**USDA AVOIDING HARM FROM INVASIVE SPECIES IN FY 2006**

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

March 22, 2007

This is the fourth "USDA Avoiding Harm Report" to the Invasive Species
Advisory Committee and the National Invasive Species Council. It covers
the Fiscal Year 2006 (FY 2006) activities of some of the eight USDA
agencies that have a part of the invasive species portfolio. The
agencies reporting are the National Agricultural Library at the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS); the Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service (CSREES); the Economic Research Service
(ERS); the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); and the U.S.
Forest Service (FS). Reports from the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) were not
available at this time.

Previous USDA Do No Harm Reports cover: (1) FY 2004 and (2) FY 2005
activities for ARS, APHIS, CSREES, ERA and NRCS (first report dated
October 2004) and (3) for the Forest Service (second report dated
February 2005).

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)

No report available.

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

# 

# 1. Activities to do no harm

> a\. [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 of 2001 and Executive Order 13112.
> ARS, through its National Agricultural Library (NAL), has developed
> and maintained the website (<http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/>).
> This site provided general one-stop searching for information about
> invasive species with links to more than 12,000 unique Web-based
> resources.
>
> Invasivespeciesinfo.gov was launched in February 2006 to serve as the
> official reference gateway for invasive species information. The Web
> site was extensively reorganized, with an increased emphasis of
> organizing the content by topic to facilitate user access. One
> positive outcome of the redesign was a dramatic growth in "hits" to
> the Web site. In FY 2006 the Web site had nearly 6 million "hits",
> nearly double the FY 2005 activity. NAL continues to support the
> Council's [www.invasivespecies.gov](http://www.invasivespecies.gov/)
> Web site until Council staff is prepared to take over the management
> of that site.

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

#  harm

> a\. [Invasivespeciesinfo.gov Web site links:]{.underline} The
> Invasivespeciesinfo.gov Web site links to 238 programs and offices of
> the federal agencies that are members of the National Invasive Species
> Council; nine Federal Programs; and five independent agencies.

b\. [Invasive species listserv:]{.underline} NAL is hosting an invasive
species listserv for the public affairs officers of the agencies in the
Council that work on invasive species.

> c\. [Information management support to ITAP:]{.underline} NAL provides
> information management support for the Federal Interagency Committee
> for Invasive Terrestrial Animals and Pathogens (ITAP), a scientific
> and technical interagency group. A SharePoint site was launched in FY
> 2006 to serve as a collaborative work space for ITAP and its
> subcommittees. A prototype Web site was created using the USDA Web
> style guidelines. A public launch of the Web site is expected in the
> next year. A listserv of ITAP members was created 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 (at Cornell University, Florida, Michigan State
> University, Kansas State University, and California State University
> at Davis) and one support laboratory (at Texas Tech. University). 
>
> The National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) is led by twelve
> Laboratories (University of Georgia, Texas A&M University, the
> University of California at Davis, the University of Wisconsin,
> Colorado State University, Cornell University, Rollins Laboratory in
> North Carolina with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer
> Protection, Louisiana State University, the Florida Diagnostic
> Laboratory with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Protection,
> the University of Arizona, Washington State University, and Iowa State
> University).
>
> 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.
>
> 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

> a\. [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 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 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, wildlife health officials
> and the public. The development of this IPM Roadmap began in February
> 2002. 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, encompassing 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 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\. [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
> millions of dollars in 2006 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
> \$4.9 million through the competitive awards program to 33 recipients,
> including universities, other USDA agencies, and private non-profit
> institutions, for research on the economics of invasive species over
> the part four years. About \$1.1 million per year were allocated for
> extramural agreements in FY 2005 and FY 2006. 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}**

No report available.

> **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 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. As 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
> NRCS prior 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 500 fact
> sheets on-line. 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, we
> are developing a CWMA development and mentoring program and have
> initiated training courses in the Eastern U.S.
>
> c\. [Policy on native plants]{.underline}: FS recently released in the
> Federal Register for public comment a draft policy on Native Plants.
> It contains guidance on management and native plant materials use for
> restoration and rehabilitation. The new policy reflects the increased
> emphasis on invasive species prevention and control.
>
> d\. [Policy on invasive species management in national
> forests]{.underline}: The development of a new Forest Service policy
> on invasive species management for national forests and grasslands
> continued throughout 2006. The completion of the final draft is
> expected in 2007.
>
> 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; and International Forestry. The
> team allows for invasive species issues and problems to be discussed
> and addressed in a comprehensive and collaborative way among agency
> programs.
>
> h\. [National FS Conference on Invasive Species]{.underline}: The
> National Conference for the agency and key partners was held in the
> summer of 2006. Over 200 employees and 50 partners attended. They
> developed FS regional action plans for combating invasive species,
> implementing the FS Invasive Species Strategic Plan of 2004.
>
> i\. [Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR)
> initiative]{.underline}: In 2006, 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}: The
> Program expanded into 80 locations. It monitors the potential import
> of threatening bark beetles unwanted in the U.S. In FY 06 the Program
> discovered an Asian ambrosia beetle, *Xyleborus seriatus*, for the
> first time, in the Boston area. A range extension for the exotic Asian
> ambrosia beetle, *Xylosandrus mutilatus*, was recorded. The beetle was
> previously known from Mississippi and Florida but is now found in
> Texas. The Program is working to refine the trap lures for the exotic
> wood wasp, *Sirex noctilio*, now found infesting pines in New York.
>
> 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 Forest Health
> Monitoring Program surveyed for Sudden Oak Death in 38 states. The
> disease initially isolated in California and Oregon, has been
> transported via infected nursery stock to other locations. Nearly
> 2,000 locations were surveyed and over 7,000 samples analyzed. Of
> those samples only two were positive which extended the range of the
> SOD disease into the Golden Gate Park in California. The disease has
> not been found in a forest environment.
>
> m\. [Control programs on invasive species:]{.underline} FS responded
> to nationwide threats to forest ecosystems from non-native invasive
> species. Nearly \$21.5 million were allocated in FY 2006 to gypsy
> moth, hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, white pine blister
> rust, Asian longhorned beetle and sudden oak death suppression and
> prevention projects.
>
> n\. [Activities in the North America Forestry Commission:]{.underline}
> FS is 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 proposal was developed to establish
> a new "invasive plants working group." 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} FS continues the
> "slow-the-spread" strategy across the advancing front of the invasive
> gypsy moth, from North Carolina to Wisconsin. During FY 05 over
> 525,000 acres were treated. FS research patented a less-costly, safer,
> and more effective biological control for gypsy moth.
>
> p\. [FS activities in support of NIWAW:]{.underline} FS provided
> continuing support to plan the 2007 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 2007
> activities were taking place in Washington, DC.
>
> q\. [Education, outreach and training on invasives:]{.underline} FS
> conducted and/or provided technical and financial support for numerous
> invasive species training workshops, educational programs, community
> outreach activities, and technology development for invasive species
> management solutions.
>
> r\. [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
> for assessing 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. Researchers are developing programs for
> detection, inventory, and monitoring of invasive species, strategies
> for restoration and rehabilitation, and educational programs. 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 improve the function of forest and
> rangeland ecosystems in the U.S., especially as invasive species
> management becomes a component of long-term landscape restoration.
>
> The [emerald ash borer]{.underline}, a wood-boring beetle native to
> Asia, has killed millions of ash trees throughout southeastern
> Michigan and nearby Ontario since 2002. The initial infestation near
> Detroit has reached forests in the northern Lower Peninsula and is
> rapidly spreading to other States through transport of infested
> nursery stock, firewood, and timber. Ash is a substantial component of
> eastern forests and has been planted extensively as a hardy urban
> shade tree. In North America, it has shown no resistance to this pest.
> FS Northern Research Station scientists are studying emerald ash borer
> biology in countries where the insect is native. In 2005, they
> discovered two previously-unknown parasitic wasps that prey on emerald
> ash borer larvae or eggs. These natural enemies of the invasive insect
> hold potential for being used as biological control agents in North
> America. The discovery of these parasites, after appropriate screening
> and evaluation, may provide regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Canada
> another tool in their arsenal for stemming the spread of the emerald
> ash borer. *Partners: Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canadian Forest
> Service, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan State
> University, Michigan Technological University, Ohio Department of
> Agriculture, Ohio State University, University of Illinois, University
> of Michigan, and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
> (APHIS).*
>
> FS increased research to address [pathways issues]{.underline} related
> to halting the spread of invasive species, particularly with respect
> to imported goods and [wood packing materials]{.underline} (wood
> pallets, wood crating). They studied bark on wood packing materials to
> see if residual bark permitted insects to infest wood after it was
> treated to meet new international standards. Results showed that
> although insects in experimental conditions can colonize larger pieces
> of bark, few insects were present on wood packing materials in trade.
>
> In spring 2005, several thousand small lady beetles (*Scymnus
> sinuanodulus*) were free-released in six States for biological
> [control of hemlock woolly adelgid]{.underline} (HWA), a nonnative
> pest of hemlock in the eastern U.S. Scientists in Connecticut
> collected this lady beetle in China and imported it to the Forest
> Service Quarantine laboratory in Ansonia, CT, several years ago. While
> in quarantine, studies of the beetle's biology and feeding specificity
> established its suitability and safety for HWA biological control.
> Next, the scientists conducted field cage studies that showed *S.
> sinuanodulus* could have greater impact on HWA than another lady
> beetle previously released. Based on the lady beetle's potential and
> safety documented by the research, it was provided to cooperators for
> mass rearing and release in forests. Additional releases occurred in
> 2006. Monitoring and evaluation of the releases will continue in 2007
> to verify the lady beetle's establishment and effectiveness.
> *Partners: Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Pennsylvania
> Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, University of
> Georgia, University of Massachusetts, Forest Service---Northeastern
> Area.*
>
> Exotic invasive species are fast encroaching into America's natural
> indigenous ecosystems resulting in a host of environmental problems
> including increased fire danger, topsoil erosion, reduced groundwater,
> and reduced stream flows. To offset the costs associated with removal
> and to promote rangeland restoration, scientists at the Forest
> Products Laboratory are actively working to [identify uses for exotic
> invasive species]{.underline}. In 2005, the Bureau of Land Management
> and the FS Forest Products Laboratory partnered to discover if several
> problem species could be used in wood-plastic composites in exterior
> applications such as decking, railings, and siding. Salt cedar
> (*Tamarix* spp.) from the Colorado River basin in southwest Arizona
> and one-seed juniper (*Juniperus monosperma*) from Utah were harvested
> by the BLM and sent to the FS Forest Products Laboratory for
> evaluation to use in the composites. Eastern red cedar (*Juniperus
> virginiana*) from Oklahoma has also been evaluated for wood-plastic
> composites. This work by FS Forest Products Laboratory scientists has
> demonstrated how these exotic invasive species can be successfully
> used in wood-plastic composites. Scientists are now optimizing the
> processing, performance, and durability of these composites, as well
> as seeking out favorable attributes that these species may offer. The
> results will be used to promote the use of exotic invasive species
> with wood-plastic composite manufacturers, offering a value-added
> outlet and helping land managers to improve public lands throughout
> much of the Western U.S. where these species are problems. *Partner:
> US DOI---BLM*
>
> Microbes affect avian life-history strategies in diverse habitats on a
> global scale. Consequently, FS researchers and managers must take
> microbial infections into account when assessing causative factors
> lowering egg viability and diminishing reproductive success in their
> avian studies. The International Institute of Tropical Forestry
> provides the first evidence that [microbes can infect unincubated eggs
> of a wild bird]{.underline}. Previous studies had assumed that eggs
> are protected by their shells and waiting for parents to initiate
> incubation in a manner that creates optimal hatching patterns. Using
> eggs of the pearly-eyed thrasher (*Margarops fuscatus*), effects of
> exposure to ambient temperature and microbial pathogens on egg
> viability over an altitudinal climate gradient in Puerto Rico were
> tested. Hatching success of control eggs (82 percent) and
> unmanipulated eggs (84 percent) did not differ, indicating no impacts
> of handling on hatchability. Hatching success of experimental eggs
> declined very strongly after exposure for 7 days (2 percent). Results
> demonstrate that viability of unincubated eggs exposed to moist
> tropical conditions declines strongly and that temperature and
> microbes affect egg viability but are independent of one another.
> These findings will greatly affect the direction of avian egg
> viability research throughout the international scientific community.
> *Partner: University of California at Berkeley.*
>
> A newly identified nonnative pathogen, *Phytophthora ramorum*, the
> cause of [sudden oak death (SOD]{.underline}), has killed hundreds of
> thousands of tanoak (*Lithocarpus densiflorus*) and coast live oak
> (*Quercus agrifolia*) trees in coastal California and southwestern
> Oregon in the past decade. The pathogen has a broad host range,
> infecting over 100 different host plants, including some popular
> ornamentals, such as camellia and rhododendron; hardwoods, such as
> oaks; conifers, such as coast redwood and Douglas-fir; and ferns and
> herbaceous plants. Many of these plants do not die from infection but
> serve as reservoirs for inoculum. The pathogen can be inadvertently
> moved to new areas on nursery stock, and has been intercepted and
> eradicated from hundreds of nurseries in 20 States, as well as
> nurseries in British Columbia and Europe. The Pacific Southwest
> Research Station is leading a comprehensive national research program
> on sudden oak death, and progress is being made on several fronts. A
> preventive treatment, Agrifos fungicide, was tested and registered for
> use in impacted forested landscapes. Diagnostic tools have been
> developed, such as molecular-based probes to detect the pathogen in
> plants, soil and water. Genetic investigations revealed that the
> pathogen populations in California, Oregon, Washington and Europe are
> three distinct, nearly clonal populations, introduced from an
> undetermined country. This program is providing vital information on
> spread mechanisms and pathogen survival so homeowners, land managers,
> arborists, and nurseries can prevent inadvertent introductions to
> uninfested areas. Research results are providing the science base for
> horticultural and forestry regulatory and management programs
> worldwide. The new findings allow inspections, treatment requirements,
> and shipment restrictions to be more precisely targeted, reducing
> costs and unnecessary regulatory burdens. Thirty-four research grants
> are funding investigations into SOD at 19 institutions in the U.S.,
> Germany, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. Research funded by the
> Pacific Southwest Research Station has helped in the development of
> risk assessments in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and the
> European Union. The research has also contributed to ornamental
> nursery and forest diagnostic guides, and national and State training
> sessions. Education, outreach, and interagency coordination are
> emphasized through a partnership with the California Oak Mortality
> Task force
> ([http://www.suddenoakdeath.org](http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/)).
> *Partners: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection;
> Oregon State University; The United Kingdom Forestry Commission;
> University of California, Davis and Berkeley; USDA Agricultural
> Research Service; USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and
> Extension Service; and many others.*

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

> a\. [Video series on Prevention BMP]{.underline}: The National Forest
> System completed and released the first video in a series on
> Prevention Best Management Practices (BMP) for invasive species. This
> first video targeted heavy equipment operators and road engineering
> crews. Over 9,000 copies of the first video have been distributed
> worldwide. The video series project, a cooperative Forest Service
> project, has had support from a number of private and public
> organizations.
>
> b\. [Evaluation of vehicle washing activities]{.underline}: The
> National Forest System has initiated a holistic 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
> evaluations were completed. An assessment of program effectiveness
> will be based on program outcomes identified in the recent P.A.R.T.
> evaluation by OMB.
>
> d\. [Prevention language in FS contracts]{.underline}: National Forest
> System stations utilize specific '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 efforts 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}**

No report available.