FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

DOI - 5314 - Invasive Species Advisory Committee - Presidential

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Invasive Species Advisory Committee	Agency Name	Department of the Interior
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	5314
Original Establishment Date	2/3/1999	Committee Status	Chartered
Actual Termination Date		Committee URL	https://www.invasivespecies.gov
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	20
Terminated This FY	No	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	Executive Director of the National Invasive Species Council
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix
Current Charter Date	1/11/2024	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Stanley
Date Of Renewal Charter	1/11/2026	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Burgiel
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority	Executive Order 14109	Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(202) 208-4163
Establishment Authority*	Presidential	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	(202) 208-4118
Specific Establishment Authority*	Executive Order 13112, as amended by Executive Order 13751 and reestablished by E.O. 14048	Designated Federal Officer Email*	stas_burgiel@ios.doi.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	2/3/1999
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte	Not Applicable
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	National Policy Issue Advisory Board

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	Not Applicable
Legislation Status	Not Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) has at least one in person meeting per year with additional consideration for virtual meetings. In addition, members communicate frequently by e-mail, fax, and phone with other ISAC members and additional experts and stakeholders to formulate and provide advice to the National Invasive Species Council (Council) on matters pertaining to invasive species policy and resources.
How is membership balanced?*	Membership is balanced among geographical, professional, regional, and subject discipline expertise, as well as other factors. Members are knowledgeable on invasive species issues in a broad range of communities of interest e.g., aquaculture, plant industries, weed science, fisheries science, rangeland management, forest science, plant and animal pathology, invasion biology, conservation biology, agriculture, ecosystem ecology, international trade, and laws and regulations relevant to invasive species policy. Membership includes: individuals from private industry, conservation organizations, academica, and state and tribal governments.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	At least one meeting is held each year. Most meetings are held within the Washington DC commuting area. However, some meetings may be held virtually or outside the Washington DC commuting area to facilitate broader public input and understanding of regional issues and concerns. Meetings are the primary means for members to exchange information, discuss policy issues with senior officials, to complete the review and formulation of advice, and to share that advice with the National Invasive Species Council.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	This Committee provides advice from a broad range of stakeholders and subject discipline experts to the senior-most officials of 12 Executive Branch Departments/Agencies and four Executive Offices of the President. The extensive depth and range of expertise represented by the membership of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee is not available from any other single source.
Why close or partially close meetings?	To date, no meetings have been closed, and a public comment period is provided within the agenda of each meeting.
Recommendation Remarks	The Committee was reestablished through Executive Order 14048 on September 30, 2021.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	Yes	Action Reorganize Priorities*	Yes
Outcome Trust In Government	Yes	Action Reallocate Resources	Yes
Outcome Major Policy Changes	Yes	Action Issued New Regulations	No
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research	No	Action Proposed Legislation	No
Outcome Effective Grant Making	Yes	Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments	Yes
Outcome Improved Service Delivery	Yes	Action Other	No
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction	No	Action Comment	ISAC exists to support NISC in achieving its duties. Numerous white papers and associated recommendations have been provided to NISC since its establishment in 1999. These papers are available on NISC's website, https://www.doi.gov/invasivespecies/isac-white-papers.
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements	Yes	Grants Review*	No
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	0
Outcome Comment	ISAC helps NISC fulfill its duties as the interdepartmental body charged with providing federal leadership on invasive species from a whole of government perspective. In particular, ISAC provides advice on high-level policy and program issues relevant to invasive species.	Number Of Grants Recommended	0
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$0.00
Cost Savings Comment	The over 30 federal agencies and bureaus that are overseen by the members of NISC spend over $3 billion annually on invasive species. Because this committee operates at a broad level and provides advice to a wide range of federal action, science, and natural resource management agencies it is not possible to identify specific areas of cost savings. For additional invasive species budget information please visit the NISC website, https://www.doi.gov/invasivespecies.	Grants Review Comment	ISAC does not review grants. To date, ISAC has not advice concerning grant processes, gaps or areas of need, and award criteria.
Number Of Recommendations*	280	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	No
Number Of Recommendations Comment	Over the course of FY2024, ISAC completed four reports on: 1) National Priorities for Invasive Species (November 2023); 2) Invasive Species and Climate Change Adaptation (November 2023); 3) Invasive Species Impacts on Underserved Communities (November 2023), and 4) Mission and Metrics of the National Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) Framework (April 2024). The recommendations within these reports (listed below) are included in the total number of recommendations above. ISAC has also been working on three (3) reports to fulfill the request of NISC for advice in the areas of: 1) Feedback on coordination and engagement on the National Early Detection and Rapid Response Framework; and 2) the Impacts of Invasive Species on Islands. Completion is expected on or about October/November 2024 (FY 2025). Once completed, each of these reports will include a series of recommendations, which will be added to the total number of recommendations above in the FY 2025 ACR. NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR INVASIVE SPECIES (November 2023) 1) Review the priority issues addressed in this paper for further consideration by NISC, NISC member agencies, and/or ISAC. Herein, ISAC recognizes that appropriate resources and funding are critical for advancing priorities. UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES AND INVASIVE SPECIES (November 2023) 1) Engage with underserved communities so that Federal agencies may best understand local priorities, needs, and barriers, and provide meaningful assistance to overcome barriers, including through grant processes. 2) Articulate and embed the understanding of the interactions and synergies between invasive species and climate change in programs and outreach materials, including how the CEJST could best be used to support underserved communities related to preventing and mitigating impacts and supporting resilience and adaptation plans. 3) Continue to improve the CEJST to reflect underserved communities, such as those in Pacific territories and U.S. Affiliated Islands. 4) Identify and add new datasets and potentially add new data collection/documentation initiatives by agencies already collecting some data (e.g., on hazard, harm, human disease/vectors). 5) Accelerate support for research and actions that prevent the introduction and establishment of new invasive species that could impact underserved communities. CLIMATE CHANGE AND INVASIVE SPECIES (November 2023) 1) All Federal agencies and departments must explicitly incorporate invasive species into climate change adaptation guidance. 2) All Federal agencies and departments must explicitly incorporate invasive species into climate change adaptation guidance. 3) Integrate invasive species science and prevention efforts into climate related international treaties, agreements, conventions, practices, and policies. 4) Ensure early detection, rapid response, and safeguarding strategies account for up-to-date climate data, projections, and models across all geographies. 5) Increase investments for long-term management of invasive species threatening climate preparedness and resilience.   MISSION AND METRICS OF THE NATIONAL EDRR FRAMEWORK (May 2024) QUESTION 1: RECOMMENDATIONS ON MISSION STATEMENT 1) Address how the mission statement relates to existing early detection and rapid response efforts, specifically those at the USDA. 2) Place emphasis on the second part of the mission statement. 3) Focus on conservation and management of natural resources and define what is meant by natural resources. 4) Is there a better word than investing, or are we investing in and implementing? 5) Should it include “expand our capability and capacity”? 6) Should it include preventing species from establishment? 7) Should it say something about the speed of the response? 8) Should “secondary” be removed from the mission statement, since it is jargony? QUESTION 2: RECOMMENDATIONS ON IMPLEMENTATION METRICS PARTICIPATION 1) Number of jurisdictions participating in the Framework a. Total count of organizations that have participated in Framework projects: commented on design or products; edited content or products; joined a listserv; or sat on communities of practice i. A high number suggests better engagement ii. Multiyear participation demonstrates true engagement and dedication/or that it works for the partners iii. Percent change over time indicated 2) Number of groups participating in the Framework (broken down into Federal, State, Tribal, Local, University, or non-governmental (NGO) groups) a. Count by organizations that have participated in Framework projects: commented on design or products; edited content or products; joined a listserv; or sat on communities of practice i. A high number suggest better engagement across Federal, State, Tribal, Local, University, or NGO groups ii. Multiyear participation demonstrates true engagement and dedication/or that it works for the partners iii. Percent change over time indicated 3) Activity in across diverse ecosystem types, habitats, and organisms, a. Descriptions of the ecosystem areas of focus for the Framework. The goal is good representation across the U.S. that includes freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems and species b. More ecosystems and species/taxonomic groups covered by the Framework projects the better   SURVEILLANCE 4) Framework surveillance (either informed by the Framework or funded surveillance) for non-native species that are not yet present/established in the United States, a jurisdiction, or watershed country or within a region, the continued non-establishment of those species a. Count of species/taxonomic groups with surveillance projects in the Framework not in the United States, State, watershed i. A higher number may not be the goal, look towards proportion of the high-risk species identified through the horizon scan and risk assessments from the Framework b. Surveillance type for organisms, damage/symptoms, and environmental DNA (eDNA) i. Good to see all types of surveillance 5) How many new species to the United States, a jurisdiction, or watershed are found due to the Framework surveillance or planning? a. Count of newly detected species found due to Framework information, projects or partners (surveillance, hotspots, horizon scans) b. Count of newly detected species found to the U.S., a jurisdiction, or watershed due to Framework information or projects (surveillance, hotspots, horizon scans) i. Higher number indicates the additional focus or investments in surveillance has provided more opportunities for detection 6) Number of high-risk invasion hotspots surveyed from Framework planning including pilot surveillance projects a. Count of hotspots (stream, lake, terrestrial) b. Proportion by number of hotspots in the watershed or State i. Higher number shows more effort on the ground for early detection 7) Surveillance triggered by hot spot analysis a. Number of target species or taxonomic groups b. Number of surveys and survey area coverage (acres, hectares, other) grouped by methods used c. Amount of resources and costs (labor, vehicles/boats, fuel, permits) included d. Number of organization(s) involved 8) Number of eDNA samples run through the Molecular Lab Network associated with the surveillance projects a. Utilization of the Molecular Lab Network is important for the eDNA detection portion of the Framework. A proportion of the funded samples vs. what was processed. The goal would be 100% of funded sample processing would be utilized. 9) Description of the locations, ecosystems and target species the READINET usage/use of loaner program was utilized a. General description of the areas the READINET system was used. i. More diversity the better 10) The number of verified positive detections for target species through the READINET system a. Count and description of verified positive detections found through the surveillance of READINET i. Not sure of a baseline for this metric, but verified detections would show the technology works. 11) Surveillance triggered by READINET a. Number of target species or taxonomic groups b. Number of surveys and survey area coverage (acres, hectares, other) grouped by methods used c. Amount of resources and costs (labor, vehicles/boats, fuel, permits) included d. Number of organization(s) involved EARLY DETECTION AND RAPID RESPONSE 12) Percentage of new species found due to Framework surveillance, planning and partners, and management action was initiated by the jurisdiction (control, additional surveillance, risk assessment, spread prevention) a. Proportion of all species found in total from question 4 b. Proportion of species found by the jurisdiction i. The closer to 100% the better – response to all new finds 13) Percentage of new species found due to Framework surveillance, planning and partners, and jurisdiction is planning an eradication attempt through rapid response funds a. GOLD STAR metric – Count of species b. Proportion of all species found in total from question 4 c. Proportion of species found by the jurisdiction i. Higher numbers are better, but never will be 100% 14) Percentage of new infestations found due to the Framework surveillance, planning and partners, and management action was initiated by the jurisdiction (control, additional surveillance, risk assessment, spread prevention) a. Proportion of all infestations found in total from question 4 b. Proportion of infestations found by the jurisdiction i. The closer to 100% the better – response to all new finds 15) Percentage of new infestations found due to the Framework surveillance, planning and partners, and jurisdiction is planning an eradication attempt through rapid response funds a. GOLD STAR metric – Count of infestations b. Proportion of all infestations found in total from question 4 c. Proportion of infestations found by the jurisdiction i. Higher numbers are better, but never will be 100% 16) Continue to exhaust Rapid Response Fund a. Proportion of the available funds i. Want to use 100% of available funds 17) Number applications for the Rapid Response Fund a. Count of unique applications i. Higher diversity of groups using the Rapid Response Fund the better to show wide adoption and need for its continuation 18) Diversity of applications for the Rapid Response Funds a. Count of lead groups (Federal, State, and Tribal) and support groups (e.g., university and NGOs) associated with a proposal i. Higher the number better 19) Number funded Rapid Response projects (by project, jurisdiction, and species of focus) a. Count of projects, jurisdiction, and species of focus i. Higher diversity of groups using the Rapid Response Fund the better to show wide adoption and need for its continuation 20) How do we count actual eradications? Understanding timelines, etc. (not limited to rapid response fund) 21) Are we getting earlier detections and more responses? 22) Number programs utilizing other resources after the rapid response fund REPORTING 23) Reporting to Framework surveillance from individual databases – EDDMapS, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) database, Wild Spotter, iMapInvasives a. Count of invasive species observations associated with Framework surveillance, including unique species and unique users i. More reporting is better 24) Reporting EDRR projects through SIREN website a. Count of reports associated with Framework or Rapid Response Fund i. More reporting is better USE OF TOOLS/ PRODUCTS 25) Traffic to SIREN website, USGS NAS website, INHABIT website, eDNA toolkit website, EDDMapS/Wild Spotter a. Total Number of Visits i. This metric tells you the total number of times your website was visited during a specified period: monthly, quarterly, or annually b. Total Unique Visitors i. Unique visitors are the actual number of people you reached c. Page Views i. This metric shows the total number of times any of your webpages loaded in a browser. So, even repeated page loads by the same user are counted. 26) Logins to SIREN website – different agencies and organizations, regional use a. Total Number of Visits i. This metric tells you the total number of times your website was visited during a specified period: monthly, quarterly, or annually 27) How many species were added to genetic library a. Count of new taxa i. More is better 28) Integration of eDNA standards, designs, and error concerns in surveillance projects. a. Description of the process of inclusion of eDNA standards, designs, and error concerns into sampling plans for Framework projects b. Provides more confidence in the process and results by addressing concerns c. Number of grey or peer-reviewed papers documenting sample plan development, implementation, lessons learned 29) Usage of a catalog of sampling methods a. Number of grey or peer-reviewed papers documenting sample plan development, implementation, lessons learned 30) Adoption of metabarcoding standards by agencies and labs a. Count of labs and agencies adopting the new metabarcoding standards i. More is better, proportion of agencies and labs using eDNA with surveillance with the Framework BIG PICTURE QUESTIONS 1) Is the framework adaptive based on user feedback? 2) Do non-federal partners believe the framework is benefiting them, and they have a role in implementation? 3) Is the framework user-friendly? 4) Are there incentives necessary to encourage participation? 5) Are there mechanisms in the framework to show improvement on how we are doing EDRR in the United States? 6) Is the EDRR framework detecting species early and responding rapidly, or are we seeing the same rate of establishment? What percentage of new introductions are successfully detecting and responding to? 7) All metrics should be about improvement	Access Agency Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	56.00%	Access Committee Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment	NISC staff estimates that at least 56% of ISAC Recommendations have been fully implemented. Challenges to further implementation have included limits in funding and staff capacity, the lack of clarity on the advice provided, and the inability to garner substantial support from multi-federal agencies and/or non-federal partners in a timely manner. Note: Implementation is tracked at the overall Departmental/Agency level since this is the level of NISC membership.	Access GSA FACA Website	Yes
% of Recs Partially Implemented*	27.00%	Access Publications	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment	Implementation of most ISAC recommendations requires on-going inter-departmental efforts among NISC members, and often involves non-federal partners. Few recommendations call for discrete actions or reporting on implementation.	Access Other	No
Agency Feedback*	Yes	Access Comment	All final documents generated by ISAC are available on the NISC Website, https://www.doi.gov/invasivespecies/isac-white-papers.
Agency Feedback Comment*	Agencies have the opportunity to provide feedback to ISAC at their regular meetings and in written reports. Agencies are encouraged to respond to all ISAC recommendations that specifically concern their programs and/or actions. Agencies are also invited to request additional information or clarification from ISAC concerning their recommendations before responding to ISAC or NISC.	Narrative Description*	Effective September 30, 2021, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee was reauthorized in accordance with Executive Order 14048, after being administratively deactivated on May 3, 2019. In FY 2024, the ISAC held one in-person meeting on November 13-15, 2023, and two (2) virtual meetings on April 30-May 2, 2024 and August 22, 2024. Committee costs for FY 2024 are comprised of federal staff support for planning, coordination and administrative tasks required to facilitate not only the full committee meetings, but also the intercessional work of five (5) subcommittees to produce deliverables which provide advice as requested by the NISC.

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*		1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*
2. Payments to Federal Members*		2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*
3. Payments to Federal Staff*		3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*
4. Payments to Consultants*		4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*		5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*		6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*		7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*		8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*
10. Other Costs		10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*
11. Total Costs	$0.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified	2/19/2025 10:49 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

Category Area Agriculture Plant Biology Rural Development Forestry Agriculture Animals Fish and Wildlife Veterinary Medicine Basic Science Basic Sciences Biology Chemistry Microbiology Business Industry Civil Rights Native Americans Computer Technology Computers Data Data Integrity Education Schools and Academic Institutions Energy Natural Resources Environment Earth Sciences Environmental Issues Oceans and Atmospheric Sciences Food and Drugs Biotechnology Government State Government Tribal Government Health Biodefense Public Health Land Conservation and Preservation Grazing Areas Land Management and Use Legislation Regulations Rulemaking Medicine Diseases Illnesses Research Basic Research Science and Technology Science and Technology Social Sciences Risk Communication Trade International Commerce and Investment Trade and Trade Policy Transportation Surface and Vehicular Transportation Boating and Navigation Highways Railroads Water Harbors Rivers Water Use Waterways

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports