ERS research informs and enhances
> public and private decision-making on economic and policy issues
> related to agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural
> development.
>
> a\. [Program of Research on the Economics of Invasive Species
> Management (PREISM):]{.underline} ERS initiated a new program of work
> in fiscal year 2003, the Program of Research on the Economics of
> Invasive Species Management (PREISM), to examine the economic issues
> related to managing invasive species in increasingly global
> agricultural markets. Through PREISM, ERS primarily funds extramural
> research through a competitive awards program that focuses on national
> decision making concerning invasive species of agricultural
> significance or affecting, or affected by, USDA programs. In addition
> to ERS-led analyses of invasive species issues, ERS has disbursed
> \$5.8 million through the competitive awards program to 39 recipients,
> including universities, other USDA agencies, and private non-profit
> institutions, for research on the economics of invasive species during
> FY 2003 to FY 2007. About \$1.1 million per year were allocated for
> extramural agreements in FY 2005 and FY 2006, while \$950,000 was
> allocated in FY 2007. ERS also organizes workshops each year to
> provide a forum for dialogue on economic issues associated with
> agricultural invasive species.
>
> Following are some preliminary findings from PREISM-funded research
> projects:

-   Prevention and management resources should be allocated to species
    and strategies with the highest return (in terms of damage reduction
    over time). Ideally, marginal benefits and costs should be equal
    across species and strategies.

-   Decision-support tools that follow sound economic principles and
    reveal underlying scientific assumptions and value judgments provide
    a basis for expert and stakeholder involvement in decision-making
    and promote efficient allocations of funds.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Optimal invasive species management strategies depend upon the stage
    of the invasion and associated rates of growth and spread.
    Eradication may be optimal for small invasions; reduction to a
    containment level for larger invasions. If eradication is feasible,
    the effort will reduce discounted damages more if it occurs early
    when populations are small. Delays result in more damages. If
    [total]{.underline} cost increases rapidly as population increases,
    eradication when the population is small followed by prevention may
    be the best strategy.

-   Under-funded eradication or management efforts can be
    cost-ineffective or wasteful, with little or no effect on invasive
    species growth and total damage. Higher initial expenditures can
    reduce long term damages and control costs, even if the species is
    not eradicated.

-   For established invasive species infestations, [per
    unit]{.underline} costs of removal can increase as populations
    decrease or become more isolated, making complete eradication
    difficult or cost-inefficient. In some cases, accommodation to low
    levels of invasion is economically preferable to the high cost of
    eradication. The higher is the cost of removal, the larger the
    population that will be accommodated.

-   Higher invasive species infestation or population growth rates
    reduce benefit-cost ratios of control efforts, and at high enough
    rates, control might not be worthwhile. If population has surpassed
    that of maximum growth rate, the best strategy could be a pulse-like
    effort that drives populations below a critical population level and
    growth rate, followed by containment strategy.

-   Probability of occurrence maps for invasive weeds based on GIS and
    other inventory or survey data and related population growth rates
    can improve weed management efficiency by reducing: 1) costs by
    targeting sites to monitor invasiveness, and/or 2) damage by
    initiating control of highly invasive populations before they
    spread.

-   Coordination of regulations across U.S.-Canada, State, and
    provincial boundaries could: 1) more effectively reduce the
    cross-border spread of exotic horticultural plants that become
    invasive, and 2) reduce incentives for cross-border firm relocations
    to take advantage of more lenient regulations.

-   Ecological and agronomic differences influence cross-State
    differences in noxious weed and weed-seed lists, but stakeholder
    lobbying also has significant effects.  

**2. Other Agency Activities, also designed to do no harm**

ERS is not engaged in any activities that do harm.

**3. Activities that are doing harm and future agency**

**actions to change them so that they do not continue to**

**do harm**

None.

## II. USDA Regulatory and Resource Management Agencies

**A. [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)]{.underline}**

# 1. Activities to do no harm

> "Protecting American agriculture" is the basic charge of the U.S.
> Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection
> Service (APHIS). APHIS provides leadership in ensuring the health and
> care of animals and plants. The agency improves agricultural
> productivity and competitiveness and contributes to the national
> economy and the public health. APHIS has major regulatory authority to
> implement action programs to achieve these responsibilities. For more
> detailed information and up to date highlights of program activity,
> please visit the APHIS Web Site (http://www/aphis.usda.gov/).
>
> a\. [Invasive Species Prevention Programs:]{.underline} Specifically
> the APHIS mission, stated in its current strategic plan, is to protect
> the health and value of American agriculture and natural resources. To
> carry out this mission, APHIS works to achieve two interdependent
> goals:

-   Safeguard the health of animals, plants, and ecosystems in the
    United States (U.S.)

-   Facilitate safe agricultural trade

> It does so through a system of interdependent objectives addressing
> exclusion (i.e., prevention), detection, emergency response,
> management, trade issue resolution, and capacity building. These areas
> correspond closely to elements of the 2001 National Invasive Species
> Management Plan.
>
> APHIS tries to ensure that other entities in the private and public
> sectors, including other Federal agencies, \"do no harm\" by
> introducing or spreading invasive species. APHIS prevention programs
> -- a comprehensive set of risk-based regulations and enforcement
> efforts \-- are directed at animals, plants, and their products that
> may bring invasive species or be pathways for the introduction of
> invasive species. As such, the Agency addresses both unintentional and
> intentional introductions of invasives. A description of some of the
> applicable regulations follows.
>
> 1\. [Regulation of certain animals and animal products:]{.underline}
>
> APHIS regulates, as set forth in 9 CFR parts 91 through 99, the
> importation of animals and animal products to guard against the
> introduction of animal diseases into the U.S. in accordance with the
> Animal Health Protection Act.
>
> 2\. [Regulation of certain plants and plant products:]{.underline}
> Regulations contained in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the
> importation of plants, plant parts, and plant products into the U.S.
> in accordance with the Plant Protection Act. APHIS enforces the part
> 319 regulations and considers requests to amend the part 319
> regulations to allow the importation of plants, plant parts, or plant
> products that are not currently allowed importation under the
> regulations. The requirements apply to many commodities, including
> nursery stock.
>
> 3\. [Listing of noxious weeds:]{.underline}
>
> Under the authority of the Plant Protection Act, APHIS regulates, in 7
> CFR parts 360 and 361, the importation and interstate movement of
> plants and plant products that may be noxious weeds, i.e., plants that
> can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops, livestock,
> poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation,
> the natural resources, public health, or the environment.
>
> b\. [Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory
> (PERAL)]{.underline}:
>
> PERAL is a diverse group of scientists and professionals comprising
> the primary office in Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) for pest
> risk analysis. PERAL is responsible for providing essential scientific
> support to risk-based policy making across a broad range of
> phytosanitary issues. The staff uses scientific principles, procedures
> and evidence to analyze issues relevant to safeguarding plant health
> from the threats of harmful exotic pests of cultivated and natural
> plant systems. This includes most risk analyses required by PPQ for
> pests, Commodities, and pathways but it does not currently include
> risk analyses associated with plant pest permits, genetically modified
> organisms, or Federal Noxious Weeds.
>
> PERAL serves a wide range of functions within PPQ. The overarching
> responsibility is to provide comprehensive, accurate information in
> support of the decision making process ensuring that resulting actions
> are the most appropriate and "Do No Harm". For more in-depth
> information regarding PERAL, please visit
> [http://cphst.aphis.usda.gov/plant
> health/cphst/peral.shtml](http://cphst.aphis.usda.gov/plant health/cphst/peral.shtml)
>
> A good example of one of these functions is the
>
> [New Pest Advisory Committee]{.underline}: The New Pest Advisory Group
> (NPAG) is located in the APHIS Center for Plant Health Science and
> Technology (CPHST), Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory
> (PERAL). The overall goal of NPAG is to safeguard American agriculture
> and natural resources. The NPAG assesses new and imminent exotic plant
> pest introductions into the U.S. to recommend appropriate Plant
> Protection and Quarantine's (PPQ) policy and actions to respond to the
> potential threat posed such pests. In this case a pest is defined as:
> *Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent
> injurious to plants or plant products* \[FAO, 1990; revised FAO. 1995;
> IPPC, 1997\].
>
> NPAG may address pests in a many taxa including arthropods, plant
> pathogens, mollusks and weeds. It determines whether the pest is a
> present or an imminent threat, and if the pest meets the definition of
> a quarantine pest. If the pest meets the definition, NPAG may convene
> an ad hoc panel of Subject Matter Experts from PPQ, other Federal,
> state, and university sources with regulatory and scientific expertise
> for that particular exotic pest. Through literature searches, data
> sheet preparation and discussion with the panel, NPAG provides
> findings and recommendations via the NPAG Report to the APHIS Deputy
> Administrator and the APHIS Executive Team (represented by PPQ's
> management) in response to the pest introduction.
>
> **2. Other Agency Activities, also designed to do no harm**
>
> [Program protocols:]{.underline} APHIS also follows protocols to
> ensure that its own activities and those of its State cooperators,
> carried out to exclude, detect, diagnose, control, and eradicate
> invasive species, do not contribute to the problem. These ongoing
> efforts include, in a general sense, agency personnel adherence to
> established biosafety procedures in programs to detect, diagnose, and
> conduct control operations for plant and animal diseases and pests,
> both in laboratories and in the field; and assessment, in advance, of
> the probable impact of the use of biocontrol agents in programs to
> control invasive species.
>
> 3\. Activities that are doing harm, and future agency actions to
> change them so that they do not continue to do harm
>
> None. APHIS actions are consistent with the "DO NO HARM" objective of
> the Presidential Executive Order.
>
> **B. [Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)]{.underline}**

# 1. Activities to do no harm

> The NRCS is well aware of the past, the present, and the potential
> future harm to the private lands in the U.S. from invasive species.
> The negative environmental and economic impacts of invasive species
> continue to be a large and growing problem for our Nation's private
> landowners.
>
> The primary invasive species focus for NRCS has been on terrestrial
> and aquatic invasive plants. Invasive plants have had large negative
> environmental impacts upon the intended uses of many privately owned
> lands and wetlands in the U.S. There have also been large negative
> economic impacts associated with the costs of invasive plant control.
> Invasive plants compete for soil nutrients and water in croplands and
> wild lands and often require the use of herbicides, biological control
> agents, or innovative control techniques. Invasive plants, often of
> poor forage quality, may out-compete native plants in grazing lands
> and wild lands rendering large acreages no longer useful for
> supporting livestock or wildlife. Invasive aquatic plants rapidly
> spread in water bodies and wetlands, removing the open water component
> necessary for many wildlife species. Of particular concern at present
> are the negative impacts from invasive plants, invasive invertebrates,
> and pathogens upon populations of native and introduced pollinators
> and their habitats. This could have devastating effects upon desirable
> cropland and wild land vegetation.
>
> a\. [Publication of Agency Invasive Species Policy:]{.underline} NRCS
> published its NRCS Invasive Species Policy in November 2004 (available
> at
> <http://policy.nrcs.usda.gov/scripts/lpsiis.dll/GM/GM_190_414.htm>).
> The policy addresses the invasive species responsibilities at all
> levels (e.g., National Headquarters, Regional, State, and Field
> offices) of the agency. It requires awareness by NRCS employees of the
> presence of invasive species and potential problems associated with
> them. It requires NRCS to work with partners and to use its human and
> financial resources for control, suppression, and/or eradication of
> invasive plants. The policy also requires that native plant species be
> used in vegetative conservation practices unless it can be
> demonstrated that no native species can achieve the desired
> conservation goals, or the desired native species is not available in
> the quantity required. Interim use of non-native species is allowed to
> provide the conservation function desired until native species can be
> established.
>
> b\. [Assisting in the control and eradication of invasive
> plants:]{.underline} NRCS provides U.S. private landowners with
> financial and technical assistance to control and/or eradicate
> invasive plants in an effort to maintain the desired vegetation (e.g.,
> food crops and forage), to maintain the desired characteristics of the
> land (e.g., wetland open water), and to diminish invasive plants
> spreading to neighboring lands. NRCS frequently partners with local
> and regional weed control organizations for control of weeds on and
> off private lands. The agency encourages the use of integrated pest
> management (IPM) which may involve appropriate herbicides when
> necessary, the use of approved biological control organisms, and
> innovative methods for specific problems (e.g., black plastic). There
> is increasing emphasis to protect wild lands for wildlife and
> pollinators and their habitat.
>
> Landowners that participate in some of the easement programs of NRCS
> (e.g., Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program
> (WRP)) are required to control invasive plants that might infest the
> easement lands. CRP and WRP participants may receive some financial
> assistance to maintain these lands free of invasive plants. The
> Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Environmental Quality Incentives
> Program and the Conservation Security Program also provide technical
> and financial assistance to help private landowners control invasive
> plants.
>
> c\. [NRCS Conservation Practice Standards]{.underline}: NRCS has
> created a toolbox of 170 practice standards that provide guidance for
> applying conservation technology on the land and that set the minimum
> levels for acceptable application of the technology. These practice
> standards undergo periodic review for incorporation of new technology
> (generally every 5 years). More emphasis is being put upon the
> identification and consideration of the invasive qualities of
> recommended vegetation, the use of native vegetation, and the
> protection and enhancement of pollinator habitat.
>
> d\. [The NRCS Plant Materials Centers (PMCs):]{.underline} The 27 PMCs
> nationwide cultivate and provide seed stock of plants that are used
> for vegetative conservation practices within the geographical region
> served by each PMC. The PMCs encourage use of native plants,
> particularly source-identified plants, for restoration, reclamation,
> and conservation practice uses. The Plant Materials program uses an
> Environmental Evaluation to assess the potential invasiveness of
> plants being considered for release. If the potential for invasiveness
> is too great, other plants considered less invasive for the particular
> environmental conditions are recommended.
>
> The PMCs are also using the Environmental Evaluation to review all
> prior NRCS conservation plant releases. For those releases that are
> determined to be invasive or otherwise environmentally harmful, the
> PMCs discontinue their production. Once a PMC discontinues a plant
> release, the NRCS plant materials specialist will work with the
> appropriate states to remove the releases from NRCS State standards
> and recommendations so that plant will not be used in the future.

# 2. Other Agency Activities, also designed to do no harm

> a\. [PLANTS Database:]{.underline} The information about plant
> materials available through the PLANTS database
> ([http://plants.usda.gov](http://plants.usda.gov/)) is useful to
> conservation professionals and the public in determining beneficial
> plants that do well within a particular geographical location. It also
> has information on plants which should not be planted within a
> particular environment (e.g., Federal and State noxious weed lists).
> The database information provides help to assess the potential
> invasiveness of specific plants. The PLANTS database has over 650 fact
> sheets on-line line and provides services to over 70,000 user sessions
> per day. It encourages the use of native plants in conservation
> practices. Future capabilities will include information about the
> pollinators upon which specific plants are dependent, and recommended
> forage to encourage specific pollinators.
>
> 3\. Activities that are doing/have done harm, and agency actions to
> change them so that they do not continue to do harm
>
> a\. [Recommending invasive plants in conservation plans]{.underline}.\
> During the "Dust Bowl" days of our nation, immediate action was
> necessary to mitigate excessive wind and water erosion of our nation's
> soils. Unfortunately, one of the mitigation tools that worked
> effectively was the use of non-native plant materials, some of which
> became invasive and presently are among the invasive plant materials
> we are trying to control. The use of the Environmental Evaluation by
> the PMCs before recommending specific plant materials for conservation
> is proving to be beneficial to avoid present and future problems of
> this kind. Also, encouraging the use of locally-acquired native plants
> whenever they can meet the conservation needs is enhancing awareness
> to NRCS state and field offices about invasive species problems and
> NRCS responsibilities.
>
> The implementation of the NRCS Invasive Species Policy has made clear
> to all levels of the agency the responsibilities to respond to
> invasive species problems, and to minimize or avoid future invasive
> species problems.
>
> The state-specific Field Office Technical Guides (technical guidance
> information for the specifics of each conservation practice standard
> within the specific State) may, in some cases, still recommend the use
> of plant materials that may become invasive. NRCS has conducted and
> continues a review of all vegetative conservation practice standards
> to identify where this situation exists, and to work with the
> appropriate PMCs and State Conservationists to recommend other
> appropriate and non-invasive plant material.
>
> b\. [Use of herbicides or other methods that may have detrimental
> effects on native pollinators:]{.underline} The treatments recommended
> in some conservation practice standards for invasive plants may, in
> some cases, include the use of herbicides or other methods that may
> have detrimental effects directly or indirectly (e.g., habitat
> destruction) on native pollinators. NRCS is reviewing all practice
> standards to identify such methods, and to recommend revisions that
> minimize or eliminate negative impacts on native pollinators. NRCS is
> developing a module within the PLANTS database that identifies
> specific plant-pollinator relationships and encourages the use of
> "pollinator friendly" plants in agricultural and wild land situations.

# C. [US Forest Service (FS)]{.underline}

# 

# 1. Activities to do no harm

> a\. [Invasive activities on 192 million acres of national
> forests]{.underline}: The USDA Forest Service (FS) is increasing
> activities to prevent, control, and eradicate aquatic and terrestrial
> invasive species (including plants, pathogens, vertebrates, and
> invertebrates) across the National Forest System lands, 192 million
> acres.
>
> b\. [Supporting establishment of Cooperative Weed Management Areas
> (CWMA)]{.underline}: The FS National Forest System staff is increasing
> support for a national initiative with Federal, state, and local
> partners to expand the establishment of CWMA across all states. Using
> models from areas of the country where they have been effective, the
> FS is developing a CWMA development and mentoring program. Training
> courses have been initiated in the Eastern U.S.
>
> c\. [Policy on native plants]{.underline}: FS will complete its new
> policy on the use of Native Plants in FY 2008. It contains guidance on
> management and native plant materials use for restoration and
> rehabilitation. The policy reflects increased emphasis on invasive
> species prevention and control.
>
> d\. [Policy on invasive species management in national
> forests]{.underline}: The development of a new FS policy on invasive
> species management for national forests and grasslands continued
> throughout 2007. It is expected to be completed in FY 2008.
>
> e\. [Training, funding and technology for invasives work]{.underline}:
> FS staff conducted and/or provided technical and financial support for
> numerous invasive species training workshops, educational programs,
> community outreach activities, and developing technology for invasive
> species management solutions.
>
> f\. [Invasives data management]{.underline}: The National Forest
> System invasive species data management applications have been
> redesigned and improved to include key aspects of invasive species
> treatment and inventory work, as well as new program performance
> measures. Guidance and program direction to FS regions, national
> forests, and forest districts has been provided through several
> channels. Improvements include the use of personal data recorders for
> quicker collection of field data (spatial and tabular) on all taxa of
> invasive species.
>
> g\. [FS Invasive Species Issue Team]{.underline}: The FS organized a
> Washington Office Invasive Species Issue Team. It has representatives
> from four program areas in the FS: National Forest System; Research &
> Development; State & Private Forestry (SPF); and International
> Programs. The team discusses invasive species issues and problems and
> then addresses them in a comprehensive and collaborative way among
> agency programs.
>
> h\. [National FS Conference Priorities on Invasive
> Species]{.underline}: In 2007, the FS had a list of activities
> underway to address the top priorities identified during the 2006
> National Conference. A summary report on the status of those
> activities will be completed in FY 2008.
>
> i\. [Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR)
> initiative]{.underline}: In 2007, FS established a new EDRR initiative
> for terrestrial and aquatic invasive species in all FS regions. The
> purpose is to augment capabilities to implement a functional EDRR
> system in each selected geographic area of the nation by working with
> partners to identify "targeted" invasive species on which to build and
> expand local efforts to detect, assess, and respond effectively. These
> efforts will continue.
>
> j\. [Invasive Insects Early Detection Program]{.underline}: SPF-Forest
> Health Protection began nationwide implementation of this program in
> 2007. The program monitors high-risk sites for the potential
> introduction of non-native bark beetles into the U.S. Seventeen States
> participated in the program, and 149 forested sites were trapped.
> Based on current funding levels, insects in about one third of all
> states will be trapped each year. Delimitation surveys for two
> recently detected ambrosia beetles were conducted in Massachusetts and
> Pennsylvania. No new non-native bark beetles were detected in FY 2007.
>
> k\. [FS web site on invasives:]{.underline} FS established a national
> website on invasive species. It provides user information on FS
> activities related to invasive species, policy, authorities, news and
> emerging issues. The site also provides key contact information for
> invasive species program managers, access to cooperative projects and
> research, geographic information, species profiles, and techniques for
> preventing and controlling a wide variety of species. The website is
> <http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/>.
>
> l\. [Sudden Oak Death surveys:]{.underline} The SPF-Forest Health
> Monitoring Program surveyed for Sudden Oak Death in high-risk states.
> The disease was initially isolated in California and Oregon. It has
> been transported via infected nursery stock to other locations in the
> U.S. The disease has not yet been found in a forest environment.
>
> m\. [Control programs on invasive species:]{.underline} SPF-Forest
> Health Protection responded to nationwide threats to forest ecosystems
> from non-native invasive species: insects, pathogens and plants. FHP
> funded suppression and prevention projects for priority insects and
> plant pathogens: gypsy moth, hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash
> borer, white pine blister rust, Asian long horned beetle and sudden
> oak death. In addition FHP provided grant funding for forest invasive
> plant management programs to non-federal partners in 28 states and
> U.S. territories.
>
> n\. [Activities in the North America Forestry Commission:]{.underline}
> SPF-Forest Health Protection and Research are working closely within
> the North American Forestry Commission (Mexico, Canada and the U.S.)
> to address forest insects, diseases, and most recently, invasive
> plants. A newly-established invasive plants working group conducted
> its first organizational meeting in FY 2007. FS maintains a North
> American database of over 140 potential and actual invasive forest
> insects and diseases for the Commission.
>
> o\. [Management of Gypsy Moth]{.underline}: SPF-Forest Health
> Protection continues to emphasize eradication of geographically
> isolated gypsy moth infestations and treatment of outbreaks along the
> leading edge of the 1,000 mile front from North Carolina to Wisconsin.
> The strategy has slowed the spread of gypsy moth by more than 50% of
> its potential rate of expansion.
>
> p\. [FS activities in support of NIWAW:]{.underline} The National
> Forest System provided continuing support during the year to plan the
> annual National Invasive Weeds Awareness Week (NIWAW) in Washington,
> DC. The agency encouraged local and regional FS offices to conduct
> weed education and awareness activities with partners at the local
> level at the same time as the NIWAW activities are taking place in DC.
>
> q\. [Research on invasives:]{.underline} FS Research and Development
> conducted a wide range of invasive species research to inform
> management activities, determine the magnitude of the problem, and
> improve control efforts. Studies are investigating the biology of
> invasive species, options for environmentally safe control, methods to
> assess risk, the role of disturbances in facilitating invasion of
> exotic and native species, and impacts on native plants and animals
> (including threatened and endangered species) and in aquatic and
> terrestrial ecosystems.
>
> The goal of these research efforts is to develop new knowledge and
> technology that will improve management by (1) preventing invasive
> species introduction and spread, (2) controlling the most threatening
> invasive species, (3) monitoring to detect newly introduced species,
> and (4) restoring ecosystems damaged by invasive plants, insects or
> pathogens. These efforts will contribute to improvements in the
> function of forest and rangeland ecosystems in the U.S., especially as
> invasive species management becomes a component of long-term landscape
> restoration.
>
> Furthermore, Research conducted an external peer review of its
> invasive species program in FY 2007, and is working to implement the
> panel's recommendations.
>
> A few examples of tools developed by FS Research and Development in FY
> 2007:
>
> The International Institute for Tropical Forestry hosted the second
> Latin American Symposium of Earthworm Ecology and Taxonomy to examine
> the role of earthworms as invasive species in the tropics. Discussions
> focused on patterns, mechanisms, and consequences of earthworms as
> invasive species in Latin America. The five-day conference, held in
> Puerto Rico, included 39 presentations and two workshops. Participants
> included researchers and managers from 11 countries and generated
> ideas on important research questions. The peer-reviewed proceedings
> of the meeting were published as a special issue in the Caribbean
> Journal of Science.
>
> In addition to determining that gypsy moth hybridization reduced the
> potential for flight, the Northern Research Station produced over 70
> kg of the bio pesticide Gypchek, the only gypsy moth-specific
> pesticide available for use in wide-area state and federal cooperative
> suppression and eradication programs, in cooperation with the APHIS
> Plant Pest Quarantine Laboratory in Otis, MA.
>
> The Northern Research Station developed methods for restoring native
> bottomland forests in floodplains degraded by exotic invasive species,
> such as Johnsongrass and Reed Canarygrass.
>
> The Forest Products Laboratory evaluated the effectiveness of wood
> preservatives to inhibit attack by Formosan subterranean termites
> (FST) (Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki) and native subterranean
> termites (Reticulitermes spp.). The study also evaluated preservative
> retention and penetration as efficacy factors in preventing termite
> damage.
>
> The Southern Research Station evaluated the influence of pesticide
> products, application timing and rate for hemlock wooly adelgid
> control, and examined non-target impacts of the insecticide
> imidacloprid on aquatic macroinvertebrate communities.
>
> The Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) studied the roles of trout
> habitat quality, connectivity, and biotic resistance along
> longitudinal gradients in central Idaho. These factors affect invasion
> by the nonnative brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), which are
> displacing the native bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus).
>
> RMRS explored the use of fungi for the biological control of
> cheatgrass, and various insects to control leafy spurge and Dalmatian
> toadflax, rush skeletonweed, gorse, scotch broom, and banana poka.
>
> RMRS synthesized information on threats, status and management options
> for Bristlecone and Limber Pine ecosystems in the Southern Rockies;
> developed a new proactive strategy for mitigating future impacts of
> white pine blister rust in high elevation pine ecosystems; and
> implemented screening for simply inherited hypersensitive resistance.
>
> The Pacific Northwest Station identified environmental, biotic,
> historical, and spatial factors that influence invasive plant
> dominance and distribution, and quantified the abundance and
> distribution of non-native plants on forested lands in Oregon and
> Washington.
>
> The Pacific Southwest Station hosted the Third Sudden Oak Death
> Science Symposium, as well as the International Union of Forest
> Research Organization's work group on Phytophthoras. These meetings
> drew the world's top researchers together to present recent research
> results, and discuss new ways to prevent the spread of these
> devastating plant pathogens.

# 2. Other Agency Activities, also designed to do no harm 

> a\. [Video series on BMP for Prevention]{.underline}: The National
> Forest System conducted activities and worked closely with partners on
> the second educational video in a series on Best Management Practices
> (BMP) for Prevention of invasive species. This second video targets
> hunters, anglers, and biologists. The video is being produced in
> cooperation with several public and private organizations and is
> expected to be distributed in late 2008.
>
> b\. [Evaluation of vehicle washing activities]{.underline}: The
> National Forest System continues to support the evaluation of vehicle
> washing activities/systems/protocols with public and private partners
> to evaluate the effectiveness of existing systems and mechanisms.
> Evaluations are based on a scientific approach to quantify
> effectiveness and determine treatment quality for various scenarios.
> Long term objectives of the project include building better protocols
> and contract specifications, and ultimately better effectiveness at
> preventing the spread of invasive species by equipment and vehicles.
>
> c\. [FS Performance measures for invasives]{.underline}: The FS
> revised the performance and accountability system measures for all
> invasive species program activities (FS agency-wide). New performance
> management systems are in place and field data is being collected in
> corporate data management applications. Program performance is
> outcome-driven and will emphasize the effectiveness of treatments.
>
> d\. [Prevention language in FS contracts]{.underline}: National Forest
> System stations utilize specific invasive species 'prevention'
> language to include in project contracts (such as timber sales, road
> management, facility construction, etc.) that specify requirements to
> minimize invasive species infestations and spread on national forests
> and grasslands.
>
> e\. [FS contracts to reduce hazardous fuels by controlling noxious and
> exotic weeds]{.underline}: Under aspects of the Healthy Forests
> Initiative (HFI) the FS expanded the stewardship end-result
> contracting authority to focus on forest and rangeland health. The
> stewardship end-result contracting projects (described under 16 U.S.C.
> 2104) provide opportunities to develop land management contracts to
> reduce hazardous fuels by controlling noxious and exotic weeds and
> re-establishing native plant species. These HFI activities support
> efforts to prevent and control invasive species across all landscapes
> and ownerships.
>
> 3\. Activities that are doing harm, and future agency actions
>
> to change them so that they do not continue to do harm
>
> None.
>
> **D. [Farm Service Agency (FSA)]{.underline}**

No report available.

> **E. [Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)]{.underline}**

None.