Category: invasive species

Surprise! USDA Through APHIS moves on NAPPRA regulations

 

USDA headquarters; F.T. Campbell

To my complete surprise, USDA APHIS has finalized a four-year-old proposal to temporarily prohibit importation of 56 taxa of plants: 22 that are likely to be invasive and 34 that are hosts of eight insects, pathogens, or other types of plant pests.

On June 19, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that APHIS had finally acted on a proposal initially published on May 6, 2013. To view the datasheets APHIS prepared and the comments APHIS received, go here.

Under APHIS’ regulations in ‘‘Subpart— P4P’’ (7 CFR 319.37 through 319.37–14 …), APHIS prohibits or restricts the importation of “plants for planting” – living plants, plant parts, seeds, and plant cuttings – to prevent the introduction of “quarantine pests” into the US. A “quarantine pest” is defined in § 319.37–1 as a plant pest or noxious weed that is of potential economic importance to the United States and not yet present in the country, or is present but is not widely distributed and is being officially controlled.

Section 319.37–2a authorizes APHIS to identify those plant taxa whose importation is not authorized pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) in order to prevent their introduction into the United States. As regards plant taxa that have been determined to be probable invasive species, such importation is restricted from all countries and regions. For taxa that have been determined to be hosts of a plant pest, the list includes (1) names of the taxa, (2) the foreign places from which the taxa’s importation is not authorized, and (3) the quarantine pests of concern.

The plant taxa now regulated because they host various types of plant pests are listed in two parts.

1) Species designated during the first round of action were proposed in 2011 and finalized in 2013 =

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/downloads/HostsofQuarantinePests.pdf

2)  Species proposed in 2013 and finally designated on June 19, 2017 =

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/downloads/hosts-quarantine-pests-round2.pdf

 

In summary, the second round of NAPPRA seeks to prevent introduction of the following specific pests by prohibiting imports of their associated plants from most countries. Imports from Canada are often excepted and those from the Netherlands less often.

  • Asian longhorned beetle (ALB, Anoplophora glabripennis) – Celtis, Cercidiphyllum (katsura), Koelreuteria, Tilia
  • Great spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus micans) – Pseudotsuga
  • Japanese pine sawyer (Monochamus alternatus) – Cedrus
  • Phytophthora kernoviae – 17 genera, including Camellia, Fagus, Hedera, Ilex, Leucothoe, Liriodendron, Magnolia, Pieris, Quercus, Rhododendron, Sequoia, Vaccinium
  • Boxwood blight (Puccinia buxi) – Buxus (boxwood)

 

There are other restrictions on plant imports related to pests, which predate the most recent NAPPRA listing. These include =

  • Acer is already listed on the previous NAPPRA list for all countries except Canada, Netherlands, and New Zealand.
  • Longstanding regulations prohibit the importation of Abies species from all countries except Canada. The genera Larix, Picea, and Pinus were added to the NAPPRA list in the April 2013 NAPPRA notice.
  • Camellia was also listed in 2013 from all countries, except Canada, to prevent introduction of the citrus longhorned beetle (CLB, Anoplophora chinensis); the genus is also regulated for Phytophthora ramorum. The most recent action now adds restrictions because Camellia is also a host of Phytopththora kernoviae. Plants from Canada are exempt because of longstanding “significant trade” volumes.
  • While plants in the genus Cercidiphyllum (katsura) may be imported from the Netherlands – despite the presence in the country of both ALB and CLB – a 2013 Federal Order (DA–2013–18) specifies mitigation actions which exporting countries must take to prevent transport of these insects via trade in this or other genera.
  • Hedera was added to the NAPPRA list via the first round of proposals in April 2013 as a host of CLB. Under the 2013 proposal, the genus is also listed as host of Phytophthora kernoviae.
  • Vaccinium are consistently exported only from Canada and Australia. The genus is listed because it is a host of Phytophthora kernoviae.

As APHIS notes in its explanation in the Federal Register, P. kernoviae has been reported in England, Ireland, and New Zealand; APHIS considers this to be evidence of spread of the pathogen through the global movement of plants. APHIS notes further that the pathogen has a large number of confirmed hosts and there is currently no effective control measure. APHIS does not note that the native range of P. kernoviae is unknown.

APHIS received considerable pushback on its proposal to restrict importation of Callistephus, Chrysanthemum, and Eustoma spp. to prevent introduction of several pathogens, including chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus (CSNV) and chrysanthemum white rust.  In response, APHIS has withdrawn these three genera from the new NAPPRA listing while it conducts a commodity import evaluation document (CIED) for Chrysanthemum.

 

I have not discussed here NAPPRA as it applies to invasive plants. In April I blogged about the need for APHIS to act. Plants listed because of their invasive potential are posted here =

1) 2013 listing: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/downloads/QuarantinePestPlants.pdf

2) 2017 listing: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/downloads/quarantine-pest-plants-round2.pdf

Again, I welcome USDA’s finalization of this second round of regulations and look forward to new proposals.

 

History of NAPPRA

In December 2004 APHIS published in the Federal Register an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or ANPR which outlined a strategy for reducing pest introductions via the “plants for planting” pathway. The strategy had two major steps.

First, the agency would create a temporary holding category for plants suspected of transporting insects or diseases. This would allow APHIS to suspend imports of particular plants, from certain countries, until a full risk assessment was completed.

Second, APHIS would issue regulations establishing a general framework to minimize the presence of pests. Using this, the agency would negotiate country-specific requirements for imported plants, working toward an approach that would rely on “integrated measures” (also called “integrated pest management”).

APHIS formally proposed to create the temporary holding category – the NAPPRA program – in 2009. The regulations were finalized in May 2011 – six and one half years after the intention to take this action was announced in the ANPR. In adopting the NAPPRA rule, APHIS reiterated the need to encourage, but not require, the plant import trade either to rely on low-risk plant materials or to adopt pest-reduction methods.

In July 2011, APHIS published the initial list of species proposed for inclusion in the NAPPRA category.  This list was finalized in April 2013. A second list of species proposed for NAPPRA listing was published in May 2013.

This history – with citations – can be found in chapter 4, “Invasion Pathways”, in my report Fading Forests III, available here.

 

Meanwhile, here are a few related FAQs about NAPPRA as it is being implemented.

 

Why does APHIS regulate by genus?

APHIS regulates pests’ hosts at the genus level because when a new species is identified as a host, additional scientific studies often identify other host species within that genus. Therefore, regulating all species within the genus is the preferred course of action until a formal Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) is conducted. Uncertainties are worked out then.

 

How do these new rules fit into international standards?

APHIS notes in the Federal Register notice that  the “plants for planting” pathway is recognized as posing a high risk  for the introduction of pests. For this reason, the International Plant Protection Convention recommends that countries require a pest risk analysis before allowing importation of a plant taxon from a new country or region.

 

How long is importation of plants prohibited?

NAPPRA listing does not prohibit the importation of taxa indefinitely. Imports are held up until a pest risk analysis can be conducted to identify appropriate mitigation measures. Furthermore, an importer may apply for a controlled import permit to import small quantities of a prohibited or restricted taxon for developmental purposes.

 

What is the meaning of “significant trade”?

 

If a taxon that is a host of a quarantine pest has been imported in ‘‘significant’’ quantities from a specific exporting country, it is not eligible for the NAPPRA prohibition. Currently APHIS defines “significant trade” as the importation of 10 or more plants of a taxon in each of the previous three fiscal years. At the urging of one commenter, APHIS is considering whether to alter that definition by looking at import volumes over three out of five years – although the agency said if it took that action, it would most likely also consider raising the base number of plants from 10 to a higher level.

 

In the case of “significant trade” in a taxon that is a host of a quarantine pest, APHIS specifies other measures to address the pest risk.

 

What other protections does APHIS use?


A “Federal order” is used to rapidly take action to prevent the introduction of a quarantine pest, and is generally followed by notice and an opportunity for public comment. This is a separate action from the NAPPRA process.

 

OTHER PENDING USDA RULES

 

The Overhaul of Regulations for “Plants for Planting (P4P) (the “Quarantine-37” or “Q-37” regulations) – Will It Also Be Finalized?

 

Another important APHIS action aimed at improving control over introductions of pests on imported plants has also been unresolved for four years. This is the revision to the agency’s overall plant import regulations, which was also proposed in May 2013. The revision would restructure the current regulations by moving specific restrictions on the importation of taxa from regulations to the Plants for Planting Manual. That transfer would allow specific restrictions to be changed without going through the full public notice and comment process required for amending formal federal regulations. The proposed revision would also add a framework for requiring foreign plant suppliers to implement integrated pest management measures to reduce pest risk. Experts believe that depending on integrated measures will better prevent pest introductions than the current reliance on a visual inspection at the time plants are shipped.

 

Again, for a history of and rationale for the proposed regulatory change, read chapter 4, “Invasion Pathways”, in my report Fading Forests III, available here.

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

 

Status of Phytopthoras in the United States & Europe: an update

tanoak killed by sudden oak death; Marin County, Calif. photo F.T. Campbell

Here is some interesting information from recent issues of the the California Oak Mortality Task Force’s bimonthly newsletter. I am updating my earlier blogs on the status of Phytophthoras and sudden oak death (SOD) in the United States and Europe.

 

More than 600 samples were taken from streams or ponds in nine states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) during 2016. Ten of the samples were positive: seven from three streams in Alabama and three from one stream in Mississippi. Each of these had tested positive before; none was a new positive location. [March newsletter]

 

  • The disease continues to spread in Oregon and California:

During 2016 and early 2017, sudden oak death and tanoak mortality continued to intensify within the officially designated quarantine zone in southwest Oregon. So far, no new outbreaks have been detected outside the quarantine zone.

In Oregon, there is growing concern about the disease and the paucity of funds to address it. As a result, Oregon state Representative David Brock Smith and U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley have formed an Oregon Sudden Oak Death Task Force. The Task Force is developing a collaborative action plan to secure enough funding to contain the infestations of the NA1 genetic strain (the one widespread in Oregon and California) and to eradicate the EU1 lineage (this is the only known site where this strain is established in the forest in North America; see my blog from August 2015, which explains the significance of these strains.)  [March newsletter]

 

In California, scientists have been surprised by the intensity of the disease in several parks on the eastern side of San Francisco Bay – an area that is drier than most forests that are infested. The severe drought of recent years has not prevented spread of the disease. Even more surprising, one park has very little California bay laurel – which is considered to be the primary source of infection. [March newsletter]

 

  • Native plant nurseries may be spreading various Phytophthoras (see my blog from last year here) or the presentations on “Phytophthora Detections in Native Plant Nurseries and Restoration Sites” posted here)

The National Ornamentals Research Site at Dominican University (NORS-DUC) sampled several types of native plant nurseries in fall 2016 to determine the extent of movement of Phytophthora species on plants they sell. Unfortunately, the report in the newsletter did not include results of the sampling. [January 2017]

CFDA photo of herbaceous plants with Phytophthora infection

Oregon and Washington authorities acted in response to the initial reports from the San Francisco area, and sampled nurseries in their states. They found a similarly high infestation rate in native plant nurseries in their states. Washington State University and Oregon State University have held several 2 ½-day workshops on “Preventing Phytophthora Contamination in Native Plant Nurseries and Restoration Sites”. [May newsletter]

For more information about Phytophthoras in native herbaceous plants in California, visit http://ucanr.edu/sites/sod6/Proceedings/Presentations_and_Posters/  and  www.calphytos.org

  • Disease costs in England and Wales could top 1 billion dollars

 

Drake and Jones have estimated that damage by Phytophthora ramorum and P. kernoviae [link to Gallery] to non-extractive public use and non-use values at risk from uncontrolled spread of these diseases in England and Wales is £1.446 billion per year (approximately $US 1.82 billion). The greatest public value at risk (slightly more than one-third) is from an uncontrolled spread of these diseases to heritage gardens; lower risks are to the diseases’ spread to woodlands and heathlands. [March newsletter]

 

5) Ireland resembles Europe in numbers of Phytophthora species:

 

O’Hanlan and colleagues tested more than 11,000 samples from both “trade” environments (presumably, nurseries) and “non-trade” environments (presumably plantings or natural environments). They detected 19 species and 3 informally designated taxa of Phytophthora, including 8 new records for Ireland. Thus, Ireland’s situation is similar to that in Europe more broadly – a study last year by Junker and colleagues report the detection of 15 Phytophthora species in two commercial woody ornamental nurseries [link to blog about Phythophs in Europe] In Ireloand, P. ramorum was found on 30 hosts; P. syringae on 6 hosts; P. kernoviae on 3 hosts. Phytophthora species were most frequently detected on rhododendrons – (12 Phytophthora species). [January newsletter]

 

SOURCES

 

Drake, B. and Jones, G. 2017. Public Value at Risk from Phytophthora ramorum and Phytophthora kernoviae Spread in England and Wales. Journal of Environmental Management. 191: 136–144.

 

Junker, C., Goff, P., Wagner, S., and Werres, S. 2016. Occurrence of Phytophthora in commercial nursery production. Plant Health Progress. 17:64-75.

 

O’Hanlon, R.; Choiseul, J.; Corrigan, M.; Catarame, T.; and Destefanis, M. 2016. Diversity and Detections of Phytophthora Species from Trade and Non-Trade Environments in Ireland. EPPO Bull. 46: 594–602. DOI: 10.1111/epp.12331.

 

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

 

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

 

Bill aimed at controlling invasive species on the ground advances

whitebark pine in Crater Lake National Park killed by white pine blister rust; photo by F.T. Campbell

In the first days of April, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee  adopted the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Act (S. 826) (the WILD Act).

Title II of this legislation would amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act by inserting language very similar to the Federal Land Invasive Species Control, Prevention, and Management Act (S. 509).  I blogged last year about that  bill and a hearing about it here.

Our concerns at the time focused on:

  • The provision allowing invasive control projects to proceed without first being evaluated by an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. Lack of careful analysis could expose the environment to additional damage. For example, use of herbicides or grazing to control invasive plants can lead to suppression of native forbs. Suppressing invasion by one set of plants – whatever the strategy used – often facilitates a secondary invasion.
  • The mandatory funding allocations – which severely limit funds available to support research, outreach, and strategic planning and coordination – could undercut activities crucial to development and implementation of effective strategies and management tools.
  • The mandatory goal of reducing invasive species populations by 5% per year is unrealistic.
  • New requirements on reporting and coordination might divert already-thin resources and delay needed action.
  • Priority-setting. Managing invasive species on national lands should reflect national goals and perspectives, not be set by states’ governors.

Caroline Murphy of The Wildlife Society and I have reviewed Title II of the new WILD Act and find that it differs from last year’s invasive species control bill in several important ways:

  • The bill now applies to a wider range of agencies. The Secretary of the Army (who supervises the Corps of Engineers) is included explicitly; he joins the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture (as supervisor of the Forest Service). In addition, the bill also applies to the head of “any federal agency” having duties related to planning or treatment of invasive species “for the purpose of protecting water and wildlife on land and in water.”
  • Most important, projects are no longer granted a “Categorical Exclusion” from preparing environmental impact analyses. Instead, under an “Expedited Action” provision, the Secretaries are instructed to use all existing legal tools and flexibilities to expedite projects and activities.
  • The bill still requires that 75% of invasive species funds be allocated to “on-the-ground control and management of invasive species.” But such activity now may include “the use of appropriate methods to remove invasive species from a vehicle or vessel capable of conveyance.” I wish the language also included efforts to prevent invasive species from being present in or on the vehicle or vessel.
  • The bill has dropped the requirement that invasive species’ populations be reduced by 5% annually. The bill now requires the Secretaries to develop a strategic plan “to achieve, to the maximum extent practicable, a substantive annual net reduction of invasive species populations or infested acreage on land or water” that the Secretary manages. It is still not clear whether that reduction should apply to some or all of the invasive species there.

I am still concerned that

  • Projects are to use least-cost methods. This requirement is likely to favor reliance on chemical controls, which could have significant non-target impacts and might not provide lasting control. This incentive might be counter-balanced by the requirement that the methods be effective, based on sound scientific data. However, the bill’s focus on measuring annual results rather than long-term efficacy will add to pressures to rely on short-term approaches that could undermine long-term effectiveness.
  • Leadership of the projects – especially setting priorities – will be in hands of state governments, not the federal agencies which have the responsibility under federal law to manage the lands and waters that are to be protected. A partial counter-balance is the requirement that the appropriate federal agency Secretary determine which lands or waters need immediate action to address the invasive species risk.  Furthermore, the expedited actions are to be carried out in accordance with agency procedures, including any applicable land or resource management plan

I welcome the requirement that the Secretaries, in developing their strategic plans, must take into consideration the ecological as well as the economic costs of acting or not acting.

As before, the projects are to be carried out through collaboration with wide range of partners, including private individuals and entities – apparently including non-governmental organizations such as state or local invasive plant coalitions.

The rest of the WILD Act would reauthorize the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, some Multinational Species Conservation Fund Programs, and create several conservation-related competitive grant programs to be managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, one of which is for the management of invasive species.

Now that these provisions are incorporated into a wider bill, and Senator Barasso is chairman of the full committee, adoption of some version of this legislation now seems more likely than I thought last year.  Apparently there is still no action in House on the parallel bill.

While I am heartened by some of the changes in the bill since last year, I continue to think that America’s public lands would be better protected by a more comprehensive approach that includes prevention, mapping, early detection, research, prioritization, coordination and outreach aimed at engaging key stakeholders.  Such an approach was outlined in a document developed a couple of years ago by the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS) – available here.

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

USDA needs to utilize the NAPPRA Process to Prevent New Introductions

 

 

America’s imports of plants to serve various purposes have been a major pathway for introduction of invasive species – both some of the plant species imported intentionally and insects and pathogens associated with those plant imports.

Examples of the former include numerous forage grasses, Callery pear (just past its peak bloom here in the MidAtlantic region), autumn and Russian olive, kudzu, shrub and vining euonymus, iceplant, … [see my blogs from January 2016  and March 2016 for more about invasive plants].

Pests introduced on imported plants range from chestnut blight and white pine blister rust at the beginning of the 20th Century to sudden oak death in the 1980s and probably the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers more recently. All these pests are described briefly here.

For lengthy discussions of the “plants for planting” pathway of introduction for insects and pathogens, read my report Fading Forests III available here; or the Liebhold et al. article referenced at the end of this blog.

A new article by Barry Yeoman describes the effects on wildlife species of these introductions. “Going Native: Exotic garden plants can wreak unexpected havoc with indigenous species and ecosystems” can be read here .

dogwood anthracnose; Robert L. Anderson. courtesy of bugwood.org

Yeoman notes that birds and other wildlife that feed on the fruits of native dogwood can’t utilize the fruits of the introduced kousa dogwood. Furthermore, native dogwoods have been decimated by dogwood anthracnose  – probably introduced on imports of kousa dogwood! Another pest example cited by Yeoman is the loss of eastern hemlock to hemlock woolly adelgid.

Yeoman goes on to report the impacts on wildlife species of such invasive plant species as Japanese knotweed, autumn olive, Chinese tallowtree, and Japanese barberry. The last is even linked to higher populations of the ticks that spread Lyme disease.

Yeoman writes that the United States has “a feeble system of regulating garden imports. Each new species is presumed harmless until proven otherwise—and by the time a verdict arrives, the harm is often beyond repair.”  He criticizes our government’s reliance on a modified blacklist system – a short list of “noxious weeds” .  This approach allows potential invaders to enter the country without scientific evaluation.

 

As Yeoman describes in the article, the noxious weed list is supplemented by a small “graylist” of plant species that could potentially cause harm and are temporarily barred until they can be evaluated. Yeoman does not describe the program under which this “graylist” has been created. In May 2011, USDA APHIS  created a temporary holding category, called “Not Authorized (for importation) Pending Pest Risk Analysis,” or NAPPRA. With this authority, APHIS may temporarily prohibit import of certain types of plants, from specific countries of origin, that it considers to pose a particular risk. The risk might be invasiveness of the plant species itself, or pests associated with the plants. The temporary prohibition on imports of those species gives APHIS time to complete a pest risk analysis and then enact appropriate safeguards to ensure that the imported plants will not be invasive or present as low a pest risk as possible.

 

For a more complete description of the graylist process, called NAPPRA, read Fading Forests III here .

 

The NAPPRA process holds the promise of providing substantial protection by curtailing imports of high-risk plants.  However, its implementation has stalled. APHIS last proposed additions to the list of plant species prohibited entry temporarily in May 2013 – almost four years ago!  APHIS should revive the NAPPRA process and utilize prompt listing of plants under this authority to minimize the risk that new pests will be introduced.

 

Sources

Liebhold, A.M., E.G. Brockerhoff, L.J. Garrett, J.L. Parke, and K.O. Britton. 2012. Live Plant Imports: the Major Pathway for Forest Insect and Pathogen Invasions of the US. www.frontiersinecology.org

 

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

Pest threat to West Coast confirmed – authorities should respond to this information by taking protective measures

 Numbers of non-native pests in counties of the 49 continental states; Map prepared by Andrew Liebhold, USFS in 2014. More recent introductions are not represented; nor are insects native to some part of North America

Currently, the Northeast and Midwest have the highest number of non-native, tree-killing insect and pathogen species (see map above). However, Pacific coast states have two-thirds the numbers of pest species of the Northeast – and are catching up. Two articles modeling the likelihood of new pest introductions point to the particular vulnerability of the Pacific Coast states – especially California – to pest introductions from Asia.

 

Koch et al. 2011 (see reference at the end of the blog) utilized various sources of information about volumes of imports likely to be associated with wood-boring pests — stone; raw wood and wood products (including crates & pallets); metals; non-metallic minerals; auto parts; etc. From this, the authors estimated both a nationwide establishment rate of wood-boring forest insect species and the likelihood that such insects might establish at more than 3,000 urban areas in the contiguous U.S. While their estimate was based on 2010 imports, they also projected rates for 2020.

 

See my blog from March 10  for various scientists’ estimates of  the overall, nationwide rate of introduction.  Koch et al. estimated the nation-wide introduction rate at between 0.6 and 1.89 forest insects and pathogen species per year for the period 2001–2010 and 0.36 and 1.7 species per year for 2011–2020.  In other words, we should expect a new alien forest insect species to become established somewhere in the United States every 2–3 years. If one-tenth of these new introductions turn out to cause significant damage, then we can expect a “significant” new forest pest every 5–6 years.

 

Pacific coast states – especially California – are at highest risk. 

Koch et al. evaluated the introduction risk for 3,126 urban areas across the country. The metropolitan area with the highest risk is Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, California. For both 2010 and 2020, the predicted rates for a new pest establishing there is every 4–5 years.

 

Looking ahead to 2020, the situation worsens for three California metro areas – Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana; San Diego; and Riverside-San Bernardino. At San Francisco-Oakland, the predicted establishment rates remain steady. Most of the rest of the top 25 urban areas show decreases in establishment rate between 2010 and 2020.

 

This rising risk to California urban areas is driven by the growth of imports from Asia. For the four California urban areas, the establishment rate of Asian species is projected to increase 6–8% between 2010 and 2020. The Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana area could potentially expect the establishment of an alien forest insect species originating specifically from Asia alone (not the entire world) every 4–5 years.

[The polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers are examples of recently introduced pests from Asia.  Both are described, inter alia, here; a distribution map for PSHB is available here.]

Koch et al. note that the Los Angeles metropolitan area has a dense human population with corresponding high demand for goods and materials, so a substantial proportion of imports clearing the port remains in the areas.  Furthermore, widespread planting of non-native plants provides a range of potential hosts that can support invaders that would not otherwise become successfully established.

 

A second source also indicates a heightened risk to Pacific Coast states. Yemshanof et al. used similar modeling techniques to evaluate the risk of tree pest introductions to Canada … and to the U.S. in the form of transshipped goods.  (See my earlier blog.)

 

The Yemshanof et al. model showed that 8% of all forest pests introduced to the U.S. on imported wood or wood packaging — as estimated by Koch et al. — would come through goods transshipped through Canada. The risk is highest to the Pacific Coast states since they are the most likely to receive Asian goods transiting through Canada.

 

Note that the phytosanitary agencies in both the U.S. and Canada proposed in 2010 that wood packaging originating in one of the countries and shipped to the other be required to meet the international regulations under ISPM#15. However, APHIS was unable to adopt this regulation under the Obama Administration, and such an action seems even less likely under the Trump Administration. Canada is unlikely to adopt the new rules without a coordinated U.S. action.

 

Southern California also imports lots of plants – another pathway for pest introductions.

 

Koch et al. suggest that authorities use these models to prioritize border control efforts (e.g., commodity inspections), post-border surveillance, and rapid-response measures.  I see some problems with these suggestions.  First, enhanced commodity inspections are not likely to measurably diminish the risk of introduction to the region. Second, rapid-response measures require both increased funds – which are expected to decrease; and political will. I have blogged several times about California’s decisions to not implement official, regulatory responses to recently detected pests.

 

Instead, people in the region should actively build alliances and press their regional political leaders – governors, mayors, senators, members of Congress – to demand that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Congress adopt policies that will strengthen protection for the region’s trees.

 

New pest detected in California!

 

California authorities have detected a new woodboring beetle – the olive wood borer (Phloeotribus scarabaeoides). It was detected in an olive tree in a grape vineyard in Riverside County. This is the first detection of the species in the Western Hemisphere. Known or suspected hosts include several trees in the olive family (Oleaceae), including olive trees, privet, ash, and common lilac; as well as oleander (Apocynaceae).

 

Since this new pest is native to the Mediterranean region, it does not appear to be an example of the risk to California from Asia …  The source (Diagnostic Network News; see below) does not speculate on the pathway by which the introduction occurred.

 

 

What Can We Do?

 

Ask your state’s Governor to

  • Communicate to the USDA Secretary the need to amend policies & regulations

(Coordinate this effort with governors of other states.)

  • Put forest pest issue on the agenda of National Governors’ Association
  • Ask your state’s Congressional delegation to pressure USDA Secretary to amend policies and regulations
  • Communicate concern about these pests to the media — and propose solutions.

 

Ask your state’s agricultural and forestry agency heads to

  • Ask their national associations to support proposals to USDA Secretary & Congress. These associations include
    • National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA)
    • National Association of State Foresters (NASF) or its Western regional group, the Council of Western State Foresters
  • Communicate to the media both the agency’s concern about tree pest threats and proposed solutions.

 

We can also act directly.

  • Ask mayors and officials of affected towns and counties to
  • Push proposals at regional or National Conference of Mayors or National Association of Counties
  • Instruct local forestry staff to seek support of local citizen tree care associations, regional and national associations of arborists, Arbor Day & “Tree City” organizations, Sustainable Urban Forest Coalition, etc.
  • Reach out to local media with a message that includes descriptions of policy actions intended to protect trees — not just damage caused by the pests
  • Ask stakeholder organizations of which you are a member to speak up on the issue and support proposed solutions; e.g.,
    • Professional/scientific associations
    • Wood products industry
    • Forest landowners
    • Environmental NGOs
    • Urban tree advocacy & support organizations

 

  • Encourage like-minded colleagues in other states to press the agenda with their state & federal political players, agencies, & media.
  • Communicate to the media both your concern about tree pest threats and proposed solutions.

 

What Specific Actions Should We Suggest be Taken?

I suggest a coordinated package.  However, you might feel more comfortable selecting a few to address each time you communicate with a policymaker. Choose those on which you have the most expertise; or that you think will have the greatest impact.

  • Make specific proposals, not vague ideas (see below for suggestions)
  • Always include information about how the pests arrive/spread (pathways such as imports of crates & pallets, or woody plants for ornamental horticulture) and what we can do to clean up those pathways  (Don’t just describe the “freak of the week”)
  • Always point out that the burden of pest-related losses and costs falls on ordinary people and their communities. (Aukema et al. 2011 provides backup for this at the national level; try to get information about your state or city.)
  • We need to restore a sense of crisis to prompt action – but not leave people feeling helpless! We need also to bolster understanding that we have been and can again be successful in combatting tree pests.

 

Specific actions that will reduce risk that pests pose to our trees:

  • Importers switch from packaging made from solid wood (e.g., boards and 4”x4”s) to packaging made from other materials, e.g., particle boards, plastic, metal …
  • Persuade APHIS to initiate a rulemaking to require importers to make the shift. This can be done – although international trade agreements require preparation of a risk assessment that justifies the action because it addresses an identified risk (see my earlier blogs about wood packaging).
  • Create voluntary certification programs and persuade major importers to join them. One option is to incorporate non-wood packaging into the Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) existing Customs-Trade Partnership Against terrorism (C-TPAT) program.

 

  • Tighten enforcement by penalizing shipments in packaging that does not comply with the current regulations
  • Persuade CBP and/or USDA to end current policy under which no financial penalty is imposed until a specific importer has been caught five times in a single year with non-compliant wood packaging. APHIS has plenty of authority to penalize violators under the Plant Protection Act [U.S.C. §7734 (b) (1)].
  • Restrict imports of woody plants that are more likely to transport pests that threaten our trees
  • In 2011, APHIS adopted regulations giving it the power to temporarily prohibit importation of designated high-risk plants until the agency has carried out a risk assessment and implemented stronger phytosanitary measures to address those risks. Plants deserving such additional scrutiny can be declared “not authorized for importation pending pest risk assessment,” or “NAPPRA”. A list of plants posing a heightened risk was proposed nearly 4 years ago, but it has not been finalized – so imports continue. APHIS should revive the NAPPRA process and utilize prompt listing of plants under this authority to minimize the risk that new pests will be introduced.
  • APHIS should finalize amendments to the “Q-37” regulation (proposed nearly 4 years ago) that would establish APHIS’ authority to require foreign suppliers to implement integrated programs to minimize pest risk. Once this regulation is finalized, APHIS could begin negotiating agreements with individual countries to adopt systems intended to ensure pest-free status of those plant types, species, and origins currently considered to pose a medium to high risk.

 

  • Strengthen early detection/rapid response programs by
  • Providing adequate funds to federal & state detection and rapid response programs. The funds must be available for the length of the eradication program – often a decade or more.
  • Better coordinate APHIS, USFS, state, & tribal surveillance programs.
  • Engage tree professionals & citizen scientists more effectively in surveillance programs.

 

 

SOURCES

 

Koch, F.H., D. Yemshanov, M. Colunga-Garcia, R.D. Magarey, W.D. Smith. Potential establishment of alien-invasive forest insect species in the United States: where and how many? Biol Invasions (2011) 13:969–985

 

Western Plant Diagnostic Network First Detector News. Winter 2017. Volume 10, Number 1.

 

Yemshanov, D., F.H. Koch, M. Ducey, K. Koehler. 2012.  Trade-associated pathways of alien forest insect entries in Canada. Biol Invasions (2012) 14:797–812

 

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Alien species introductions — going up!

trade transports many invasive species

Containers at Long Beach, California; courtesy of the Port Authority

In an article published recently in Nature Communications , Hanno Seebens and 44 coauthors show that the rate of new introductions of alien species has risen rapidly since about 1800 – and shows no sign of slowing down. See a summary of the article with revealing graphs here .

Through analysis of a database covering 45,813 first records of 16,926 alien species established in 282 distinct geographic regions, the authors determined that the number of new species reports reached a maximum of 585 in 1996 (or an average of more than 1.5 sightings per day).

Of course, whether a species’ introduction is detected depends on a variety of factors. One of the most important is the species’ impact – or lack thereof! – on economically important resources – this determines whether the species gets noticed. Furthermore, detection usually happens some time after a species’ actual introduction. And, regardless of factors motivating human attention, some types of species are more easily detected than others. All these factors skew the findings. Because many introductions are not detected, Seebens et al. note, their data underestimate actual introductions.

The authors found that the adoption of national and international biosecurity measures during the 20th century have slowed introductions – but they are not yet sufficiently effective. Most notably, numbers of reported new introductions of fish and mammals have decreased since the early 1950s. Of course, introductions of these taxa are usually the result of deliberate decisions, usually by authorities. It is encouraging that authorities appear to be getting the message that adding new species to an ecosystem is a risky enterprise.

 

Japanese honeysuckle; courtesy of Bugwood.org

However, not all deliberate introductions have been curbed. Seebens et al. were surprised to see that vascular plant species introductions remained at such a high rate throughout the 20th century. Introductions of birds and reptiles also continue to rise, largely as pets in countries with strengthening economies.

For those plants and animals that are introduced primarily accidentally as stowaways on transport vectors or contaminants of commodities (e.g., algae, insects, crustaceans, molluscs and other invertebrates), Seebens et al. found a strong correlation between their spread and the market value of goods imported into the region of interest.

Having noted that almost all biosecurity efforts are not yet slowing introductions adequately, Seebens et al. point to New Zealand as the exception. That country adopted the Biosecurity Act in 1993 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act in 1996.

Although 20 years is a short period to gauge a policy’s efficacy – especially given time lags in detecting introductions – Seebens et al. say the stringent new policy appears to be succeeding. They found a significant decline in the number of new alien plants detected in New Zealand since the 1990s. New Zealand’s laws rely on a “white list” of permitted species rather than the more usual “black list” of prohibited species. New Zealand requires a risk assessment before a decision is made to allow any new species to be brought into the country.

Of course, such an approach does not apply easily to the taxa most often introduced as unintended hitchhikers on, or as contaminants of, imported goods, packaging, or transport vehicles – such as tree-killing insects and diseases. The paper notes that existing biosecurity regimes have not slowed down the accumulation of alien species introductions overall, but especially those arriving mainly accidentally, such as invertebrates and pathogens.

As a consequence, Seebens et al. expect that the numbers of new alien species will continue to increase.

I have previously blogged about other studies that show continuing introductions of forest pests and other specific taxonomic groups.  See blogs about (1) 2014 IUCN report on invasive species threats to World Heritage sites; (2) IUCN analysis of red-book-listed species – causes of endangerment; (3) rate of new plant pests being detected in US; (4) Jung et al. on Phytophthoras in Europe; (5) Zamir’s critique of international the phytosanitary system; (6) Klapwjik et al. on European efforts to strengthen regulations governing movement of living plants; (7) ISPM#15 11th anniversary.

Other recent studies have also examined the bioinvasion situation for the whole Earth or major regions. Liebhold et al. 2016 studied insect assemblages in 20 regions around the world. They found that which insect orders are present in a particular region differs completely depending on whether one is looking at native or at nonindigenous assemblages. The authors believe that difference is largely caused by the varying probability that an insect taxon can take advantage of one or more high-volume invasion pathways – such as trade in agricultural products, movement of plants by international travelers, shipments of stored grain, trade in living plants, hitchhiking (e.g. on the outside of shipping containers) and wood packaging. Pathway association appeared to be more important than insects’ life-history traits, which affect their ability to establish in a new ecosystem.

Maartje J. Klapwijk and several colleagues note that growing trade in living plants and wood products has brought a rise in non-native tree pests becoming established in Europe. The number of alien invertebrate species has increased two-fold since 1950; the number of fungal species has increased four-fold since 1900.

Jung et al. (2015) studied the presence of Phytophthora pathogens in nurseries in Europe. They found

  • Two-thirds of the Phytophthora taxa detected in European nurseries by the present study were unknown to science before 1990.
  • None of the 59 putatively exotic Phytophthora taxa detected in the present study had been intercepted at European ports of entry.
  • Spread of the quarantine organism ramorum has not been halted despite the presence of strict quarantine regulations.

I will post a blog examining introduction rates for tree-killing insects and pathogens specifically in the near future. In the meantime, see the published studies listed below as well as my earlier blogs and fact sheets posted here .

Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. Liebhold, D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle.. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States PLoS One September 2011 (Volume 6 Issue 9)

Aukema, J.E., D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle, A.M. Liebhold, K. Britton, & S.J. Frankel. 2010. Historical Accumulation of Nonindigenous Forest Pests in the Continental United States. Bioscience. December 2010 / Vol. 60 No. 11

Haack RA, Britton KO, Brockerhoff EG, Cavey JF, Garrett LJ, et al. (2014) Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on Reducing Wood Borer Infestation Rates in Wood Packaging Material Entering the United States. PLoS ONE 9(5): e96611. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096611

Leung, B., M.R. Springborn, J.A. Turner, E.G. Brockerhoff. 2014. Pathway-level risk analysis: the net present value of an invasive species policy in the US. The Ecological Society of America. Frontiers of Ecology.org

Liebhold, A.M., T. Yamanaka, A. Roques, S. Augustin, S.L. Chown, E.G. Brockerhoff, P. Pysek. 2016.  Global compositional variation among native and nonindigenous regional insect assemblages emphasizes the importance of pathways. Biological Invasions (2016) 18:893–905

Lovett, G.M., M. Weiss, A.M. Liebhold, T.P. Holmes, B. Leung, K.F. Lambert, D.A. Orwig , F.T. Campbell, J. Rosenthal, D.G. McCullough, R. Wildova, M.P. Ayres, C.D. Canham, D.R. Foster, S.L. LaDeau, and T. Weldy. 2016. Nonnative forest insects and pathogens in the United States: Impacts and policy options. Ecological Applications, 0(0), 2016, pp. 1–19. DOI 10.1890/15-1176.1

 

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

 

A Tale of Two Pests: APHIS’ Response Contrasts Greatly

spotted lanternfly

Holly Raguza, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

I have not written previously about two insects that threaten fruit and forest trees in the U.S. – the spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) and the velvet longhorned beetle (Trichoferus campestris). APHIS has adopted strangely – and unexplained – different approaches to the two.

 

Spotted Lanternfly – Pennsylvania Jumps In; APHIS Provides the Funding

The spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) was first detected in southeast Pennsylvania in autumn 2014. It is native to China, India, and Vietnam. What was known then about its host range came from experience in Korea, where it had also been introduced. Officials were alarmed because the lanternfly is considered a pest of grapes and peaches – both are major crops in Pennsylvania (Spichiger Update; see reference below).

Currently, outbreaks of the spotted lanternfly are in 74 municipalities in six counties  in the southeastern part of the Commonwealth – covering a total of  829 square miles. In the more than two years since its detection, the spotted lanternfly has not spread to the rest of the Commonwealth or to other states. Authorities therefore believe that the state’s quarantine is having an impact (Spichiger Update & pers. comm.).

Pennsylvania’s authorities believe the lanternfly utilizes about 80 species of plants, especially during the early stages of its development. A monitoring program managed by Dr. Gregory Setliff of Kutztown University (see reference below) has developed a list of 24 putative hosts – including maples, birches, hickories, dogwoods, beech, ash, walnuts, tulip tree, tupelo, sycamore, poplar, peaches and plums, oaks, willows, sassafras, basswood, and elms. Setliff also found that the lanternfly will penetrate into woodlands; it does not stay on the edges.

Adults strongly prefer the widespread invasive species tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). In fact, it might be necessary for adults to feed on Ailanthus before laying their eggs. However, oviposition can occur on not just a wide variety of plants but also nearly any hard surface (Spichiger).

Officials are optimistic that an approach using trap trees will eradicate the spotted lanternfly. They remove most Ailanthus, then apply a systemic pesticide to the remaining trees to kill adult lanternflies when they feed (Spichiger).

Fortunately, this insect is conspicuous. As a result, 90% of citizen reports of sightings have proven to be accurate (Spichiger). This contrasts greatly with phytosanitary officials’ experience with Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, and other tree-killing pests.

Scientists in both Pennsylvania and China are looking for natural enemies.

The entire program in Pennsylvania has been funded through a series of Farm Bill grants from APHIS (Spechiger pers. comm.). These began in FY2016, right after the 2014 detection. By FY2017, Farm bill funding  totaled nearly  $2 million; it went to a myriad of entities to:  study lanternfly lifecycles and host preferences; find possible biocontrol agents and chemical treatments; and – especially – for outreach and education. Nearly $1.6 million of these funds went to state agencies in Pennsylvania.

 

Velvet Longhorned Beetle — States Limp Along; APHIS Support Minimal

velvet longhorned beetle

Christopher Pierce, Bugwood

In contrast to the spotted laternfly, populations of the velvet longhorned beetle (VLB Trichoferus campestris) appear to be more long-standing and more widely spread. It was first found in 2010 in Utah. Now, it has been detected 15 separate times in Quebec and 11 U.S. states, according to Wu et al. 2017 and websites listed below. States specifically mentioned by sources include Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Most are of single or a few beetles – although detections are sometimes repeated over several years – e.g., in Minnesota.

In contrast, the outbreak in Utah appears to be established and growing. The number of beetles detected has exploded from 4 in 2010 to 1,863 in 2015 .

Like so many other invaders, this beetle is known to be native to East and Central Asia.

The host range is still being studied. Hosts are thought to include more than 40 genera, including apple; cherry and peach; maple; birch; mulberry and paper mulberry; beech; ash; honey locust; mountain ash; willow; and cut wood of spruce and pine.

Like other woodborers, the velvet longhorned beetle has often been intercepted in wood packaging (see my earlier blogs. There have been 29 interceptions of the Trichferous genus over 3 years. Some of the newly established populations – such as Utah’s outbreak – are tied to specific shipments in which wood packaging was insect-infested (Wu et al. 2017).

VLB has also been detected in imported rustic furniture – probably because the beetle is apparently much more tolerant of tunneling in dry wood than other Cerambycids.  In some pieces, insect activity was not detected until 18 months after the furniture was purchased. In 2016 a Minnesota homeowner discovered a beetle emerging from bark-covered furniture that she had purchased more than a year earlier. Furniture from this shipment was shipped to at least 10 other states [Mark Abrahamson, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, pers. comm. February 16, 2017]. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture, APHIS, and other State departments of Agriculture are working with the furniture seller to recover and destroy all infested furniture.

Detection of the velvet longhorned beetle has been hampered by the absence of a good lure for traps.  Dr. Ann Ray of Xavier University in Ohio has isolated and identified a possible lure but needs another field season to determine the right amount of pheromone for each trap. While Dr. Ray’s earlier work had been funded by APHIS through its Section 10007 program, APHIS chose not to fund the final stage of testing in the FY2017 Farm Bill grant program. Indeed, no VLB programs were funded this year.

This contrasts sharply with APHIS’ continued engagement with the spotted lanternfly.

The extent of damage to fruit trees caused by the velvet longhorned beetle has been difficult to determine (Ray; see reference below). Perhaps for this reason, APHIS has not adopted an official stance on whether the beetle is “established” in the United States. Thus, five years after the insect was detected for a second year in Utah, the agency cannot make up its mind how great the threat is and what the agency’s response should be.

If the velvet longhorned beetle turns out to be highly damaging, eradicating it will have become increasingly difficult during the years that APHIS has pondered what to do.

 

See also http://ag.utah.gov/documents/Insect_Velvet_Longhorn_Beetle.pdf

 

SOURCES

Ray, Annie. Evaluation of lure and trap design for monitoring the velvet longhorned beetle Trichoferus campestris. XXVIII USDA Interagnecy Research Forum on Invasive Species January 10 -13, 2017.

Setliff, Gregory P. Investigating the host range of the spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) in southeastern Pennsylvania. XXVIII USDA Interagnecy Research Forum on Invasive Species January 10 -13, 2017.

Spichiger, Sven-Erik. Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. Update on spotted lanternfly program in Pennsylvania. XXVIII USDA Interagnecy Research Forum on Invasive Species January 10 -13, 2017.

Wu,Y., N.F. Trepanowski, J.J. Molongoski, P.F. Reagel, S.W. Lingafelter, H. Nadel1, S.W. Myers & A.M. Ray. 2017. Identification of wood-boring beetles (Cerambycidae and Buprestidae) intercepted in trade-associated solid wood packaging material using DNA barcoding and morphology

 

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

New Secretary of Interior Pledges to Support Invasive Species Efforts — Let’s Ask USDA Secretary to do the Same!

Interior Secretary nominee Ryan Zinke

During his confirmation hearing Ryan Zinke, nominated to be the new Secretary of Interior, committed to several senators that he would explore ways to better manage invasive species on federal lands – especially in National parks – and to strengthen the National Invasive Species Council (NISC).

Mr. Zinke is currently a Congressional Representative from Montana. Senator Debbie Stabenow (MI) pressed him on invasive species issues during the hearing, focusing on the threat to the Great Lakes of carp and other aquatic species. Also, Senators Al Franken (MN), Joe Manchin (WV), and Mazie K. Hirono (HI) asked about invasive species in written questions submitted to the nominee.

Mr. Zinke answered most questions the same way:  He shares the Senator’s concern, especially since  Montana has significant invasive species problems. Also, he thinks it is critical that federal land managers be encouraged and empowered to be good neighbors in controlling invasive species in cooperation with adjacent private land owners. …  Specifically he wants to explore ways to implement the Early Detection Rapid Response Framework adopted by NISC in 2016.

 

* Sen. Franken included a single question on bioinvaders among a long list of questions on other topics. He mentioned the emerald ash borer as one example of a damaging invader in Minnesota. Senator Franken asked Mr. Zinke:

1) what steps he would take to enhance invasive species control on public lands

See paragraph above for Mr. Zinke’s answer.

2) whether he would enforce the Lacey Act and explore ways to strengthen it.

Mr. Zinke said he would enforce the law. He is aware that there is broad bipartisan frustration with the lack of an efficient process for listing injurious species under the Act. He would ask the Fish and Wildlife Service to recommend ways to improve its implementation. If legislative changes might be helpful, he would be pleased to have that conversation with the Congress.

 

* Sen. Manchin’s first question (!) asked how Mr. Zinke might strengthen NISC to help manage invaders across multiple types of land ownership. See Mr. Zinke’s frequent reference to his Montana experience above for his answer.

 

* Sen. Hirono asked five questions pertaining to invasive species! Her first question concerned steps to protect National parks (especially in Hawaii) from bioinvasion. Here, Mr. Zinke gave his usual response but added: “I am especially concerned that Hawaii’s unique flora and fauna are vulnerable to invasive species. I would not want to see invasive species push any of these unique plants and animals onto the Endangered Species list. Once confirmed, I will ask the National Park Service to present me with options for better protecting our national parks from invasive species.”

 

Ms. Hirono also asked about strengthening NISC. Mr. Zinke responded as follows: “…, I will explore ways to improve the operations of the National Invasive Species Council, and actively engage with the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture to get off to a strong start on this issue. … We also need to create a more effective linkage between the National Invasive Species Council policy operation in Washington, DC, and the on the ground federal land managers across the country who deal with invasive species on a daily basis…”

 

Also, Sen. Hirono asked for Mr. Zinke to help Hawai`i and other U.S. Pacific islands to counter the spread of invasive species through movement of military equipment. Mr. Zinke said he would work to enhance coordination with the Department of Defense and the Pacific island communities to reduce the risks posed by invasive species. … explore how we may implement the recent framework for early detection and rapid response …

 

Mr. Zinke also promised to work with Senator Hirono on several issues under Interior jurisdiction that are priorities for Hawai`i, among them invasive species.

 

 

What We Should Ask the new President & Congress to Do re: Invasive Species

While there are many opportunities for the Congress to strengthen U.S. invasive species programs (see my blog from December 31 here, the most important activity NOW is the confirmation of Sonny Perdue as Secretary of Agriculture. Contact your Senators and urge them to ask Governor Perdue how he will address invasive species challenges.

USDA Secretary nominee Sonny Perdue

Possible questions:

Q: How serious do you think is the threat to American natural resources from invasive (non-native) insects, pathogens, and plants? Can you suggest steps you would take to strengthen the efforts of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) aimed at controlling introduction and spread of such bioinvaders into the United States?

Q: The principal legal authority for preventing introductions of invasive plants and plant pests is the Plant Protection Act. The PPA provides strong authority but its implementation has been hampered by internal USDA decisions. How would you ensure that the Department corrects these problems and actively enforces its regulations aimed at ensuring the health and productivity of America’s plant resources?

  • In recent years, more than 20 previously undetected plant pests have been detected in the country each year. Hundreds of shipments of goods entering the country each year contain plant pests. What strategies would you promote to reduce the introduction, spread, and impacts of invasive species?

Q: Given the ever-tightening budget allocated to agencies responsible for addressing invasive species threats, what steps would you take to ensure that our country does not suffer waves of new invasions?

If you have a working relationship with your Senators and believe they understand the invasive species issue fairly well, you might want to suggest more detailed questions:

Q: As you know, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for preventing introduction and spread of plant pests.

  • In some cases, APHIS has been hesitant to use its authority to penalize importers which routinely receive shipments that violate plant pest (phytosanitary) regulations. [You might cite my blog from last week  which illustrates examples pertaining to wood packaging.] Will you instruct APHIS to use its legal authority to impose civil penalties to deter continuing violations?

 

  • Trying to prevent pest introductions by increasing the percentage of shipments that are inspected visually will not be effective in many cases. This is true especially with regard to one of the most important pathways by which plant pests are introduced – imports of living plant material such as nursery stock. APHIS began updating its regulations governing plant imports nearly four years ago, but the proposed new regulations have been not been finalized. Will you look into the reasons for delay and take steps to update these regulations to focus on pathway cleanliness rather than continue to rely on ineffective visual inspections?

Q: Urban forests across the country are under threat from a growing number of non-native or introduced insect pests. Examples include the emerald ash borer – now found in 27 states; Asian longhorned beetle – which threatens a large proportion of urban trees across the country; and polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers – killing many trees in southern California.

Urban forests are at particularly high risk of infestation by non-native pests because they are growing near ports and other transportation hubs where such pests are first introduced. Furthermore, each individual tree in an urban setting provides important benefits in the form of shade, moderation of storm water runoff, abatement of air pollutants, enhanced property values, and neighborhood amenities.

  • Will you fully utilize the authorities under the Plant Protection Act to help ensure the health and productivity of America’s urban forests?
  • [If you have not already suggested the questions outlined above re: wood packaging and other pathways, you might suggest them in this context.]

 

The Secretary of Agriculture also oversees the Forest Service. Pertinent questions:

Q: Invasives are as great a threat to eastern forests as wildfires are in the West. Despite the growing damage and ecological destruction we are witnessing the budgets for research on strategies to minimize these bioinvaders’ impacts are actually falling. How will you work to provide solutions to this quandary?

As I said in my blog at the end of December, what is missing is a political demand for action – and support for necessary staff and funding. Agencies under the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior bear most of the responsibility for managing invasive species. As long as these officials are not being pressed by key Congressional committees, the media, and key stakeholders to take more aggressive and effective action to curtail species introductions and suppress established populations of bioinvaders, they will continue to focus their attention on issues that do generate these kinds of political pressure.

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

 

Wood Packaging – Again! 11 years after ISPM#15, problems persist …

alb_larva

ALB pupa; Thomas B. Denholm, New Jersey Department of Agriculture; bugwood.org

As I have noted in earlier fact sheets and blogs, wood packaging (crates, pallets, etc.) has been a major pathway for introductions of highly damaging wood-boring pests since at least the early 1990s. (See Figure 2a in Aukema et al. 2010; reference given at end of blog.)

 

This rise in introductions followed the rapid increase in use of shipping containers – as described in Levinson’s book The Box (reference below). Levinson notes that shipping capacity increase fourfold during the decade of the 1970s, reaching 10 million tons in 1980. (See also my blog from August 2015 here). A second factor was the U.S. opening trade with China in 1979. Since in those years – before establishment of more sophisticated detection tools – a pest was often present for close to a decade before being detected, it is not surprising that detections of woodboring pests began their rise around 1990.

 

February 2017 marks 11 years since the international standard (ISPM#15) was put into effect by the United States and 17 years after the U.S. and Canada began requiring China to treat its wood packaging. Nevertheless, numerous shipments containing wood packaging that does not comply with the regulations continue to arrive at our borders – and to bring pests.

 

A study by scientists and economists (Haack et al. 2014; reference below) analyzed detection data from the U.S. and other countries in order to calculate the reduction in pest risk associated with wood packaging following adoption of ISPM#15. They concluded that one tenth of one percent of the wood packaging entering the U.S. after adoption of ISPM#15 still contained a tree-killing pest. This sounds like a small risk. However, the U.S. imported approximately 25 million shipping containers in 2013 – and presumably similar numbers in more recent years. It has been estimated in the past that wood packaging is used in just over half of these containers. Therefore, even if merely 1/10th of 1% of the wood packaging in these shipments contained a tree-killing pest, 13,000 containers harboring pests probably enter the country each year. That is 35 potential pest arrivals each day.

 

Interception records compiled by USDA APHIS and the DHS Bureau of Customs and Border Protection clearly show that wood packaging infested with pests continued to arrive in recent years – including in 2016.

 

Over a period of seven years – Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016 – CBP detected more than 20,700 shipments with wood packaging that did not comply with ISPM#15. While most of the non-compliances represented wood packaging that lacked the required mark showing treatment per ISPM#15, in nearly 5,000 cases the wood packaging actually harbored a pest in a regulated taxonomic group (see Customs presentation at the Continental Dialogue here).

 

Customs inspectors at 11 ports (listed at end of blog) have been sending intercepted wood packaging containing insect larvae to APHIS for study. APHIS has also sent to me its record of interceptions for the period FYs 2011 – 2016.

 

The APHIS interception database contained 2,547 records for insect detections. The insects belonged to more than 20 families. Families with the highest numbers of detections were Cerambycids – 25% of total; Curculionidae – 23% (includes Dendroctonus, Ips, Orthotomicus, Scolytinae, Xyleborus, Euwallacea); Scolytidae – 17%  (includes true weevils such as elm bark beetles); Buprestids – 11%; and Bostrichidae – 3%. Not all of the insects in these groups pose a threat to North American plant species.

piece of wood packaging with Cerambycid larva; detected in Oregon
piece of wood packaging with Cerambycid larva; detected in Oregon

The samples sent by CBP to APHIS are limited largely to the families Cerambycidae (the family containing the Asian longhorned beetle) and Buprestidae (the family containing the emerald ash borer). This dataset contains 1,068 insects, obtained over the period April 2012 through August 2016 from 786 separate interceptions of non-compliant wood packaging. The sample is not from a random set of ports – four of the seven entry points are on the Mexican border, and the proportion was even higher in the early years of the study.

 

The APHIS interception database reports pests detected in wood packaging from dozens of countries. The countries of origin with the highest numbers of shipments detected to have pests present were Mexico, China, Italy, and Costa Rica. These numbers reflect in part import volumes. The U.S. imports huge volumes of goods from both Mexico and China. (Our second largest trade partner is Canada; the U.S. and Canada have exempted wood packaging moving between the two countries from the requirement that it comply with ISPM#15. Neither country inspects wood packaging from the other country at even the low rate of inspection applied to wood packaging coming from Mexico or overseas.)

 

The CBP-APHIS database includes pests found in wood packaging from 39 countries, including 212 shipments from Europe; 130 shipments from Asia; and 341 shipments from the Americas – almost exclusively Mexico.

 

APHIS analysts point out that the pests from Mexico might pose a lower risk since some proportion of them are probably species shared between our two countries. (However, several woodborers from Mexico are killing trees in the U.S. – e.g., goldspotted oak borer, walnut twig beetle, and soapberry borer. These species are described briefly here. These insects were probably introduced to vulnerable parts of the U.S. in firewood rather than wood packaging.)

 

As always (see the briefs here as well as various articles by Haack and Cavey), imports of heavy objects are associated with wood packaging found to be infested with insects: metal and machine parts, tiles, decorative stone. Imports of fruits and vegetables rank high because of the large number of interceptions in wood packaging from Mexico.

 

Comparing the estimate by Haack et al. 2014 with the CBP data indicates that Customs is detecting about 6% of all pest-infested shipments. I do not believe that increasing the inspection workforce and effort will result in substantial improvement in this rate.

 

On average, 26% of infested wood pieces detected by CBP were found in wood that had been treated according to ISPM#15 requirements (if we believe the ISPM#15 stamp on the wood). Does this indicate fraud? Or is the problem accidental misapplication of the treatments? Or are the treatments less effective than hoped? APHIS researchers have found that larvae from wood subject to methyl bromide fumigation were more likely to survive to adulthood than those intercepted in wood that had been heat treated. Does this indicate that methyl bromide fumigation is a less effective treatment?

 

CBP staff reported that only about 30 import shipments (out of nearly 21,000 shipments found to be in  violation of ISPM#15 requirements) have received a financial penalty. CBP staff cite two reasons for the low penalty rate:

  1. USDA policy requires that an importer be caught 5 times in a year with non-compliant wood packaging before authorizing a fine; and
  2. APHIS has not designated SWPM as a high-risk commodity

 

What Can Be Done to Slow or Eliminate this Pathway?

 

Our goal should be to hold foreign suppliers responsible for complying with ISPM#15. One approach is to penalize violators. APHIS and Customs might

  • Prohibit imports in packaging made from solid wood (boards, 4 x 4s, etc.) from foreign suppliers which have a record of repeated violations over the 11 years ISPM#15 has been in effect (17 years for exporters from Hong Kong & mainland China). Officials should allow continued imports from those same suppliers as long as they are contained in packaging made from other types of materials, including plastic, metals, fiberboards …
  • Fine an importer for each new shipment found to be out of compliance with ISPM#15 in cases when the foreign supplier of that shipment has a record of repeated violations.

 

There would need to be a severe penalty to deter foreign suppliers from simply changing their names or taking other steps to escape being associated with their violation record.

 

At the same time, the agencies should work with NGOs and importers to promote creation of an industry certification program that would recognize and reward importers who have voluntarily undertaken actions aimed at voluntarily exceeding ISPM#15 requirements so as to provide a higher level of protection against invasive species that would otherwise potentially be introduced into the United States.

 

What You Can Do

 

  • Tell your member of Congress and Senators that you are worried that our trees are still being put at risk by insects arriving in wood packaging. Ask them to urge the new Secretary of Agriculture (Sonny Perdue, former governor of Georgia) to take the actions outlined above in order to curtail introductions of additional tree-killing pests.

 

  • Talk to your friends and neighbors & civic organizations about the threat to our trees. Ask them to join you in communicating these concerns to their Congressional representatives and Senators.

 

  • Write letters to the editors of your local newspaper or TV news station.

 

Use your knowledge about pests threatening trees in your state or locality in your communications!

 

Ports that have sent specimens to APHIS lab: Seattle, Long Beach, San Diego, Laredo, Hildago,  Houston, Miami, Port Everglades, Chicago, Detroit

References

 Aukema, J.E., D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle, A.M. Liebhold, K. Britton, & S.J. Frankel. 2010. Historical Accumulation of Nonindigenous Forest Pests in the Continental United States. Bioscience. December 2010 / Vol. 60 No. 11

Haack, R. A., K. O. Britton, E. G. Brockerhoff, J. F. Cavey, L. J. Garrett, M. Kimberley, F. Lowenstein, A. Nuding, L. J. Olson, J. Turner, and K. N. Vasilaky. 2014. Effectiveness of the international phytosanitary standard ISPM no. 15 on reducing wood borer infestation rates in wood packaging material entering the United States. Plos One 9:e96611.

Levinson, M. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger Princeton University Press 2008

 

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

 

Public attitudes about tree-killing pests

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has carried out telephone surveys of eligible voters to determine their attitudes about trees and forests and threats to them over 11 years – in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2016. Leigh Greenwood will present these finding during a webinar on Friday 27 January. Go here to learn more and register for the webinar.

 

champion green ashchampion dead

Michigan champion ash before & after being killed by emerald ash borer

While those surveyed consistently ranked economic concerns as more important than environmental ones, still they have been aware of threat from forest insects and diseases.

In 2016, 23% to 26% of respondents said that they considered diseases or insects that kill trees a “very serious” problem. Notably, these concerns were equal to those expressed about fires that destroy property and forests.

Gardening, hiking, and wildlife viewing are popular activities, engaged in by half or more of the respondents. Only 35% of respondents fish; only 15% hunt.

The sources of information on forest health issues that are most trusted by survey respondents have remained steady across regions and years:

  • park “rangers” rank first, with 89% of respondents ranking them as “believable”;
  • the state division of forestry ranks second, with 84% of respondents saying it is “believable”;
  • the USDA Forest Service and scientists are tied for third, with 82% of respondents saying each is “believable”;
  • also highly trusted (trusted by more than 70% of respondents) were the State Department of Agriculture, a local forester, and conservation organizations.

 

The public’s level of familiarity with the concept of forest pests nationwide has been between 53% and 59% of respondents since the Conservancy began polling in 2005. Levels of awareness were higher in 2010 than in either 2005 or 2016 –probably because of media attention to the emerald ash borer.

 

The specific pests asked about in the polls with the highest levels of awareness have remained Dutch elm disease and European gypsy moth – with somewhat over half the respondents saying they have heard of the problem. About a quarter of respondents have heard something about chestnut blight.

 

Levels of awareness have changed significantly over time for some regions and some pests.

In 2016, 50% of respondents in the “east north central” region HAVE NOT heard of the Asian longhorned beetle. This contrasts with 2010, when only 18% of respondents in the region said they had not heard about ALB. Perhaps this decline in awareness is because the outbreak in Clermont County Ohio is in a semirural area and does not get the media coverage that earlier outbreaks in cities did. Alternatively, because these polls are conducted in a population proportional sample, it may be that urban residents are not aware while rural residents (in the affected area) are indeed aware but are not captured in the sampling methodology.

Similarly, in 2016 more than a third of respondents in New England said they had not heard about the ALB; this lack of awareness is greater than the quarter who said they had not heard about the insect in 2010. Still, the number of people in the region who had “heard quite a bit about it” has held steady at one-third of respondents. In the Northeast more broadly, 48% in 2016 said they had not heard about ALB, compared to 42% in 2010.

Regarding the emerald ash borer, its spread has apparently led to greater awareness in the South. By 2016, 28% of respondents in the South have heard of it — compared to 18% in 2010. Awareness of EAB has remained steady in the East North Central region – at 76% of respondents. In 2005, when three of the five states in the region were polled, awareness was far lower – 57% said they had never heard of it.

Poll results showed that the proportion of respondents nation-wide who were “extremely or very concerned about non-native forest pests and diseases has declined from 54% in 2010 to 40% in 2016. While the poll does not inform us why this change has occurred, one probable explanation is that the emerald ash borer infestation is no longer front page news in most regions.

Levels of concern are highest in major cities and rural areas.

One of the purposes of the Conservancy’s polling is to measure the effectiveness of the organization’s efforts to educate campers and others about the pest risk associated with firewood. (Visit www.dontmovefirewood.org to see the extensive outreach program and how you can become involved.)  Consequently, pollsters paid considerable attention to attitudes about using and moving firewood. In 2016, 47% of respondents say they never burn firewood at home; a different 51% say they never burn firewood when travelling away from home.

Of those who burn firewood at home or outdoors, few now admit to moving firewood – especially in the Northeast and Midwest. In those two regions, 70% plus say they never move it. Those who do move firewood say they move it shorter distances (mostly less than 50 miles).

The polls show the impact of outreach efforts nationwide. In the Northeast and Midwest, those who admit to moving firewood several times have dropped by about half. Indeed, the nation-wide proportion of respondents who admit to moving firewood in 2016 is below the proportion in the most affected region in 2007.

Across the country, 37% have heard that they should not move firewood – slightly above the 34% in 2010. Respondents who have heard the firewood message say this information has made them much less likely to move firewood.

However, there are huge regional differences. In the Midwest (reported as two subregions), between 56% and 70% have heard the firewood message. In New England, 49% of respondents have heard the message. In the Mid-Atlantic region, 40% remember having heard a message about not moving firewood. However, in the South and in the Pacific states, only 30% or fewer of respondents remember having seen or heard a message about firewood. In Rocky Mountain states, the proportion falls to 11%!!!. [ insert the graph? Would it be readable?]

The overwhelming majority of respondents say they are willing to buy firewood where they will burn it after hearing information about pest threat. This proportion was 84% in 2016 – although this is below the  90% who responded positively in 2005.

 

Types of information that respondents say they are most likely to pay attention to:

  • Brochure at a park                                         90% say would pay attention
  • Information from friend or neighbor        88%
  • Billboard on highway                                    84%
  • Radio ad                                                           78%
  • Email at time of reserving campground             77%  (major program effort)
  • Label on firewood package                            77%  (but is this information seen too late – e.g., after people have already arrived with wood in tow?)
  • Ad on TV                                                       75%
  • Booth at special event or farmers’ market 75%  (DMF has had such booths for years)

Lower proportions said they would pay attention to such other outreach methods as an article in a local newspaper, article in utility bill mailing or e-newsletter, advertisement in outdoor outfitter catalog or newspaper … or even website focused on firewood consumers. Responses vary by age groups. Predictably, digital media categories perform more persuasively in the younger demographics.

The preferred message is “buy it where you burn it.” The very similar “buy local, burn local” is also well accepted by the public according to the polling results, but due to its more limited use area (mostly Vermont and Canada at this time) the campaign recommends using Buy It Where You Burn It to be consistent.

CONCLUSIONS:

  • Use the slogan that the public prefers – when practical; the “local” message might not fit if the state’s or agency’s program requires that the wood be treat or either allows or encourages gathering of downed wood for the fire.
  • Outreach is working – the public is changing its behavior to move firewood less frequently and for shorter distances.
  • Use trusted messengers and outlets/places where people are receptive.
  • Awareness is temporary; it fades over time — so don’t stop putting the message out!!!!

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

Posted by Faith Campbell