**AVOIDING HARM FROM INVASIVE SPECIES**

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

October 14, 2004

This is the first "USDA Avoiding Harm Report" to the Invasive Species
Advisory Council and the National Invasive Species Council on the
activities of the seven USDA agencies that have a part of the invasive
species portfolio. These agencies are the USDA Forest Service (USFS),
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service (CSREES) and the Economic Research
Service (ERS).

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)]{.underline}**

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

# 

# Activities to do no harm

> [E-Government: Invasivespecies.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), has developed and maintained the website
> (<http://www.invasivespecies.gov/>). This site, which provides
> one-stop searching for invasive species information, has grown more
> than 1,000 percent since its launch in the summer of 2000.
>
> NAL develops and manages the *Invasivespecies.gov* Web site for the
> National Invasive Species Council. The Web site links to more than
> 8,500 unique resources providing a platform to increase public
> awareness of invasive species. Species fact sheets with both text and
> graphics have been developed, along with a section entitled "Invasive
> Species of the Month."

# Other NAL Agency Activities, also designed to do no harm

> [a. 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.

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

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

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

None.

**BB. [ARS research programs]{.underline}:**

# 

**1. Activities that do no harm**

> [a. 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 scientists have been getting good results
> from releasing a weevil that is a natural enemy of giant salvinia.
> Just one-tenth-inch long, this biological control agent is proving
> itself effective against this invasive weed. Weevils from Brazil were
> released in October 2001 at sites in Texas and Louisiana. Within two
> years, the salvinia mats almost completely collapsed, and water bodies
> formerly choked by the weed are now mostly open water. As the giant
> salvinia infestations have declined, so have the populations of the
> weevil, thereby striking a balance between the two. The end result is
> a permanent suppression of an invasive weed into an almost
> unnoticeable background plant.
>
> Prior to release of any biological control agent, however, 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. In order to ensure
> that damage to non-target species is limited to damage that 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.
>
> [b. 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 throughout large definable areas through
> environmentally sound, effective and economical approaches, Number
> range CHAPTERincluding biological and cultural control and other
> sustainable agriculture practices. Number range CHAPTERARS firmly
> believes 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, Number range CHAPTERthe corn rootworm areawide pest
> management project is carried out in Kansas, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa,
> Texas, and South Dakota. Corn rootworm populations are reduced by 85
> to 95 percent with less than 10 percent of the chemicals used in
> previous corn rootworm control regimes. The areawide approach is to
> use adult attracticide baits developed by ARS and now marketed by
> industry. The baits are used in demonstration sites. This technology,
> together with transgenic corn, could ultimately become the treatment
> of choice on the 20 million acres of U.S. cropland currently treated
> with insecticide for corn rootworm control. This could result in up to
> a 90 percent reduction in the amount of soil insecticide applied to
> U.S. corn grown in the Midwestern United States.
>
> [c. Pesticide Risk Reduction:]{.underline} In addition to the
> development of biological control, cultural, and areawide approaches,
> ARS has making progress in developing a variety of technologies and
> approaches to reduce the risk of harm due to pesticide non-target
> effects, including:

-   [Application technology]{.underline}: ARS research in application
    technology is being actively pursued with a primary focus on
    application system development, drift management, efficacy
    enhancement, and remote sensing. For example, remote sensing systems
    are being used to target areas in the field where pests are present
    so insecticide spray can be directed to only those areas.

-   [Software for pest management science]{.underline}: ARS has a long
    history of computer analysis applied to agricultural problems. This
    enables models to be developed to target control approaches with
    greater precision.

-   [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.

-   [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 contribution to
    the development of germplasm resistant to pests and disease. These
    plant varieties are a major component of sustainable agricultural
    production. As an example of very recent progress in this area, ARS
    scientists at Madison, Wisconsin, have been working to locate a
    disease resistance gene in order to permit studies on fine mapping
    of the wild potato (*Solanum bulbocastanum*), which has resistance
    to late blight disease. Using molecular markers, ARS scientists in
    collaboration with the University of Wisconsin were able to
    determine the location of the resistance gene in the potato genome.
    The gene was located and cloned. The impact of this work will be to
    insert the gene into a susceptible potato variety, making the plant
    resistant to late blight and eliminating the need for fungicide
    spraying.

# 

# [d. Pathogen Detection:]{.underline} A **new generation of diagnostic tests are 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. In the area of animal disease, for example,** accurate diagnosis of chronic wasting disease is extremely important for control and eradication. ARS scientists at the Animal Disease Research Unit in Pullman, Washington, in collaboration with Colorado State University and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, established that the tonsils of deer are a reliable early indicator of infection and established a valid method for detecting this marker in live deer. This test is suitable for use in surveillance of deer in highly populated areas, where hunting is not allowed but artificial feeding may increase disease prevalence. In addition, scientists have established that the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus nerve is the earliest site of PrP-CWD accumulation in mule deer.  This work identifies the tissue to be selected for diagnostic testing in hunter harvest surveys. 

> [e. Pest Biology and Genomics Studies:]{.underline} Understanding pest
> biology and ecology of pest management systems underpins all work
> toward effective pest control, and concomitant preservation of habitat
> by elimination or management of invasive species. A recent addition to
> our arsenal of approaches in understanding pest biology, and in
> manipulating pest biology for more effective control, is the
> development of molecular genomics tools.

-   [Molecular genetic analysis of insects]{.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 to develop new transgenic strains for biological control. ARS
    has also developed molecular markers and methodologies to identify
    and track insect population. For example, Pierce's Disease of grapes
    is threatening the national grape industry. The insects that spread
    this bacterial-caused disease are leafhoppers, particularly the
    glassy-winged sharpshooter (GWSS). ARS scientists at Fort Pierce,
    Florida, have identified genes in these insects linked to
    development and survival. Approximately 10,000 potential GWSS genes
    and proteins have been identified. Identification of important
    traits necessary for insect survival is key to the development of
    new pest management strategies to protect grapes and other crops.

-   [Screwworm transgenesis]{.underline}: By successfully inserting
    foreign genes into the screwworm fly, ARS scientists have made a
    significant leap toward further eradicating this pest. Although
    effective, irradiating flies and mechanically eliminating females
    before release is too expensive to be used in most developing
    countries. Toward an alternative, ARS scientists have demonstrated
    for the first time that functional fluorescent genes can be inserted
    into the fly. In the future it will be possible to insert engineered
    genes that will, when activated, produce lines of flies that consist
    of only sterile males. By reducing the environmental hazard of
    radiation and the expense of eliminating females, screwworm
    eradication will be more affordable and effective.

> [f. Weed Herbicide Resistance Management:]{.underline} Herbicide
> resistant weeds are an increasing problem with reports of resistance
> to almost every herbicide class at some place in the world. ARS
> studies have led to the generation of herbicide resistance-management
> schemes for growers.

**2. Other ARS Research Activities, also designed to do no harm:**

> [a. Overseas Laboratories/Quarantine Facilities:]{.underline} ARS
> Overseas Biological Control Laboratories in Montpellier, France;
> Buenos Aires, Argentina; Beijing, China; and Brisbane, Australia find,
> test and import natural enemies for use in biological control of
> invasive weeds, insects and plant diseases in the United States.
> Number range CHAPTERStateside programs then further evaluate the
> biological control candidates' efficacy for use against invasive
> pests. The overseas laboratories 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 Affairs and many
> universities and State Departments of Agriculture.
>
> Related to this overseas work, we maintain 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,
> Californian; 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 inside until they are proven safe for
> release.
>
> [b. 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 in the
> U.S.
>
> [c. Systematics:]{.underline} The expertise of ARS systematics
> scientists enables us to predict, effectively prevent, and manage the
> introduction and expansion of invasive species to ensure environmental
> and agricultural security and sustainability. For example, in FY 2003,
> ARS scientists provided over 19,418 identifications of port specimens,
> including 7,270 of urgent priority, and 14 species that were
> discovered to be new immigrants into the continental United States,
> Hawaii or Puerto Rico. Major systematics work includes: completing
> research on bee mites; developing identification tools for the
> predatory mites of *Phytoseiidae* of Central America; completing the
> first draft of a catalog of leaf rolling moths (this catalog will
> increase our ability to identify and control these serious pests);
> identification of a fossil fly found 500 km from the South Pole (this
> identification will force a re-thinking of the theories of the
> historical development and dispersal of flies and document a
> significant warming period on the Antarctic continent 3-17 million
> years ago); completing research for a new illustrated key for the 60
> genera of ladybeetles inhabiting North America; and, developing an
> online, "queriable" database, in collaboration with international
> experts, in order to centralize information on scale insects (this
> database will provide information authenticated by an expert in a
> matter of minutes). This website receives approximately 20,000 hits
> annually from such diverse groups as APHIS, farmers, ornamental
> specialists, arborists and other state and local governmental agents.

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

> 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.
> As such, ARS scientific studies have provided and will continue to
> 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.

**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.
>
> [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. To this end, CSREES has established
> two national networks of existing diagnostic laboratories to rapidly
> and accurately detect and report pathogens of national interest and
> provide timely information and training to state university diagnostic
> labs.**
>
> The National Animal Health Laboratory Network is led by five core labs
> (at the University of Georgia, Texas A&M University, the University of
> California-Davis, University of Wisconsin and Colorado State
> University), seven satellite labs (at Cornell University, Rollins
> Laboratory in North Carolina, Louisiana State University, Florida
> Diagnostic Laboratory, University of Arizona, Washington State
> University and Iowa State University), and one support lab (Oklahoma
> State University).
>
> Five regional labs and one support lab lead the National Plant
> Diagnostic Network. The regional labs are located at Cornell
> University, University of Florida, Michigan State University, Kansas
> State University and the University of California-Davis. The support
> lab is at Texas Tech University.
>
> These facilities help to link growers, field consultants, and other
> university diagnostic labs to coordinate regional detection and
> provide inter-regional communication and response in the event of an
> invasive species outbreak.

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

> [Integrated Pest Management**:**]{.underline} Section 15 of the
> Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, and the Executive Order 13112 on
> Invasive Species 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 also 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 that \"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 Management
> Plan, National Invasive Species Council (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, to human health and
> to 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 that
> will certainly help minimize harm to non-target species and the
> environment.
>
> The goal of the IPM Roadmap 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 this Roadmap began in February 2002,
> and the resulting document has evolved through continuous input from
> numerous IPM experts, practitioners and stakeholders.
>
> The National Roadmap for the National Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
> Program identifies strategic directions for IPM research,
> implementation and measurement for all pests, in all settings,
> throughout the nation. This includes pest management for all 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 improve 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 pest management practices.
>
> [b. Pest Management Grant Programs]{.underline}: CSREES has several
> competitive grant programs designed to emphasize IPM, while reducing
> pesticides residues on food and in the environment. These include the
> Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program, Crops at Risk Program, Pest
> Management Alternatives Program and Methyl Bromide Transitions
> program. The emphasis of IPM and bio-based pest management in these
> 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. [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.

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

> [Program of Research on the Economics of Invasive Species Management
> (PREISM):]{.underline} ERS initiated a new program of work in fiscal
> year 2003 to examine the economic issues related to managing invasive
> pests in increasingly global agricultural markets. The Program of
> Research on the Economics of Invasive Species Management (PREISM)
> 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.
> Through PREISM, ERS has disbursed \$3.6 million to 21 organizations,
> including universities, other USDA agencies, and private non-profit
> institutions, for research on invasive species management over the
> past two years.

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

None. ERS is not engaged in any activities that do harm.

## II. USDA Regulatory and Resource Management Agencies

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

# 1. Activities to do no harm

> [a. Invasive Species Prevention Programs:]{.underline} 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

-   Facilitate safe agricultural trade

> It does so through a system of interdependent objectives addressing
> exclusion (i.e., prevention), monitoring, emergency response,
> management, trade issue resolution, and capacity building, areas that
> correspond closely to elements of the National Invasive Species
> Management Plan.
>
> Much of what APHIS does in carrying out its mission is with the intent
> of ensuring that other entities (in both 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 invasive species or pathways for the introduction of invasive
> species. As such, the Agency addresses both unintentional and
> intentional introductions. 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 United States in accordance
> with authority in 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 United
> States in accordance with the authority in 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. These requirements apply to many
> commodities, including nursery stock, also known as plants for
> planting.
>
> [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., that can directly or indirectly injure or
> cause damage to crops, livestock, poultry, or other interests of
> agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the
> United States, the public health, or the environment.

# 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 potentially invasive species (i.e.,
> certain biocontrol agents) in Agency programs to control plant and
> animal pests and noxious weeds.

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

None.

**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 of our nation from invasive species.
> Invasive species (primarily terrestrial and aquatic plants) have had
> large negative environmental effects upon the intended uses of much of
> the privately owned lands and wetlands of our Nation, and large
> negative economic impacts from the costs associated with the control
> of invasive species. Invasive plants compete for soil nutrients and
> water in our crop lands and require the use of herbicides, biological
> control agents, or innovative control techniques. Invasive plants,
> often of poor forage quality, out-compete native plants in grazing
> lands, rendering large acreages no longer useful for supporting
> livestock. Invasive aquatic plants rapidly spread in water bodies and
> wetlands and remove the open water component necessary for wildlife.
> The negative environmental and economic impacts of invasive species is
> a growing problem for our Nation's private land owners.
>
> [a. Draft Invasive Species policy:]{.underline} NRCS has a draft
> invasive species policy that addresses the invasive species
> responsibilities at all levels (e.g., headquarters, State, and Field
> offices) of the agency. This policy requires awareness of NRCS
> employees concerning invasive species and potential problems at the
> national, State, regional, and local levels. It requires NRCS to work
> with partners and to make use of available agency human and financial
> resources for the control, suppression, and/or eradication of invasive
> plants. This draft 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 private landowners with financial
> or 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 (e.g., wetland open
> water) of the land, 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. NRCS encourages the appropriate herbicides when necessary, the
> use of registered biological control organisms, and innovative methods
> (e.g., black plastic) for specific problems.
>
> 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 new Conservation Security Program provide technical
> and financial assistance to help private landowners control invasive
> plants.
>
> c\. [The NRCS Plant Materials Centers (PMC):]{.underline} The 27 PMC's
> 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 are encouraging the 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 will be recommended.
>
> The PMCs are also using the Environmental Evaluation to review all
> NRCS prior conservation plant releases. For those releases which are
> determined to be invasive or otherwise environmentally harmful, the
> PMCs are considering discontinuing their production. Once a PMC
> discontinues a plant release, the plant materials specialist works
> with the appropriate states to remove the releases from NRCS State
> standards and recommendations.

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

> [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 what plants
> should not be planted within a particular environment (Federal and
> State noxious weed lists. The database information can also help with
> the assessment of the potential invasiveness of specific plants. The
> PLANTS database has over 500 fact sheets on-line. It encourages the
> use of many native plants in conservation practices.

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

> [a. Recommending the use of non-native species that have become
> invasive.]{.underline} Although the NRCS realizes the existing and
> potentially increasing harm to agricultural and wildlife resources
> from invasive plants, the agency has made mistakes in the past in some
> of its recommendations. The use of the Environmental Evaluation by
> PMCs before recommending specific plant materials for conservation
> should help NRCS to avoid those mistakes in the future. Also,
> encouraging the use of native plants whenever they can meet the
> conservation needs will bring more awareness to NRCS state and field
> offices about invasive species problems and NRCS responsibilities.
>
> The implementation of the NRCS Invasive Species Policy, when final,
> will make 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 is conducting 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 non-invasive plant
> materials.
>
> [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 upon 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 (USFS)]{.underline}

# 

No report available.

**D. [Farm Service Agency (FSA)]{.underline}**

No report available