Safeguarding America’s
Lands and Waters from
Invasive Species
A National Framework for Early Detection
and Rapid Response
Invasive Species on Cover:
Nutria, Myocastor coypus
(photo credit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
Green Crab, Carcinus maenas
(photo credit U.S. Geological Survey)
Burmese Python,
Python bivittatus
(photo credit U.S. Geological Survey)
Silver Carp,
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
(photo credit Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee)
Red Lionfish,
Pterois volitans
(photo credit REEF)
W
ater Hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes
(photo credit Bureau of Reclamation)
Asian Longhorned Beetle,
Anoplophora glabripennis
(photo credit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
Cheatgrass,
Bromus tectorum
(photo credit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
Zebra Mussel,
Dreissena polymorpha
(photo credit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
The following Federal agencies prepared this report:
Suggested citation:
The U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016. Safeguarding America’s lands and
waters from invasive species: A national framework for early detection and
rapid response, Washington D.C., 55p.
Co-Leads:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary: Hilary A. Smith
National Invasive Species Council staff: Stanley W. Burgiel, Christopher P. Dionigi, and Jamie K. Reaser
In addition, this report has been prepared with the active consultation and assistance of
the National Invasive Species Advisory Committee's Early Detection and Rapid Response
subcommittee, including states, tribes, academic institutions, environmental
organizations, industry, and other organizations.
iii
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
CONTENTS
Foreword .....................................................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................1
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................5
The Charge ...............................................................................................................................................5
Invasive Species Management and Resilience .......................................................................................5
The Need for Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) ..................................................................8
The Process for Preparing this Report .................................................................................................... 9
II. A National Early Detection and Rapid Response Framework ............................................................ 11
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Guiding Principles ..................................................................................................................................12
Early Detection and Rapid Response ....................................................................................................13
Coordination, Roles, and Responsibilities ............................................................................................ 14
Organizational Structure .......................................................................................................................18
III. The EDRR Costs of Combatting Invasive Species ...............................................................................21
IV. Options for Funding the EDRR Framework ........................................................................................25
Scope of Activities .................................................................................................................................26
V. Recommendations ...............................................................................................................................29
VI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 33
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................34
Glossary .....................................................................................................................................................35
References .................................................................................................................................................37
APPENDIX A: EDRR Decision Making Process Template .........................................................................40
APPENDIX B: General EDRR Stages and Action Steps.............................................................................41
APPENDIX C: Examples of Current Invasive Species Networks ..............................................................49
APPENDIX D: Examples of Financing Models .......................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX E: Contributors ........................................................................................................................54
This page is intentionally left blank
v
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
FOREWORD
Invasive species pose one of the greatest ecological
threats to America’s lands and waters. Their control
can be complex and expensive and is often con-
ducted in perpetuity; their harm can be irreversible.
Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) actions
can reduce the long-term costs and economic bur-
den that invasive species have on communities.
Some invasive species, such as the pathogens that
cause chestnut blight and Dutch elm disease, staked
their claim in the United States in the early 1900s. As
a result, American chestnut and American elm trees
were
nearly eliminated from the Nation’s forests,
leaving in their wake devastating economic, social,
and ecological impacts. Invasive annual grasses, such
as cheatgrass, are rapidly replacing native plant spe-
cies across enormous areas of western rangelands.
Consequently
, wildfire frequency and intensity are
increasing while the ability of the vulnerable land-
scapes to support native wildlife, livestock opera-
tions, and agriculture are on the decline. A wide va-
riety of additional species are poised to arrive at U.S.
borders, many of them with the potential to cause
adverse impacts. For example, a deadly salaman-
der pathogen commonly known as ‘Bsal’ (short for
Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans) could cause
massive die-offs of salamanders across a wide range
of species and have cascading impacts on forest and
freshwater ecosystems.
These are just a few examples of a vast number of
invasive species that threaten the country’s wild-
lands, waterways, and coastlines. Their management
plays a fundamental role in the success of achieving
the Administration’
s conservation priorities, such as
enhancing climate resilience, promoting pollinator
health, and restoring landscapes.
The invasive species challenge can seem overwhelm-
ing, but strategic solutions can forestall future
invasive species impacts. This
report, Safeguarding
America’s lands and waters from invasive species: A
national framework for early detection and rapid re-
sponse, outlines opportunities to detect populations
of non-native species that pose the greatest risks to
landscapes and aquatic areas before they can have
adverse impacts, and swiftly respond to eradicate
them.
A shared commitment to problem solving
among Federal agencies, states, and tribes will lay
the foundation for more effective and cost-efficient
strategies to stop the spread of invasive species. This
national EDRR Framework proposes to connect ef-
forts among a diverse array of stakeholders at multi-
ple scales. It emphasizes a shared, renewed focus on
coordination and partnerships, science and technol-
ogy, and strategic on-the-ground action to reduce
the threat of invasive species and help protect the
Nation’s lands and waters, as well as the livelihoods
that rely upon them.
First elm found to
be infected with
Dutch elm disease
in Washington, D.C.;
Lincoln Memorial,
1947
(photo credit NPS)
Kristen J. Sarri
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Management and Budget
U
.S. Department of the Interior
This page is intentionally left blank
1
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Invasive species pose one of the greatest threats
to the Nation’s natural resources. The stakes are
high: if left to spread, invasive species cost billions
of dollars to manage and can have devastating
consequences on the Nation’s ecosystems (Pimentel
2003, Pimentel et al. 2005, Aukema et al. 2011). For
example, rapidly increasing lionfish populations
have drastically reduced the abundance of coral reef
fishes and degraded already stressed coral reefs.
Highly flammable cheatgrass and other invasive
grasses fuel more intense wildfires that put people
and livestock in harm’s way, degrade rangeland,
and damage critical habitat for wildlife, such as the
greater sage-grouse. Asian carp seriously impact
native fish populations and are poised to degrade
economically-important sport and commercial
fisheries. These and other invasive species transform
the Nation’s lands and waters, leaving extensive
economic and environmental costs in their wake.
While the invasive species challenge is daunting,
opportunities exist to turn the tide. Preventing the
introduction of invasive species is the first line of
defense against biological invasion. However, for
invasive species that circumvent prevention systems,
early detection and rapid response (EDRR)—a
coordinated set of actions to find and eradicate
potential invasive species before they spread
and cause harm—can help stop the next lionfish,
cheatgrass, or Asian carp.
More can be done to strengthen the Nation’s EDRR
capacity to get ahead of the next invasive species.
While there are well-established EDRR programs
to protect agricultural resources, there is a need
to extend efforts for EDRR programs that protect
non-agricultural areas, such as rivers and streams,
coastal waters, forests, and grasslands. Where they
exist, EDRR networks often focus only on select
species or geographic areas and are not always well-
coordinated with neighboring efforts. In addition,
EDRR networks frequently lack access to financial
resources, decision making tools, and other EDRR
capabilities necessary to find, contain, and eradicate
potentially invasive species populations before they
become widely established. These gaps result in
costly and often irreversible harm.
The site-based nature of EDRR actions also requires
partnerships and coordination across multiple scales
– however, there is no national EDRR framework
nor is there a coordinated strategy for funding
EDRR actions. Given the breadth of their missions,
authorities, technical capability, and funding,
Federal agencies are essential to addressing high-
risk invasive species and can provide crucial national
leadership and coordination. The continuous arrival
of potentially invasive species—and the expanding
ranges of current high-risk invasive species—
necessitates a national EDRR framework. A national
EDRR framework would build capacity to forecast
which species pose the greatest risks to the country,
bolster monitoring and response actions underway
across the country, and position public and private
partners to be prepared when the next invasive
species arrives. Because EDRR is always site-based
and specific localities are often resource limited, it is
imperative that such a framework have a structure
that functions effectively from the top down and
the bottom up in a fluid, reciprocal, and mutually
beneficial manner.
Silver Carp
Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix
(photo credit
Asian Carp Regional
Coordinating
Committee)
2
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
In October, 2014, the White House Council on Cli-
mate Preparedness and Resilience released its Pri-
ority Agenda: Enhancing the Climate Resilience
of America’s Natural Resources
, which identified
invasive species as one of the most pervasive threats
to ecosystem resilience in a changing climate and
called upon the U.S. Department of the Interior
(DOI), working with other members of the National
Invasive Species Council (NISC), states, and tribes, to
develop a framework for a national EDRR program,
including a plan for emergency response funding.
As called for in the Priority Agenda, this report pro-
poses a national EDRR framework (EDRR Frame-
work) that provides an organizational structure for
national coordination and communication among
Federal
and non-Federal entities to increase the
overall effectiveness of EDRR efforts, and thus pro-
tect ‘priority landscapes and aquatic areas’ from the
impacts of invasive species. In the context of the
EDRR Framework, priority landscapes and aquatic
areas are generally regarded as those lands and wa-
ters (freshwater, coastal, and marine) identified by
Federal, state, or tribal entities as areas of impor-
tance, such as for natural resource stewardship, con-
servation, or biodiversity purposes.
The EDRR Framework will:
1. Connect and build upon existing initiatives.
2. Identify gaps in EDRR coverage (e.g., taxo-
nomic groups, monitoring programs, and
localities)
and needs (e.g., tools, techniques,
skills, and human and financial resources).
3. Augment Federal, state, and tribal EDRR
capabilities, capacities, and partnerships.
4.
Establish a coordinated funding process
and/or mechanism(s) to support prepared-
ness and response activities.
RECOMMENDA
TIONS:
The Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior,
Agriculture, and Commerce, as co-chairs of NISC,
working with other members of NISC, should take
the following five steps to implement a national
EDRR Framework:
1. Establish a National EDRR Task Force and
designate a National EDRR Coordinator
within the NISC structure to address invasive
species that affect priority landscapes and
aquatic areas. An important step in imple-
menting the EDRR Framework is to estab-
lish a combined Federal/non-Federal Task
Force within the NISC structure that would
improve coordination among agencies, help
set shared priorities, and assess and close
important gaps in EDRR actions. A desig-
nated National EDRR Coordinator is essen-
tial to provide coordination across Federal
agencies and serve as the liaison with state,
tribal, regional, and other partners and ex-
perts to facilitate communications and iden-
tify efficient means to share information,
technologies, and other resources.
2.
Convene high-level decision makers (i.e.,
Assistant/Under Secretaries) and senior
budget officials within NISC agencies to bet-
ter align funding or guide the formation of
mor
e effective funding mechanisms to sup-
port preparedness and emergency response
activities. A range of financial, operational,
and human resources are necessary to im-
plement EDRR actions. An initial step in ad-
dressing funding challenges is to evaluate
current agency EDRR capacities, capabilities,
flexibilities, limitations, and magnitude of
needs. This includes an assessment of how
current EDRR efforts are supported through
various agency programs. Guidance from
decision makers and budget officials will be
essential to developing a plan to establish a
coordinated funding process or mechanism
that can effectively address EDRR needs and
help build capacity to mobilize resources to
partners on the ground.
3
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
3. Incorporate EDRR actions into NISC agency
programs and partnerships at national, re-
gional, and local scales. Establishing lead
contacts in Federal agencies working on
EDRR is an important step in implementing
the EDRR Framework and increasing com-
munications and collaboration across the
range of Federal, state, tribal, and local ju-
risdictions. Understanding Federal agency
authority to implement EDRR is another
critical step. Given differences across au-
thorizing legislation, the NISC should work
with member Federal agencies to assess
their capacity and capability under existing
authorities to implement EDRR. This assess-
ment should be conducted through a cen-
tralized process that is coordinated among
the Federal agencies and identify gaps, in-
consistencies, and conflicts in authorities
and policies as well as enforcement capac-
ity. Building on this review, the NISC should
work with member Federal agencies to de-
velop and implement a strategy requesting
supplemental authorities, if needed, to fully
implement the EDRR Framework. This strat-
egy should consider the role of EDRR within
the broader context of invasive species pre-
vention and management activities. Federal
agencies should also identify crosscutting
initiatives, such as climate preparedness
plans, where EDRR applies and incorporate
appropriate EDRR actions.
4. Advance multiple pilot EDRR initiatives in
priority landscapes and aquatic areas. Cur-
rent EDRR capacities vary across the country.
Implementation of the EDRR Framework
likely will occur in a staged approach. As an
initial step, agencies should identify several
priority landscapes and aquatic areas to pi-
lot elements of the EDRR Framework. Such
ef
forts would be instrumental in the iden-
tification and application of performance
measures and other metrics for the effec-
tiveness and value-added contribution of
EDRR activities.
5. Foster the development and application of
EDRR capabilities, including technologies,
analytical and decision making tools, and
best practices. A range of capabilities (e.g.,
risk assessments, monitoring programs,
identification support, alert systems, eradi-
cation techniques etc.) is necessary to sup-
port effective EDRR. EDRR capabilities will
help
determine priority invasive species and
actions for national EDRR efforts as well as
priority pathways to be addressed and ar-
eas most vulnerable to invasion. Analytics
and decision tools will help determine what
rapid response measures should be taken
and when. While some of these tools cur-
rently exist, a coordinated effort is needed
to assess, prioritize, enhance, develop, dis-
seminate, and apply them in the field. This
includes the research to support these EDRR
capabilities.
It is imperative to stop the next invasive species
from staking a claim in the Nation’s lands and wa-
ters. Taken together, these steps will operationalize
a national EDRR Framework that supports the de-
tection, identification, and eradication of invasive
species populations before they spread and cause
significant harm. The EDRR Framework provides the
structure to identify strategic and shared priorities
for focusing limited resources and enhancing part-
nerships and on-the-ground actions necessary to
stem the tide of invasive species.
4
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Invasive Species
An invasive species is an alien species whose introduction does or is
likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human
health (Executive Order 13112). An alien species is, with respect to a
particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or
other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is
not native to that ecosystem (Executive Order 13112). For the purposes
of this report, the terms ‘alien’ and ‘non-native’ are regarded as
synonymous.
Biological Invasion, Early Detection & Rapid Response
Biological invasion is the process by which non-native species breach
biogeographic barriers and extend their range (McGraw-Hill 2003).
In the context of biological invasion, early detection is the process of
surveying for, reporting, and verifying the presence of a non-native
species, before the founding population becomes established or
spreads so widely that eradication is no longer feasible. Rapid response
is the process that is employed to eradicate the founding population of
a non-native species from a specific location.
Purple Loosestrife
Lythrum salicaria
(photo credit NPS)
5
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
The Charge
In October 2014, the White House Council on Cli-
mate Preparedness and Resilience released Prior-
ity Agenda: Enhancing the Climate Resilience of
America’s Natural Resources.
One of the Priority
Agenda’s four strategies is to foster climate-resilient
lands and waters, calling upon Federal agencies to
“Identify Landscape Conservation Priorities to Build
Resilience.”
More specifically, the Council on Climate Prepared-
ness and Resilience delivered the following charge
to DOI and NISC
1
:
“The Secretary of the Interior, working with
other members of the National Invasive Species
Council, including Department of Commerce
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration [NOAA]), the Environmental Protection
Agency
(EPA), and the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture (USDA), will work with states and tribes
to develop a framework for a national Early
Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) program
that will build on existing programs to assist
states and tribes in forestalling the stress caused
by the establishment and spread of additional
invasive species populations, thereby improv-
ing the resilience of priority landscapes and
aquatic areas. This will include the development
of a plan for creating an emergency response
fund to increase the capacity of interagency
and inter-jurisdictional teams to tackle emerg-
ing invasive species issues across landscapes and
jurisdictions.” (Council on Climate Preparedness
and Resilience 2014)
This charge furthers priorities set forth in Executive
Order 13112 (Invasive Species) and advances work
directed by the National Invasive Species Manage-
ment Plans.
Invasive Species Management
and
Resilience
Invasive species are one of the most significant driv-
ers of environmental degradation and species ex-
tinction worldwide and are generally considered
the primary cause of biodiversity loss in freshwater
and island ecosystems. Invasive species are respon-
sible for the endangerment and extinction of a wide
range of taxa; degradation of freshwater, marine,
terrestrial ecosystems; and, the alteration of biogeo-
chemical cycles. They contribute to social instability
and economic hardship, consequently placing con-
straints on the conservation of biodiversity, sustain-
able development, and economic growth. The glo-
balization of trade, travel, and transport is greatly
increasing the number and type of non-native spe-
cies that are being moved around the world, as well
as the rate at which they are moving. At the same
time, changes in climate and land use are rendering
some habitats, even the best protected and most re-
mote natural areas, more susceptible to biological
invasion (McNeely 2001; Reaser et al. 2004).
I. INTRODUCTION
1 Established by Executive Order 13112, the NISC membership includes 13 Federal Departments and Agencies. It is co-chaired by the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce. The NISC provides national coordination on the
broad array of activities intended to protect the environment, economy, and human and animal health from the adverse impacts of
invasive species.
Kudzu
Pueraria lobata
(photo credit NPS)
6
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Priority Landscapes and Aquatic Areas
In the context of this proposed national EDRR Framework, ‘priority
landscapes and aquatic areas’ are generally regarded as those lands
and waters (freshwater, coastal, and marine) identified by Federal, state,
or tribal entities as areas of importance, such as for natural resource
stewardship, conservation, or biodiversity purposes.
The Need for a National EDRR Framework
Federal and non-Federal partners have long recognized the need for
a national Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) framework to
protect landscapes and aquatic areas from the impacts of invasive
species. Some of the more recent documents recommending the
formation of an EDRR framework include the National Invasive Species
Council’s Management Plans, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force’s
Strategic Plans, the National Ocean Policy, the Implementation Plan for
the National Strategy for the Arctic Region, the Recommendations to
the President from the State, Local and Tribal Leaders Task Force on
Climate Preparedness and Resilience, and most recently in the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Invasive Plant Management
and Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan and the Rangeland Fire
Task Force’s Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy.
7
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF)/
NISC Ad Hoc Working Group on Invasive Species and
Climate Change (2014) identified numerous ways
in which the interactions between invasive species
and climate change can exacerbate the risks and
impacts associated with both ecological threats. For
example, changing climate conditions may contrib-
ute to the increase of invasive species through faster
species growth rates (e.g., changing levels of CO
2
and precipitation may favor some invasive species),
species range shifts (e.g., increases in temperature
may enable some invasive species to survive in eco-
systems where cold temperatures were previously
lethal), and new pathways of species spread (e.g.,
travel, trade, and extreme weather events may in-
fluence invasive species dispersal). Likewise, the
impacts of invasive species can substantially hinder
ecosystem resilience to other stressors, especially cli-
mate change (Burgiel and Muir 2010, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency 2008).
It, therefore, follows that ecological resilience to
climate change can be improved by preventing
the adverse impacts of invasive species. Prevention
(border control and pathway management
2
) is gen-
erally regarded as the first line of defense against
biological invasion. Yet, despite the best available
prevention efforts, in time, some non-native species
will be introduced and/or spread into new ecosys-
tems. EDRR then becomes the most cost-effective re-
sponse strategy; eradication of the founding popu-
lation of the non-native species alleviates the need
for expensive invasive species control programs that
would have to be enacted over the long-term. [See
Diagram: The Invasion Curve (Fig. 1).] Effective EDRR
can also be viewed as a conflict mitigation strategy
since it prevents the conflicts that invariably arise
over land use and land management approaches
once invasive species become well established.
While recognizing that investments in border control
and pathway management are the logical priority to
prevent the introduction and spread of invasive spe-
cies,
3
this report focuses on the eradication of those
non-native species which circumvent prevention
systems. In particular, it responds to the Council on
Climate Preparedness and Resilience’s charge to de-
velop a framework for a national EDRR program
that ultimately improves the resilience of priority
landscapes and aquatic areas through the eradica-
tion of emerging invasive species.
When introduced outside their
native ranges, nutria (
Myocastor
coypus
) and beach vitex (
Vitex
rotundifolia
) are known to degrade
wetland and coastal dune systems,
respectively, making impacted
areas more vulnerable to erosion
and storm surges. Detecting and
eliminating incipient populations
of these species in new areas
can forestall the immediate
degradation of these ecosystems,
and help maintain the ability of
these ecosystems to serve as
buffers from severe weather events
(Westbrooks and Madsen 2006,
Carter et al. 1999).
2 Pathways are the means by which invasive species are moved, intentionally or unintentionally, into new areas. Pathways can broadly be
categorized in relation to trade and the movement of goods (e.g., horticultural products, firewood, pets, wooden packaging materials);
transportation (e.g., ballast water and hull fouling of commercial and recreational vessels; construction and off-road vehicles); and,
infrastructure and resource management (e.g., energy development and construction equipment and habitat restoration practices).
3 Federal activities related to preventing the introduction and spread of invasive species include work at national borders and within the
United States using both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to address the pathways of invasion. These activities represent the
most significant share of spending by Federal agencies (see page 21).
8
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
The Need for Early Detection and
Rapid Response (EDRR)
The continuing arrival of potentially invasive spe-
cies and range expansions of existing invasive spe-
cies necessitates coordinated EDRR actions. In recent
years, several invasive species introductions were
detected early, but without a nationally coordinat-
ed response effort, those populations continued to
spread to an extent where eradication is no longer
feasible. Examples include redbay ambrosia beetles
(Xyleborus glabratus), which carry the laurel wilt
fungus (first detected in Georgia in 2002); lionfish
(Pterois volitans), a major predator in coastal sys-
tems that damages coral reef habitats (first detected
off of Florida in 1985); and, the raspberry crazy ant
(Nylanderia fulva), a major insect pest with impacts
on wildlife, livestock, and electrical equipment and
other infrastructure (first detected in Texas in 2002).
In these cases, the lead agency, the authorities to re-
spond, and/or the potential risks and impacts were
not clear when these invasive species were first de-
tected. In other cases, the lead agency—when faced
with limited funding—was not able to respond.
EDRR can work, and, there are examples of suc-
cess from across the country. A number of effective
EDRR
efforts brought together the necessary play-
ers, management techniques, and resources, such as
eradication of Caulerpa taxifolia, an invasive alga,
in southern California (2006); removal of the sacred
ibis (Threskiornis aethiopicus) in Miami-Dade and
Palm Beach counties, Florida (2008-2011); detection
and removal of floating docks infested with poten-
tial aquatic invasive species (AIS) that were washed
Entry of Invasive Species
THE INVASION CURVE
Long-Term Control
Containment
Eradication
EDRR
Window of Opportunity
Prevention
Invasive
species
absent
Small number of
localized populations;
eradication possible
Rapid increase in
distribution and abundance;
eradication unlikely
Invasive species widespread and abundant;
long-term control aimed at population supression and
resource protection
Figure 1: Phases of the Invasion Curve (Rodgers, Adapted from Invasive Plants and Animals Policy
Framework, State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, 2010, modified with permission).
Preventing the introduction (e.g., border controls, pathway management) of invasive species is the
first line and most cost-effective defense against biological invasion. The second line of defense is
eradication, where the approach is to eliminate founding populations of invasive species while doing
so is feasible. EDRR is generally necessary to achieve eradication. When eradication is no longer
feasible, then containment or long-term control of an invasive species population is the last remaining
management option. Long-term control programs require substantial financial investments in
perpetuity.
9
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
ashore in Oregon and Washington in the wake of a
Japanese tsunami (2013); and, ongoing monitoring
and response efforts to keep the Great Lakes free of
Asian carp. These efforts helped to protect native
fish and wildlife populations and investments made
by other conservation and restoration programs in
these areas and prevented future costs and dam-
ages from these invasive species.
The elements of this national EDRR framework
take into account past successes with EDRR, as well
as current initiatives, particularly in areas where
states, tribes, Federal agencies, and other partners
are jointly investing in EDRR activities. For exam-
ple, Western states are increasingly collaborating
around watercraft inspection and decontamination
ef
forts to keep quagga and zebra mussels out of
Western waterbodies. Similarly, a range of experts
from academia and state and Federal agencies are
developing surveillance and response protocols for
a deadly fungus of salamanders—Batrachochytrium
salamandrivorans or Bsal
—that has yet to be detect-
ed in the United States. These are but two examples
of a range of initiatives targeting some of the many
terrestrial and aquatic invasive species that threaten
the Nation’s natural resources. The Federal Govern-
ment’s leadership and targeted coordination and re-
sources through a national EDRR framework could
mean the difference between failure and success of
these types of EDRR activities.
The Federal Government has a natural role in help-
ing to address high-risk invasive species given the
breadth of Federal agency missions, authorities,
technical capability
, and funding. A structured, stra-
tegic, national approach for EDRR, coupled with
sufficient funding, are necessary to effectively stop
potentially invasive species before they can establish
and spread and cause widespread, costly damage.
The proposed national EDRR Framework would help
turn that tide by facilitating coordination on multi-
ple scales, designating responsible points of contact
within government agencies, identifying technical
expertise and tools, and providing financial assis-
tance.
The Process for Preparing this Report
To develop a national EDRR Framework (hereaf-
ter the EDRR Framework), DOI and NISC convened
a group of Federal experts to identify central ele-
ments, parameters, and critical stakeholders. They
formed a broader advisory team under the umbrella
of NISC’s Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC)
to serve as a forum for engaging states, tribes, and
other parties interested in assessing the national
needs and strategic considerations for the design,
coordination, and implementation of a national
EDRR framework. The DOI and NISC also shared
progress and key concepts with various Federal
working groups during this report’s development
and held a tribal listening session and a tribal con-
sultation to solicit further input on tribal issues and
perspectives.
The following sections address the principles of an
EDRR Framework and the particular phases of the
EDRR process. The EDRR Framework is divided into
components focused on preparedness, early detec-
tion, rapid assessment, and rapid response. Coordi-
nation and the identification of responsible institu-
tions and partnerships are also critical elements for
the EDRR Framework’
s implementation.
Financial resources and flexible funding mechanisms
are fundamental needs to implement the EDRR
Framework successfully. Section IV (page 25) is dedi-
cated to this topic.
The recommendations provided on page 29 are in-
tended to serve as guidance in the establishment
and
initial implementation of the EDRR Framework,
and are explicitly directed at the Secretaries of the
Departments that co-chair NISC.
Supporting appendices include a template for an
EDRR decision making process, the stages of the
EDRR process and general action steps, examples
of current invasive species networks, examples of
financing models, and the members of the Federal
work group and its advisory team that assisted with
developing the EDRR Framework.
This page is intentionally left blank
11
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
Purpose
The EDRR Framework is a proposed organizational
structure that enables national coordination and
communication among Federal and non-Federal en-
tities to increase the overall effectiveness of EDRR
efforts to forestall the establishment and spread
of invasive species, and thus protect priority land-
scapes and aquatic areas, as well as the ecosystem
services they provide. In the context of the EDRR
Framework, priority landscapes and aquatic areas
are generally regarded as those lands and waters
(freshwater, coastal, and marine) identified by Fed-
eral, state, or tribal entities as areas of importance,
such as for natural resource stewardship, conserva-
tion, or biodiversity purposes. Identifying the crite-
ria and decision making processes to determine pri-
ority landscapes and aquatic areas where the EDRR
Framework would apply is outside of the scope of
this report. Those details are fundamental to the
implementation of the EDRR Framework and will
need to be developed, in cooperation with states
and tribal partners. Implementation will occur in a
phased approach and be informed by science-based
assessments.
Implementing the EDRR Framework will:
1. Connect and build upon existing initiatives.
2. Identify gaps in EDRR coverage (e.g., taxo
-
nomic groups, monitoring programs, and
localities)
and needs (e.g., tools, techniques,
skills, and human and financial resources).
3. Augment Federal, state, and tribal EDRR ca-
pabilities, capacities, and partnerships.
4.
Establish a coordinated funding process
and/or mechanism(s) to support prepared-
ness and response activities.
II. A NATIONAL EARLY DETECTION AND RAPID RESPONSE FRAMEWORK
The national EDRR Framework focuses on invasive species—plants, animals, and other
organisms—that may adversely impact (harm) priority landscapes and aquatic areas in
the United States. The work done under the EDRR Framework will not be redundant
or overlap with the work of agencies with specific statutory charges to address invasive
species, such as USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Rather
the work will focus on coordinating EDRR in areas where gaps in EDRR leadership
and resources exist and working toward a goal of being complementary and mutually
supportive but not duplicative.
Burmese Python
Python bivittatus
(photo credit USGS)
12
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Under the EDRR Framework, actions may be taken
to eradicate populations of potentially invasive spe-
cies that are new to the United States or contain
the spread of known invasive species by eradicating
satellite populations that could result in range ex-
pansions. Appendix A provides a template for a gen-
eral decision making process for EDRR events (i.e.,
when a detection occurs) and describes the general
flow of information and decision points in the EDRR
process.
The national scope of the EDRR Framework neces-
sitates the involvement, coordination, and coop-
eration of Federal agencies, particularly those with
natural resource management and regulatory re-
sponsibilities, scientific expertise, information man-
agement capabilities, and emergency response ca-
pacity. Leveraging the vision and resources for an
EDRR
Framework at the national level will enhance
regional, state, tribal, and local EDRR efforts by
providing additional leadership, guidance, and ac-
cess to human, technical, and financial resources.
Because EDRR is always site-based and specific lo-
calities are typically resource limited, it is imperative
that a national EDRR Framework have a structure
that functions effectively from the top down and
the bottom up in a fluid, reciprocal, and mutually
beneficial manner.
Guiding Principles
Complementarity: The EDRR Framework draws from
existing programs; numerous models, plans, and
protocols informed its structure. It seeks to enhance
and not duplicate existing efforts. It achieves
this by having involved a broad range of Federal
and non-Federal partners in its development and
building their involvement into its structure and
implementation.
Partnership: The involvement of and support for
states, tribes, non-governmental organizations,
industry, and others working to address invasive
species is a key aspect of the EDRR Framework’s
cooperative intent. Given the myriad of players and
different jurisdictions associated with connecting
lands and waters, as well as the numerous authorities
related to their management, the development
of effective partnerships is critical to mitigating
the potential impacts of invasive species at the
landscape scale. The EDRR Framework can facilitate
cooperation and communication across regulatory
agencies as appropriate.
Scale: Some of the components of the EDRR
Framework are scale independent and can be
models for the national, regional, state, tribal, or
local level. For example, the EDRR decision making
template (see Appendix A) and general EDRR stages
and action steps (see Appendix B) are applicable at
any scale.
Implementation: The intent of the EDRR Framework
is to guide the transition from existing conceptual
models, particularly at a national scale, to a
practical, operational structure through which
implementation can progress. The EDRR Framework
necessarily addresses the funding, identification of
the responsible institutions and other participants,
authorities, and skills and capacities necessary for
effective EDRR.
Timeliness: The EDRR Framework reflects the
importance of early detection and rapid response
to identify, assess, and respond quickly to the
introduction of a potentially invasive species.
The window of opportunity for a timely response
depends on the invasive species (e.g., under its
own power, an introduced invasive plant is likely
to spread slower than an introduced invasive fish).
The EDRR Framework emphasizes the need for a
streamlined and continuous process from detection
to eradication that prevents delays.
Resource availability: The availability of resources
(financial, technical, and human) and flexibility of
funding mechanisms determines the timeliness
and range of actions that can be successfully
implemented once a potentially invasive species is
detected. Targeted funding will be necessary to fully
implement EDRR for potentially invasive species and
should allow resources to be transferred among
partners without delay.
Metrics: The activities associated with the EDRR
Framework will require a set of performance measures
to evaluate their efficiency and effectiveness, as
well as to enable adaptive management. These will
be developed in the implementation phase of the
EDRR Framework. Analysis of metrics will enable
improvements to the design and implementation of
the EDRR Framework over time.
13
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
A national EDRR Framework needs to consider non-
native species that are new to the United States (i.e.,
first time introductions), as well as invasive species
that are already in the United States but have been
introduced to a new ecosystem or have spread be-
yond the area occupied by the founding population.
Detecting and responding to invasive species re-
quires a series of sustained and coordinated actions
with associated responsible agencies and partners.
The EDRR Framework identifies four general cate-
gories or stages of the EDRR process (see Fig. 2), and
each of these categories involves numerous action
steps (see Fig. 3 and Appendix B):
¡¡ Pr
eparedness: Establishes the plans, coordi-
nation networks, tools, training, and neces-
sary resources for deployment of detection,
r
apid assessment, and rapid response actions.
¡¡ Early detection: Through surveys and moni-
toring activities,
4
provides initial evidence on
the occurrence of a potentially invasive spe-
cies and the mechanisms for reporting and
ve
rifying species identification.
¡¡ Rapid assessment: Determines the distribu-
tion and abundance of the species occurrence,
if
possible, and evaluates its potential risks
with regard to environmental, health, and
economic impacts. It also identifies options
for rapid response based on the particular
circumstances associated with the occurrence
of the species (e.g., species type, specific loca
-
tion, extent of spread, relevant jurisdictions/
a
uthorities).
¡¡ Rapid response: A set of coordinated actions
to eradicate the founding population of an
invasive species before it establishes and/or
spreads to the extent that eradication is no
longer feasible.
Eradication of the targeted invasive species is the
primary goal of the EDRR process. Appendix A
provides a template for a general decision mak
-
ing process for responding to non-native species in
new
localities and describes the general flow of in-
formation and decision points in the EDRR process.
The following types of indicators help to evaluate
the
extent to which an EDRR response is successful
(NISC 2003):
1. Timeliness of the detection: Potential-
ly invasive species are detected upon
introduction.
2.
Availability and accessibility of resources:
Technical, financial, and human resources
are readily available to support assessment
and response efforts.
3. Timeliness of the response actions: Rapid
response to the introduction forestalls the
establishment, spread, and adverse impacts
of the invasive species.
4. Timeliness of information: Information is
provided to decision-makers, the public,
and to partners.
5. Adaptive management:
A systematic ap-
proach is used for improving resource man-
agement by learning from management
outcomes from EDRR.
5
Early DetectionEarly Detection
Rapid AssessmentRapid Assessment
Rapid ResponseRapid Response
PreparednessPreparedness
Figure 2: General stages of the EDRR Process.
Preparedness actions are necessary in
advance of early detection and throughout
each stage of the EDRR process.
4 In the context of this report, references to monitoring include one-time surveys (aka inventories), as well as monitoring activities
(i.e., surveys repeated over time).
5 See Glossary for a detailed definition of adaptive management.
Early Detection and Rapid Response
14
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Coordination, Roles,
and
Responsibilities
Jurisdictional boundaries do not limit invasive spe-
cies infestations; thus, coordination among neigh-
boring jurisdictions is essential for EDRR to be
successful. Active partners in EDRR activities may in-
clude Federal, state, tribal, and local governments,
as well as regional authorities and a range of site-
based partners, including landowners, local natu-
ralists, and issue experts. The descriptions below
outline the general interests of the primary stake-
holders in the national EDRR Framework.
Federal Agencies: Federal agencies have a number
of key roles in EDRR including responsibilities for
managing Federal lands and waters, enforcing Fed-
eral laws, exercising regulatory authorities, and pro-
viding technical expertise in management, research,
and information systems.
The Federal government
manages approximately 635 million acres in the
United States, the majority of which are adminis-
tered by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service
(NPS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and Department
of Defense (CRS 2012). The NOAA is responsible for
marine sanctuaries. The U.S. Coast Guard enforces
laws protecting waters from non-native species. The
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) plays an important
role as trustee and advisor for tribally owned lands.
Some relevant Federal regulatory authorities in-
clude the ability to prohibit the import into the
United States and the interstate transport of listed
invasive injurious species, approve specific pesti-
cides and their applications, engage in emergency
response actions, and manage risks associated with
certain major pathways of invasive species introduc-
tion. Many Federal agencies are active in the devel-
opment and application of tools for invasive species
assessment, detection, reporting, species monitor-
ing and surveillance, management, and identifica-
tion. Such agencies are a key resource for the col-
lection of data regarding invasive species ecology,
impacts, and geographic distribution.
State Agencies:
In many ways, state agency activi-
ties mirror those at the Federal level but within the
bounds
of their state borders. States have a wide
range of authorities to manage invasive species and
often have a more direct line of communication to
the counties, municipalities, and private landown-
ers at the site level. States have a vested interest
in cooperating with neighboring states to address
common priorities, such as particular invasive spe-
cies of concern and ecosystems that extend across
jurisdictional borders. For example, Great Lakes
states are collaborating on ef
forts to prevent the
spread of Asian carp, and Western states are work-
ing together to conserve the sage-grouse and sage-
brush steppe ecosystem from invasive annual grass-
es, such as cheatgrass. In addition, many states have
established or are forming invasive species councils,
invasive plant councils, statewide networks of local
invasive species cooperatives
6
, and aquatic nuisance
species (ANS) management plans that provide an
important basis for coordinated planning and ac-
tion.
Tribes: There are 567 recognized American Indian
tribes. The BIA is responsible for the administration
of 55 million surface acres and 57 million acres of
subsurface mineral estates held in trust for Ameri-
can Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. Tribal govern-
ments govern approximately 275 land areas in the
United States designated as Indian Reservations.
Millions
of off-reservation acres, particularly in the
Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes regions, are also
under inter-tribal co-management with states for
conservation purposes and fish, wildlife, shellfish,
and plant gathering activities. Under the doctrine
of trust responsibility, the U.S. Federal government
views Federally recognized tribal nations as domes-
tic dependent nations that have an inherent author-
ity for self-governance.
Tribal nations have authority to lead EDRR activi-
ties on tribal lands and waters and have traditional
ecological knowledge of the natural resources and
cultural practices on these lands and waters, includ-
ing ceded lands. Tribal engagement in EDRR activi-
ties varies from extensive (e.g., having staff, plans,
funding, and working relationships with adjacent
landowners) to nonexistent due to limited to no
capacity or resources. In 2014, BIA initiated an an-
nual invasive species competitive funding program
for tribes that helps to support a range of activities,
such as invasive species planning, monitoring, map-
ping, control, and education and outreach.
Regional Bodies:
Governmental and non-govern-
mental entities play a critical role in identifying and
coordinating activities across states and geogra-
phies. Regional governors associations and interstate
cooperatives provide a mechanism for multi-state
collaboration on shared priorities. Federal agencies,
6 Local invasive species cooperatives include cooperative weed management areas (CWMAs), cooperative invasive species management
areas (CISMAs), and partnerships for regional invasive species management (PRISMs), among others.
15
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
such as the USFS, USFWS, and EPA, have networks
of regional offices to support work on Federal lands
and waters and with states at the site level. The
ANSTF Regional Panels are a valuable network that
serves at the interface of Federal and state activi-
ties on ANS. [See Appendix C, Fig. C1, which shows
the coverage of ANS Regional Panels that focus on
a range of AIS strategies, including EDRR.] State and
regional invasive plant councils provide a similar
support function on terrestrial plant issues. [See Ap-
pendix C, Fig. C2, which shows the coverage of state
and regional invasive plant networks that address
invasive plant issues, including EDRR.]
A range of regional entities, such as the Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives, DOI’s Climate Science
Centers, and NOAA’s estuarine research reserves and
marine sanctuaries enhance research and manage-
ment issues relevant to the EDRR of invasive species.
While the focus of the EDRR Framework is domes-
tic, there may be cases where EDRR activities re-
quire collaboration with neighboring countries, and
thereby could involve relevant bi-national entities,
such as the U.S.-Mexico International Boundary and
W
ater Commission, the U.S.-Canada International
Joint Commission, and the Border Environment Co-
operation Commission.
Site-Based Partners and Other Technical Experts:
Counties, municipalities, water management and ir-
rigation districts, private citizens, corporations, land
trusts, and other non-governmental organizations
own and manage lands and waters. A range of en-
tities support EDRR activities, such as local invasive
species
cooperatives
7
, citizen science initiatives, mas-
ter naturalist groups and natural history clubs, and
stewardship programs. [See Appendix C, Fig. C3,
which illustrates a range of EDRR networks and Fig.
C4, which shows the coverage of hundreds of local
invasive species cooperatives that span the United
States.] They provide important mechanisms for lo-
cal coordination and often are the first to observe
and report new invasive species.
Academic, industry, and non-governmental orga-
nizations provide access to significant expertise on
species, pathways, and EDRR methods and tools.
For example, universities and
the private sector can
play a critical role in developing detection technolo-
gies and diagnostic methods for the identification
of potential invasive species. The private sector has
also played an important role in the development of
A wide range of EDRR efforts are
underway in the United States.
These initiatives vary across
species of concern, geographies,
legal jurisdictions, and agency
authorities. A unifying vision and
national framework will help
ensure effective coordination and
timely communication among
these efforts. The USDA Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) operates an EDRR program
on plant and animal health that
primarily focuses on agricultural
and livestock concerns. Additionally,
the Federal Interagency Committee
for the Management of Noxious
and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW) and
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) have
EDRR models for use in terrestrial
systems. Taxonomic and/or
geographic-specific efforts such as
the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force’s (ANSTF) Aquatic Nuisance
Species (ANS) Regional Panels
may also support and engage in
EDRR activities. In addition, a wide
array of local EDRR initiatives is
underway through invasive species
cooperatives involving citizen
scientists; in some cases, these
local cooperatives form statewide
networks (e.g., in Florida, New
York, and Hawaii). A nationally
coordinated EDRR framework that
provides the rapid communication
and organizational development
mechanisms, EDRR tools that can be
readily accessed and shared, training
and other forms of capacity building,
and sufficient funding would greatly
enhance the effectiveness of all of
these initiatives, as well as fill the
gaps in EDRR coverage that currently
enable invasive species to diminish
the value of priority landscapes and
aquatic areas.
7 See footnote 6.
16
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
control techniques and products, as well as in moni-
toring activities that may relate to their corporate
activities or environmental footprint.
The national EDRR Framework will connect
and enhance existing efforts across all
stages of the EDRR process: preparedness,
early detection, rapid assessment, and rapid
response. For example, EDRR actions benefit
from a variety of detection networks. Many
monitoring programs exist, including paid
professionals and an increasing number of
volunteer citizen scientists and naturalists.
Monitoring efforts often focus on specific
species or groups of species (e.g., lionfish or
aquatic invasive species), high-risk pathways
(e.g., ports of entry and urban environments),
and/or protecting high-value locations (e.g.,
Great Lakes). There is a need to expand these
existing programs and to engage other types
of monitoring efforts to aid in invasive species
detection. Examples include ecological
monitoring programs, tree health monitoring
networks, and marine monitoring efforts,
among others. Enlisting the assistance of field
personnel, such as foresters, fire program
staff, and transportation staff also will help
broaden the reach of detection efforts.
Detections may also occur outside of formal
monitoring networks, such as by private
citizens, who have a strong knowledge
of local plants and wildlife. Federal, state,
local, tribal, and private sector entities are
all important partners in early detection.
Education and training programs to inform
personnel, practitioners, volunteers, and
the public about potentially invasive species
are critical to help increase the likelihood of
detecting new introductions.
Finally, non-governmental organizations play a
key role in the development, use, and application
of technologies, working across governmental and
non-governmental entities, and helping to identify
priority habitats and species.
Red Lionfish
Pterois volitans
17
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
The EDRR Framework builds upon and integrates
the services and capabilities that this range of
entities offers, while also helping to identify key
geographic, taxonomic, programmatic, and skill-
based gaps.
Some of initial gaps in EDRR capabilities and ca-
pacities that the EDRR Framework would aim to en-
hance include conducting national risk assessments
to
determine high-risk species that threaten prior-
ity landscapes and aquatic areas, priority pathways,
and priority areas vulnerable to invasion; prioritiz-
ing species to help focus monitoring and research
critical to improving detection and eradication tech-
nologies and methods; strengthening monitoring
programs and taxonomic capacity/tools for rapid
specimen identification; supporting information sys-
tems to inform decision making; and, developing a
well-coordinated national alert system.
Federal agencies play a critical role in addressing
some of these gaps, such as conducting horizon
scanning
8
and risk analysis to determine the invasive
species that pose the highest risk to the Nation;
developing and providing access to EDRR tools; or,
helping to support emergency responses for priority
invasive species
9
. For others, non-Federal partners
may play a critical role, such as coordinating
citizen science monitoring programs, defining site-
specific reporting protocols, and engaging private
landowners. It is important to note that the roles
and responsibilities across the range of EDRR action
steps (see Fig. 3) are fluid. For example, lead agencies
will vary among EDRR events based on the species,
the location of the population, the authorities, and
the availability of resources.
The EDRR Framework aims to ensure that the
work of Federal and non-Federal partners is well
coordinated, mutually beneficial, and provides
for the full range of EDRR actions necessary for
successful EDRR.
8 Horizon scanning is the systematic examination of future
potential threats and opportunities that can contribute to the
prioritization of invasive species of concern and the means to
address their introduction and spread (Roy et al. 2014).
9 Priority invasive species will need to be identified. They would
include those that pose the greatest risks to priority landscapes
and aquatic areas, as well as those unforeseen introductions
(i.e., those potentially invasive species not previously identified)
evaluated as high-risk through a rapid science-based risk
assessment process.
Preparedness
Horizon Scanning and Risk Analysis
Planning (Leadership, Communications,
Resources etc.)
Research
Tool Development and Sharing
Monitoring Programs
Rapid Response
Leadership and Coordination
Emergency Containment and Quarantine
Treatment (Eradication)
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting
Communications and Outreach
Early Detection
Training and Monitoring
Detection and Reporting
Identification and Vouchering
Incorporation and Evaluation of
“Sight Unseen” Data
D
ata Recording and Sharing
Communications and Outreach
Rapid Assessment
Rapid Assessment of Species Risks
Risk Management
(Options Identified)
Ri
sk Communications
(Strategy Developed and Employed)
Figure 3: General EDRR Action Steps.
Initial overview of a range of activities
necessary for effective EDRR. See
Appendix B for full descriptions of these
concepts. The roles and responsibilities
of Federal and non-Federal (state/tribal/
other partner) entities vary across this
suite of EDRR actions.
18
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Organizational Structure
An effective EDRR Framework requires focused
coordination across the range of Federal and non-
Federal entities to fund and implement prepared-
ness, early detection, rapid assessment, and rapid
response activities. That coordination requires an
organizational structure with well-defined roles and
responsibilities, as well as the means to ensure that
those roles are implemented.
Executive Order 13112 directs that, among other
things, Federal agencies whose actions may af-
fect the status of invasive species shall, to the ex-
tent practicable and permitted by law, and subject
to the availability of appropriations, and within
Administration budgetary limits, use relevant pro-
grams and authorities to detect and respond rap-
idly to and control populations of such species in
a cost-ef
fective and environmentally sound man-
ner. Executive Order 13112 also establishes NISC
10
and directs that it shall provide national leader-
ship regarding invasive species, oversee the imple-
mentation of Executive Order 13112, and see that
Federal agency activities concerning invasive spe-
cies are coordinated, complementary, cost-efficient,
and effective.
It is envisioned that an EDRR T
ask Force (hereafter
Task Force), operating within the NISC structure and
composed of Federal entities and representatives of
states, tribes, and regional initiatives, would serve as
a standing body to facilitate nationwide coordina-
tion among Federal agencies and non-Federal part-
ners. This Task Force would help formalize existing
ad hoc and informal arrangements and would es-
tablish lines of communication between Federal and
non-Federal
partners. Figure 4 outlines a proposed
structure for connecting some of the major EDRR
networks. Appendix C provides examples of existing
invasive species networks that, through effective
partnership and increased capacity, would become
critical components of a national EDRR program.
The Task Force would be informed by ad hoc task
teams that focus on technical issues, including scien-
tific advice (e.g., horizon scanning, risk assessment,
prioritization, specimen identification), capacity
building (e.g., training and protocol development),
communications and outreach (e.g., providing in-
formation about potentially invasive species and
response actions), and operations (e.g., permitting,
information management, training, fund transfer),
but would generally remain a small, agile forum
for improving EDRR ef
fectiveness and coordination.
The Task Force would oversee the development of
Figure 4: Proposed Organizational Struc-
ture of the National EDRR Framework.
The National EDRR Task Force, formed
within the National Invasive Species
Council structure, involves both Federal
and non-Federal entities and supports
and facilitates the critical interfaces
among states, tribes, Federal land man-
agement units, and other entities. These
entities support and further facilitate the
work of site-based partners, who often
are the first to observe and report new
invasive species.
Site-based Partners
States, Tribes, Federal
Agencies, Regional
Entities
National EDRR
Task Force
National Invasive
Species Council
NATIONAL EDRR TASK FORCE
F
ederal and Non-Federal Representation
Executive Team / Ad Hoc Technical Task Teams
National EDRR Coordinator
10 NISC includes the Secretaries or Administrators of 13 Federal Departments and Agencies with the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture,
and Commerce serving as co-chairs. The NISC’s responsibilities include the preparation and implementation of a national management
plan, coordination of interagency activities on invasive species, facilitation of information sharing, and encouraging action at local, tribal,
state, and regional levels to achieve the goals of the NISC Management Plan (Executive Order 13112).
19
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
At the site level, there is a more complex interac-
tion of regional bodies, states, tribes, and Federal
agencies with land management units and responsi-
bilities at national and/or state borders. Interaction
across these units is critical. Those specific entities
and their roles will vary according to geography and
invasive species/taxa of concern. Another critical set
of stakeholders are local governments, site-based
partners, and other technical experts (professionals
and amateurs). The role of the Task Force at the site
level will focus on helping link EDRR efforts among
sites (especially monitoring); establishing lines of
communication for information sharing; providing
access to protocols and best practices; and, provid-
ing technical expertise and training.
criteria to identify priority invasive species that may
warrant response as well as develop priority invasive
species watch lists
11
. The Task Force would also over-
see the development of criteria for developing and
evaluating project proposals for EDRR funding (see
Scope of Activities, page 26).
A small executive team of high-level Federal agency
representatives would oversee the Task Force. The
executive team would approve the composition of
the Task Force, designate a National EDRR Coordina-
tor, set priorities, and make funding recommenda-
tions.
11 See footnote 9. The term does not connote an official regulatory or listing status.
Volunteer weed warriors pull bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) in front of Half Dome, Yosemite National Park.
(photo credit NPS)
This page is intentionally left blank
21
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
III. THE EDRR COSTS OF COMBATTING INVASIVE SPECIES
Figure 5: Federal
agency investments
on invasive species
activities across all
taxa, FY 2014 (NISC
2015).
This EDRR Framework views investments in EDRR as
investments in the future of the Nation’s lands and
waters; the economic cost of inaction is expected
to be high, with newly-introduced invasive species
and long-term control of established invasive spe-
cies imposing significant economic and ecological
costs on the Nation. For example, estimates of long-
term control costs, losses, and damages of aquatic
and terrestrial invasive species currently established
in the United States exceed $120 billion per year (Pi-
mentel et al. 2005). The AIS controls cost more than
$9 billion per year (Pimentel 2003). Forest pests and
pathogens cost nearly $1.7 billion in local govern-
ment expenditures and approximately $830 million
in lost residential property values (Aukema et al.
2011).
These figures typically include only monetized dam-
ages that are more easily estimated and often do
not include non-market values, such as the loss of
ecosystem
services, such as flood control, pollina-
tion, and recreation (Cardno ENTRIX and Cohen
2011). In comparison to the cost of these impacts, a
conservative estimate of annual investments by Fed-
eral agencies to address invasive species is estimated
at $2.2 billion across all taxa and stages of the inva-
sion curve. Figure 5 shows the breakdown of invest-
ments according to different categories of activity
with prevention being the largest investment ($872
million for FY 2014), followed by Control and Man-
agement ($670 million for FY 2014), and then EDRR
($290 million for FY 2014) (NISC 2015)
12
. Thus, in-
vestments in EDRR, the second line of defense ac-
cording to the invasion curve (see Fig. 1) receives less
than half of the resources dedicated to longer term
control and management efforts.
Focusing on EDRR, NISC agencies reported a total of
$290 million in investments during FY 2014. USDA
reported approximately $265 million—90 percent
of total Federal investments—the vast majority of
which was allocated to the protection of agriculture
and livestock (see Fig. 6) (NISC 2015).
13
This provides
a sense of scale in terms of the amount of funds di-
rected primarily at EDRR priorities centered on ag-
ricultural, economic, and food security concerns, in
contrast to the funds currently available for EDRR
efforts that would fall under this EDRR Framework.
While Figures 5 and 6 portray total Federal agency
investments in EDRR, it is also useful to get a sense
of the cost of specific EDRR activities. Despite the
disparity, USDA investments are illustrative of the
costs associated with different EDRR activities nec-
essary to implement the EDRR Framework. For early
detection, APHIS received $27.4 million for its Pest
Detection Program in FY 2015.
12 The NISC Interagency Crosscut Budget represents a conservative estimate of spending by NISC member agencies on invasive species. The
Federal budget process is complex, and the crosscut accommodates differences across reporting agencies regarding how they program
their invasive species activities (e.g., set budget lines vs. project or grant funding).
13 There is some crossover of USDA EDRR efforts that also benefit areas outside of agriculture and livestock. For example, work on forest
pests such as Asian longhorned beetle and emerald ash borer benefit natural resources.
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Control &
Management
Prevention EDRR Education & Public
Awareness
Research Restoration Leadership &
International
Cooperation
NISC Agency Invasive Species Investments
(FY 2014, in millions)
22
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
For specific response activities, USDA investments in
FY 2015 ranged widely depending on the invasive
species, including (York USDA 2015, personal com-
munication):
¡¡ Avian influenza (caused by various viruses
adapted to birds): $989.1 million
14
¡¡ Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora
glabripennis)
: $41.6 million
¡¡ European grapevine moth
(Lo
besia botrana): $5.0 million
¡¡ Sudden oak death (caused by
Phytophthora ramoram)
: $1.4 million
For invasive species that impact natural resources,
several examples from Western states illustrate the
magnitude of rapid response costs:
California total investments on large AIS rapid re
-
sponse/eradication projects over the period 2000
to 2009 (Cardno ENTRIX and Cohen 2011):
¡¡ N
orthern pike (Esox lucius) eradication:
$19.5 million
¡¡ I
nvasive Spartina (Spartina spp.) project:
$14.0 million
¡¡ Quagga and zebra mussel response
(D
reissena bugensis and D. polymorpha):
$13.5 million
¡¡ Caulerpa taxifolia (marine algae) eradication:
$7.7 million
Japanese tsunami marine debris (removal of float-
ing docks infested with potential AIS) (NOAA Ma-
rine Debris Program 2014; Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife):
¡¡ $
628,000: dock removal from a remote beach
in Washington’s Olympic National Park and
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.
¡¡ $85,000: dock removal from a beach near
Newport, OR; the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife estimated an additional
$31,000 in staff time invested over a ten-
month period.
From a geographic perspective, the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force reported approxi
-
mately $3,767,000 in EDRR investments over FY
2013-14.
15
This includes (South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force 2015):
¡¡ $3,468,007: EDRR activities focused on
invasive animals
¡¡ $298,607: EDRR activities focused on invasive
plants
From the perspective of a single invasive taxon, the
ANSTF’s Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action Plan identi-
fies the following future funding needs just for the
phase of early detection (WRP 2010):
¡¡ $
500,000: development of standard field
protocols
¡¡ $2.6 million annually: expansion of monitor-
ing programs to all Western water jurisdic-
tions
Finally
, when considering general preparedness ac-
tivities, USFWS and ANSTF provide a useful model
for supporting regional and state-based compre-
hensive and integrated AIS activities. For more than
a decade, USFWS provided the following support
(MacLean USFWS 2015, personal communication):
¡¡ A
pproximately $50,000 annually to its six
regional panels
16
¡¡ $1 million to divide among states or inter-
state collaboratives with approved ANS
M
anagement Plans
17
By contrast, the total amount of state requests to
USFWS for annual plan implementation exceeds the
amount available; it was $14 million in FY 2012
18
(MacLean USFWS 2015, personal communication).
These examples are illustrative of the range of in-
vestments in EDRR activities. While these are not in-
tended to capture the full scope of activities, they
are suggestive of the types of activities that might
warrant funding (i.e., preparedness ef
forts and
rapid response) and the scope of resources required
(i.e., low to high investments).
14 The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) transferred these funds at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture. The CCC was created
to support farm incomes and prices and to stabilize agricultural commodity markets, and it also provides access to emergency funds to
address related threats from pests and diseases. Those funds can be used for indemnification (i.e., paying private individuals for their
crops or livestock losses).
15 This total includes figures from state and Federal agencies, which use different fiscal calendars.
16 This figure has declined with budget cuts and sequestration.
17 In FY 2015, this included requests from 40 of the 42 states with plans, which resulted in an average of approximately $24,300 per plan.
ANS plans are encouraged but not required to include an EDRR component with the intention of supporting preparedness activities.
18 This data was last gathered in 2012.
23
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
EDRR Investments by Federal Agency
(FY 2014)
Figure 6: Percentage of total EDRR investments reported by Federal agencies,
FY 2014 Enacted (NISC 2015). NISC agencies reported a total of $290million in
investments during FY 2014. USDA reported approximately $265million—90%
of total Federal investments—the vast majority of which was allocated to
the protection of agriculture and livestock. This provides a sense of scale in
terms of the amount of funds directed primarily at EDRR priorities centered
on agricultural, economic, and food security concerns, in contrast to the
funds currently available for EDRR efforts that would fall under this EDRR
Framework.
This page is intentionally left blank
25
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
A fully operational EDRR Framework requires that
resources (financial, technical, and human) are
readily available and accessible when a potentially
invasive species is detected and appropriate deci-
sion makers determine rapid response is necessary.
Successful rapid response is contingent on prepared-
ness: having the plans, tools, training, resources etc.
in place to mount eradication efforts.
At this time, there is limited capability and capac-
ity to fully implement the EDRR Framework, due
to limited funds. Even focused engagement in pri-
ority landscapes and aquatic areas may be difficult
to achieve within existing resources. The capacity
of existing EDRR activities is focused on combat-
ting select invasive species and focusing on select
geographic areas. Eradication ef
forts can be discon-
nected from neighboring activities and often lack fi-
nancial resources and decision-support tools. A well-
supported EDRR Framework would address these
gaps and prevent potentially irreversible harm from
the continued establishment and spread of invasive
species.
Developing options for targeted EDRR funding and/
or more effective funding mechanisms (governmen-
tal, non-governmental, and/or in partnership with
governments) is one of the next steps in implement-
ing the EDRR Framework. This should include an
assessment of current Federal EDRR programs and
costs, opportunities for a coordinated strategy to
align EDRR funding, and an evaluation of current
and/or new funding mechanisms. This analysis is
necessary to advance the EDRR Framework from
concept to reality
.
Several core capabilities of targeted EDRR funding
that would support the EDRR Framework include
timeliness of funding, consistency of funding, and
cost sharing.
Timeliness: EDRR funding should be readily acces-
sible to finance EDRR actions and support effective
eradication activities. The speed at which funding
requests are evaluated, decisions are
made, and the
funding is dispersed is critical to avoid delays in mo-
bilizing EDRR activities.
Consistency: Some EDRR activities (e.g., monitoring)
are continuous, thus EDRR funding should also be
continuous; gaps in funding can erase past gains.
Further, EDRR funding should be available over a
number of consecutive years to be most effective
in eradicating an invasive species and monitoring
treatment effectiveness. This would avoid shortfalls
at the end of one fiscal year that would necessitate
postponing an EDRR response until a new budget is
in place.
Cost Sharing: Cost sharing, matching, and/or in-kind
contributions are a critical part of EDRR efforts be-
cause such arrangements create incentives for en-
tities to participate, leverage resources (financial,
technical, and human), and are often necessary
because EDRR actions typically cross jurisdictions,
necessitating Federal and non-Federal partnership
approaches.
19
EDRR funding approaches should be informed by
experience gained in other areas with the provi-
sion of resources for conservation objectives and/
IV. OPTIONS FOR FUNDING THE EDRR FRAMEWORK
Quagga Mussel
Dreissena bugensis
photo credit NOAA
19 EDRR preparedness activities in regard to cost sharing could include the inter-jurisdictional identification of resources, such as sharing of
equipment, personnel, technical expertise, and materials.
26
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Interagency efforts at various
scales are underway across the
country to bolster EDRR efforts
through preparedness activities;
however, they require additional
support to be fully operational.
For example, Great Lakes entities
have undertaken some aspects of
EDRR. In addition to support for
response actions, support is needed
for preparedness activities including
intensive monitoring for many
taxonomic groups, rapid response
training, tools for containment and
eradication, and interagency data
management. In south Florida, the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force developed an “Invasive
Exotic Species Strategic Action
Framework,” a comprehensive
and integrated plan informed by a
diverse partnership of stakeholders.
Some of the specific EDRR needs
include development of a prioritized
monitoring plan, early detection
tools and reporting mechanisms,
increased capacity in Federal and
state agencies, and rapid assessment
protocols. Similarly, as part of
the 100th Meridian Initiative, a
Columbia River Basin Team formed
to identify and address the special
needs of the region, including
development of an early detection
monitoring program, web-based
data information system, and
response plan for invasive mussels
and other non-native species. These
types of preparedness activities,
among others, are critically
important to support for EDRR to
be effective.
20 Some states, such as Idaho and Oregon, and regional entities, such as the Lake Champlain Basin Program, designated funds for EDRR
emergency response.
21 In some cases, these funds may support rapid response efforts for species of local concern. For example, the Northeast Aquatic Nuisance
Species Panel allocated a small portion of its funding from the ANSTF to establish an EDRR fund (although that fund is presently dormant
given funding cuts).
or short-term priority actions, such as APHIS’s Plant
Protection Program for EDRR, the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion, the Wildland Fire Management accounts, the
Emergency Stabilization funds (e.g., Burned Area
Emergency Response, Burned Area Rehabilitation
programs), and entities with existing successful
emergency response funds.
20
Appendix D provides
initial examples of different financing models that
could be considered when identifying and/or devel-
oping EDRR funding approaches.
Scope of Activities
EDRR funding should support both preparedness ac-
tivities (e.g., initial capacity and capability building
efforts for coordination, planning, monitoring etc.)
and emergency response (e.g., response to priority
invasive species and extreme events). As new fund-
ing mechanisms are developed, support for adminis-
tering EDRR funding would also be necessary.
Preparedness Activities: Implementing EDRR effec-
tively requires a variety of capabilities (see Fig. 3,
page 17, and Appendix B). There is currently a patch-
work of efforts and capacities where some states,
tribes,
and regions are better equipped, although
most have significant gaps. Building the full suite of
capacities and capabilities will be an iterative pro-
cess that takes time, as witnessed by the ongoing
EDRR efforts in places like the Great Lakes, south
Florida/Everglades, and the Columbia River Basin,
which are more advanced in their preparedness but
still require further work on their EDRR systems.
Funding to support preparedness across the suite of
action items from early detection to rapid response
will be instrumental in building a network of Feder-
al, state, tribal, and other partners that can respond
to
invasive species introductions in a timely and ef-
fective manner to protect priority landscapes and
aquatic areas.
21
One or more funding mechanisms could provide
grants to agencies, states, tribes, regions, and other
entities to enhance their preparedness, with a par-
ticular focus on grants for multi-jurisdictional and
multi-state coordination. Depending on the legal
27
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
authority, source, amount, and administrative re-
quirements, funding could be disbursed through a
request for proposals, block grant, or other compet-
itive processes.
Emergency Response:
Funding should also support
emergency EDRR response: those urgent situations
where major EDRR actions are needed to address
priority invasive species or to respond to the risks
posed by large-scale disasters and extreme events.
Priority invasive species would include those identi-
fied by the National EDRR Task Force as posing the
greatest risks to priority landscapes and aquatic ar-
eas, as well as those unforeseen introductions (i.e.,
those potentially invasive species not previously
identified) evaluated as high-risk through a rapid
risk assessment process.
22
Funding also could be
used to address the spread of known or potentially
invasive species resulting from large-scale disasters
and extreme events, which may require emergency
invasive species monitoring and eradication efforts.
Examples include flooding on the Mississippi River
throughout the Central Plans; hurricanes along
hundreds of miles of coastline; earthquakes, such as
the earthquake in Los Angeles, which brought up
subsurface micro-organisms; tsunami marine debris,
such as that in the Northwest, that carried poten-
tial AIS; and, wildfires and volcanoes, which may
not
disperse invasive species but disturb landscapes
making them ripe for invasion.
Emergency response activities are time sensitive and
need to have an expedited process for requesting
support, decision making, and dispersing funds.
Administration: Administering EDRR funding
through new funding mechanisms would require
dedicated program management resources, par-
ticularly in the initial years, to set up the adminis-
trative structure. The number of projects reviewed
and funded, the magnitude of the funds available
for disbursement, and the institutional and admin-
istrative structure would define the appropriate re-
source level.
Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) and Federal Interagency Agreements (IA)
help to facilitate timely collaboration by setting forth principals and procedures
jointly agreed to by the signatories. Mutual Aid Agreements, such as that signed by
the Great Lake states and provinces, can expedite multi-state response efforts by
outlining opportunities for lending assistance and sharing resources across jurisdictional
boundaries. Guarantees for reimbursement of expenditures may be another
mechanism to ensure that response efforts are rapid. Grants, cooperative agreements,
procurement contracts, or other legal arrangements also can be put in place in
advance to allow funds or other resources to flow from the Federal government to its
partners.
22 Risk assessment criteria to identify priority invasive species may include the potential to cause environmental, human health, and/or
economic harm; current distribution; projected climate niche under climate change scenarios; potential distribution; and, the cost-
benefit of taking action. Consideration would also be given to the likelihood of successful eradication and prevention of reintroduction.
Such species could include those already established in the United States but limited in their distribution, as well as many that are not
established but likely to become established.
This page is intentionally left blank
29
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
The comprehensive set of EDRR actions—from coor-
dination and planning to monitoring and eradica-
tion—must be effectively and efficiently implement-
ed. If one or more actions are not implemented or
implemented inadequately (e.g., the response is too
slow), then EDRR activities will fail and the invasive
species will continue to spread. This national EDRR
Framework focuses on those actions where Feder-
al agencies can play a unique role to enhance the
capabilities and capacities of entities working on
EDRR. The EDRR Framework provides the mecha-
nism to establish lines of communication and coor-
dination; facilitate critically important partnerships;
identify strategic shared priorities on which to fo-
cus limited resources; and, help support the work of
Federal agencies, states, tribes, and other partners
to address invasive species.
The Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior,
Agriculture, and Commerce, as co-chairs of NISC,
working with other members of the NISC, should
take the following five steps to implement a
National EDRR Framework:
1. Establish a National EDRR Task Force and des-
ignate a National EDRR Coordinator within the
NISC structur
e to address invasive species that
affect priority landscapes and aquatic areas.
¡¡ Establish a National EDRR Task Force within
the NISC structure. Effective EDRR requires
efficient communication and collaboration
across the range of Federal, state, tribal, and
local jurisdictions, as well as other stakehold
-
ers and issue experts. While there are net-
works and other capabilities in some places
th
at can effectively conduct EDRR, gaps re-
main, and no national scale coordination
m
echanism exists for priority landscapes
and aquatic areas. A Task Force established
within the NISC structure is a critical step for
the full realization of a national EDRR Frame
-
work. The Task Force would play a key role in
th
e identification and assessment of priority
invasive species, identification of critical EDRR
tools and technologies, drafting of proto
-
cols and other guidance, and determination
o
f priorities for the allocation of funding for
emergency response and preparedness activi
-
ties. The Task Force would also help identify
r
oles and responsibilities of various entities
and decision making criteria within the con
-
text of the EDRR Framework.
¡¡ D
esignate a National EDRR Coordinator with-
in the NISC to facilitate the implementation
of t
he national EDRR Framework. A designat-
ed coordinator is essential to provide coordi-
nation across Federal agencies and to assess
h
ow the sum of Federal EDRR capacities can
support the EDRR Framework. The coordina
-
tor would serve as the liaison with state, trib-
al, regional, and other partners and experts
t
o facilitate communications and identify ef-
ficient means to share information, technolo-
gies, and other resources. Additional actions
c
ould include laying the groundwork for deci-
sion making and identifying steps to progress
f
rom short-term to long-term priorities.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
Volunteers in
National Parks
(photo credit NPS)
30
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
2. Convene high-level decision makers (i.e. Assis-
tant / Under Secretaries) and senior budget of-
ficers within NISC agencies to better align fund-
ing or guide the formation of more effective
funding mechanisms to support priority pre-
paredness and emergency response activities.
¡¡ Assess current Federal EDRR programs and
costs. A range of EDRR activities are under-
way in Federal agencies, such as conducting
r
isk assessments, developing detection and
eradication technologies, and implementing
EDRR actions on the ground through such ef
-
forts as invasive species strike teams and ex-
otic plant management teams, among other
a
ctions. An initial step in addressing funding
challenges is for agencies to describe their
current EDRR capacities, capabilities, flex
-
ibilities, limitations, and magnitude of needs.
T
his includes an assessment of how current
EDRR efforts are supported through vari
-
ous agency programs and at what levels and
w
hether potential sources of existing funding
could be allocated to particular aspects of the
EDRR Framework including those that could
be shared with non-Federal partners (e.g.,
for training, stewardship of particular sites,
etc.). A similar effort should be undertaken to
understand non-Federal spending and antici
-
pated needs.
¡¡ D
evelop a plan to establish a coordinated
funding process or mechanism(s) with tar-
geted EDRR funding for preparedness and
e
mergency response. A range of financial,
operational, and human resources are nec
-
essary to implement EDRR actions. To be ef-
fective, the national EDRR Framework should
i
nclude targeted funding that could support
emergency responses to priority invasive spe
-
cies and build and enhance overall capacity
a
nd capabilities to implement the full range
of EDRR actions (e.g., planning, risk assess
-
ments, monitoring, identification support, re-
search, etc.). EDRR is an ongoing process and
m
ust be maintained over time to be effective.
A variety of funding sources and structures
could be considered. Aligning and/or pursu
-
ing targeted resources will require leadership
a
nd guidance from high-level decision mak-
ers within NISC agencies (i.e. Assistant/Under
S
ecretaries), senior budget officers, the Office
of Management and Budget, and Congress.
3. Incorporate EDRR into Federal programs and
partnerships at national, regional, and local
scales.
¡¡ Identify Federal agency EDRR leads at nation
-
al, regional, and state levels to facilitate and
h
elp coordinate EDRR efforts with states,
tribes, and other partners. Establishing Fed
-
eral agency lead contacts and other points of
c
ontact working on EDRR within Federal agen-
cies is an important first step in Federal imple-
mentation of the EDRR Framework, as well as
i
ncreasing communications and improving
coordination among Federal and non-Federal
entities. Timeliness in implementing EDRR ac
-
tions is essential; thus, knowing the appropri-
ate contacts in the event of an early detection
a
nd throughout the EDRR process will help to
promote efficiencies.
¡¡ Assess Federal legal authorities, regulations,
and policies to conduct EDRR. A national EDRR
Framework should facilitate compliance with
relevant Federal regulations, particularly with
regard to rapid response actions and eradica
-
tion techniques. Some EDRR activities may be
p
ossible within existing authorities, yet may
require changes to agency policies and prac
-
tices. Given differences across authorizing
l
egislation, the NISC should work with mem-
ber Federal agencies to assess their capacity
a
nd capability under existing authorities to
implement EDRR. This assessment should
be conducted through a centralized process
that is coordinated among the Federal agen
-
cies and identify gaps, inconsistencies, and
c
onflicts in agency authorities and policies, as
well as enforcement capacity. The assessment
should consider Federal agencies’ abilities to
partner with non-Federal entities to conduct
EDRR activities on non-Federal lands and wa
-
ters and any restrictions on their ability to ad-
dress particular species or geographies.
¡¡ S
trengthen, if necessary, Federal legal au-
thorities, regulations, and policies to conduct
E
DRR. Building on this review and analysis,
the NISC should work with member Federal
agencies to develop and implement a strat
-
egy requesting supplemental authorities,
i
f needed, to fully implement the proposed
EDRR Framework, particularly with regard to
31
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
their ability to work with and support states,
tribes, and other partners. This strategy
should consider the role of EDRR within the
broader context of invasive species preven
-
tion and management activities.
¡¡ I
ntegrate EDRR into Federal initiatives. Fed-
eral agencies should identify cross-cutting
i
nitiatives where EDRR applies. For instance,
when developing activities on climate pre
-
paredness, Federal agencies could integrate
ED
RR activities, such as identifying priority
invasive species and pathways that may af
-
fect a particular site and the monitoring and
re
sponse measures needed. Federal agencies
can focus on particular geographies that have
already been identified as critical to promote
climate resilience to maximize the effective
-
ness of EDRR and climate adaptation efforts.
4.
Advance multiple pilot EDRR initiatives in priority
landscapes and aquatic areas.
¡¡ I
dentify initiatives in priority landscapes and
aquatic areas where elements of this EDRR
Framework can be implemented. Current
capacities to conduct EDRR vary across the
United States. The development of a national
EDRR Framework likely will occur in a staged
approach. As an initial step, agencies should
identify several priority areas to pilot ele
-
ments of this EDRR Framework. This could in-
clude working through existing EDRR efforts,
a
s well as building EDRR elements into sites
identified as priorities for climate resilience,
such as the landscapes identified under the
Resilient Lands and Waters Initiative.
23
Such
efforts would be instrumental in the identi-
fication and application of performance mea-
sures and other metrics for the effectiveness
a
nd value-added contribution of EDRR activi-
ties.
5.
Foster the development and application of EDRR
capabilities, including technologies, analytical
and decision making tools, and best practices.
¡¡ Identify current EDRR capabilities and priori-
tize needs. ED
RR capabilities help determine
invasive species that are priorities for national
EDRR efforts, as well as priority pathways to
be addressed and geographies most vulner
-
able to invasion. Analytics and decision tools
h
elp determine what rapid response mea-
sures should be taken and when. A coordinat-
ed effort is needed to identify current EDRR
c
apabilities and prioritize needs. Federal and
non-Federal partners identified some of the
immediate, key capabilities necessary for
EDRR activities:
¡» A national EDRR alert system to distribute
notifications about potential and identified
threats to priority landscapes and aquatic
areas
¡» Advanced threat assessment and horizon
scanning
¡» Risk assessments of invasive species, sites,
and pathways of introduction
¡» Predictive modeling of invasive species distri
-
butions, pathways of spread, and vulnerable
a
reas
¡» Research on and development of novel de-
tection and eradication methods and opti-
mized approaches for monitoring and eradi-
cation
¡» Development and distribution of protocols
for implementing stages of the EDRR process
¡» Training in the use of operational response
strategies, such as the Incident Command
System, and the application of technical and
analytic tools
¡» Effective monitoring networks inclusive of
known high-risk species and sensitive to the
detection of new species
¡» Taxonomic capacity/tools for rapid specimen
identification
¡» Information systems that support decision
making
¡» A mechanism (clearinghouse) for distrib
-
uting technical and analytic tools and case
s
tudies to states, tribes, and other partners
involved in EDRR activities
¡¡ Enhance/develop, disseminate, and apply
EDRR tools. The development and applica
-
tion of these advanced technologies, ana-
lytics, and science-based decision tools will
g
reatly improve the capability to prepare for,
anticipate, detect, and respond to invasions.
23 The Resilient Lands and Waters Initiative currently includes the following seven priority landscapes: California Headwaters, California’s
North-Central Coast and the Russian River watershed; Crown of the Continent; Lakes Huron and Erie Coastal Wetlands to Maumee
River; Puget Sound/Snohomish River Watershed; Southwest Florida; and, West Hawai’i, West Maui, He’eia Watershed (O’ahu).
32
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Federal agencies are positioned to help build
or augment such tools that can be used by
various entities that, in turn, can provide valu
-
able feedback for refinement. This includes
re
search to support these EDRR capabilities.
While some of these tools currently exist, a
coordinated effort to develop, enhance, dis
-
seminate, and apply them in the field will en-
tail staff time and resources not immediately
a
vailable to Federal agencies.
33
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
Invasive species are among the top threats to the
Nation’s lands and waters, and climate change is
amplifying and accelerating their impacts. Many
entities have formed EDRR networks that focus on
a specific invasive species or geographic region, yet
there is no national EDRR Framework for priority
landscapes and aquatic areas, nor a coordinated
strategy to provide the funds required to support
EDRR and emergency response activities. These gaps
result in inefficiencies at multiple scales; meanwhile,
invasive species continue to arrive, spread, and cause
costly, irreversible harm to the environment and hu-
man health.
A national EDRR Framework designed to support
the detection and identification of invasive species
populations before they spread, and eradicate them
before they cause significant harm, is both ecologi-
cally sound and cost-effective. Opportunities exist to
connect and build upon existing networks, identify
and close important gaps, provide crucial services
and resources to those working on EDRR, and lever-
age engagement so that the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts. The EDRR Framework provides
the necessary structure to identify strategic and
shared priorities for focusing limited resources and
enhance partnerships and on-the-ground actions to
stem the tide of invasive species.
VI. CONCLUSION
Native tufted poppy
and wildflower display
(photo credit NPS)
34
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
ACRONYMS
AIS: Aquatic Invasive Species
ANS: Aquatic Nuisance Species
ANSTF: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM: Bureau of Land Management
CISMA: Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area
CWMA: Cooperative Weed Management Area
DOD: Department of Defense
DOI: Department of the Interior
EDRR: Early Detection and Rapid Response
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
FICMNEW: Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
ISAC: Invasive Species Advisory Committee
NISC: National Invasive Species Council
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS: National Park Service
PRISM: Partnership for Regional Invasive Species Management
U.S.: United States
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS: U.S. Forest Service
USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
35
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
GLOSSARY
Adaptive Management: A decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted
in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better
understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and helps
adjust policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recog-
nizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is
not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive management does
not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to more ef
fective decisions and enhanced benefits. Its
true measure is in how well it helps meet environmental, social, and economic goals, increases scientific
knowledge, and reduces tensions among stakeholders (Williams et al. 2009).
Alien Species [also Non-native]: With respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds,
eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that
ecosystem (Executive Order 13312).
Biological Invasion: The process by which non-native species breach biogeographical barriers and extend
their range (McGraw-Hill 2003).
Climate Resilience: The capacity for a socio-ecological system to: (1) absorb stresses and maintain func
-
tion in the face of external stresses imposed upon it by climate change and (2) adapt, reorganize, and
evolve
into more desirable configurations that improve the sustainability of the system, leaving it better
prepared for future climate change impacts (Nelson et al. 2007, Folke 2006).
Early Detection: A process of surveying for, reporting, and verifying the presence of a non-native species
before the founding population becomes established or spreads so widely that eradication is no longer
feasible.
Eradication: The elimination of all individuals and propagules from an area with low likelihood of need
-
ing to address the species in the future.
Established Species:
A species with a self-sustaining, reproducing population.
Horizon Scanning: The systematic examination of future potential threats and opportunities that can
contribute to the prioritization of invasive species of concern and the means to address their introduction
and spread (Roy et al. 2014).
Incident Command System: A management system designed to enable effective and efficient incident
management by integrating a combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and commu
-
nications operating within a common organizational structure (FEMA).
Invasive Species:
An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmen-
tal harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13312).
Native Species:
With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an intro-
duction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem (Executive Order 13112).
Non-native Species:
See Alien Species.
Nuisance Species: Aquatic and terrestrial organisms, introduced into new habitats throughout the United
States and other areas of the world, that produce harmful impacts on natural resources in these ecosys
-
tems and on the human use of these resources (ANSTF 1994).
Pathway:
The means by which invasive species are moved, intentionally or unintentionally, into new
areas.
Preparedness: Having the knowledge, financial resources, tools, trained personnel, and coordination
structures in place to streamline activities at each of stage in the EDRR process.
36
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Priority Landscapes and Aquatic Areas: In the context of the proposed national EDRR Framework, priority
landscapes and aquatic areas are generally regarded as those lands and waters (freshwater, coastal, and
marine) identified by Federal, state, or tribal entities as areas of importance, such as for natural resource
stewardship, conservation, or biodiversity purposes.
Rapid Assessment: Determination of a species’ abundance and distribution, the risks and impacts associated
with its occurrence, as well as the potential management responses to address the invasion (NISC 2003).
Rapid Response: A process that is employed to eradicate the founding population of a non-native species
from a specific location.
Risk Analysis: The set of tools or processes incorporating risk assessment, risk management, and risk com
-
munication, which are used to evaluate the potential risks associated with a species or pathway, possible
mitigation measures to address that risk, and the information to be shared with decision-makers and other
stakeholders.
37
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
REFERENCES
Ad Hoc Working Group on Invasive Species and Climate Change. 2014. Bioinvasions in a Changing World:
A Resource on Invasive Species-Climate Change Interactions for Conservation and Natural Resource
Management. Prepared for the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) and the National Invasive
Species Council (NISC).
Anderson, L.W.J. 2005. California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid
response. Biological Invasions 7:1003-1016.
ANSTF (Aquatic Nuisance Species T
ask Force). 1994. Aquatic Nuisance Species Program.
Available at: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/ANS_PROGRAM.pdf.
Aukema J.E., Leung B., Kovacs K., Chivers C., Britton K.O., et al. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native For-
est Insects in the Continental United States. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24587. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024587.
Burgiel, S.W
. and A.A. Muir. 2010. Invasive Species, Climate Change and Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: Ad-
dressing Multiple Drivers of Global Change. Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP),
Washington, D.C., U.S., and Nairobi, Kenya.
Cardno ENTRIX and A. Cohen. 2011. Final Report California Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response Fund
An Economic Evaluation.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Draft rapid response plan for aquatic invasive species in
California in the California aquatic invasive species management plan. 136 pp.
Carter
, J., A.L. Foote, and L.A. Johnson-Randall. 1999. Modeling the effects of nutria (Myocastor coypus) on
wetland loss. Wetlands 19(1): 209-19.
CRS (Congressional Research Service). R.W. Gorte, C.H. Vincent, L.A. Hanson, and M.R. Rosenblum. 2012.
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, R42346. Washington, D.C.
Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience. 2014. Priority Agenda Enhancing the Climate Resilience of
America’s Natural Resources.
Executive Order 13112. 1999. Invasive Species.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2015. ICS resource center: Glossary of related terms.
(http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/icsresource/glossary.htm accessed August 28, 2015).
FICMNEW (Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic W
eeds). 2003. A
National Early Detection and Rapid Response System for Invasive Plants in the United States.
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses.
Global Environmental Change 16, 253-267. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
Great Lakes Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. 2006. Model rapid response plan for Great Lakes
aquatic invasions, Iteration III, Draft: December 2006.
ISAC (Invasive Species Advisory Committee) to the National Invasive Species Council (NISC). 2006.
Invasive species definition clarification and guidance white paper.
Lake Champlain Basin Program Aquatic Nuisance Species Subcommittee Rapid Response W
orkgroup. 2009.
Lake Champlain Basin Rapid Response Action Plan for Aquatic Invasive Species.
38
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Locke, A. and J. M. Hanson. 2009. Rapid response to non-indigenous species. 3. A proposed framework.
Aquatic Invasions. Volume 4, Issue 1:259-273.
MacLean, D., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 7, 2015. Personal communication.
MacGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. 2003. 6E. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
McNeely, J.A., H.A. Mooney, L.E. Neville, P. Schei, and J.K. Waage (eds.) 2001. A Global Strategy
on Invasive Alien Species. IUCN Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.
Mississippi River Basin Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. 2010. A Model Rapid Response Plan for Aquatic
Invasive Species.
Mooney H., A. Larigauderie, M. Cesario, T
. Elmquist, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, S. Lavorel, G.M. Mace, M. Palmer,
R. Scholes, and T. Yahara. 2009. Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 1:46–54. DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2009.07.006.
Nelson, D.R., W.N. Adger, and K. Brown. 2007. Adaptation to environmental change: Contributions of a
resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32: 395-419.
Available at: http://eprints.icrisat.ac.in/4245/1/AnnualReviewofEnvResources_32_395-419_2007.pdf.
Last visited 3/30/2015.
NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2003. General Guidelines for the Establishment and Evaluation of
Invasive Species Early Detection and Rapid Response Systems. V
ersion 1. Washington, D.C.
NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2015. Invasive Species Interagency Crosscut Budget.
Washington, D.C.
NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) Marine Debris Program. 2014.
Proceedings of the Japan Tsunami Marine Debris Summary Meeting. Technical Memorandum NOS OR&R
50. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. No date. State-wide planning and response to non-native species
associated with Japanese tsunami marine debris.
Pennsylvania Invasive Species Council. 2014. Rapid Response Plan and Procedures for Responding to Aquat-
ic Invasive Species in Pennsylvania.
Pimentel, D. 2003. Economic and Ecological Costs Associated with Aquatic Invasive Species, pp. 3-5, in K
Wakefield and A Faulds (eds.) Proceedings of the Aquatic Invaders of the Delaware Estuary Symposium,
Malvern, Pennsylvania, May 20, 2003. Cited in California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Aquatic
Invasive Species Management Plan. Sacramento.
Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs
associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics, Volume 52, pp. 273-288.
Reaser
, J., B.B. Yeager, P.R. Phifer, A.K. Hancock, and A.T. Gutierrez. 2003. Invasive Species: vectors and
management strategies. Chapter 14: Environmental Diplomacy and the Global Movement of Invasive
Alien Species: A U.S. Perspective.
Response Protocols for Biofouled Debris and Invasive Species Generated by the 2011 Japan Tsunami. 2012.
Rodgers, L. 2010. Invasion Curve (diagram). Adapted from Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework,
State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries. South Florida Water Management District.
Available at: http://www.naisn.org/information/. Last visited 10/17/2014.
39
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
Roy, H.E., J. Peyton, D.C. Aldridge, T. Bantock, T.M. Blackburn, R. Britton, P. Clark, E. Cook, K. Dehnen-
Schmutz, T. Dines, M. Dobson, F. Edwards, C. Harrower, M.C. Harvey, D. Minchin, D.G. Noble, D. Parrott,
M.J.O. Pocock, C.D. Preston, S. Roy, A. Salisbury, K. Schonrogge, J. Sewell, R. Shaw, P. Stebbing, A.J.A.
Stewart, and K.J. Walker. 2014. Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten
biodiversity in Great Britain. Global Change Biology 20: 3859–3871. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12603.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. 2015. Invasive Exotic Species Cross-Cut Budget.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Effects of climate change for aquatic invasive species
and implications for management and research. National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C.; EPA/600/R-08/014. Available from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA, and online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
W
estbrooks, R.G. and J. Madsen. 2006. Federal Regulatory Weed Risk Assessment Beach Vitex
(Vitex rotundifolia L. f.). Assessment Summary. GeoResources Institute and Mississippi State University,
Whiteville, NC, U.S. A
vailable at: http://www.northinlet.sc.edu/beachvitex/media/bv_risk_assessment.pdf.
Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the
Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/ppa/upload/TechGuide.pdf.
WRP (W
estern Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species). 2010. Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action Plan for
Western U.S. Waters. Available at: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/QZAP/QZAP_FINAL_Feb2010.pdf.
York, K., USDA Office of Budget and Program Analysis. August 14, 2015. Personal communication.
40
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
APPENDIX A: EDRR DECISION MAKING PROCESS TEMPLATE
Stylized depiction of general early detection and rapid response decision making process
Rapid Response
Lead entity decides whether to use Incident Command System;
Lead entity develops eradication plan, including securing permits, carrying out eradication measures,
and conducting post-treatment monitoring, evaluation, and reporting
Rapid Assessment
Lead entity convenes assessment team to determine species abundance / distribution and to assess
potential risks and impacts, eradication techniques, costs, and socio-political environment;
Decision made whether to take No Action - EDRR Ends, or Proceed with Rapid Response
Early Detection
Detection of potential new invasive species or range expansion of existing invasive species
Notification
Lead entity notified, e.g., state, tribal, Federal and/or appropriate authority
Species Confirmation
If non-native species,
Proceed to Rapid Assessment to determine
if occurrence is a candidate for rapid response
If native species,
No Action - EDRR Ends
Ongoing efforts to detect invasive species
Monitoring
41
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
APPENDIX B: GENERAL EDRR STAGES AND ACTION STEPS
Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) is a
comprehensive set of sustained and coordinated
actions generally grouped into four categories or
stages:
24
¡¡ Preparedness
¡¡ Early Detection
¡¡ Rapid Assessment
¡¡ Rapid Response
These efforts—if timely—increase the likelihood that
invasive species will be addressed successfully while
populations are still localized and small enough to
be eradicated (NISC 2010). If one or more actions
is not implemented or implemented inadequately,
then EDRR activities will fail and the invasive species
will continue to spread.
EDRR actions may eradicate potentially invasive spe
-
cies that are new to the United States or contain
the spread of known invasive species by eradicating
satellite populations that could result in significant
range expansions.
Eradication of the targeted invasive species is the
goal of the EDRR process. The following types of
indicators help to evaluate the extent to which an
EDRR response is successful (NISC 2003):
1.
Timeliness of the detection: Potentially
invasive species are detected upon introduc-
tion.
2. Availability and accessibility of resources:
Technical, financial, and human resources
are readily available to support assessment
and response efforts.
3. Timeliness of response actions: Rapid re
-
sponse to the introduction prevents the es-
tablishment, spread, and adverse impacts of
the invasive species.
4.
Timeliness of information: Information is
provided to decision-makers, the public,
and to partners.
5. Adaptive management:
A systematic ap-
proach is used for improving resource man-
agement by learning from management
outcomes from EDRR.
25
The sections below outline a generic template of
core actions drawn from numerous plans that detail
the steps under the categories of preparedness, ear-
ly detection, rapid assessment, and rapid response.
26
These steps are designed with the flexibility for use
at a wide range of scales. Identifying responsible
agencies and partners associated with each step,
and timelines, will help to ensure that EDRR is suc-
cessful.
Early DetectionEarly Detection
Rapid AssessmentRapid Assessment
Rapid ResponseRapid Response
PreparednessPreparedness
General stages of the EDRR Process.
Preparedness actions are necessary in
advance of early detection and throughout
each stage of the EDRR process.
24 A template for a decision making process that incorporates the stages within the EDRR process is described in Appendix A.
25 See Glossary for a detailed definition of adaptive management.
26 Key sources include the Mississippi River Basin Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species 2010 (excerpts adapted with permission); Lake
Champlain Basin Program Aquatic Nuisance Species Subcommittee Rapid Response Workgroup 2009; FICMNEW 2003; Anderson 2005;
California Department of Fish and Game 2008; NISC 2010; Pennsylvania Invasive Species Council 2014; Locke and Hanson 2009; and,
Response Protocols for Biofouled Debris and Invasive Species Generate by the 2011 Japan Tsunami 2012; among others.
42
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Preparedness
Mounting a response to eradicate invasive species
populations can entail a range of regulatory and
technical challenges. The potential for success in a
response effort is greatly enhanced by prepared-
ness, or having the knowledge, financial resources,
tools, trained personnel, and coordination struc-
tures in place to streamline activities at each stage
in the EDRR process. Preparedness includes the fol-
lowing types of actions:
27
¡¡ Horizon scanning and risk analysis
¡¡ Planning
¡¡ Research
¡¡ Tool development and sharing
¡¡ Monitoring programs
Horizon Scanning and Risk Analysis
Horizon scanning and risk analysis involve identi-
fying short- and long-term future invasive species
threats, conducting risk assessments, and prioritiz-
ing species, sites, and pathways for EDRR activities.
Risk assessments may be completed for species in
advance of their introduction or spread (i.e., antici-
pated threats) or performed rapidly once a species
is detected. Risk assessments also can be used to
determine sites, or hot-spots, where invasive spe-
cies may be likely to arrive (such as transportation
hubs or areas highly vulnerable to climate change)
and pathways that are likely to transmit invasive
species (such as recreational boating and live plant
and animal imports). Criteria within risk assessments
may include species biology, history of invasiveness
and invasion potential, impacts, ease of eradication,
pathways of spread, and climate matching between
native and introduced ranges, among others.
Planning
Planning involves the consideration of a number of
important steps that will aid in efficient implemen-
tation of EDRR actions by identifying and develop-
ing streamlined procedures before a response is trig-
gered. It may also involve preparing written EDRR
plans for specific species, locations, or pathways. Ge-
neric EDRR plans also can be useful to guide general
processes or procedures.
Leadership: Preparedness includes designating enti-
ties that will be responsible for leading, coordinat-
ing, and implementing various components of the
response. The entity that has the authority over the
lands
or waters where the invasion occurs, and the
responsibility for enforcing laws that support the
goals of rapid response, usually serves as the lead
agency. The roles and responsibilities of all partici-
pants should be clearly articulated in writing and
understood. Legal requirements and management
tools that enhance or hinder the ability to under-
take a rapid response should be identified and steps
taken to develop solutions to promote EDRR actions.
Coordination: Coordination involves identifying key
agencies, partners, and stakeholders and points of
contact who will be involved in EDRR activities and
developing mechanisms of communication for deci-
sion making and action (including identifying taxo-
nomic experts to aid in species identification and a
scientific panel to advise when a response is war-
ranted and what actions should be taken).
T
raining: Training equips those involved to be pro-
ficient and increases the likelihood for the delivery
of ef
ficient and effective EDRR. Training is neces-
sary for a variety of actions including species iden-
tification, monitoring, mapping, reporting, Incident
Command System (ICS), and control techniques. All
personnel involved with planning or implementing
a rapid response should be trained and develop a fa-
miliarity with ICS. Responders should be adequately
trained to be technically proficient in the safe ex-
ecution of the procedures and protocols established
in rapid response plans. Specific training required
for regulatory compliance should be identified and
kept up to date. Response preparedness should be
maintained through continual training, EDRR exer-
cises, and updating of current plans and procedures.
Protocols: Developing standard protocols helps to
ensure consistency in methods and information col-
lection and transfer. Protocols should be developed
for the EDRR action steps such as monitoring, map-
ping, and reporting. A template for an EDRR plan
would also help to identify core components and
standardize approaches.
Environmental Compliance:
Identifying the process-
es and permits necessary for detection and response
activities and understanding how to ef
ficiently
navigate those processes and promptly secure those
permits helps to increase the likelihood of a timely
27 Some preparedness steps, such as risk analysis and identification of lead agencies, should happen in advance of an EDRR effort, while
others occur simultaneously and are ongoing, such as research and outreach.
43
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
response. Considerations include land/water owner-
ship and detection and control techniques that may
be used. Some examples of environmental compli-
ance to consider include:
NEPA: Prior to the involvement of any Federal
agency (including the use of Federal funds by a
grantee or cooperator) in the implementation of
rapid response actions, compliance with the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is required.
The specifics of the situation will determine which
NEP
A document and process will be used to effect
compliance.
Section 7 Consultation: The Endangered Species
Act directs all Federal agencies to work to con-
serve endangered and threatened species and to
use their authorities to further the purposes of
the Act. Section 7 of the Act, called “Interagency
Cooperation,” is the mechanism by which Fed-
eral agencies or other entities funded by a Fed-
eral agency, ensure the actions they take, includ-
ing those they fund or authorize, are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any en-
dangered species or threatened species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of criti-
cal habitat and do not jeopardize the existence of
any listed species.
Regulatory Permits:
Rapid response actions may
require Federal and/or state permits to be in com-
pliance with Federal and/or state regulations, such
as
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act. The normal timeline for obtaining nec-
essary permits may critically delay rapid response
actions. Participating agencies should develop an
efficient regulatory permitting process for imple-
menting a rapid response plan. Similarly, neces-
sary access agreements for work on private and
public lands should be identified and developed.
Partner agencies should engage their legal de-
partments early in the process of developing rapid
response plans.
Resources: Securing the necessary resources for
EDRR in a timely manner is essential. Resources may
include financial, physical, technical, and human re-
sources.
Funding:
Rapid response efforts can be prohibi-
tively expensive and immediate access to adequate
funding is essential. T
argeted funding to support
early detection and rapid response implemen-
tation facilitates the ability of lead agencies to
implement rapid response plans when necessary.
Staff, Equipment, and Supplies: Participating
agencies
should identify the staff (and hire staff
when needed), equipment, and resources neces-
sary to implement a response. The lead agency
should develop a list of resource needs, available
resources, and resource deficiencies. Agreements
for integrating resources from different partners
during a specific response effort should be devel-
oped. Resource deficiencies should be addressed
immediately. Partner agencies should direct their
procurement units to have Memoranda of Under-
standing (MOU) and Interagency Agreements (IA)
in place before implementation of response plans.
Communications and Outreach
Pre Detection: Rapid response actions can be com-
plex, costly, and controversial. In advance of an
EDRR event, stakeholder input in the development
of EDRR plans is essential for building consensus;
concerns should be addressed prior to the need to
implement a response action. Communication with
agency administrators, legislators, stakeholders, and
the public is essential to build understanding and
support for potential actions. A communications
plan will help to ensure that agencies, the public,
and the media are informed of decisions, actions,
and final outcomes.
Post Detection: A coordinated process to notify
agencies, partners, the public, and the media should
be planned for and timed carefully and decided on
a case-by-case basis. This decision is based, in part,
on the turn-around time for on-site investigation, if
one occurs, and on the type of invasive species dis-
covered and time sensitivity of response actions. For
example,
for most invasive plants, the extent of the
infestation should be known prior to public notifica-
tion. However, for most invasive animals and patho-
gens, notification will usually proceed prior to full
knowledge of the extent of the infestation because
this information may be difficult to obtain.
CA, IA, or MOU: Cooperative Agreements (CA), IAs,
or MOUs establish agreed upon commitments, roles,
and responsibilities among agencies. They should be
prepared and signed early in program implementa-
tion. They outline the relationship among agencies
when
a detection and response occurs and help to
promote efficiencies and prevent delays. Rapid re-
sponse efforts will generally require cooperation
among agencies, tribes, organizations, and land-
owners, whether within an individual state or mul-
tiple states. Developing formal agreements on an
EDRR plan in advance increases the likelihood of
responding in an effective manner.
44
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Research
Increasing understanding through research about
various aspects of invasive ecology will improve
abilities to successfully prevent, detect, and control
invasive species and provide valuable information
to inform science-based decision making. Ongoing
research is critical for improving capabilities to man-
age invasive species for which there are few viable
control options. Examples of areas of research in-
clude:
¡¡ Species biology and impacts
¡¡ Detection techniques and surveillance
protocols
¡¡ E
radication techniques
¡¡ Restoration practices
¡¡ Effects of climate change on invasive species,
their impacts, and likelihood of eradication
¡¡ Pathway interdiction methods
¡¡ Decision support tools
Tool Development and Sharing
A variety of tools developed in advance of an EDRR
event help improve EDRR activities. Examples of
tools include:
¡¡ Risk Assessment Tools: systematic guidelines
for conducting risk assessments and identify-
ing when action is warranted and the prob-
ability of success
¡¡ D
etection Protocols: standard protocols for
monitoring and reporting invasive species;
reference guides for identifying invasive spe-
cies; support for a network of taxonomists to
a
id in species identification
¡¡ Response Protocols: templates for who, how,
and when to implement response activities
¡¡ Information tracking: guidance on use of da-
tabases to track, store, and report on species
o
ccurrences, distribution trends, and results
of control efforts
¡¡ Education: compilations of identification
guides and outreach materials for raising
awareness about species threats
¡¡ Evaluation protocols: templates for evaluat
-
ing components of EDRR activities (for effica-
cy, timeliness, cost, effort required, monitor-
ing completed etc.)
Monitoring Programs
Detecting invasive species requires a variety of mon-
itoring networks. Many invasive species monitoring
programs exist–including paid professionals and an
increasing number of citizen scientist volunteers–
and are focused on priority species, specific sites
(regions or hotspots), or particular pathways of con-
cern. There are opportunities to expand these exist-
ing programs and to engage other types of monitor-
ing efforts to aid in invasive species detection, such
as ecological monitoring programs, roadside clean-
ups, tree health monitoring networks, and marine
monitoring efforts, among others. Enlisting assis-
tance of field personnel, such as foresters, fire pro-
gram staff, and transportation staff also will help
broaden the reach of detection efforts.
Early Detection
Early detection encompasses the activities to con-
duct surveillance for, and verify, the presence of a
non-native species in an ecosystem, before the spe-
cies spreads so widely that eradication cannot be
implemented. Detection provides initial evidence
of the occurrence of a species new to the country
or the region under consideration. Early detection
includes the following types of actions:
¡¡ Training and monitoring
¡¡ Detection and reporting
¡¡ Identification and vouchering
¡¡ Incorporation and evaluation of
“sight unseen” detection data
¡¡ D
ata recording and sharing
¡¡ Communications and outreach
Once an infestation is detected, a number of actions
occur including collecting specimens, if possible; re
-
porting the infestation to appropriate authorities;
identifying and vouchering the species; and, record-
ing the occurrence in a geospatial database. Some
detections will require public notification. A care-
fully timed, coordinated process to notify the pub-
lic and the media is decided on a case-by-case basis
(NISC 2010).
New detections are also indications of where mea-
sures to prevent introductions are inadequate. Such
detections can thereby provide valuable feedback
to improve prevention ef
forts, which are the first
line of defense against new introductions.
45
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
Training and Monitoring
Training programs, including outreach and educa-
tional materials, provide instruction on the proto-
cols and techniques for invasive species identifica-
tion, monitoring, and reporting. Monitoring efforts
focus on specific species, sites, geographic areas/
regions, and/or pathways. (See Preparedness: Moni-
toring Programs, pg. 44.)
Detection and Reporting
Reports of invasive species may come from a wide
variety of sources including the general public, state
and Federal agencies, tribes, and partner organiza-
tions, among others. A standard reporting protocol
should be followed, including a standard sighting
report form and instructions. (See Data Recording
and Sharing, page 45). Some invasive species sight-
ing reports will be made to various local, state, and
other Federal entities and these should be directed
to the appropriate entity who will determine next
steps. To ensure timely notification of the correct
authority, the responsible entity should establish
and provide instructions for documenting and for-
warding sighting reports. The EDRR process is initi-
ated once notification of a potential new invasive
species has been received by the appropriate man-
agement authority within the jurisdiction the dis-
covery was made.
Identication and Vouchering
Authorized representatives (taxonomic experts) are
needed to confirm the species’ identity before any
further actions are taken. Once the identification
has been confirmed by taxonomic experts, the re-
ported sighting is documented as either a negative
or positive potential invasive species and acted upon
accordingly. (See Appendix A for a general decision-
making process.)
Negative: If the sighting is confirmed to be a na-
tive species, or if the species is already known to
occur within the designated geography
, then no
further action is necessary because it is no longer
considered an early detection of a new species.
The early detection and rapid response process
ends.
Positive: If the sighting is confirmed to be a new
occurrence of a non-native species within the des-
ignated geography, then the early detection and
response process proceeds and a rapid assessment
is conducted.
Incorporation and Evaluation of
“
Sight Unseen” Detection Data
Resource managers are increasingly turning to
“sight unseen” detection methods that promise
significant cost and efficiency benefits over tradi-
tional detection approaches. In particular, devel-
opments in the application of environmental DNA
(eDNA) technology
28
have enabled early detections
of invasive species at low population densities, po-
tentially enhancing the capacity of managers to re-
spond at very early stages of invasion. However, the
value of such detections can be uncertain for various
reasons, principally the often unknown relationship
between DNA presence and the underlying distribu-
tion of target organisms. Further development of
these surveillance approaches should be pursued to
assist EDRR efforts, with particular focus on devel-
oping decision support tools that translate patterns
of positive eDNA detections into risk profiles inter-
pretable by managers.
29
Data Recording and Sharing
Once the species identification is confirmed, the
species occurrence should be reported to:
¡¡ Specific entities that may be identified in re-
porting protocols or information transfer pro-
tocols designated by agencies, regulation, or
l
aw, and/or
¡¡ General entities such as:
¡» USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species data
-
base, http://nas.er.usgs.gov/
¡» PLANTS database (for native and invasive
species), http://plants.usda.gov
¡» EDDmapS, http://www.eddmaps.org/
¡» iMapinvasives, http://imapinvasives.org/
Species occurrences may also be reported to a spe
-
cific agency that hosts a taxonomic collection, such
as at the USDA Agricultural Research Service, Smith-
sonian, or other agency, state, or regional database,
as appropriate. Aggregating data from existing da-
28 Environmental DNA is DNA shed by an organism into its environment via excretion, sloughing of skin cells, or various other means. This
DNA can be detected and specifically attributed to a particular species even in the absence of any individual organism. Since DNA can
often be detected in a very sensitive and specific manner, and since many target species are secretive, cryptic or otherwise difficult to
capture and identify, surveillance of eDNA offers a novel alternative to traditional detection methods.
29 The USFS National Genomics Center for Fish and Wildlife Conservation is an example of an organization that provides training and
sample processing for eDNA-based invasive species surveillance.
46
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
tabases into an interoperable system would support
information transfer and awareness of invasive spe-
cies occurrences and spread.
Communications and Outreach
A coordinated process to notify agencies, partners,
the public, and the media should be planned for and
timed carefully and decided on a case-by-case basis.
This decision is based, in part, on the turn-around
time for on-site investigation, if one occurs, and on
the type of invasive species discovered and time sen-
sitivity of response actions. For example, for most
invasive plants, the extent of the infestation should
be known prior to public notification. However, for
most invasive animals and pathogens, notification
will usually proceed prior to full knowledge of the
extent of the infestation because this information
may be difficult to obtain.
Rapid Assessment
Once the identification is confirmed, rapid assess-
ment determines the appropriate response to a par-
ticular invasion. This stage involves an assessment
of the risk posed by the species in question, its dis-
tribution and population density,
30
and the likely
pathway(s) by which it was introduced and where
any existing prevention measures may have failed.
These steps are incorporated into the process of risk
analysis, which includes:
¡¡ Risk assessment
¡¡ Risk management
¡¡ Risk communications
A decision is made whether to proceed with a rapid
response or, when response actions do not proceed,
to recommend containment measures and/or long-
term management to limit spread.
31
Risk Analysis
Risk analysis involves evaluations of the best avail-
able science on the impacts of the invasive species;
control techniques; determination about whether
eradication is warranted, technically possible, and
feasible; and, the means to communicate that in-
formation to decision-makers and interested stake-
holders.
Risk Assessment: An evaluation of whether the in-
festation represents a public policy issue sufficient
to warrant a rapid response has to be done. The
evaluation requires a determination of whether or
not the infestation will have significant impacts to
the environment, economy
, or human health and
whether the invasive species can be successfully
eradicated. The lead agency should determine who
will complete the risk assessment, such as a commit-
tee of agency staff, scientists, and natural resource
managers, and in what time frame. This step should
also include a rapid assessment of the species dis-
tribution and population density at the site of its
detection and surrounding areas.
32
Risk assessments
may have been completed in the preparedness step,
in which case, the assessments could be evaluated
for accuracy and geographic scope based on new
information.
Risk Management: Risk management determines
appropriate control options and whether invasive
species eradication is possible or if ongoing man-
agement is all that is technically possible. A clear
distinction is made between eradication, which is
the goal of rapid response, and management, which
is the ongoing control of persistent infestations of
invasive species. Should eradication be warranted
based on impacts and technically possible, then a
broader determination of eradication feasibility is
required that entails economic factors and socio-
political and stakeholder considerations.
Risk Communication:
The assessment of impacts and
management options needs to be communicated
clearly to the decision-maker responsible for the
allocation of resources and approval for the imple-
mentation of rapid response actions. Additionally,
relevant information also needs to be made avail-
able to partners, impacted stakeholders, and the
public as appropriate to the circumstances.
If the risk analysis determines that eradication is not
technically possible or is infeasible for other reasons,
then EDRR ends and the process transitions and
may
include efforts for long-term containment and
management. Activities to contain and prevent the
spread of invasive species may be initiated, and on-
going management of persistent infestations may
continue; however
, these efforts are no longer part
of the EDRR process.
30 The delineation of the distribution and abundance of the invasive species occurrence, if possible and appropriate, may occur either
during the rapid assessment phase or rapid response phase.
31 Development of a long-term management plan is outside of the scope of the EDRR process.
32 See footnote 30.
47
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
Coordinated communications among decision mak-
ing entities will notify agencies, partners, the public,
and the media of the decision and rationale to stop
the EDRR process and describe any additional steps
that may be taken to prevent or control persistent
infestations.
Rapid Response
The decision to proceed with a rapid response trig-
gers a series of actions to eradicate a species from
a location. Rapid response must be initiated before
the invasive species spreads widely and becomes so
abundant that eradication cannot be implement-
ed.
33
Rapid response includes the following types
of actions:
¡¡ Leadership and coordination
¡¡ Quarantine and emergency containment
¡¡ Treatment
¡¡ Monitoring, evaluation, and reporting
¡¡ Communications and outreach
Leadership and Coordination
A decision to proceed with a response triggers a
number of steps. Many rapid response plans uti-
lize the Incident Command System (ICS) (or Unified
Command in which multiple agencies share incident
management responsibilities). ICS is a standardized
on-scene emergency management process designed
to provide an integrated organizational structure
that can address the complexity and demands of an
emergency without being hindered by jurisdictional
boundaries. Not all rapid response actions will re-
quire the use of ICS. Criteria should be established
for when ICS is instituted.
Emergency Containment and Quarantine
34
Based on the assessment of a species’ risk, distribu-
tion, and population abundance, initial containment
measures may be necessary to limit further spread
(e.g., installation of temporary barriers, quarantines,
access restrictions, etc.), if appropriate/possible for
the species. Such measures may involve environmen-
tal compliance considerations. (See Preparedness:
Planning: Environmental Compliance, pg. 42).
Continuing propagule supply via repeated introduc-
tions threatens to undermine the success of initial
containment and eradication actions. If knowledge
gathered through the rapid assessment process war-
rants it (i.e. if clear evidence of specific prevention
failures
can be gleaned), then action to disrupt the
pathway(s) leading to the novel introduction should
be considered. In these cases, the implementation of
heightened prevention measures along with the ini-
tial containment response may result in rapid “quar-
antine” of the newly invaded area with respect to
those pathways most likely responsible for propa-
gules movement. Such actions should be considered
an integral component of rapid response whenever
actionable information is available.
Treatment
Treatment will be species and site specific; however,
certain general steps are necessary in each EDRR
event:
Evaluation: The lead agency, in consultation with
other collaborators, will evaluate treatment op-
tions, seek permitting advice from other agencies,
and select an appropriate control technique based
on the species, site, financial, and socio-political
considerations.
Planning: The lead agency
, or its designee, will de-
velop the treatment plan. This can be done in ad-
vance of the EDRR situation, if possible; the plan can
be adjusted for the additional specifics of the EDRR
event.
Permitting:
The lead agency, or its designee, will
prepare and submit the appropriate permits. Special
authorizations may be required.
Implementation: The lead agency identifies who
will implement treatment, using ICS as appropriate,
which may be the lead agency, another agency, a
partner, a contractor, or other appropriate organi
-
zation.
Initial Restoration:
Actions to initiate restoration of
the site following treatment may be necessary as
part of the treatment plan to help increase likeli-
hood of successful eradication.
33 The notion of “rapid” is relative to the particular species and geography, as the time needed to respond to an invasive plant, forest pest,
or fish will differ depending on the species’ ability to spread by both natural and human-mediated means.
34 The stages of EDRR are a continuum, and emergency containment and quarantine measures may occur concurrently during the rapid
assessment and rapid response stages.
48
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting
The lead agency will monitor control efforts and
survival of the invasive species population, evaluate
effectiveness of the treatment, determine whether
eradication was successful, and assess if additional
or other techniques should/can be used. The lead
agency will also evaluate the operational aspects of
the process and make recommendations for future
improvements. The lead agency will gather informa-
tion from treatment personnel as soon as possible
after the rapid response to ascertain which aspects
worked well and what could be improved upon. In-
formation and recommendations will be reported,
shared, and used in future control efforts. Should an
infestation of the invasive species persist after treat-
ment, the EDRR process may transition to long-term
management, which would include designation of
lead agency to develop a management plan, includ-
ing preventing species spread (long-term contain-
ment), and determine its financing.
Communications and Outreach
The results of response efforts and recommenda-
tions for future action will be reported to the lead
agency. The lead agency will share lessons learned
with other agencies, partners, and stakeholders,
including sharing relevant data with appropriate
invasive species database(s). The lead agency will
use efficient internal communication mechanisms
as well as outreach to other agencies, external part-
ners, impacted stakeholders, and the public. (See
Preparedness: Planning: Communications and Out-
reach, pg. 43).
49
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF CURRENT INVASIVE SPECIES NETWORKS
Figure C1. Regional Panels of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (Courtesy D. MacLean, USFWS 2015)
50
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Figure C2. Examples of State and Regional Invasive Plant Councils. Additional Invasive Plant Councils may
exist. States also may have invasive species councils, which are broader in scope than invasive plant councils.
(Courtesy C. Bargeron, University of Georgia 2015)
Northern Rockies Invasive Plant Council
Midwest Invasive Plant Network
Texas Invasive Plant and Pest Council
Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council
Mid-Atlantic Invasive Plant Council
Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council
Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Council
Southwest Vegetation
Management Association
California Invasive Plant Council
NJ Invasive Species Strike Team
51
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
Figure C3. Examples of State and Regional EDRR Networks. The networks vary on level of activity and species
focus. Additional networks may exist. (Courtesy C. Bargeron, University of Georgia 2015)
EDDMapS West
Great Lakes Early Detection Network /
Midwest Invasive Species Information Network
Texas Invaders
Southeast Early Detection Network
Mid-Atlantic Early Detection Network
IveGot1 / FliMapInvasives
Not Shown:
USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database
NY iMapInvasives
Invasive Plant Atlas of New England
Cal-IPC / Calflora
Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse
NJ Invasive Species Strike Team
52
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Figure C4. Points represent examples of local invasive species cooperatives, such as cooperative weed man-
agement areas, cooperative invasive species management areas, and partnerships for regional invasive spe-
cies management, among others. Additional cooperatives may exist. (Courtesy C. Bargeron, University of
Georgia 2015)
53
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
The examples identified below represent types
of models that could inform financing models for
EDRR. Additional analysis of the advantages and dis-
advantages of potential financing models would be
a useful next step. Most of the mechanisms identi-
fied below would require new legislative authority.
Federal appropriations, state, tribal, and local gov-
ernment funds, and excise taxes are traditional
sources of funds for government programs. Other
sources of government revenues include govern-
ment initiated voluntary check off donation pro-
grams, such as those on affinity state vehicle license
plates and state income tax returns; penalties from
judgments and consent decrees in which the defen-
dants provide financial remuneration as part of the
settlement; and, permit and license fees as well as
Heritage funds from State Lotteries. New legislative
authority would be required for using these funding
sources for EDRR.
Significant funds are allocated for work on cli-
mate change and resilience activities, which could
be a potential source of support for relevant EDRR
projects.
Funds may be a component of the response to an
“all hazard incident,” such as a hurricane. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture
coordinates Federal sup-
port for the protection of the Nation’s agricultural,
natural, and cultural resources during national emer-
gencies within Emergency Support Function (ESF)
#11.
During actual and potential incidents the Fed-
eral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may
request assistance from ESF #11 and provide limited
financial support to ensure the protection of natural
and cultural resources and historic properties. When
invasive species outbreaks are associated with an in-
cident or its response, actions taken under ESF #11
could support the financing of emergency response
efforts.
In addition to traditional sources of funds, non-tradi-
tional funding mechanisms can also resource conser-
vation efforts. These include the use of funds from
programs, such as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Resto-
ration Act ("Pittman-Robertson Act") and Sport Fish
Restoration Act (“Dingell-Johnson Act”). These acts
establish excise taxes on sporting arms/ammunition
and sport fishing equipment respectively
. Funds are
apportioned to states on a formula basis for financ-
ing a portion of the cost of approved projects. New
legislative authority would be required for this type
of model for EDRR funding.
The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is an example of a
Federally-held fund that is funded by “end users.”
Established by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and
administered by the U.S. Coast Guard, the primary
source of revenue for the fund is a five-cent per bar-
rel fee on imported and domestic oil. Funds are used
to pay for removal costs or damages resulting from
discharges of oil in which the responsible party is
unknown or refuses to pay
.
Superfund is a fund established by the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability
Act (CERCLA). It created a tax on chemi-
cal and petroleum industries and provided broad
Federal authority to respond directly to releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances that
may endanger public health or the environment.
Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and the
tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned
or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Depending on the administrator of EDRR funding,
private-sector sources of funds could include sup-
port from philanthropic foundations, donations,
and the proceeds from the sale of individual gifts
of property
. Private-sector funds could also be ob-
tained from social media-based “crowd source”
funding campaigns and/or from corporate under-
writing of projects. Earnings from funds that are
held by a foundation or trust could provide addi-
tional monies to EDRR.
APPENDIX D: EXAMPLES OF FINANCING MODELS
54
Safeguarding America’s Lands and Waters from Invasive Species
Ad Hoc Federal EDRR Work Group Members
Department of agriculture
Hilda Diaz-Soltero
U.S. Forest Service
William Carromero, Michael Ielmini
Department of commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Margaret M. (Peg) Brady
Department of Defense
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jon Lane
Department of the interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
David Wooten
Bureau of Land Management
Gina Ramos
B
ureau of Reclamation
Denise Hosler
N
ational Park Service
Terri Hogan, Jessica Resnik, Richard Schwab,
John Wullschleger
O
ffice of Everglades Restoration Initiatives
Carrie Beeler, Shannon Estenoz
O
ffice of the Secretary (Co-Lead)
Joel Clement, Hilary Smith
U
.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mike Hoff, Don MacLean
U
.S. Geological Survey
Cindy Kolar
Department of state
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs
Matthew Steed
environmental protection agency
Bill Bolen, John Darling
national invasive species council (Co-Lead)
Stanley Burgiel, Chris Dionigi, Jamie Reaser
Ad Hoc Non-Federal EDRR Advisory
Team Members
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Tammy Davis
Aqueterinary Services, P.C.
David Starling
A
ssociation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Priya Nanjappa
C
alifornia Department of Food and Agriculture,
Western Weed Coordinating Committee
Dean Kelch
C
alifornia Invasive Plant Council
Doug Johnson
C
ary Institute for Ecosystem Studies
Gary Lovett
C
itizen Potawatomi Nation
Charles Meloy
C
olumbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Blaine Parker
D
avey Resource Group /
The Davey Tree Expert Company
Brian Said
G
ulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
James Ballard
H
awaii Department of Agriculture
Carol Okada
I
daho State Department of Agriculture
Tom Woolf
I
llinois Department of Natural Resources
Chris Evans and Kevin Irons
I
owa Department of Natural Resources
Kim Bogenschutz
I
ndiana Wildlife Federation
Jim Bredin and John Goss
Lake Champlain Basin Program
Meg Modley
Landcare Research
Phil Cowan
M
aine Department of Agriculture,
Conservation and Forestry
Ann Gibbs
APPENDIX E: CONTRIBUTORS
55
A National Framework for Early Detection and Rapid Response
Miccosukee Tribe
Gintas Zavadzkas
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries
and Parks / Mississippi River Basin Panel
Dennis Riecke
M
assachusetts Institute of Technology
Judith Pederson
n
aturesource communications /
Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel
Michele L. Tremblay
N
ew Mexico Department of Agriculture
Jim Wanstall
N
ew Mexico Department of Game and Fish
James Dominguez
N
ew York Department of
Environmental Conservation
Catherine McGlynn and Leslie Suprenant
P
acific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Stephen Phillips
Quinault
Land and Timber Enterprise
Kenny McCoy
Reduce Risks fr
om Invasive Species Coalition
Scott Cameron
Reef Envir
onmental Education Foundation
Lad Akins
Sam Houston State University /
Texas Invasive Species Institute
Jerry Cook
The Natur
e Conservancy
Kris Serbesoff-King and Bill Toomey
University of Califor
nia-Davis
Joe DiTomaso
University of Florida-IF
AS Extension
Plant Diagnostic Center Department
Carrie Harman
University of Georgia
Chuck Bargeron
University of Wisconsin
Mark Renz
Utah Department of Agricultur
e and Food
Rich Riding
W
ashington Invasive Species Council
Raquel Crosier
W
estern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Ken Mayer
Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance
Species / Invasive Species Action Network
Leah Elwell
