![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.501388888888889in"
height="9.321527777777778in"}

**NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL**

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Hon. Gale Norton      | Hon. Ann M. Veneman   | Hon. Donald L. Evans |
|                       |                       |                      |
| Co-Chair              | Co-Chair              | Co-Chair             |
|                       |                       |                      |
| Secretary of the      | Secretary of          | Secretary of         |
| Interior              | Agriculture           | Commerce             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Hon. Colin L. Powell  | Hon. Norman Y. Mineta | Hon. Donald H.       |
|                       |                       | Rumsfeld             |
| Secretary of State    | Secretary of          |                      |
|                       | Transportation        | Secretary of Defence |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Hon. Paul H. O'Neil   | Hon. Tommy G.         | Hon. Tom Ridge       |
|                       | Thompson              |                      |
| Secretary of the      |                       | Secretary of         |
| Treasury              | Secretary of Health   | Homeland Security    |
|                       | and Human Services    |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Hon. Christine T.     | Hon. Donald L.        |                      |
| Whitman               | Pressley              |                      |
|                       |                       |                      |
| Administrator         | Administrator         |                      |
|                       |                       |                      |
| Environmental         | U.S. Agency for       |                      |
| Protection Agency     | International         |                      |
|                       | Development           |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

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

National Invasive Species Council

Department of the Interior

Office of the Secretary (OS/SIO/NISC)

1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20240

www.Invasivespecies.gov

Suggested Citation: National Invasive Species Council. 2003.

General Guidelines for the Establishment and Evaluation of Invasive

Species Early Detection and Rapid Response Systems. Version 1. 16 pp.

#### Table of Contents

Page Number

Introduction 4

A. Early Detection 5

### B. Rapid Assessment 7

### C. Rapid Response 7

Appendix 1: Examples of Elements of ED&RR Systems 9

Appendix 2: Identifying ED&RR Scenarios 14

Appendix 3: Additional Considerations 15

Appendix 4: Contributors to the Guidelines for ED&RR Systems, Version 1
16

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# **Number range CHAPTER General Guidelines for the Establishment and Evaluation of**

# **Invasive Species Early Detection & Rapid Response Systems**

######## INTRODUCTION

Preventing the introduction of invasive species is the first line of
defense against invasions. However, even the best prevention efforts
will not stop all invasive species introductions. Early detection and
rapid response (ED&RR) efforts increase the likelihood that invasions
will be addressed successfully while populations are still localized and
population levels are not beyond that which can be contained and
eradicated. Once populations are widely established, all that might be
possible is the partial mitigation of negative impacts. In addition, the
costs associated with ED&RR efforts are typically far less than those of
long-term invasive species management programs.

The charge of the National Invasive Species Council (Council) is to
assist in the coordination of invasive species efforts. Because certain
invasive species can spread rapidly, there is a critical need to
coordinate ED&RR efforts. The 57 action items in the Council's National
Invasive Species Management Plan (Plan) provide a "blue-print" for
coordinated action on invasive species (*National Invasive Species
Council. 2001. Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge: National Invasive
Species Management Plan.* 74pp*.* available at:
www.Invasivespecies.gov). In the Plan, ED&RR is identified as a high
priority. For example, Plan action items #23 and #24 deals with the
development of guidelines and systems for the coordinated detection and
response to incipient invasions. The Plan also calls for working with
state, local, tribal, and private entities to draft proposals that will,
among other things, provide permanent funding for ED&RR efforts.

The Council approved these guidelines in June 2003 to provide
information to those who wish to establish or evaluate ED&RR systems for
invasive species. They are based on the work of the federal and
non-federal members of the ED&RR Subcommittee (see appendix 4) of the
Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) of the Council. The
guidelines contain information from a from a wide range of subject
matter experts, people with direct experience in ED&RR efforts, and
stakeholders that included members of the ISAC and representatives of
Council member agencies. Information was drawn from documents that
analyze existing or proposed systems including but not limited to: work
by the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and
Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), a report by Jim Worrall of the U.S. Forest
Service, the work of the Western Regional Panel of the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force, the definition of "rapid response" developed by the
Council, and information on ED&RR systems from New Zealand and
Australia. It is anticipated that these guidelines (Version 1) will be
revised as science, technology, and experience with systems and species
advance.

The hallmarks of successful ED&RR efforts include: 1) potential threats
are being identified in time to allow risk-mitigation measures to be
taken; 2) new invasive species are being detected in time to allow
efficient and environmentally sound decisions to be made; 3) responses
to invasions are effective and environmentally sound and prevent the
spread and permanent establishment of invasive species; 4) adequate and
timely information is being provided to decision-makers, the public, and
to trading partners concerned about the status of invasive species
within an area; and 5) lessons learned from past efforts are being used
to guide current and future efforts.

Detecting and responding to invasions requires a complex series of
interlacing, coordinated, and sustained actions that can be grouped into
three main categories: 1) Early Detection, 2) Rapid Assessment, and 3)
Rapid Response. Actions may include: reviewing relevant legal
authorities; coordinated planning; identification of high priority
species and at-risk sites; routinely monitoring certain areas;
prevention and containment efforts; surveillance, detection, and
reporting activities including data collection and management; the
collection, identification, and storage of voucher specimens;
determining if newly-detected invasive populations are still localized;
determining the relative and potential risk associated with an
introduction; priority setting; sharing resources across jurisdictional
boundaries; monitoring, treating and removing populations; restoring
habitats; coordinated public communication efforts; training volunteers
and professionals in detection, identification, and removal techniques;
sharing information; and developing case studies. In addition, research,
adequate staffing and funds, and effective public communication are
essential to support ED&RR activities. The following identifies
components of early detection, rapid assessment, and rapid response
systems that experts consider either essential (i.e., must be present)
or important to a system\'s success. Additional information is provided
in the appendices.

**A. EARLY DETECTION:**

> I. **Active Detection Networks.** Active detection networks are
> comprised of organizations that have specific responsibility to detect
> invasive species. Active detection networks often have limited
> resources. Therefore, it is important for active detection networks to
> be focused on high-priority targets, such as high-risk locations,
> high-value resources, important pathways, and populations and species
> of specific concern.
>
> II\. **Passive Detection Networks.** Passive detection networks are
> comprised of organizations or individuals who may fortuitously detect
> invasions as they conduct other activities. These "passive" networks
> are an important means of augmenting active detection networks.
>
> III\. **Research.** Research is needed to understand, monitor, and
> model parameters that may contribute to invasions, such as climatic
> conditions, ecosystem disturbance patterns, and land use changes.
> Baseline research is needed to determine if a species is "new" to an
> area and to detect changes in pathways. Scientifically sound
> information is essential to targeting detection programs.
>
> IV\. **Training.** It is important for professionals and volunteers
> engaged in early detection, collection, and reporting of suspect
> species to have sufficient training so that their efforts can support
> subsequent action, to reduce the frequency of inaccurate reports, and
> to reduce the excessive reporting of common species. The need to train
> those engaged in detection and response networks and develop
> educational materials, trainers, and related resources is on-going.
>
> V. **Stakeholder approval.** Support for ED&RR efforts by a wide-range
> of stakeholders is essential. The understanding and participation of
> stakeholders can be facilitated by working with professional societies
> and scientific organizations, agricultural organizations, conservation
> and outdoor recreation organizations, community groups, and others.
>
> VI\. **Voucher specimens.** It is essential for voucher specimens to
> be obtained and subsequent actions be based upon authoritative
> taxonomic identifications that meet international standards.
>
> VII\. **Authoritative** **verification** of reported invasive
> populations is especially important when the initial report is
> obtained from people with minimal technical training. Verification can
> be used to authoritatively determine the presence or absence of a
> species in an area, whether it is an initial introduction into the
> U.S. or the movement of previously reported species into a new area,
> and other essential information.
>
> VIII\. **Data accessibility.** It is important that reports and data
> concerning invasions be broadly accessible, easy to use, and exchanged
> among interested parties routinely. Also, see Rapid Assessment
> Attribute number III.
>
> IX\. **Integration of various detection technologies.** It is
> important that data obtained from the various technologies (e.g.,
> on--the-ground observation and in-situ and remote sensors) be
> integrated across a range of temporal and geographic scales so that
> they provide coherent input into the decision making process.
>
> X. **Syndromic surveillance.** Detecting the damage associated with
> invasive species may be the first indication of a new invasion. This
> is often the case with invasive pathogens and parasites. It is
> essential that "syndromic surveillance" be conducted to look for
> anomalies that may indicate an invasion before any causative species
> and/or agents are identified.
>
> XI\. **Communication.** Knowledge and skill obtained from past ED&RR
> efforts can guide and expedite subsequent efforts. As new ED&RR
> systems are developed, it is important to include current efforts and
> systems. There should be mechanisms for communicating with other
> networks to help identify gaps that may exist, research needs, ­and to
> cooperatively work together to correct deficiencies in programs.
>
> XII\. **Biological shifts.** Invasive species that occur over a wide
> geographic range are not typically subject to ED&RR actions. However,
> biotypes that are resistant to control measures may develop within a
> widely distributed species and changes in climatic conditions may
> increase the geographic range of a species. It is important for ED&RR
> systems to be developed so that such biological shifts are detected.

**B. RAPID ASSESSMENT:**

> I. It is important to prepare **preliminary risk assessments for high
> priority species** in advance of their detection to facilitate rapid
> responses to invasions. Risk assessments should include stakeholder
> input, and consider appropriate legal authorities so that challenges
> do not unduly delay an effective response.
>
> II\. It is important to conduct **rapid risk assessments of newly
> detected species so that** decision-making (e.g., the decision to
> contain, treat, and monitor a population, monitor only, or ignore a
> population) can be done while populations are still localized. It is
> important for risk assessment to draw upon information from existing
> surveys and data sources whenever possible.
>
> III\. **Consistent data definitions and inter-operable formats** are
> essential so that summary statistics and analyses are readily
> available to support risk assessments. In some cases, it may be
> necessary to seek information from sources outside the U.S.

**C. RAPID RESPONSE:**

> I. **Support for planning** is important because the development of
> ED&RR plans can be time-consuming and require a significant commitment
> of resources.
>
> II\. **Standing teams** with compositions that can be adjusted to meet
> the specific needs and circumstances of an invasion in a timely manner
> are essential. It is essential that Federal and State agency
> responsibilities and the roles and responsibilities of the officials
> involved be delineated clearly and understood by all.
>
> III\. **Previous training** in eradication/control methods is
> essential since there often is not sufficient time to train a response
> team following the detection of an invasion. This training may include
> mock exercises and emergency response training in addition to programs
> that provide a core competency.
>
> IV\. **Rapid response manuals** should be developed to support
> training programs. It is not possible for even the best-trained teams
> to retain all the specific knowledge needed. It is essential that they
> have adequate manuals and other materials. Materials should be
> oriented towards particular functional areas involved in the response
> (i.e., population containment, species removal, compensation, relevant
> laws and policies, public outreach planning, safety, regulatory
> responses, and etc.), be up-to-date, and have specific control
> information.
>
> V. **Rapid response teams should set appropriate schedules for
> action.** Depending on the likelihood of establishment, the rate of
> spread, and other factors, different species and invasion scenarios
> will require differing schedules of response. It is important that
> plans contain schedules that are appropriate for the specific
> conditions of the invasion.
>
> VI\. It is important for certain rapidly advancing or particularly
> serious infestations that an **incident command system** be
> maintained.
>
> VII\. **Dynamic rapid response plans** are essential so that they can
> be scaled-up if needed to address cross-jurisdictional and/or rapidly
> advancing invasions. Some invasions may be first found along borders
> and/or expand rapidly and by that cross jurisdictions rapidly. Often
> the responsibility for rapid response will fall upon or involve Local,
> State, and/or Tribal governments in the affected area. A­t each scale
> of operation, it is essential that there is an adequate mobilization
> of resources and that individual and agency roles and responsibilities
> are clearly defined and that public communication efforts are
> coordinated.
>
> VIII\. **Stakeholder input** in the development of rapid response
> plans is essential. Responses actions will often be led by Local,
> State, or Tribal governments and may involve the private sector
> personnel, working with the support of Federal officials when
> requested. Effective working relationships can be fostered among
> groups and individuals by collaborating with them in the development
> of response plans.
>
> IX\. **Adequate flexible and available funding** is essential to mount
> an effective, timely and sustained response to new invasions.
> Invasions are often unpredictable. They can span jurisdictional
> boundaries, expand rapidly, and may require several years to complete.
> Funds may be needed for several fiscal years and may need to be shared
> across jurisdictional boundaries to avoid disrupted or incomplete
> response efforts.
>
> X. Response efforts may impact and/or involve areas outside the
> current distribution of a species. **Cooperation with "non-affected
> areas"** is important to the success of response efforts, to lessen
> the chance of subsequent infestations.
>
> XI\. It is essential that those engaged in ED&RR efforts **understand
> and follow all relevant laws**, regulations, policies, and guidelines
> that may affect EDRR efforts. To prevent these legal considerations
> from obstructing rapid response, appropriate *de minimis* exceptions
> and categorical exclusions should be considered, identified or
> developed beforehand when planning and implementing rapid response
> systems.
>
> XII\. It is important that ED&RR systems work on **the concepts of
> \"closest available forces\" and \"total mobility\"** and be
> sufficiently standard so that personnel from a variety of agencies and
> diverse geo­graphic locations can rapidly meld into a common management
> structure. This is important because experience and training obtained
> by individuals involved in ED&RR efforts can benefit others during
> subsequent events and often the availability of trained personnel may
> be limited.
>
> XIII\. **Public Outreach.** It is important to facilitate public
> understanding of response efforts. A coordinated public outreach
> effort should be a component of rapid response efforts. Authoritative
> balanced information should be provided early in the rapid response
> timeline. Response efforts may have impacts beyond the targeted
> species. Public understanding of the anticipated economic and
> ecological impacts of response actions as well as the expected
> benefits associated with response efforts is important to success.

**Appendix 1. Examples of Elements of ED&RR Systems.**

1\. State agricultural agencies often engage in **priority setting**
efforts to direct their active detection networks. Examples of active
detection networks already in place include the: **a.** National,
Regional, and State Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS)
committees that receive funding and technical support from the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Office of Plant Protection
and Quarantine (PPQ). The CAPS program surveys for targeted plant pests
and weeds across the U.S. and involves State regulatory officials, the
National Plant Board, and universities. **b.** The National Executive
Team under the Forest Service Forest Health Protection program (FHP)
provides national policy direction concerning the detection of forest
pests. The FHP includes State forest health specialists, National Plant
Board members, National Association of State Foresters representatives,
APHIS officials, and research and management experts from the Forest
Service. Pilot studies under the FHP suggested that active surveillance
surveys for targeted pests using specialized methods may be necessary to
detect some types of invasive species. **c.** The APHIS Animal Disease
Detection Network engages in priority setting for very high risk
invasive species, such as certain animal pathogens that may require
specific active detection programs such as those conducted by APHIS's
Veterinary Services. In addition, National Invasive Species Management
Plan (Plan) action item #17 refers to the identification of high
priority pathways, and Plan action item #21c concerns the systematic
monitoring of locations where introductions are likely to occur
(National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the Invasive Species
Challenge: National Invasive Species Management Plan. 74pp. available
at: www.Invasivespecies.gov).

2\. **Passive or fortuitous detection networks** range from relatively
formal networks, such as the Federally accredited veterinarians that are
required by law to report certain diseases that they might encounter in
their practices, to informal volunteer reporting efforts, such as those
conducted by certain native plant societies. A large number of groups
and individuals could be and are involved in the passive detection of
invasive species and outreach efforts to these groups can contribute to
network development. Examples include: weed scientists, field botanists,
The Nature Conservancy managers, native plant and wildflower society
members, local, tribal, state, and federal land managers and field
workers, National Wildlife Refuge System volunteers, National Resource
Conservation Service RCS specialists, Cooperative Extension Service
agents, county weed supervisors, land grant university plant
pest/diagnostic clinics, herbarium curators, master gardeners, zoo and
aquarium officials, exotic plant pest councils, civic organizations,
professional crop consultants, outdoor recreation associations,
conservation groups, public land friends groups, physicians, and private
individuals. Often the primary "point of entry" for a member of the
public that may or may not be connected with a passive detection network
that has information about an invasive species will be their county
Cooperative Extension Service agent or Seagrant Extension agent. The
Invasive Plant Atlas of New England project, which is being led by
researchers at the University of Connecticut with funding primarily from
the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES), was initiated with input from FICMNEW with the goal of
developing an early detection, rapid assessment, and rapid response
capability in the seven northeastern states (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, and
NY). In the first four years of the project, principal investigators are
planning to train a team of 450 volunteers of early detectors for new
invasive plants.

3\. The National Interagency Fire Center uses several data sources and
models to **target active surveillance** for fires. A similar approach
could be used to target invasive species active detection programs. For
example, the work of the National Institute for Invasive Species Science
that is facilitated by USGS could, with input from FICMNEW and other
groups, help detection networks know where to look for high priority
invasive species. The system uses models to help guide survey and
monitoring efforts for the appearance of high priority invasive species,
particularly on high value conservation sites. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Eros Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD, has created a system
which recognizes 969 land cover types and has mapped the entire U.S.
with 30 m^2^ pixels. This system could also be used to help identify
habitats where a species might pose a significant risk. The New Zealand
Department of Conservation Weed Surveillance System includes a model to
determine appropriate surveillance intervals at a particular site.
Factors included in the model are the species arrival rate at the site,
the habitat type (forest, shrubland, short vegetation, wetland, and open
habitat), the species growth form, and its inherent biological capacity
for reproduction and spread.

4\. Numerous **training** programs and materials are available for
individuals interested in invasive species. They are provided by state
and federal governments, universities, exotic plant pest councils,
private companies, and others. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) and the USGS are working to develop ED&RR training for
Fish and Wildlife Refuge friends groups. Ultimately, the training will
be used to train volunteers throughout the country, to detect, collect,
and report suspected new invasive plants. Training materials developed
for the FWS-USGS project will also be used to train 450 early detection
volunteers under the Invasive Plant Atlas of New England project which
is being led by researchers at the University of Connecticut.

5\. An example of ­professional awareness raising effort is the Center
for Disease Control (CDC) publication of the "Emerging Infectious
Disease Journal" and "CDC Recommends." Professional society newsletters
such as the Weed Science Society of America Newsletter could alert
members to new and emerging invasive species and provide a forum for
providing information on invasive species issues. The Cooperative
Extension Service and State departments of agriculture can also be
highly effective at offering training to the general public on invasive
species and assisting in professional and **stakeholder communication**.

6\. Several documents indicate the importance of action being based upon
**authoritative identifications** and records, including vouchering. The
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) provides a checklist and
coding system for taxonomic names that facilitates identification. This
need for vouchering is mentioned in the FICMNEW draft Early Warning and
Rapid Response Proposal. Also, this is a central mission area for the
USGS-National Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Informa­tion Center, the
Smithsonian Institution and Agricultural Research Services taxonomic
resources, and the National Identification Services within APHIS/PPQ
Plant Health Programs. Plan action item #21a calls for compilation of
lists of taxonomic expertise, which is being addressed substantially in
the U.S. through the Taxonomic Resources Expertise Database.

7\. An example of a **verification** effort is that which is conducted
by Foreign Animal Disease Diagnosticians. They may be dispatched through
the State Veterinarian's Office or APHIS Area Veterinarian in Charge
(AVIC) to investigate a report of the occurrence of certain diseases.
Verification of suspected new state and national plant records is an
important element of the FICMNEW draft Early Warning and Rapid Response
Proposal. APHIS/PPQ also has a system in place for exotic plant pests
which are then reported into National Agri­cultural Pest Information
System (NAPIS). Land Grant Universities can currently assist in species
verification and work closely with state governments. Verification data
must be linked to national databases to determine if the specimen is new
to the country or just new to that state.

8\. **Data**, including negative data concerning the absence of invasive
species, can be used to substantiate animal/crop health claims, document
ecosystem health, illuminate emerging issues, quantify successes,
identify problem areas, and direct rapid response efforts. An example of
routine reporting is the CDC's National Electronic Telecommunication
System for Surveillance NETSS. Data from the NETSS are published weekly
and are used by state or local epidemiologists to detect outbreaks. In
addition, the CAPS of APHIS, the National Agricultural Pest Information
System (NAPIS), the federal and state proposed Cooperative Invasive
Plant Pest Survey (CIPPS) program, the USGS's National Nonindigenous
Aquatic Species Database, and the Exotic Forest Pest Information System
for North America which works with Canada and Mexico under the FAO are
examples of ED&RR data collection and dissemination systems. The USGS
recently established the Invasive Species Information Node of the
National Biological Information Infrastructure to facilitate
coordination, synthesis, and reporting capabilities among the many
agencies and institutions that manage data on invasive species.

9\. An example of **syndromic surveillance** is the CDC Epidemic
Intelligence Service that was deployed to investigate occurrences that
could be linked to anthrax exposure. In addition, detection of harmful
algal blooms may involve investigating reports of fish kills or
seafood-related toxicity before the actual causative agent is
identified. The symptoms of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome were recognized
before the causative pathogen was identified.

10\. Action item #49 under the Plan concerns the posting of **case
studies** concerning the efforts to respond rapidly to invasive species,
and the Plan indicates the importance of testing ED&RR methods (see
action item #23b). For example, information about early detection,
reporting, and assessment with relevance to many categories of invasive
species has been developed through the Federal/State Witchweed
Eradication Program (1958-current) in the eastern South Carolina and
North Carolina. Early detection, rapid assessment, and rapid response to
new infestations of this serious root parasite of grass crops have been
important factors in reducing the total infestation of this parasitic
plant from 432,000 acres in 39 counties of eastern North Carolina and
South Carolina, to less than 5,000 acres, over the past 44 years.

11\. Systems used to detect harmful algal blooms, oil spills, and forest
fires use **several types of sensors**, observation techniques, and
analysis tools. The USGS Eros Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD, has
created a system which recognizes 969 land cover types and has mapped
the entire United States with 30 m^2^ pixels. This system could possibly
be used to map infestations of certain invasive plants.

12\. An example of a "**biological shift**" is evidence of adaptive
crossbreeding or hybridization in desert salt cedar. Many U.S. salt
cedars appear somewhat different from the two main species initially
imported, *Tamarix chinensis* and *Tamarix ramosissima*. The U.S. plants
also seem to repel many pests that effect one or the other salt cedar
species in their native ranges in Asia. Evidence from DNA
"fingerprinting" indicates that the most invasive U.S. specimens are
hybrids (John F. Gaskin and Barbara A. Schaal, Hybrid *Tamarix*
widespread in U.S. invasion and undetected in native Asian range.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2002. 99: 11256-11259).

13\. Examples of **invasive species fact sheets** include those prepared
by APHIS/PPQ and the NY Sea Grant National Aquatic Nuisance Species
Clearinghouse. The APHIS/PPQ August 2002 Factsheet concerning Giant
Hogweed provides a specific example. The USGS has also developed fact
sheets on a number of invasive plants, animals, and wildlife diseases.
Exotic pest plant councils, native plant societies, and other
organizations develop "fact sheets" and other information.

14\. An example of **proactive risk assessment** was the work of the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF), FWS, USGS, and APHIS in
preparing a risk assessment for snakehead fish that was available before
their detection in Maryland. Proactive risk assessment may include the
development of general risk assessment processes, such as was done by
the Risk Assessment and Management Committee of ANSTF, which can be
quickly adapted to new species and pathways. It is noted in the FICMNEW
draft Early Warning and Rapid Response proposal that certain species do
not warrant the same response times as others and a standardized system
for identifying species that should receive actions first can help
prioritize programs. The New Zealand Department of Conservation uses net
present value control costs (per unit area) and estimated rates of
increase in biomass cover over time for assessing the impact of an
incipient infestation.

15\. The Safeguarding review of APHIS/PPQ and the FICMNEW Early Warning
and Rapid Response Plan for Invasive Plants indicate the need for
**scheduling** decisive rapid action at critical stages of an invasion.
This is supported by the Council's definition of "rapid response" which
identifies the critical stage of an invasion as while the infestation is
"still localized."

16\. Examples of work to make **data systems** more interoperable
include the recommendations of the Safeguarding Review of APHIS
concerning VS, CAPS, and NAPIS. In addition, Exotic Forest Pest
Information System for North America which works with Canada and Mexico
under the FAO; the CDC National Electronic Disease Surveillance System
(NEDSS) that integrates the approximately 100 species-specific
databases; ANSTF's, USGS's National Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Database in Florida; and the Information Center for the Environment
Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing at UC Davis's work to
develop an invasive species cataloger and translation are examples of
efforts to create and enhance interoperable systems. Also, the USGS, in
cooperation with U. CA-Davis and other partners, are also leading an
effort through North American Biodiversity Information Network (NABIN),
and the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN), to
develop standards to facilitate development of a network of
interoperable databases on invasive species in the Western Hemisphere.

17\. An example of a **fluid team structure** is the APHIS/PPQ New Pest
Advisory Group (NPAG) that gathers informa­tion on new invasive species
and recommends responses. The composition of a NPAG team is altered so
that it is appropriate for the pest invasion being considered. In
addition, the National Parks Service has several regional response teams
that have a fluid make-up that can respond quickly to an invasion. The
draft FICMNEW Early Warning and Rapid Response System also calls for
creation of standing regional teams of weed management specialists to
provide on the ground technical support for addressing new invasive
plants, upon request.

18\. An example of a **training program** that includes mock exercises
is THE APHIS/ VS Regional Emergency Animal Disease Eradication
Organization (READEO). Training is also a key element of the Incidence
Command System approach. The CSREES is supporting early detection
training in the Northeastern U.S. Similar training exercises are called
for under the draft FICMNEW Early Warning and Rapid Response Plan for
Invasive Plants.

19\. Examples of "**functional area organization**" are the approaches
taken by THE APHIS/VS READEO and the "all risk" focus of the National
Interagency Fire Center. Also, see the APHIS/PPQ Emergency Programs
Manual that was updated in 2002. Plan action item #23d indicates the
importance of preparing guides to assist rapid response teams.

20\. An example of **appropriate scheduling** is the APHIS goal to
respond within 48 hours of receiving information concerning a new plant
pest occurrence.

21\. An example of a regulatory "situation room" or **incident command
system** is the Emergency Operations Center maintained by APHIS at their
headquarters in Riverdale, MD.

22\. An example of a "**scaleable" regional response system** is the
National Interagency Fire Center response to a wildfire. This system can
expand from a local to national effort as needed.

23\. An example of a **collaborative planning** process is described by
the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, 2003 Model Rapid
Response Plan for Aquatic Nuisance Species, Denver, CO 82pp. This plan
by the Western Regional Panel indicates that the South Carolina system
provides one model of a coherent system to manage aquatic nuisance
plants. The South Carolina Legislature established three interlocking
entities: The Aquatic Plant Management Council; The Aquatic Plant
Management Program; and the Aquatic Plant Management Trust Fund. The
draft FICMNEW Early Warning and Rapid Response Plan calls for creation
of state interagency weed teams and local weed management areas to plan
and execute such rapid response actions. The National Contingency Plan
for Response to Unusual Marine Mammal Mortality Events provides an
example of regional contingency planning. Approaches in this plan could
be adapted to invasive species work (see:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/eadingrm/ MMHealth/contingency.pdf).

24\. An example of **funding** is the APHIS/PPQ 2003 budget proposal for
a \$120 million Emerging Pest and Pathogen Line item Fund, and funding
of the PPQ line item \"Pest Detection\" of \$27 million. Also, Plan
action item #24 concerns the need for permanent funding for rapid
response efforts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allocated \$2
million in its FY2003 budget proposal for ED&RR Training of Friends
Groups at FWS refuges, nationwide.

25\. Examples of "**non-affected area**" coordination are supportive
road and trail closures in areas near wildfires that are coordinated by
the National Interagency Fire Center. Similar approaches can be and are
used to support of invasive species quarantine efforts. An example of
engaging "at risk stakeholders" is the work of the Southeastern North
Carolina Giant Salvinia Task Force. The main infestation of giant
salvinia in North Carolina is a 25-acre wetland adjacent to the
Northeast Cape Fear River in Pender County. The task force has enlisted
support from two '*at risk*' land owners (the Nature Conservancy and the
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission) that manage area downstream from the
primary infestation which helped prevent further spread of this very
serious aquatic weed from the current 25 acre infestation.

26\. An example of the consideration of **legal requirements** in the
ED&RR planning process is the development of NEPA guidance called for in
the Plan.

27\. An example of a "**common management structure**" is the responses
to wildfires coordinated by the National Interagency Fire Center.

**Appendix 2. Identifying ED&RR Scenarios:**

It is recommended that ED&RR plans consider the potential scenarios that
teams might encounter, because what should be done and by whom may
depend upon the "context of the invasion." For example, while an
authoritative identification of a species is always needed (see above),
the individuals and institutions involved with an aquatic species may
differ from those for a terrestrial species. Therefore, habitat type
(i.e., aquatic v. terrestrial) is an example of a "context category"
that could be considered in anticipating scenarios ED&RR teams might
encounter. One way to identify potential scenarios is to make a matrix
of the "context categories" that invasions might occur in and list all
possible combinations of context categories (see example below).

**Examples of Context Categories**:

1\. **Habitat type** - aquatic or terrestrial.

2\. **Accessability** - accessible (i.e, ED&RR teams can use existing
transportation systems to gain close ready access to invasive
populations) or relatively remote populations.

3\. **Economic Interest** - direct (i.e., is the area used directly to
produce a commercial crop and by that possibly requiring compensation
for lost production) or indirect, such as ecosystem function.

Arranged in all possible combinations, these three context categories
yield the following list of eight scenarios. However, this is provided
as an example only.

[Habitat Accessibility Economic Interest]{.underline} [Scenario
Example]{.underline}

> 1.Aquatic, Remote, Direct open-water commercial fishing grounds
>
> 2.Aquatic, Accessible, Direct aquaculture ponds, irrigation canals,
> potable water,
>
> 3.Terrestrial, Remote, Direct open grazing land, timber sale areas
>
> 4.Terrestrial, Accessible, Direct farms, animal confinement areas,
> orchards, homes
>
> 5.Aquatic, Remote, Indirect back country lakes & streams, some
> recreational fishing areas, upper river reaches, marshes & swamps
>
> 6.Aquatic, Accessible, Indirect urban/suburban ponds & streams, lake &
> near-shore marine areas
>
> 7\. Terrestrial, Remote, Indirect some wildland recreational areas
>
> 8\. Terrestrial, Accessible, Indirect backyards, urban/suburban parks,
> roadsides, undeveloped corporate lands, reclaimed mines.

**Appendix 3. Additional Considerations:**

There are several factors that would affect ED&RR actions and need to be
considered by those planning and conducting ED&RR efforts.

**Examples include**:

Invasive species that directly effect human health;

Invasive species that have quarantine/trade significance;

Invasive species that are in areas that contain threatened and
endangered species;

Invasive species which are difficult to detect or differentiate from
other species;

Invasive species that are vertebrates;

Invasive species that are on private lands;

Invasive species that cross Local, State, Tribal, or National borders;

Invasive species that are very near human populations;

Invasive species that have commercial, recreational, religious, or
cultural value;

Invasive species that have no known or legally available control
technologies;

Species that are poorly known and their invasive potential is unclear.

# **Appendix 4. Contributors to the General Guidelines for the Establishment and Evaluation of Invasive Species Early Detection & Rapid Response Systems, Version 1**:

  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------
  Lars W.J. Anderson         Agricultural Research Service

  Melissa Baumann            Texas A&M University

  Ann M. Bartuska            The Nature Conservancy

  Rebecca Bech               U.S. Department of Agriculture

  Thomas A. Bewick           Cooperative State Research Education and
                             Extension Service

  A. Gordon Brown            Department of the Interior

  Barbara Cooksley           Private Rancher

  Christopher P. Dionigi     National Invasive Species Council

  Linda Drees                National Parks Service

  Glen I. Garris             Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

  William Gregg              U.S. Geological Survey

  Deborah C. Hayes           U.S. Department of Agriculture

  Duane Heaton               U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

  Rob Hedberg                National and Regional Weed Science Societies

  Michael Hoff               U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

  Doug Holy                  Natural Resources Conservation Service

  Sandra N. Howard           U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  Mike Ielmini               U.S. Forest Service

  Henry Lee II               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

  Ron Lukens                 Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

  Richard N. Mack            Washington State University

  Donald MacLean             U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

  Coanne O\'Hern             Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

  Richard Orr                Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

  Bettina Proctor            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

  Gina Ramos                 Bureau of Land Management

  Sarah Reichard             University of Washington

  Daniel Simberloff          University of Tennessee

  Jeffrey Stone              Oregon State University

  David F. Thomas            U.S. Forest Service

  Marc Tuchman               U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

  Donna Turgeon              National Ocean and Atmospheric
                             Administration

  Randy G. Westbrooks        U.S. Geological Survey

  Lori Williams              National Invasive Species Council

  Jim Worrall                U.S. Forest Service
  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------

#