Management Plan: An Action Plan for the Nation - Control and
National Invasive Species Information Center --> Home
National Invasive Species Council
--> National Management Plan -->
Table of Contents --> An Action
Plan for the Nation - Control and Management
10, 2009 -- You have reached the archived files
for the former National Invasive Species Council Web site.
These files are for your information only and will no longer
be updated. Please change your bookmarks and
favorites to access the National Invasive Species Council's
new site at:
Summary] | [Introduction] | [Survey of Federal Roles & Responsibilities]
[An Action Plan for the Nation]
| [Conclusion] | [Appendices]
| Prevention | Detection
| Control | Restoration |
International | Research
| Info Management | Education
When invasive species appear
to be permanently established, the most effective action may
be to prevent their spread or lessen their impacts through control
measures. For certain invasive species, adequate control methods
are not available or populations are too widespread for eradication
to be feasible. For example, zebra mussel control is focused
largely on preventing clogging of water intake pipes and preventing
spread from infested waters to other areas rather than the eradication
of populations within infested waters.
Control and management objectives
may include: eradication within a local area, population suppression,
limiting dispersal, reducing impacts, and other diverse objectives.
Control and management of invasive species populations is accomplished
using an integrated pest management (IPM) approach. The IPM approach
considers best available scientific information, updated target
population monitoring data, and the environmental effects of
control methods in selecting a range of complementary technologies
and methods to implement to achieve a desired objective. These
methods may include: 1) cultural practices (e.g., crop rotation,
revegetation, grazing, and water level manipulation); 2) physical
restraints (e.g., fences, equipment sanitation, and electric
dispersal barriers); 3) removal (e.g., hand-removal, mechanical
harvesting, cultivation, burning, and mowing); 4) the judicious
use of chemical and biopesticides; 5) release of selective biological
control agents (such as host-specific predator/herbivore organisms);
and 6) interference with reproduction (e.g., pheromone-baited
traps and release of sterile males). Often several methods are
used within an overall integrated strategy. For example, control
of purple loosestrife may involve biological control, mechanical
removal, and other methods. Consideration of the environmental
impacts of control actions requires that environmentally sound
methods be available and judiciously deployed, especially in
highly vulnerable areas.
Control actions are often carried
out by or in cooperation with State or local agencies and may
span jurisdictional borders. For example, more than 60 percent
of noxious weed infestations in Montana are on private lands.
Adequate funding of cross-jurisdictional efforts along with support
and understanding are critical to success. Full funding of existing
Federal cost-share programs and for programs for species and
areas with no current programs is needed.
in January 2001, the Council member agencies will work with Global
Invasive Species Programme (GISP) and other relevant bodies to
expand opportunities to share information, technologies, and
technical capacity on the control and management of invasive
species with other countries, promoting environmentally sound
control and management practices.
- By February
2002, the Council will identify and, as appropriate, adopt sanitation
and exclusion methods for preventing spread of invasive species
(e.g., restrictions on use of contaminated soils and fills, cleaning
fire-fighting equipment before deployment to new areas, requiring
pest-free forage and mulch and weed-free sod, washing of construction
equipment, and managing ballast water).
- By January
2002, the Council will develop and propose to the President draft
legislation, in full consultation with States, to authorize matching
Federal funds for State programs to manage invasive species,
including a provision to provide assistance to States for the
development of State invasive species management plans. The draft
legislation proposal may also include tax incentives or other
provisions to encourage voluntary participation of private landowners
in control programs and to promote their actions to prevent the
spread of invasive species. Consideration will also be given
to extending current Federal authority to conduct control activities
on State and private lands where invited by the landowner.
- By January
2002, the USDA, in consultation with regional, State, tribal,
and local agencies, will develop a proposal for accelerating
the development, testing, assessment, transfer, and post-release
monitoring of environmentally safe biological control agents
and submit the proposal to the Council for review.
- By January
2002, EPA will develop and provide to the Council a proposal
for cooperation with private industry. The proposal will utilize
current programs to facilitate development, testing, and training
of personnel concerning proper use of environmentally sound pesticides
in controlling invasive species populations, consistent with
the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (P.L.140-170) and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In addition,
maintaining registrations for useful and safe products should
be considered since the relatively small market for many invasive
species control products makes it less economical for registrants
to pay the registration costs.
- By January
2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will prepare a list of
connecting waterways to develop a strategy for preventing movement
of aquatic species among watersheds and initiate a research program
on methods to prevent such movement.
- By FY 2003,
additional funding will be requested through the annual appropriations
process, consistent with Administration policy, for Federal agencies'
control and management activities to reduce the spread of invasive
species from Federal lands to neighboring areas and to lessen
the impact of invasive species on natural areas. Consideration
should be given within existing authorities to provide additional
funding for control work on neighboring State or private lands
where invited by the landowners. Volunteers should be utilized
wherever appropriate to help extend the limited funds available
for control efforts.
- By January
2003, the Council will develop and guidance for ranking the priority
of invasive species control projects at local, regional, and
ecosystem-based levels. The guidelines will provide for consultation
with expert individuals and organizations, including consultation
with ANSTF, FICMNEW, CENR, and regional, State, tribal, and local
agencies, affected industries, and private landowners.
weed: A Case Study in Biological Control
Alligator weed, a plant native
to South America, made its first appearance in the United States
in about 1890. Within a few years, it was well established from
Virginia to Florida in the east and westward to Texas, with populations
also existing in California. This aquatic invasive species takes
root in shallow water and then forms dense floating mats that
expand rapidly causing major problems for navigation, irrigation,
and flood control.
Alligator weed was the first
aquatic plant targeted for biological control research in this
country. In 1959, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and USDA began
a collaborative effort based on research conducted at a facility
in Argentina established by USDA to search for potential biological
agents to manage alligator weed. Three insects, the alligator
weed flea beetle, alligator weed stem borer, and alligator weed
thrips, were identified as potential biological control agents.
After host-specificity testing in Argentina and U.S. quarantine
facilities, all three species were approved for use in the U.S.
The flea beetle was released first. Although highly successful
in Florida, the beetle has not controlled the weed farther north.
However, the combined impact from the three agents was so effective
that Florida curtailed the use of herbicides to control alligator
weed just three years after the insects were released in that
State. Australia, New Zealand, China, and Thailand also report
success in using these insects as biological agents to control
- Al Cofrancesco (U.S. Army Corps