Forest Service 

National Strategic Framework for 

Invasive Species Management

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest FS-1017 August 2013

Service
Front cover photo credits:

Background Image: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Photography

Brown Bat: Ryan von Linden/New York Department of Environmental Conservation

Gold Spotted Oak Borer: Mike Lewis, Center for Invasive Species Research, http://www.bugwood.org

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid: Michael Montgomery, USDA Forest Service, http://www.bugwood.org

Sulfur Cinquefoil: Richard Old, XID Services, Inc.

Walnut Twig Beetle: Steven Valley, Oregon Department of Agriculture, http://www.bugwood.org

White Pine Blister Rust: USDA Forest Service, http://www.bugwood.org

Zebra Mussel: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Back cover photo credits:

Background Image: Bob Schroeter, USDA Forest Service

Asian Longhorned Beetle: Melody Keena, USDA Forest Service, http://bugwood.org

Emerald Ash Borer: David Cappaert, Michigan State University, http://www.bugwood.org

Gypsy Moth Larvae: E. Bradford Walker, Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, http://www.bugwood.org

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid: Mark McClure, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (retired), http://www.bugwood.org

Kudzu: USDA Forest Service

Tree of Heaven: Chuck Bargeron, University of Georgia, http://www.bugwood.org

Trout: Michael K. Young, USDA Forest Service
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 3

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Responsibilities and Capabilities of the Forest Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Purpose of the Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Framework Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

National and Regional Invasive Species Program Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Local Network and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Invasive Species Systems Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Invasive Species Systems Approach Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Element 1.—Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Element 2.—Detection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Element 3.—Control and management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Element 4.—Restoration and rehabilitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Framework in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix A: Invasive Species Systems Approach (ISSA), ISSA Guiding Principles, 

 and ISSA Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix B: Invasive Species Issue Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix C: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix D: References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Contents
4 Forest Service

Invasive species pose some of the greatest environmental 

and economic threats to the Nation’s forests, grasslands, 

and waterways. To ensure the continued production of 

needed goods, services, and values from our Nation’s 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, the Forest Service, an 

agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), must 

implement a strategic systems approach for managing 

invasive species. 

This Forest Service National Strategic Framework for 

Invasive Species Management (Framework) prioritizes 

and guides the prevention, detection, and control of 

invasive insects, pathogens, plants, wildlife, and fish that 

threaten our Nation’s terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 

The Framework incorporates the Invasive Species Systems 

Approach (ISSA) (appendix B) developed by the Forest 

Service to respond to these threats over the next 5 to 10 

years and supersedes the Invasive Species Strategy and 

Implementation Plan (2004). This Framework is intended 

to provide broad and consistent strategic direction across 

all Forest Service Deputy Areas and agency programs. The 

Forest Service developed the Framework in response to 

the USDA Office of the Inspector General audit (2010) 

and a review by the Forest Service’s Washington Office 

invasive species program. This Framework describes how 

National and Regional Invasive Species Issue Teams (NISIT 

and RISITs, respectively) will coordinate activities within the 

Forest Service and with Federal, State, and local partners. 

National priorities will be reviewed at least once every 5 

years and adjusted as needed. RISITs will assess and adjust 

their regional invasive species priorities for their respective 

ecosystems at least once every 5 years.

The ISSA identifies four key invasive species program elements: (1) prevention, (2) detection, (3) control and management, and (4) restoration and rehabilitation. The ISSA 

elements are dynamic in application; inclusive, not mutually 

exclusive; and integrated through management actions. 

Within each element, four themes are evident:

•	 Scientific basis—conducting research to provide a

sound scientific foundation for all program activities 

and to establish program priorities based on 

science-based risk assessments and other relevant 

information.

•	 Communication and education—rapidly and effectively disseminating research results, new detection 

information, management practices, technology, and 

other relevant information to land managers and 

stakeholders.

•	 Organization—improving capacity, streamlining

procedures, and providing funding flexibility with 

long-term commitment. 

•	 Partnerships and collaboration—actively seeking and

engaging external and internal partners.

The following are key actions to be implemented:

•	 Administer NISIT and RISITs to facilitate coordinated,

efficient, and effective invasive species management 

and research programs.

•	 Build new and strengthen current collaborations

within the agency and with its external partners.

•	 Communicate effectively with the public, stakeholder communities, and partners.

•	 Enhance capabilities of managers, scientists, and

forest health specialists to rapidly respond to threats; 

provide managers with tools needed to prevent, detect, and control invasive species and to rehabilitate 

affected ecosystems; and identify internal barriers to 

rapid and effective response.

•	 Inventory priority invasive species across the National

Forest System and, as appropriate, non-Forest Service lands.

•	 Implement standard operational procedures and

databases across the agency when such implementation will improve effectiveness in managing invasive 

species.

•	 Report agency accomplishments, expenditures, and

efficacy of actions.

•	 Conduct a national oversight review by NISIT once

every 5 years.

•	 Review NISIT and RISIT (regions, stations, area) accomplishments and reassess their priorities every 5 

years.

Successful implementation across the agency of the preceding elements and actions should increase the effectiveness 

of Forest Service management of invasive species and improve the health and productivity of forests and grasslands.

Executive Summary
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 5

Introduction

Invasive species are among the most significant 

environmental and economic threats facing our Nation’s 

forest, grassland, and aquatic ecosystems. They endanger 

native species and threaten ecosystem services and 

resources, including clean water, recreational opportunities, 

sustained production of wood products, wildlife and 

grazing habitat, and human health and safety. Property 

values are also adversely affected, and cities, counties, and 

small landowners are often disproportionally impacted. 

Adverse effects from invasive species can be exacerbated 

by interactions with fire, native pests, weather events, 

human actions, and environmental change. Invasive species 

cause billions of dollars in damage each year (Aukema et 

al. 2011, Holmes et al. 2009, Kovacs et al. 2010, Pimentel 

et al. 2005). Pimentel et al. (2001) estimated damage from 

invasive species worldwide totaled more than $1.4 trillion 

per year—5 percent of the global economy.

Burgeoning global trade and transportation have facilitated 

the distribution of many species among continents well 

beyond their native range. Species introductions have 

enhanced the probability of exotic establishment. The 

spread and persistence of invasive species result in high 

levels of environmental damage, significant control and 

other economic costs, and social impacts including harm 

to human health and well-being. Because the number of 

people living in, accessing, and using forests, grasslands, 

and water resources is continually increasing, the likelihood 

of invasive species being spread through transportation and 

recreational activities is also rising. As a result, many species 

of invasive plants, insects, pathogens, terrestrial animals, 

and aquatic organisms are already established in forest, 

grassland, and aquatic ecosystems. The harm currently 

caused by the numerous invasive species in the United 

States, combined with the likelihood of new introductions, 

necessitates that the Forest Service, an agency of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), develop a more 

comprehensive approach to guide current and future 

activities related to invasive species management to reduce 

undesirable impacts.

Strategically investing in programs and projects to address 

invasive species threats will help reduce the economic and 

environmental impacts of invasive species on all lands.

Responsibilities and Capabilities of the 

Forest Service

The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. 

The agency is a leader in forest and grassland management 

and research in the United States and is recognized internationally for its land management and scientific expertise. 

The Forest Service directly manages 193 million acres of 

forests and grasslands within the National Forest System 

(NFS), which includes forests, grasslands, and waterways. 

The Forest Service also provides a wide range of assistance 

to others to better manage private and other public natural 

resources. With regard to forest insects, and pathogens, 

the Forest Service is specifically authorized to provide technical and financial assistance to State natural resource and 

agricultural agencies, tribal governments, and other Federal 

land management agencies to respond to and manage 

forest pests that threaten the Nation’s 731 million acres of 

rural and urban forests of all ownerships. The Forest Service 

routinely conducts research, scientific collaboration, and 

reviews that address priority information gaps necessary 

for forest, watershed, and grassland management. The 

technology and development centers of the Forest Service 

provide a wide array of scientific information and assessments and specialize in developing and applying new management technologies for forests and grasslands. On an 

international level, the Forest Service also delivers scientific 

information and technical and financial support to overseas 

partners and nations to address global conservation issues.

The agency workforce includes scientists in forest 

entomology; forest pathology; botany; wildlife and fisheries 

biology; aquatics; rangeland ecology, forestry, fire and 

wildlife management; cultural science; and economics. 

Experts in public communication, legislative affairs, 

technology transfer, and education also provide important 

support in effectively addressing invasive species issues.

Vision

The Forest Service will use the best available sciencebased methods to prevent and reduce the unacceptable 

impacts caused by invasive species and thereby sustain the 

integrity and resilience of the Nation’s forest and grassland 

ecosystems. To achieve this vision, the Forest Service 

has established an improved comprehensive, integrated 
6 Forest Service

National and Regional Invasive Species 

Program Organization

In 2003, a multidisciplinary team of specialists, managers, 

and scientists developed a National Strategy and 

Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management 

(2004). That plan established a national Forest Service 

invasive species program under the leadership of the 

Washington Office National Invasive Species Issue Team 

(NISIT). The NISIT developed Forest Service policies 

consistent with agency mandates, and it fostered the 

development of Regional Invasive Species Issue Teams 

(RISITs). In 2006, the regional, Northeastern Area, 

and station directors established RISITs to coordinate 

management activities and research needs at the regional, 

station, and area levels and to interface with Regional 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Panels, Invasive Species Councils, 

State agencies, and other local and regional organizations. 

This Framework continues the NISIT and RISIT organization 

within the Forest Service. Key roles and responsibilities of 

the NISIT and RISITs are identified in appendix B.

Local Networking and Organization

Staffs from NFS, R&D, and S&PF network with local, county, 

and State governments; Cooperative Weed Management 

Areas; Cooperative Invasive Species Management Areas; 

and other organizations in the public and private sectors to 

promote a collaborative approach to mitigate, manage, and 

adapt to invasive species threats across the landscape, while 

improving and sharing information. Improved knowledge 

development, communication, coordination, and information sharing enables the Forest Service to stay apprised of 

local issues and advances, while remaining relevant and 

connected with local expertise that is valuable in planning, 

prioritizing, and implementing invasive species management activities.

approach that highlights the agency’s commitment to a 

timely response to the threat of invasive species by using 

resources effectively, efficiently, and safely and by engaging, 

communicating, and coordinating actions at all levels and 

across all deputy areas of the Forest Service and with its 

partners.

Purpose of the Framework

This Forest Service National Strategic Framework for 

Invasive Species Management (Framework) is intended to 

provide broad strategic direction for the Forest Service’s 

programs, spanning the NFS, Research and Development 

(R&D), and State and Private Forestry (S&PF) Deputy Areas, 

and International Programs. This document supersedes 

the National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive 

Species Management (2004) and is intended to clarify the 

roles of the deputy areas of the Forest Service regarding 

invasive species and enhance internal coordination of 

agency invasive species programs. This Framework is 

a guide for the agency’s full suite of invasive species 

research and management activities and is consistent 

with existing law, policy, and other direction at the field, 

regional, and national levels. The recently approved 

Forest Service Manuals (FSMs) 2020, 2070, 2900, and the 

development of an associated Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 2909.11 will provide more policy and directions on 

implementing this Framework within the NFS. The manuals 

and handbooks of the S&PF (FSM 2150, FSM 3400, FSH 

2109.14) and R&D (FSM 4000) Deputy Areas also provide 

guidance and direction.

Framework Organization

This Framework outlines the vision, approaches, guiding 

principles, and actions the agency needs to follow for 

successful management of invasive species. It is divided into 

six sections: (1) Introduction, including the Vision, Purpose 

of the Framework, and Framework Organization; (2) 

Invasive Species Strategic Approach (3) Guiding Principles; 

(4) Summary; (5) Framework in Action; and (6) Appendixes. 

The Introduction section describes the responsibilities and 

capabilities of national and regional offices of the Forest 

Service. The Invasive Species Systems Approach (ISSA) 

section focuses on a new Forest Service approach to 

invasive species management and research and includes 

strategic elements, actions, and prioritization. The Guiding 

Principles section presents standards and actions that all 

Forest Service programs and activities follow to achieve 

success. 

Executive Order 13112 and 

Forest Service Policy

The Forest Service is obligated by law, and regulations such as Executive Order 13112, to respond to 

invasive species that threaten terrestrial and aquatic 

resources of the National Forest System and to 

collaborate with Federal, State, and local partners 

to address invasive species that can spread from 

adjacent lands. Forest Service policy for invasive 

species management and research has recently 

been updated by direction provided in Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) 2900 and by directions provided in 

FSMs 3400 and 4000.
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 7

Invasive Species System Approach

Forest Service employees record survey results.

Photo by Bob Nichols, USDA Photography

An integrated systems approach relies on multiple risk 

management measures that independently reduce risk. The 

Framework describes a new tool to assess program effectiveness in addressing invasive species. The ISSA applies 

particular criteria for prioritizing Forest Service management 

and research priorities (see appendix B) and performance 

measures for evaluating success. The 4 elements and their 

18 components included in the ISSA are needed for an effective invasive species program. Use of the ISSA across the 

Forest Service will promote high standards and consistently 

high levels of effectiveness for the activities of its invasive 

species program. The Framework and the ISSA complement 

directions in Forest Service manuals and handbooks that set 

forth policies, responsibilities, and requirements for invasive 

species management and research. Likewise, the ISSA integrates an adaptive framework for managing the Nation’s 

forests and grasslands consistent with the Forest Service 

Planning Rule, which guides development, amendment, 

and revision of land management plans for all units of the 

NFS, consisting of 155 national forests and 21 grasslands. 

Invasive Species Systems Approach 

Elements

The Forest Service will focus on four key elements for 

invasive species research and management.

1. Prevention

2. Detection

3. Control and Management

4. Restoration and Rehabilitation

What Is an Invasive Species?

A species is considered to be invasive if it meets two 

criteria: (1) it is nonnative to the ecosystem under 

consideration, and (2) its introduction causes, or is 

likely to cause, economic or environmental harm 

or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112, 

1999). This definition can be confusing. Consider 

the following examples to better understand the 

meaning of the term invasive. Not all “exotic” 

species (i.e., species living outside their native range) 

are invasive. In fact, many exotic species provide 

environmental and economic benefits to society. 

Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), honey bees (Apis 

spp.), and cattle (Bos primigenius taurus) descended 

from ancient European livestock are exotic species 

in the United States that have been domesticated 

and are considered beneficial. Feral swine (Sus 

scrofa) and emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis)

are invasive pests because of their introduction 

into the United States and their ability to cause 

environmental and economic harm. Although 

Canada geese (Branta canadensis) might be serious 

pests for Maryland property owners, they are 

historically migratory to this region. Mute swans 

(Cygnus olor) in the same area would be considered 

invasive, however, because they are a nonnative pest 

species.

Some North American species are native to certain 

areas of the continent but are considered invasive 

when they move to new ecosystems. For example, 

mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosea)

are considered native in western pine ecosystems 

and invasive in the mixed jack pine forests east of 

the Canadian Continental Divide. Similarly, walnut 

twig beetle (Pityophthorus juglandis), the vector of 

the invasive thousand cankers disease (Geosmithia 

morbida), is a native insect in southwestern 

ecosystems but is behaving like an invasive species in 

other North American ecosystems.
8 Forest Service

These four elements are not separate and distinct from 

one another; they overlap and form an integrated adaptive 

approach for addressing invasive species. Furthermore, this 

strategy facilitates integrated funding for all four elements; 

none can stand alone. For example, Early Detection and 

Rapid Response (EDRR) is a commonly used approach that 

combines two of the elements. Early detection of a species 

is paired with control actions, such as physically removing 

the invader or applying pesticides to eliminate it. 

Element 1.—Prevention. Keep invasive species out 

of the Nation’s forests and grasslands and identify 

potential introduction pathways for known threats. 

The most effective strategy to protect forests, waterways, 

and grasslands from invasive species is to prevent invasive 

species introduction and establishment. Containing known 

infestations is also important for blocking the spread of 

invasive species from infested lands to surrounding areas. 

Coordination with Federal and State regulatory agencies 

is important in understanding pathways for introductions, 

implementing quarantine regulations, and educating the 

public about invasive pest threats and how to prevent the 

spread of invasive species.

The Forest Service will actively prevent the introduction and 

spread of invasive species that adversely affect the health 

and sustainability of U.S. forests, watersheds, and grasslands. The Forest Service will coordinate and cooperate with 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

and other State and Federal agencies, as necessary, and 

will identify and inform the public about invasive species 

threats and their management. The Forest Service supports 

this element through research, resource stewardship, active 

collaborative efforts, education and outreach activities, and 

the development of new technology.

Forest Service prevention efforts include the 

following actions.

•	 P1—Identify, forecast, and prioritize invasive species 

threats. Many invasive species are already established 

in the United States but are not yet widespread. 

Knowledge of which species are already present in 

a region, State, forest, or district, or are likely to be 

introduced into these areas, can guide prevention 

efforts.

•	 P2—Identify high-risk pathways of movement 

and introduction. Numerous pathways (or vectors) 

introduce exotic species, some of which might 

become invasive, to the United States. Identifying 

pathways that pose the greatest risk for the 

introduction of invasive species and, if appropriate, 

following up with focused actions will help prevent 

introduction and spread.

•	 P3—Identify vulnerable ecosystems. Knowing 

which resources are the most threatened by a 

particular invasive species and what the impacts are 

on an ecosystem will help prioritize detection and 

management efforts.

•	 P4—Improve cooperative efforts. Invasive species 

Cost of Responding to 

New Pest Introductions

The cost of responding to new pest introductions can 

be huge. Successful eradication might be possible, if 

an infestation is detected early, but it can take many 

years of concerted effort and millions of dollars. For 

example, before 2006, USDA spent more than $420 

million for containment, control, and eradication of 

only three invasive forest pests: Asian longhorned 

beetle (ALB) (Anoplophora glabripennis); emerald ash 

borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennis); and Phytophthora 

ramorum, the fungal pathogen that causes Sudden 

Oak Death (SOD) (GAO 2006). Since 2006, USDA has 

spent many more millions of dollars on these species 

with mixed results. After nearly 15 years of effort, 

ALB has been eradicated in Illinois and New Jersey. In 

2009 and 2011, however, large infestations of ALB 

were detected in Worcester, MA, and Cincinnati, 

OH, respectively. It will likely take decades and many 

millions of dollars to contain and eradicate these 

infested areas. SOD has not yet been established in 

the Eastern United States, in part, because USDA and 

State efforts appear to suppress the spread of the 

pathogen from the West Coast. On the other hand, 

EAB has become widely established in much of the 

Eastern United States. The focus has shifted from 

prevention and eradication to minimizing the spread 

of EAB through a variety of management tactics, 

including detection, eradication of small populations 

on the leading edge of the infestation, biological 

control, and insecticides. 
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 9

prevention requires the efforts of multiple agencies, 

organizations, communities, and individuals. Crucial 

steps for establishing effective cooperative efforts include identifying local and regional partners, actively 

participating in cooperative efforts, and helping to 

identify and obtain sufficient and appropriate funding to support prevention activities.

•	 P5—Recommend, program, and implement 

appropriate actions to prevent introduction and 

establishment of target invasive species. Local, 

State, regional, and Federal actions are important in 

preventing the movement of invasive species. Once 

high-risk invasive species and their pathways are 

identified, actions should be taken to prevent their 

establishment.

Element 2.—Detection. Survey to detect new invasive 

species and monitor existing priority species. Detection and monitoring are critical components of an effective 

management program. They provide the basis for control 

and management including rapid response. Using risk assessments and pathway analysis, detection efforts for priority species can be directed towards high-risk areas. When 

early detection is combined with other management tools, 

such as rapid response, it leads to a more effective invasive 

species management approach. 

The Forest Service will develop and implement efficient 

Forest Service employee conducting invasive species survey.

Photo by Katrina Krause, USDA Forest Service

Early Detection and Rapid Response

Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) is a 

commonly used approach that combines two of the 

elements of the Forest Service National Strategic 

Framework for Invasive Species Management. Early 

discovery and identification of newly arrived invasive 

species before they become widespread is critical 

to their eradication, management, and control. 

Distinguishing an invasive species from similar 

species in the ecosystem is essential to assessing 

its risk to the environment. When coupled with 

rapid responses, such as immediately eradicating 

the organisms or implementing control measures 

to reduce their abundance and slow their spread, it 

is one of the most effective methods for managing 

a newly arrived species. For example, on a national 

scale, the Forest Service and the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service jointly implement EDRR 

to detect and eradicate the Asian gypsy moth 

when and wherever it is found in the United States, 

thereby thwarting its successful establishment. 

survey and monitoring tools and technologies as needed 

to facilitate earlier detection of invasive species and rapidly assess their potential impact on forest and grassland 

health. As necessary and appropriate, the Forest Service will 

coordinate with Federal and non-Federal cooperators across 

all lands.

Forest Service detection actions include the following:

•	 D1—Survey effectively to detect new invasive species 

and monitor priority species. Discovery and correct 

rapid identification of newly arrived species is critical 

for their eradication. Early detection and continued 

monitoring of established species are critical to slowing their spread.

•	 D2—Evaluate the extent and severity of invasive 

species infestations and assess their potential 

impacts. Delimiting the extent of an infestation is 

important for selecting appropriate control actions. 

Invasive species infestations that are widespread 

might need to be treated differently than small or 

isolated infestations that can be eradicated. 

•	 D3—Report invasive species detection findings 

in standardized databases. Access to information 

on invasive species distribution is important when 

determining management actions. Information from 

detection and delimiting surveys should be entered 

into standardized databases, such as 

http://foresthealth.fs.usda.gov/portal and Natural 

Resource Manager—Natural Resource Information 

System, so that information can be shared quickly 

and widely. All invasive species inventories and 

infestation maps will be shared among land 

management and regulatory agencies, States, and 
10 Forest Service

other partners to monitor population trends and 

treatment effectiveness.

•	 D4—Develop tools and techniques to detect and 

monitor invasive species. Improving the availability 

and effectiveness of detection tools will help 

achieve earlier detection of new infestations and 

lower eradication and management costs. Less 

costly and more effective monitoring tools will 

facilitate improved efficiencies in invasive species 

management.

Element 3.—Control and management. Directly eradicate (if possible), control, or manage priority invasive 

species on priority acres to minimize their spread and 

adverse effects. Based on integrated pest management 

(IPM) principles, such as using risk assessments, identifying 

thresholds for actions, and identifying expected outcomes, 

management activities can aim to eradicate an infestation, 

to contain its spread, or to mitigate its impacts.

The Forest Service will directly intervene, when costeffective, to manage populations of invasive species that 

threaten forest and grassland health and sustainability. 

Rapid response following early detection will be used to 

eradicate new infestations. If eradication is not feasible, 

IPM and adaptive management techniques will be 

implemented to help maintain ecosystem function. This will 

include research and management to increase the resilience 

of threatened ecosystems to mitigate the impacts of 

pests invading. In cooperation with external stakeholders, 

the Forest Service will conduct research to characterize 

infestations, identify factors conducive to infestations, and 

develop tools and techniques to cost-effectively eradicate 

or manage priority invasive species. The Forest Service will 

optimize efficacy and cost effectiveness of treatment by 

timing interventions to maximize forest health benefits 

(Schoettle and Sniezko 2007). Following impact assessment 

and response plan development, the Forest Service will 

implement and monitor management actions. When and 

where possible, the Forest Service will eliminate barriers 

to rapid response via process improvements. Subsequent 

management actions will be adapted based on outcome 

and cost monitoring. 

Forest Service control and management actions include the 

following actions:

•	 CM1—Coordinate as needed with partners. Coordination and collaboration with key partners and other 

stakeholders will help to identify common objectives 

and gain efficiencies, resulting in more effective 

treatment programs against terrestrial and aquatic 

invasive species. Partners include adjacent private 

landowners, nongovernmental organizations, and 

governmental partners (e.g., State departments of 

agriculture, State fish and game agencies, county 

governments, Federal regulatory agencies, and other 

Federal partners).

•	 CM2—Prioritize and implement treatments.

Prioritizing which species to treat and when 

and where to treat them might be influenced 

by management objectives for the landscape as 

well as by conditions in the surrounding area. 

Effective control of invasive species depends on 

understanding the species’ biology, its interactions 

within the landscape, the availability of effective 

tools, costs, anticipated impacts, and land 

management ownership and objectives. Mechanical, 

biological, chemical, and cultural techniques may be 

used in an integrated approach to reach the desired 

outcome. Treatments will follow standardized, 

science-based procedures to maximize efficiency 

and effectiveness. Strategies, systems, and practices 

for managing changed ecosystems to continue to 

deliver needed goods and services will be developed.

•	 CM3— Implement rapid response for new infestation in response to new invasions. Consistent 

long-term commitment of resources and budgets is 

essential for successful control and management. Effective “rapid response” to new infestations requires 

streamlining or removal of time-consuming and expensive procedures. When coupled with early detection, rapid response is the last opportunity to eradicate new invasions at low costs. Current Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations and Guidance for 

Forest Service employees discuss invasive species management.

Photo by Bob Nichols, USDA Photography
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 11

Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

(2007), the Forest Service manuals (2900, 3400) and 

Forest Service handbooks (2109.44, 2909.11) are 

helpful for facilitating the timely response to new infestations consistent with invasive species prevention 

and control requirements of Executive Order 13112. 

As procedural barriers are identified, they should be 

addressed and quickly mitigated if possible. Successes in rapid response efforts and methods for 

reducing barriers should be shared with the widest 

audiences possible. 

•	 CM4—Monitor and report accomplishments in 

standardized databases. Standardized databases 

enable the integration and leveraging of data from 

multiple sources in order to more effectively manage 

information about treatments that are accomplished. 

Entering the treatment records into standardized 

databases (such as Natural Resource Management—

Forest Service Activity Tracking System) enable the 

linking of data sets and ease comparisons between 

datasets. Ensure data comparability by using 

standardized guidelines to facilitate consistent 

species or activity reporting and long-term treatment 

efficacy reporting. All accomplishments should be 

verified before initial entry into corporate application 

databases. These databases must be compliant with 

agency and interagency agreements. 

•	 CM5—Develop the tools, technologies, methods, 

and budgetary processes necessary to prioritize and 

eradicate or manage invasive species. Eradication 

might require a long-term commitment of resources 

to be effective. Although initially expensive, 

eradication costs are typically far less than the cost 

of management activities subsequent to spread 

into surrounding areas and States. Improving the 

availability and effectiveness of treatment tools will 

help achieve eradication of new infestations and 

lower costs. Likewise, proactive management to 

increase the resilience of threatened ecosystems to 

impacts by pending invasions might also be more 

cost effective than later restoration of degraded 

ecosystems (Schoettle and Sniezko 2007). Less 

costly and more effective tools to manage existing 

infestations will prevent degradation of additional 

ecosystems and facilitate restoration.

Element 4.—Restoration and rehabilitation. Minimize or reverse adverse ecosystem effects caused by 

invasive species. Restoring landscapes that have been 

impacted by invasive species or associated management 

activities is necessary for improving ecosystem integrity and 

function and might reduce vulnerability to invasive species 

establishment in the future. Restoring and maintaining the 

health, functions, and productivity of areas affected by 

invasive species is consistent with management guidance 

on restoring national forests (FSM Chapter 2000, National 

Forest Resource Management and FSM Chapter 2020, Ecological Restoration and Resilience) and the effective use of 

native species (FSM Chapter 2000, National Forest Resource 

Management and FSM Chapter 2070, Vegetation Ecology). 

Forest Service restoration and rehabilitation actions include 

the following actions: 

•	 RR1—Identify and prioritize restoration and 

rehabilitation needs. Prioritizing restoration actions 

can help the Forest Service meet the most critical 

management needs for a forest or grassland. 

These needs are based on management objectives, 

feasibility, and cost-effectiveness. Landscapes that 

have been impacted by invasive species and are 

a threat to human health and safety would be 

of highest priority. Areas that might also receive 

priority attention include those that are rendered 

more susceptible to fire; those that provide critical 

water resources, wildlife habitat, or recreation 

opportunities; those that contain rare resources; 

or research natural areas, special botanical areas, 

or other areas containing high-quality natural 

resources. The impacts of invasive species control 

and subsequent restoration efforts on the native 

species and ecosystems must be considered when 

selecting the most appropriate options.

•	 RR2—Take actions to restore, monitor, and maintain affected areas. Identification, prioritization, and 

implementation of the most effective science-based 

actions are essential for successful restoration and 

rehabilitation. Using the best available science will 

enable the Forest Service to apply the most effective 

actions to restore or rehabilitate areas affected by 

invasive species. The intervention should be timed to 

optimize efficacy and cost effectiveness of treatment 

for long-term sustained ecosystem health (Schoettle 

and Sniezko 2007). When the invasive threat cannot 

be contained or eradicated, prioritizing when and 
12 Forest Service

•	 Report accurate agency accomplishments, expenditures, and efficacy of actions.

•	 Build effective collaborations within the agency and

with partners.

•	 Communicate more effectively with the public, user

communities, and partners.

•	 Enhance capabilities of managers, scientists, and

forest health specialists to rapidly respond to threats; 

provide managers with tools needed to prevent, 

detect, and control invasive species; monitor and 

understand vegetation succession following different types of treatment to rehabilitate and manage 

affected ecosystems; and identify internal barriers to 

rapid and effective responses.

•	 Inventory priority invasive species across the NFS

and, as appropriate, other cooperators’ lands and 

all lands in partnership with the Forest Service Forest 

Inventory and Analysis and State, Federal, and local 

agencies.

Successful implementation of the above elements and 

actions will increase the effectiveness of Forest Service management of invasive species and improve the health and 

productivity of both forests and grasslands.

Prioritization of ISSA Elements and Actions

Prioritizing programmatic and invasive species-specific 

activities is necessary to effectively use the resources 

available. Setting priorities will be an iterative process 

using the best available science and information to 

facilitate decisionmaking. A suite of factors, including 

availability of effective prevention, detection, monitoring, 

and control methods; availability of funds; resources at 

risk; potential for invasive species spread; and likelihood 

of success will be considered in assessing risk and setting 

priorities. Of these factors, prevention and EDRR are, in 

general, recognized as the most efficient and cost-effective 

strategies for addressing invasive species. Ordering invasive 

species management priorities will occur at all levels of 

the Forest Service. NISIT will establish national priorities 

for Forest Service. RISITs will work with the NISIT and 

regional and station leadership to identify complementary 

focus areas, issues, scales, and priority species. The Forest 

Service emphasizes the use of highly effective and efficient 

methods when available, based on prevention, impact 

assessments (e.g., economic, ecological, landscape, and 

social impacts), and species characterization (e.g., life 

history and spread).

where to increase the resilience of threatened highvalue ecosystems helps to mitigate later degradation 

upon invasion. Success will be improved by pooling 

the expertise of partners in restoration, rehabilitation, and technology development and transfer and 

by using genetically appropriate material in a timely 

manner.

•	 RR3—Assess effectiveness of rehabilitation and 

restoration activities. Monitoring and managing restored areas reduces vulnerability to future invasions 

and allows for the achievement of land management 

goals and objectives. Recording assessment of restoration effectiveness and efficacy data will inform 

Forest Service decisions about future restoration 

activities.

•	 RR4—Develop, synthesize, and evaluate effective 

rehabilitation and restoration tools, technologies, 

and methods. Rehabilitation and restoration of forests and grasslands takes a long-term commitment 

of resources to be effective. Developing, evaluating, 

and improving the availability and effectiveness of 

methods, tools, and technologies will benefit this 

process and reduce costs. These tools should include 

adaptive learning techniques and advance knowledge of best practices.

The Forest Service will emphasize the four key elements at 

all levels of the organization, while ensuring activities are 

conducted in a manner that strongly incorporates partnership and collaboration and that promotes using communication and education, organizing for success, and 

having a solid foundation in applicable science. Paramount 

to success is management’s ability to prioritize activities; 

establish and implement performance measures; and assign 

roles, execute responsibilities, and hold people accountable 

across staffs. Across the agency, the following common actions will assist in this process:

•	 Administer NISIT and RISITs to facilitate coordinated,

efficient, and effective invasive species management 

and research programs.

•	 Conduct a national oversight review by NISIT once

every 5 years.

•	 Review RISIT (Northeastern Area, regions, and stations) accomplishments and reassess their priorities 

every 5 years.

•	 Implement standard operational procedures and

databases across the agency to improve effectiveness 

in managing affected systems.
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 13

All Forest Service programs and activities conducted or 

implemented under this Framework will use the following 

guiding principles for success.

•	 Emphasize safety as a core value in all

actions. Chief Tom Tidwell (Forest Service letter 

dated February 18, 2011) directed the Forest Service 

to incorporate safety into all agency programs. This 

incorporation requires an examination of ingrained 

habits, expectations, and “ways of doing business, 

or culture” that contribute to death or injury, as well 

as changing the agency’s processes to address these 

concerns.

•	 Use a systems approach for invasive

species management. Integrated management 

is a cost-effective system of actions that reduces 

pest presence, distribution, or reproductive success. 

The advantage of an integrated approach is that 

it addresses uncertainty and variability better than 

any single approach and includes a structured 

decision process that adapts to current conditions 

and allows for flexibility in funding, staffing, and 

program direction as needed. A commitment to both 

short- and long-term funding support for a systems 

approach to the program is required both internally 

and externally. This commitment might require 

budget process changes that allow for and secure 

multiyear and continuing funding for long-term 

management activities.

•	 Use standardized, science-based methodologies

and strategies. Methodologies need to be (1) 

science-based, (2) standardized, and (3) comparable 

across time and scales to facilitate consolidation and 

analyses at multiple organizational levels. Scientific 

information is critical in guiding management 

activities, estimating actual and potential impacts 

caused by invasive species, planning for future 

research and management programs, and improving 

intervention efforts and prioritization analysis. The 

Forest Service will participate in appropriate research, 

technology development, and methods improvement 

activities to ensure that management programs are 

effective, science-based, and feasible. This strategy 

relies on substantial contributions to invasive 

species science, technology, and management 

and an improved ability to understand and predict 

management outcomes of single approaches or 

treatments by universities; other Federal, State, and 

local agencies; nongovernmental organizations; 

tribal governments; industry; and others.

•	 Identify and address gaps in procedures necessary for an effective integrated invasive species 

management program. All employees are responsible for identifying gaps and barriers to successful 

and timely program implementation. Inclusion of 

personnel from all deputy areas in RISITs ensures 

awareness of information needs, facilitates technology development, and expedites science and technology exchange. Research and technology developed 

by the Forest Service and others will serve a vital role 

in designing new techniques to achieve comprehensive invasive species management goals. Managers 

will familiarize themselves with available techniques 

and apply the most effective strategies necessary for 

program success. 

•	 Incorporate invasive species assessment results

into ongoing monitoring efforts during all 

project and activity phases according to mutually agreed standards, protocols, and criteria. Under law and policy, the Forest Service is responsible 

for properly managing, planning, and implementing monitoring efforts, and subsequently analyzing 

potential impacts and treatment efficacy. Agency 

employees will monitor priority species using the 

best available standardized techniques and assess 

changes in species presence, behavior, and distribution to inform management decisions and actions.

•	 Ensure internal Forest Service communication 

and coordination. Invasive species management activities will be coordinated at all levels and across all 

program areas of the Forest Service. Clear communication regarding all components of invasive species 

management between and among Forest Service 

units at all levels and across multiple geographic 

scales is critical to success. Key factors to enhance 

the success of invasive species programs within the 

agency include new policy, guidance, and direction 

in manuals, handbooks, and technical guides that 

establish invasive species management as a routinely practiced agency activity; appropriate forest 

plan direction; best management practices; contract 

and permit language; and terms and conditions for 

Guiding Principles
14 Forest Service

issued authorizations. Increased internal communication will raise awareness among Forest Service 

employees and facilitate incorporation of invasive 

species management practices into day-to-day activities, such as removing weeds from all-terrain vehicles 

when leaving an infested area, ensuring footwear 

and clothes are invasive free and reporting observations of unusual pests or pest-caused damage.

•	 Collaborate and coordinate with external

partners. Collaboration is a critical overarching 

component across all the national strategy elements. 

Collaboration extends outside the agency and across 

ownerships and political jurisdictions to the other 

Federal, State, and local government agencies; 

tribal groups; nongovernmental organizations; 

the private sector; and international stakeholders. 

The Forest Service will also expand partnership 

development with nontraditional partners and 

increase national cooperation and coordination with 

environmental groups, recreational groups, and 

industry. The agency will facilitate the establishment 

of cooperative invasive species management areas, 

participate in research activities, operate all Forest 

Service programs to incorporate invasive species 

management and share infestation information with 

partners across collaborative databases, and links to 

Web sites such as EDDMapS. Communication with 

other agencies and groups will foster relationships 

and partnerships that increase the likelihood 

of management and research success and limit 

duplicative efforts and expenditures. Key groups for 

coordination include tribes, Federal, State forestry 

and regulatory agencies, native plant conservation 

groups or invasive plant coalitions, aquatic nuisance 

species organizations, pest advisory groups, 

international agencies, and invasive insect and 

pathogen coalitions.

•	 Conduct outreach and public education. Communication, education, and interpretive programs 

are needed to help the public gain an understanding 

of the magnitude and urgency of invasive species impacts. An educated public can help prevent, 

identify, detect, and control invasive species; provide 

input into program plans; and promote partnerships in plan implementation. The Forest Service 

cooperates with other agencies and organizations to 

conduct outreach and education activities for pests 

of common interest and where common messages 

are identified. 

 

Blackfoot Challenge members learn, from Forest Service 

scientists and managers, the protocols for monitoring 

biocontrol releases, such as the toadflax stem mining 

weevil (Mecinus janthinus) on yellow toadflax (Linaria 

vulgaris) near Ovando, MT. The Blackfoot Challenge 

coordinates efforts to conserve and enhance natural 

resources and a rural way of life throughout the Blackfoot 

River Watershed among various stakeholders, both public 

and private. 

Photo by Sharlene Sing, USDA Forest Service 
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 15

The Framework for the Forest Service’s management of 

invasive species emphasizes four elements: (1) prevention, 

(2) detection, (3) control and management, and (4) restoration and rehabilitation. Fostering partnerships and collaboration; developing and implementing science-based actions; 

improving communication, outreach, and public education; 

and organizing for success are critical components that 

span all elements. The ISSA identifies broad targets and 

outlines the agency approach to attaining these elements. 

More specific regional targets will be developed and proSummary

grammed at the regional scale, as appropriate. The ISSA 

guiding principles and the roles and responsibilities sections 

clarify the roles of the national office, Northeastern Area, 

International Institute of Tropical Forestry, and regions, 

stations, and forests (appendix A). Successful implementation of the ISSA involves coordination and communication 

among all parts of the agency and effective outreach and 

collaboration with local, regional, national, and international partners. 

Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) on the Sawtooth National Forest, Idaho. 

Photo by Bob Nichols, USDA Photography
16 Forest Service

Framework in Action

Preventing Aquatic Introductions Through Partnerships and Education

The Forest Service is working with Wildlife Forever, a 

nonprofit group, and others to reach the outdoor 

recreation community about invasive species issues. 

Joint outreach projects between the Forest Service and 

Wildlife Forever educate the outdoor recreation community and enlist their combined efforts to report invasive 

species, prevent their spread, and help eradicate these 

insidious invaders of fish and wildlife habitat. For 

example, aquatic invasive species, such as zebra and 

quagga mussels (Dreissena polymorpha and Dreissena 

rostriformis bugensis) and Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), have already infested some lakes 

and rivers and threaten many other waterways nationally. The Forest Service and Wildlife Forever developed a 

billboard and public service announcement campaign to 

remind hunters, anglers, and recreational boaters to 

clean, drain, and dry their boats and gear before moving 

from one waterway to another. This partnership also 

developed a seven-episode conservation education 

television program about aquatic invasive species issues 

in the Great Lakes region. These outreach and education 

efforts have already reached tens of millions of people. 

Also part of this invasive species prevention campaign, 

the Forest Service, in association with local partners, has 

deployed portable high-pressure, high-temperature 

washstations at key water access sites. The employees at 

these washstations teach boaters about aquatic invasive 

species, answer questions, share printed materials, and 

inspect and clean boats and trailers.

National invasive species 

threat campaign video. 

Photo by USDA Forest Service

Inspecting and cleaning a boat to remove invasive plants and mollusks. 

Photo by John Rothlisberger, USDA Forest Service

Propeller clogged with an 

invasive weed. 

Photo by John Rothlisberger, 

USDA Forest Service
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 17

Don’t Move Firewood Campaign

When the Gold Spotted Oak Borer (GSOB) (Agrilus 

auroguttatus) arrived in San Diego County in 2008 

and began killing native oaks, forest health protection 

specialists developed a campaign to prevent the spread 

of invasive insects and diseases that move in firewood 

in California. They led the creation of the California 

Firewood Task Force with other Federal, State, and local 

partners. The task force established a Web site (complete with interactive cartoons), developed and distributed education and outreach materials to each of the 18 

national forests in California, and developed a Firewood 

Pest Passport Activity to educate youth and their families 

about the risk that moving firewood poses to forests. 

Efforts are ongoing with multiple private and public 

landowners to halt the movement of GSOB-infested oak 

firewood; 39 million acres of oak forests are at risk in 

California alone. A multipartner effort is also working 

on improved methods for GSOB detection, appropriate 

use/disposal of infested material, and individual tree 

protection.

Don’t move firewood,use local firewood—on Northeastern 

Area’s don’t move firewood poster (NA-PR-02-06).

Photo by Tom Denhom, USDA-APHIS

To address the potential for artificially spreading emerald 

ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), national forests in the 

East coordinated with State agencies to implement 

consistent statewide regulations regarding the movement and use of firewood in State and federally managed forests, parks, and recreation areas.

Nationally, the Forest Service continues to collaborate 

with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service; the National Association 

of State Foresters; the National Plant Board; and others 

to develop and implement national standards for “pestfree” firewood. In addition, Forest Service scientists at 

the National Threat Centers and their partners focused 

on pathways for human-assisted spread of forest pest 

species. This research helps to craft strategies that help 

land managers prepare for and respond to the spread of 

multiple pests across very large regions in North America. 

Emerald ash borers and other borers move with firewood. 

Photo by David Cappaert, Michigan State University, 

http://www.bugwood.org
18 Forest Service

Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) are formerly domestic swine 

hybrids that are free-roaming. Their rooting in the 

ground for food creates large areas of disturbance, 

which causes soil erosion, degrades water quality in 

streams, and damages property. More importantly, 

ground disturbance promotes the introduction and 

establishment of many invasive plants. In addition, 

feral pigs are very effective at dispersing the seeds of 

the many invasive plants with edible fruits, further 

exacerbating the spread and abundance of invasive 

plants. In Hawaii, invasive plants are replacing native 

species in native forests across whole watersheds 

and landscapes. In most instances, invasive plant 

management and restoration cannot be successful 

until the feral pigs are removed and excluded from 

the area. The Forest Service is partnering with the 

State of Hawaii and other organizations to fence 

large areas (2,000 to 5,000 acres) to enable the removal of feral pigs as a first step toward the restoration of native plant species and communities and the 

myriad of ecosystem services they provide. 

Feral swine. 

Photo by http://www.thinkstockphotos.com

Integrated Weed Management in Hawaii Requires Feral Swine Management

Hibernating bats species are threatened by a rapidly 

spreading, lethal disease called white-nose syndrome (WNS). The disease is caused by a new fungal 

pathogen, presumed to be exotic, called Geomyces 

destructans. It was first discovered in 2007 in upstate 

New York and has already killed more than a million 

bats, including rare and endangered species. The 

pathogen is spreading rapidly south and west. The 

Forest Service is very concerned about the spread 

of WNS, an unprecedented wildlife health crisis, 

and has joined with other agencies and conservation organizations in restricting access to caves and 

mines to help slow the spread of WNS. Forest Service 

scientists worked with partners to develop a sensitive test to detect the fungus in cave soils. Now they 

are evaluating the genetic viability of the Indiana bat 

based on current population losses, to look for resistance to the disease among hibernating bat species, 

and to characterize the distribution of the pathogen 

in cave sediment samples from bat hibernation sites 

in the Eastern United States. Bat biologists working 

on WNS are using this research to devise strategies 

to save these animals from extinction. 

Little brown bat; close-up of nose with fungus, New York, 

October 2008. 

Photo by Ryan von Linden/New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation

Addressing the Threat of White-Nose Syndrome
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 19

Forest Service scientists and managers at the 

National Threat Centers are working closely with 

domestic and international partners to develop a 

comprehensive database that will aid in prediction, 

prevention, and proactive management of invasive 

plants. This tool will advance understanding about 

the more than 4,300 plants introduced in the United 

States through accidental and intentional releases. 

Some of these species have become invasive by outcompeting native species for resources, resulting in 

threats to native communities and reducing species 

diversity. Researchers are developing methods to 

identify potentially invasive species from these 

introduced plants to help predict and prevent future 

invasions. 

The database compiles key life history and genetic 

traits for all currently known introduced plant species, including structure and form traits, pollination 

and dispersal mechanisms, chromosome number, 

habitat preferences, and geographical distribution 

in both native and invaded regions. Researchers and 

collaborators are populating the database using a variety of sources, such as relevant existing databases, 

scientific literature, Web sites, and dried plant specimens. These data will allow for continental scale 

analyses of biological traits that influence species 

invasiveness and distribution (e.g., species rankings) 

and will aid in developing early warning systems, 

predictive models, risk assessments, and manageEastern Threat Center scientists are populating a comprehensive 

database, useful when developing early warning systems, risk 

assessments, and management plans for invasive plant species 

such as kudzu (Pueraria lobata). 

Photo by Kerry Britton, USDA Forest Service, http://www.bugwood.org

ment plans for invasive plant species. The database will 

be made available on the Internet for the public, land 

managers, scientists, and policymakers to use as a comprehensive resource of introduced invasive plants in the 

United States. 

Scientists also are developing a tool to prioritize 

treatment of invasive plants in the Intermountain West 

by identifying key environment and species attributes to 

focus on, community and ecosystem tipping points, and 

the most effective treatments. Eventually this tool will be 

scaled up and generalized to the Western United States.

 

Identifying Potentially Invasive Plants in the United States

Dieback and mortality of eastern black walnut trees 

(Juglans nigra) in the Western States has become more 

common and severe during the last decade. Walnut twig 

beetles (Pityophthorus juglandis) initiate this mortality, by creating numerous galleries beneath the bark of 

affected branches. The walnut twig beetle carries the 

fungus (Geosmithia morbida) that causes large numbers 

of cankers under the bark, hence the name “thousand 

canker disease.” The beetle and the disease have now 

been confirmed in several Eastern States.

Detection of a Disease Vector

Walnut twig beetle.

Photo by Steven Valley, 

Oregon Department of 

Agriculture, http://www.

bugwood.org 

The potential loss of black walnut is of great concern 

to the walnut industry and nursery stock producers. 

The disease could also adversely affect wildlife that 

depends upon the tree for food, recreation quality, 

and trees in urban areas. The Forest Service developed 

a Thousand Canker Disease (TCD) Framework with 

concurrence from the USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, the National Association of State 

Foresters, and the National Plant Board to address 

the issue. This framework identifies management and 

research priorities, provides stakeholders with current 

TCD information, and forms a National TCD steering 

committee for research and management. Forest 

Health Protection developed and leads a national 

survey to detect the beetle and disease. Forest Service 

scientists, working with university and industry partners, 

patented an attractant and repellent for the beetle and 

developed the trapping technique used in this survey.
20 Forest Service

The Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests in 

South Carolina work closely with State agencies, the 

Southeastern Exotic Pest Plant Council, and other 

stakeholders to develop, prioritize, and coordinate 

invasive plant management activities on the forests 

and adjacent lands. The teams developed a joint list 

of the 50 high-risk invasive plants and prioritized 

prevention and control efforts based on threat 

distribution, threat to forest resources, and the 

geographic area threatened. The Forest Service 

eradicates high-risk species not known to occur 

on Forest Service lands and detects and manages 

invasive species that threaten priority habitats.

Cogongrass (priority 2 weed) invading pine stand on 

Francis Marion National Forest. 

Photo by Jean Everett, USDA Forest Service

Collaborative Development of an Early 

Detection and Rapid Response Program 

for Invasive Plants on the Francis Marion 

and Sumter National Forests

The Jackson and Buffalo Ranger Districts of the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest make up 52 percent of 

the land within the Jackson Hole Weed Management 

Association. In the past, weed invasions tended to 

enter the forest near the boundaries of lands of other jurisdictions and at the periphery of the Jackson 

Valley, typically along roads, trails, and river corridors, and spread into the forest from there. In 2006, 

using this geographic information and a list of 15 

priority “new invader” plant species, the Forest Service initiated an Early Detection and Rapid Response 

(EDRR) program in priority (emphasis) areas, with 

the objective of eradicating those high-risk invasive 

plants before they could get a foothold and spread. 

By adapting the geospatial and tabular capability of 

the Natural Resource Information System-Terra invasive species application, the Forest Service identified 

almost 7,000 priority acres for detection and immediate eradication efforts. In total, the Forest Service 

successfully eradicated 15 priority species from 

those 7,000 acres. One emphasis area was the Teton 

Wilderness. The forest hired a packhorse contractor 

with extensive experience to detect, map, and treat 

all listed species of priority invasive weeds within the 

Teton Wilderness. This jointly funded Forest Service 

and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation effort was the 

first broad effort to proactively confront and successfully address the invasive-weed problem within the 

Teton Wilderness using the EDRR approach.

Horse-mounted pesticide application equipment used for 

backcountry weed eradication on national forests. 

Photo by High Country Sprayers, LLC

Bridger-Teton National Forest Early 

Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) 

Program for Invasive Plants
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 21

White sweetclover (Melilotus albus) and other invasive plants on the Chugach National Forest in Alaska 

occur in areas of human disturbance and adjacent 

river systems, but they are generally absent in backcountry areas. In 2006, a large patch of clover was 

found at the Girdwood Airport, an entryway to a 

salmon stream. The Forest Service immediately partnered with the town on a weed-pulling campaign 

by local students. During the first couple of years, 

a 10-person crew annually pulled weeds and filled 

dozens of bags during a 1-week-long period. After 5 

years, a 2-person crew was able to complete the job 

in 1 day. This white sweetclover infestation is a priority because the sweetclover has the potential to disburse its seed via the adjacent creek and via aircraft 

into much larger areas of roadless land throughout 

the Chugach National Forest and interior Alaska. 

Eradication of white sweetclover (M. albus) in Alaska. 

Photo by USDA Forest Service

Early Detection and Eradication of White 

Sweetclover on the Chugach National 

Forest

Another strategy for managing invasive woody plant 

species is to identify value-added uses for the 

invasive species. For example, the Forest Products 

Laboratory partnered with the National Forest 

System and a small business owner to demonstrate 

that wood fibers chipped from the entire tree of the 

invasive juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) in the 

Southwest can be used to manufacture wood 

composites for road signs and other non-load-bearing outdoor applications. In another research project 

in partnership with the National Forest System and 

the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Products 

Laboratory scientists have shown that invasive 

saltcedar (Tamarisk ramosissima) and juniper (J. 

osteosperma and J. monosperma) from Arizona and 

Utah can be used to manufacture wood plastic 

composites. The aim is to expand the research to 

optimize durability and processability of invasive 

species wood plastic composites for exterior applications such as siding, decking, and roofing. The 

long-term goal of this strategy is to provide the basis 

for commercial, job-producing materials while 

offsetting the costs associated with removal of 

invasive trees and shrubs from the Nation’s forests 

and grasslands. 

Saltcedar composite boards. 

Photo by Steve Schmieding, USDA 

Forest Service

Putting Invasive Species To Work by 

Using Them in Wood Composite 

Materials

A composite 

board containing 

50-percent 

saltcedar (Tamarix 

spp.) and additives 

exiting extrusion die 

(right) and entering 

cooling tank.

Photo by Steve 

Schmieding, USDA 

Forest Service

Salt Cedar (Tamarix spp.)

on Snake River. 

Photo by C. Parks, USDA 

Forest Service
22 Forest Service

Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) is a destructive, exotic 

forest pest that was accidentally released into the 

United States in the late 1860s. It is a permanent 

resident in all or parts of 19 States and the District 

of Columbia. The insect feeds on more than 300 

species of trees—oaks are the most preferred. Since 

1970, the insect has defoliated more than 80 million acres. Defoliation often causes extensive tree 

mortality, reduces property values, adversely affects 

commerce, and causes allergic reactions in sensitive 

individuals that come in contact with the caterpillars. Almost 70 percent of the susceptible hardwood 

forests in the United States have not been infested 

by gypsy moth and are at risk.

Since 2000, the Forest Service, working with States 

and other Federal agencies located along the leading 

edge of gypsy moth populations, has implemented 

a national Slow-the-Spread Program, with a strategy 

to minimize the rate at which gypsy moth spreads 

into uninfested areas. This program is possible 

because of (1) the existence of a strong science 

foundation; (2) a process of continuous reviews by 

the scientific community and management that 

relies heavily on development of new methods and 

(3) the implementation of the program across all 

jurisdictional boundaries, including the participation 

of national forests. As a direct result of this program, 

spread of the insect has been dramatically reduced 

by more than 60 percent from the historical level 

Gypsy Moth Larvae. 

Photo by E. Bradford Walker, Vermont Department of Forests, 

Parks and Recreation, http://www.bugwood.org

of 13 miles per year. In only 12 years, this program has 

prevented impacts that would have occurred on more 

than 100 million newly infested acres across multiple 

jurisdictions.

A key lesson to learn from the success of the gypsy 

moth Slow-the-Spread Program is the importance of 

working with partners to promote and implement a 

coordinated, regionwide program based upon the 

biological parameters of the pest. Gypsy moth Slow-theSpread exemplifies a well-coordinated, broad landscape 

response that is often necessary to effectively respond to 

invasive pests.

Gypsy Moth Slow-The-Spread Program
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 23

Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) and yellow 

toadflax (L. vulgaris) are invasive perennial plants of 

rangeland, forests, and cropland that were introduced to North America from Eurasia during the 

1800s as ornamental plants for use in fabric dye and 

folk remedies. Both species thrive particularly well 

in disturbed, open habitats and can out-compete 

and easily dominate native or desirable plant communities in areas characterized by dry summers. 

They propagate by seeds and by shoots growing 

from vegetative root buds. One plant can produce 

up to 500,000 seeds and have lateral roots extending as far as 10 feet from the parent plant. The fast 

growth, extensive root system, and high reproductive 

capacity of this plant requires long-term, cooperative, integrated management programs and planning 

to contain and reduce Dalmatian toadflax populations.

Dalmatian toadflax. 

Photo by Susan Turner, British Columbia 

Ministry of Forests, http://www.

bugwood.org

The Forest Service’s work with local, State, and Federal 

research and management partners has developed 

an integrated treatment program for controlling this 

aggressive and adaptable invasive species that focuses 

on preventing toadflax seedling establishment through 

the maintenance of a vigorous, competitive plant 

community. 

Effective control often requires an integrated approach 

such as mechanical control combined with herbicide 

treatment, herbicide treatment followed by seeding 

with competitive grasses, and the treatment of large 

infestations with herbicides in combination with 

biological control with insects. One example of this 

technique would be to release biological control agents 

near the center of the infestation, and then spray the 

edges to reduce or prevent the spread of the infestation. 

The greatest impact is obtained by repeated treatments 

over multiple years.

Integrated Control of Toadflax in the West 

Left: Yellow toadflax. 

Photo by Linda Wilson, University of 

Idaho, http://www.bugwood.org 

Below: Adult toadflax stem mining 

weevils (Mecinus janthinus) 

established on yellow toadflax near 

Ovando, MT.

Photo by USDA Forest Service
24 Forest Service

The Forest Service Research and Development, 

Forest Health Protection (FHP), and National Forest 

System (NFS) personnel in the Pacific Southwest 

Region worked with numerous partners to reduce 

the human-assisted spread of Sudden Oak Death 

(Phytophthora ramorum) and helped communities 

in 14 infested coastal counties in California and 

Oregon.

When oak trees started dying in the San Francisco 

Bay Region, the Pacific Southwest Station developed 

a collaborative research response that helped 

identify the cause—a water mold new to science. 

Starting from scratch, the station along with the 

University of California (UC) Davis, UC Berkeley, 

and FHP initiated a coordinated program to learn 

about the pathogen’s biology and how to control 

and manage it. The diagnostic methods, treatments, 

and information on spread rates, supported by 

the Forest Service, serve as the scientific basis for 

regulations and best management practices for the 

United States and more than 60 other countries. FHP 

staff joined forces with researchers, State forestry 

and agriculture agencies, and others to form the 

California Oak Mortality Taskforce (see http://www.

suddenoakdeath.org). The taskforce developed 

consensus on research priorities and developed 

support for appropriate regulations to prevent pest 

spread. They also developed and hosted numerous 

education and outreach programs for the nursery 

industry, land managers, and the general public to 

help prevent pathogen spread.

Sudden Oak Death is costly and difficult to manage when 

infected trees occur in residential settings such as this San 

Francisco Bay Area neighborhood. 

Photo released by Marin County, CA, Fire Department

As scientists determined that the pathogen had a wide 

host range and could be spread on infected plant material, NFS and other land managers issued closure orders 

to prevent moving the pathogen on Christmas trees, 

firewood, or cut branches of host trees. The cohesive 

approach taken by the Forest Service and its partners has 

helped slow the geographic spread of the pathogen.

Although the impact of Sudden Oak Death, to date, has 

mainly been seen in coastal areas of Western States, 

the Forest Service’s National Early Detection Survey for

P. ramorum has surveyed more than 500 streams in the 

Eastern United States in an effort to protect valuable oak 

resources in the East.

Sudden Oak Death Held at Bay by Coordinated Response
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 25

Exotic species invasions and variations in climate 

patterns represent two of the greatest challenges to 

maintaining the ecosystem services provided by natural systems. These forces can have dramatic impacts 

on native systems independently, but they are also 

expected to interact in ways that are poorly understood. Currently, much speculation is made, but little 

empirical data exists regarding how weather patterns 

affect exotic species invasions.

In the early 2000s, Forest Service researchers 

documented regional declines in the aggressive 

range weed, spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), 

that were thought to be correlated with regional 

drought. But, the declines could have been caused 

by a biocontrol agent called Cyphocleonus achates

that was released in the 1980s to target spotted 

knapweed, or they could have been a combination 

of the two factors. To better understand these 

outcomes, Forest Service Research and Development, 

Forest Health Protection, and the Missoula 

Technology and Development Center evaluated the 

roles of the drought, biological control agent, and 

plant competition on knapweed decline.

After 3 years, the biocontrol agent and short-term 

drought each killed about 20 percent of adult knapweed 

plants. Together, they had the same impact—killing 

20 percent together because the knapweed rapidly 

regenerated from the seed bank. The knapweed was 

able to recover from the individual mortality caused by 

the biocontrol agent and drought because overabundant 

young plants simply replaced dominant adults that died. 

When conditions were simulated to closely match those 

of the prolonged drought conditions observed in the 

early 2000s, preliminary results indicated that prolonged 

drought can strongly suppress knapweed populations, 

shifting communities back toward dominance by native 

grasses which are very drought resistant. These results 

suggest that some native plants might be better adapted 

to long-term drought stress than invaders like spotted 

knapweed, providing some of the first indications of 

how weather patterns might affect exotic plant invasions 

in this system. 

Knapweed Responses To Interactions Among Drought, Biological Controls, and 

Plant Competition 

Left: Microcosm experiment plots. An inter-deputy area team created 150 microcosm communities with electronically automated 

drought covers that could be used for long-term, multifactorial, community-level experiments. The microcosms allowed for the 

manipulation of precipitation inputs, biocontrol attacks, and plant competition to determine how these factors affect spotted 

knapweed invasion and its control. 

Center: Testing automated drought covers. 

Right: Cyphocleonus achates on spotted knapweed. 

Photos by USDA Forest Service 
26 Forest Service

The hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA), Adelges tsugae, 

is a pest native to Asia and western North America. 

It was first discovered in eastern North America in 

1951 near Richmond, VA, and molecular diagnostics 

has since pinpointed the origin of the infestation 

to southern Japan. In the late 1980s, HWA began 

to rapidly spread in hemlock forests from its point 

of introduction. It has since been detected in 

18 Eastern States, threatening two species of 

hemlock--—the eastern hemlock, Tsuga canadensis 

(L.) Carr., and Carolina hemlock, Tsuga caroliniana 

Engelm. The insect has caused extensive mortality 

and decline of hemlock trees in the Eastern United 

States, particularly in the southern Appalachians. 

HWA is a serious threat to the survival of hemlocks 

throughout the region.

At the request of a broad range of stakeholders 

including the National Association of State Foresters, and the National Plant Board, the Forest Service 

(State and Private Forestry and Research and Development) prepared an HWA research and technology 

development needs assessment to address HWA 

and, particularly, the lack of management tools. In 

Cottony masses on the underside hemlock branches are 

characteristic of the presence of hemlock woolly adelgid. 

These ovisacs contain mature hemlock woolly adelgid and 

eggs and are conspicuous from the late fall to early summer. 

Photo by Mark McClure, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment 

Station (retired), http://www.bugwood.org

2001, the Forest Health Protection program (State and 

Private Forestry) led development of an integrated pest 

management strategy implemented through the HWA 

Initiative. This Forest Health Protection-funded initiative 

is a broadscale, combined effort led by the Northeastern 

Area and the Southern Region to manage the adverse 

effects of HWA across its range in the Eastern United 

States. Early on in the HWA Initiative, forest health specialists and scientists recognized that focusing significant resources to develop a classical biological control 

program would provide the best chance for successful 

long-term management of HWA. 

Of the nine species of hemlock worldwide, only eastern 

and Carolina hemlock evolved in the absence of an adelgid herbivore. Foreign exploration revealed that a number of adelgid specialist predators played an important 

role in regulating HWA populations in its native range. 

Several of these predators (there are no known parasites 

of adelgids) proved to be good candidates for establishment in the Eastern United States, including several coccinellid and derodontid beetles from China, Japan, and 

the Pacific Northwest. Although establishment efforts 

are still underway for most of the selected predators, a 

lady beetle from Japan, Sasajiscymnus tsugae, and the 

derodontid beetle Laricobius nigrinus from the Pacific 

Northwest are now confirmed established in a number 

of Eastern States. The establishment of L. nigrinus has 

been so successful in some areas that in the 8 years following its initial release, thousands of predatory beetles 

can now be collected in the field and redistributed annually to other infested areas. 

 

Biological Control Efforts To Manage the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid

The beetle, Laricobius nigrinus, is a predator 

of hemlock woolly adelgid adults and eggs. 

Photo by Ashley Lamb, Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University, http://www.bugwood.org
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 27

Five-needle white pines are considered keystone 

species in fragile high-elevation ecosystems 

throughout western North America and protect 

soils from erosion, improve snow retention, and 

provide valuable habitat and food for wildlife 

species. Management in these white pine forests 

can be challenging because of poor access, steep 

terrain, and land management designations, such as 

wilderness and parks. White pines, including those 

at high elevation, face threats from bark beetles and 

white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola). Blister 

rust was introduced in the early 1900s on imported 

nursery stock and has since spread through much 

of the white pine ranges. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has identified whitebark pine as warranting 

protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

Since the 1950s, resistance screening has identified 

sources of resistance and genetic diversity in 

commercial white pine species. Recently, Forest 

Service scientists addressed questions about 

resistance in noncommercial, high-elevation species 

as well. Collaborations across all three deputy 

areas identified resistant individuals (called “plus 

trees”) for further testing and have identified seed 

transfer zones to ensure that new plantings are 

adapted to local conditions. Forest Service scientists 

are developing and using genetically resistant 

High-elevation western pines are threatened by invasive 

white pine blister rust, native bark beetles, and weather 

patterns. 

Photo by Julie Kray, USDA Forest Service

populations for the long-term control of blister rust. 

Working together, these groups are collecting seed for 

gene conservation, as well as examining white pine 

population structure and the role of natural regeneration 

in stand recovery. The Forest Service’s rust resistance 

program is one of the most developed/advanced 

conifer resistance programs in conifers for introduced 

pathogens. 

Proactive management strategies are being tested that 

encourage regeneration in advance of the pathogens 

arrival so that a larger pool of genotypes is present 

(Schoettle and Sniezko 2007). Then natural selection 

will allow the survivors with more resistance to the rust 

pathogen to reproduce. In addition, preparation for early 

deployment of genetic resistance through plantings into 

threatened ecosystems is underway to sustain ecosystem 

health and function as blister rust continues to spread. 

Collaboration across Forest Service deputy areas and 

with cooperators/partners in other Federal and State 

agencies and tribes is essential to making progress in 

protecting, sustaining, and restoring key white pine 

ecosystems, including high-elevation ecosystems.

 

Protecting High-Elevation White Pine Resources 

 White pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola). 

Photo by Deems Burton, USDA Forest Service
28 Forest Service

Invasions of nonnative fish, such as brook, brown, 

and rainbow trout have relegated westslope cutthroat trout to a vestige of its historically occupied 

habitat in Montana’s Missouri River basin and across 

much of its range. For example, habitat occupied 

by genetically pure westslope cutthroat has declined from 1,200 miles to approximately 5 miles of 

stream in the Madison River subbasin of the Missouri 

River. Restoring cutthroat trout populations requires 

removing nonnative trout, replacing them with genetically pure cutthroat populations, and preventing 

reinvasion.

Cherry Creek, with more than 70 miles of stream 

above a natural waterfall that provides a natural 

barrier to invasive trout, was identified as an 

important area for cutthroat restoration. After a 

decade of initial planning, a partnership between 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Turner Enterprise; 

and the Gallatin National Forest undertook 7 years of 

nonnative fish removal. Members of the partnership 

removed nonnative trout with piscicide application 

and installed temporary migration barriers to prevent 

reinvasion. They followed this activity with 5 years 

of westslope cutthroat introductions. After a decade 

Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) and brook trout 

(Salvelinus fontinalis). 

Photo by Michael K. Young, USDA Forest Service

of restoration efforts, Cherry Creek now contains the 

largest genetically pure population of this cutthroat trout 

subspecies in the upper Missouri River drainage area.

Although many restoration efforts focus solely on fish 

habitat, this effort illustrates the importance of restoring 

genetically pure fish populations. Forest Service scientists are supporting native trout restoration in Cherry 

Creek and other areas by assessing the effectiveness of 

restoration efforts, assessing and monitoring the extent 

of hybridization across the Interior Mountain West, and 

identifying areas for restoration that will be most resilient 

to changing weather patterns.

Public-Private Partnership To Restore Westslope Cutthroat Trout to Cherry Creek, MT 

The faces of success. The interagency 2007 Cherry 

Creek crew typifies the crews who walked many miles 

restoring the stream and the number of workers 

required annually for a successful treatment. 

Photo by USDA Forest Service
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 29

APPENDIXES

The Invasive Species Systems Approach (ISSA) identifies the 

4 elements and 18 actions of the Forest Service National 

Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 

(Framework) that all programs and units within the 

National Forest System (NFS), Research and Development 

(R&D), and State and Private Forestry (S&PF) should take, as 

appropriate, in addressing invasive species.

Prevention

•	 Identify, forecast, and prioritize invasive species

threats (P1).

•	 Identify high-risk pathways of movement and introduction (P2).

•	 Identify vulnerable ecosystems (P3).

•	 Improve cooperative efforts (P4).

•	 Recommend, program, and implement appropriate

actions to prevent introductions and establishment 

(P5).

Detection 

•	 Survey aggressively to detect new invasive species

and monitor priority species (D1).

•	 Evaluate the extent and severity of invasive species

infestations and assess their potential impacts (D2).

•	 Report invasive species detection findings in standardized databases (D3).

•	 Develop tools and technologies to detect and monitor invasive species (D4).

Control and management 

•	 Coordinate as needed with partners (CM1).

•	 Prioritize and implement treatments (CM2).

•	 Implement rapid response for new infestation

(CM3).

•	 Monitor and report accomplishments in standardized

databases (CM4).

•	 Develop the tools, technologies, methods, and

budgetary processes necessary to prioritize and 

implement effective invasive species management or 

eradication activities (CM5).

Restoration and rehabilitation 

•	 Identify and prioritize restoration and rehabilitation

needs (RR1).

•	 Take actions to restore, monitor, and maintain affected areas (RR2).

•	 Assess effectiveness of rehabilitation and restoration

activities (RR3).

•	 Develop, synthesize, and evaluate effective

rehabilitation and restoration methods, tools, and 

technologies (RR4).

Appendix A: Invasive Species Systems Approach (ISSA), ISSA Guiding Principles, 

and ISSA Roles and Responsibilities
30 Forest Service

ISSA Roles and Responsibilities

•	 The Washington Office National Invasive Species

Issue Team (NFS, R&D, S&PF, and International 

Programs) will develop national policies and 

monitor and coordinate Regional Invasive Species 

Issue Team (RISIT) activities, including compiling a 

comprehensive report on ISSA results every 5 years 

and helping the regions and stations overcome 

barriers to success. National priorities will be 

reviewed every 5 years and adjusted as needed.

•	 Region, station, and the Northeastern Area offices will administer and support ongoing RISITs to 

coordinate management activities, research needs, 

and projects. Region, station, and the Northeastern 

Area offices will also coordinate with national forests 

within their region or station area, helping them 

develop effective strategies to include in forest plans.

•	 Region, station, and the Northeastern Area offices

will provide the Washington Office with an up-todate report on their ISSA progress every 5 years and 

summarize their progress across respective units 

and adjust their priorities. This includes prioritizing 

species and verifying accuracy of invasive species accomplishments.

•	 National forests will incorporate invasive species

prevention, detection, and control, including rapid 

response activities and restoration considerations, 

in forest plans and will coordinate with their district 

and regional offices (at a minimum) to ensure standards are followed and to provide a report on their 

ISSA progress every 5 years.

ISSA Guiding Principles

•	 Emphasize safety as a core value in all actions.

•	 Use a systems approach for invasive species

management.

•	 Use standardized, science-based methodologies and

strategies.

•	 Identify and address gaps in procedures necessary

for an effective integrated invasive species 

management approach.

•	 Incorporate invasive species assessment results

into ongoing monitoring efforts during all project 

and activity phases according to mutually agreed 

standards, protocols, and criteria. 

•	 Ensure internal Forest Service communication and

coordination. 

•	 Collaborate and coordinate with external partners.

•	 Conduct outreach and public education.
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 31

National Invasive Species Issue Team (ISIT) 

The National Invasive Species Issue Team (NISIT) is composed of the three invasive species program coordinators 

from the three branches of the Forest Service (National 

Forest System, Research and Development, and State 

and Private Forestry). In addition to this core group, the 

members of the NISIT will include a multidisciplinary set of 

national-level staff representing a wide range of Forest Service programs. The NISIT performs the following functions:

•	 Coordinates across all Forest Service offices and

programs to identify and evaluate nationally 

significant invasive species issues and problems 

affecting the mission of the Forest Service.

•	 Provides coordinated policy direction to Regional

Invasive Species Issue Teams.

•	 Identifies and evaluates Forest Service capabilities

and limitations to manage and research invasive 

species issues and problems.

•	 Develops strategic recommendations and solutions

to address nationally significant invasive species 

issues and problems.

•	 Collaborates with external national organizations or

agencies, as might be needed, to address invasive 

species issues and problems.

•	 Formulates and directs priority actions associated

with Forest Service invasive species research and 

management activities, as directed by Forest Service 

leadership through the sponsoring NISIT deputy 

area directors.

Appendix B: Invasive Species Issue Teams

Regional Invasive Species Issue Team (RISIT)

Regional Invasive Species Issue Teams (RISITs) ensure 

frequent information sharing, collaboration, and communication—necessary aspects in integrating invasive species 

management activities across program areas. The regional, 

Northeastern Area, and station directors collaboratively 

established RISITs to address invasive species issues affecting their regional area. RISITs are established in a manner 

consistent with Forest Service Manual 2900 and other 

applicable direction. RISIT members can include staff from 

multiple disciplines and program areas, such as Forest 

Health Protection, Invasive Species Management, Research 

and Development, Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology, Wildlife 

Ecology and Management, and Rangeland Management, 

as appropriate. Each RISIT is empowered to accomplish the 

following actions:

•	 Collaborate, coordinate, and communicate across all

Forest Service offices and programs.

•	 Cooperate and partner with external local

organizations or agencies, as needed.

•	 Identify and evaluate regional activities and capabilities to effectively address invasive species threats.

•	 Make recommendations to leadership on strategic

approaches and integrated activities to address invasive species threats.
32 Forest Service

Appendix C: Glossary 

adaptive management—Reviewing practices and adjusting them as needed to achieve the desired resource objectives while incorporating the best available science and 

information, including protocols and standards, regular 

monitoring, and a scientific peer review process.

biological control— Intentional actions to foster the 

reduction of pest populations by natural competitors, 

predators, or parasites, thereby providing a sustainable and 

highly selective solution to many widely spread infestations. 

Release of natural competitors might enhance control and 

reduce the rate of expansion of large existing infestations. 

While most often involving the use of insect agents, fungi, 

and other microbes, such as the bacterial insecticide 

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk) can also provide 

biological control.

control—Any activity or action taken to minimize, 

contain, limit the spread, or reduce the effects of an 

invasive species. Control activities are generally directed 

at established infestations and are not, in all cases, 

implemented to eradicate the targeted infestation. 

detection—Discovery and identification of invasive species.

early detection and rapid response—A prompt 

and coordinated response to reduce invasive species’ 

environmental and economic impacts and spread, which 

might result in a lower cost and less resource damage than 

implementing a long-term control program. 

early detection—The process of finding, identifying, 

and quantifying invasive species infestations prior 

to, or in the initial stages of, its establishment as a 

free-living and expanding population. Early detection 

of an invasive species is typically coupled with 

integrated activities to rapidly assess and respond 

with quick and immediate actions to eradicate, 

control, or contain it. 

rapid response—Immediate actions taken to eradicate, 

control, or contain infestations that must be 

completed within a relatively short time to maximize 

the biological and economic effectiveness against 

the targeted invasive species. Depending on the 

risk of the targeted invasive species, rapid response 

actions on National Forest Systems lands may be 

supported by an emergency situation determination. 

Emergency considerations would include the 

geographic extent of the infestation, distance 

from other known infestations, mobility and rate 

of spread of the invasive species, threat level and 

potential impacts, and available treatments. 

early warning system—A comprehensive monitoring 

framework for timely detection and quick response to 

environmental threats to forest lands in the United States 

that is based on four key steps necessary to detect and 

respond to environmental threats: (1) identify potential 

threats, (2) detect actual threats, (3) assess impacts, and (4) 

respond (Forest Service 2004).

ecological integrity—An ecosystem that maintains 

through time its health, self-organizing complexity, and 

capacity for self-organization and sufficient diversity within 

its structures and functions.

ecosystem—A community of living organisms (plants, 

animals, and microbes) in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment (i.e., air, water, and 

mineral soil), interacting as a system. These components 

are regarded as linked together through nutrient cycles and 

energy flows.

ecosystem services—“The conditions and processes 

through which natural ecosystems, and the species that 

make them, sustain and fulfill human life” (Daily 1997). 

establishment—Initiation of a free-living, reproducing 

population of an invasive species.

infestation—An invasive species population within a specified area.

integrated pest management (IPM)—Sustainable 

approach to managing pests that combines biological, 

cultural, physical, and chemical tools in ways that minimize 

economic, health, and environmental risks. 

introduction—The initial movement of a species to any 

location outside of its documented native geographical 

range.

invasive species—A nonnative species whose introduction 

is likely to cause or has the potential to cause economic or 

environmental harm to an ecosystem or harm to human 

health or commerce (Executive Order 13112).

management—Any activity that directly intervenes to minimize the spread and adverse effects of an invasive species, 

including preventing, controlling, containing, eradicating, 

surveying, detecting, identifying, inventorying, and monitoring invasive species; rehabilitating and restoring affected 

sites; and providing technical outreach and educational 

activities related to invasive species. Management actions in 

the National Forest System are based upon species-specific 

or site-specific plans (including forest plans, integrated pest 
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 33

management plans, watershed restoration plans, and so 

forth), and support the accomplishment of plan goals and 

objectives and achieve successful restoration or protection 

of priority areas identified in the respective plan(s). 

mechanical control—Physical removal of invasive species 

by hand-pulling small infestations before flowers have 

bloomed, tilling larger infestations for several years, 

removing infested trees, squashing insect pests, etc.

monitoring—Long-term observation and recording of 

information related to abundance, distribution, and 

treatment of invasive species infestations. Long-term 

monitoring of abundance and distribution provides 

information on infestation dynamics. By monitoring 

treatment results over time, a measure of overall 

programmatic treatment efficacy can be determined and an 

adaptive management process can be used in subsequent 

treatment activities. Evaluation of monitoring results helps 

measure performance and attainment of goals by linking 

past, present, and future action and results.

nonnative species—Any organism that is not native to the 

ecosystem being considered.

pathways—A route or means by which an invasive species 

enters a new ecosystem or environment.

pesticidal control—Using a chemical to eradicate 

or manage a pest. Pesticides are among the most 

commonly available, and effective tools. Pesticides include 

conventional chemicals and biopesticides, such as bacterial 

and microbial insecticides and pheromones.

prevention—Often, prevention is the most effective and 

least expensive response to threats associated with invasive 

species. Prevention includes prioritization, as well as a wide 

range of actions and management activities to reduce 

or eliminate the chance of an invasive species entering 

or becoming established in a U.S. forest, ecosystem, 

watershed, stream, or other area. 

priority species—An invasive organism that has been 

targeted for management action and research based upon 

risk assessments, project objectives, economic, environmental, and social considerations, or other rank setting decision 

support tools.

prioritization—The act of ranking invasive species, activities, etc., according to importance or urgency.

rehabilitation and restoration— Following a disturbance, 

the active or passive management of an ecosystem or habitat to restore ecosystem structure and function and prevent 

re-invasion by improving site resilience and reducing or 

eliminating the conditions on a site that might facilitate or 

promote invasive species establishment.

resilience—Capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a 

perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and 

recovering quickly.

risk analysis—A three-stage process of threat 

identification, assessment, and management, which 

includes the identification of measures to reduce the threat 

to an acceptable level.

risk assessment—An estimation of the likelihood of an invasive species introduction and the potential consequences 

of its establishment and spread.

species characterization—Description of a species, including identification, life forms, life cycle, behavior, distribution, etc.

systems approach—The integration of different risk management measures, at least two of which act independently, and which cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of 

protection. This concept emphasizes the interdependence 

and interactive nature of invasive species to other environmental components of a landscape.

targeted species—An individual invasive species 

or population of invasive species, which has been 

prioritized for research or management action based 

upon environmental, economic, or human impacts, risk 

assessments, or other decision support tools.

tools—Any method, technique, technology application service, model system, science synthesis, database, evaluation 

or monitoring protocol, prototype, operational application, 

or decision-support system that is developed, maintained, 

or revised to address current and emerging invasive species 

issues.
34 Forest Service

Appendix D: References 

Aukema, J.; Leung, B.; Kovacs, K., et al. 2011. Economic 

impacts of non-native forest insects in the United States. 

PLoS ONE. 6: e24587.

Boyd, J.; Spencer, B. 2006. What are ecosystem services? 

The need for standardized environmental accounting units. 

29 p. http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-06-02.pdf. 

(25 April 2006).

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations and 

Guidance for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act [sic]. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/

regulations.html. (9 February 2007). 

Clinton, W. 1999. U.S. Presidential Executive Order 

#13112 re: Invasive species February 3, 1999. Federal Daily 

Register. 64(25): 6183–6186.

Daily, G. editor. 1997. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

392 p.

Dix, M.E.; Britton, K., eds. 2010. A dynamic invasive species research vision: opportunities and priorities 2009–29. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-79/83. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 138 p.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2006. 

Invasive forest pests: lessons learned prevention: from three 

recent infestations may aid in managing future efforts. 

Government Accountability Office Report GAO-06-353. 

Washington, DC. 118 p.

Holmes, T.P.; Aukema, J.; Von Holle, B.; Liebhold, A.M., 

et al. 2009. Economic impacts of invasive species in forests: 

past, present, and future. In: Ostfeld, R.S.; Schlesinger, 

W.H., eds. The year in ecology and conservation biology, 

2009. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. 1162: 

18–38. 

Kovacs, K.; Haight, R.; McCullough, D.; Mercader, R., 

et al. 2010. Cost of potential emerald ash borer damage in 

U.S. communities, 2009–2019. Ecological Economics. 69: 

569–578.

National Invasive Species Council. 2008. 2008–2012 

National invasive species management plan. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, National Invasive Species Council. 35 p. http://www.

invasivespeciesinfo.gov/council/mp2008.pdf. (15 December 

2009).

Pimentel, D.; McNair, S.; Wightman, J.J.; Simmonds, C., 

et al. 2001. Economic and environmental threats of alien 

plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 84: 1–20.

Pimentel, D.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. 2005. Update 

on the environmental and economic costs associated 

with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological 

Economics. 52: 273–288.

Schoettle, A., Sniezko, R. 2007. Proactive intervention to 

sustain high elevation pine ecosystems threatened by white 

pine blister rust. Journal of Forest Research. 12: 327–336. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1994. Pesticide use management and coordination. 

FSH 2109.14. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. National strategy and implementation plan for invasive species management. FS-805. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. http://www/ fs.fed.us//invasivespecies/index.shtml. 

(15 December 2009).

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Early warning system for 

forest health threats in the United States (PDF |1.07 MB). 

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/EWS_final_

draft.pdf. (25 January 2013).

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest pest management. 

FSH 3409.14. Washington, DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Research and Development 

national invasive species strategy. FS-934. Washington, DC. 

20 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Ecological restoration and 

resilience, national forest resource management. FSM 

Chapter 2020. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Native plant materials, 

national forest resource management. FSM Chapter 2070. 

Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Invasive species 

management, national forest resource management. FSM 

Chapter 2900, Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest pest management. 

FSM Chapter 3400. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Research. FSM Chapter 

4000. Washington, DC.

USDA Office of Inspector General. 2010. Audit report 

on Forest Service invasive species program. Audit Report 

08601-7-AT. Washington, DC. 35 p. 
National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management 35

Framework Development Team

Mary Ellen Dix, team lead, Research and Development lead, 

Washington Office

Bill Bass, National Forest System lead, Rocky Mountain Region

Stephen A. Covell, State and Private lead, Washington Office

Shawna Bautista, Pacific Northwest Region

Kerry O. Britton, Research and Development, Washington Office 

Deborah M. Finch, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Kurt Gottschalk, Northern Research Station

Ned Klopfenstein, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Leonard L. Lake, Southwest Region

Darcy G. Nelson, International Programs

Wesley Nettleton, Southern Region

Warren Ririe, Intermountain Region

John Rothlisberger, Eastern Region 

Noel Schneeberger, Northeastern Area 

Sheri Smith, Pacific Southwest Region

Allen White, Southwest Region

For more information, see the following Web sites.

http://www.fs.fed.us/research/invasive-species/

http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/management/fhm-invasives.shtml

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.