Category: invasive species policy

South African report: Rigorous, Honest, and a Model for U.S. and Others

Density of invasive plants in South Africa

map available here

 

Last month, in my blog about the US Geological Survey’s report on invasive species  I announced release of a report by South Africa on its invasive species management programs – available here.  Because this report is unusual in both its rigor and its honesty, I’m returning to it here. I think it is a model for our country and others.

The report provides the basics. That is, it analyzes pathways of introduction and spread; number, distribution and impact of individual species; species richness and abundance of alien species in defined areas; and the effectiveness of interventions. Of the 775 invasive species identified to date, 556, or about 72%, are listed under some national regulatory program. Terrestrial and freshwater plants number 574 species; terrestrial invertebrates number 107 species. A different set of 107 species, or about 14%, are considered by experts to be having major or severe impacts on biodiversity and/or human wellbeing. The highest numbers of alien species are in the savanna, grassland, Indian Ocean coastal belt, and fynbos biomes. South Africans are particularly focused on the reductions in surface water resulting from plant invasions. Much of the control effort is under the egis of the decades-old “Working for Water” program.

Also, the report has features that are all-too-rare in work of its kind. First is the authors’ focus on rigor – of data sources and interpretation of those data using standardized criteria. Second – and even more important – is their call for analyzing the efficacy of the components of invasive species program. They insist on the need to measure outcomes (that is, results), not just inputs (resources committed) and outputs (“acres treated”, etc.). Inputs are far easier to measure and are, unfortunately, the mainstay of how most U.S. efforts are tracked – if they are tracked at all.

As they note, measure of inputs and outputs are not useful because they provide no guidance on the purpose of the action or treatment or of its effectiveness in achieving that purpose.

(For earlier CISP advocacy of measuring outcomes, visit the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species and read the bullet points under “Recommendations for a Comprehensive National Response”.)

The report has been praised by international conservationists, including Piero Genovesi – chair of the IUCN’s Invasive Species Specialist Group. British ecologist Helen Roy says that, to her knowledge, it is “the first comprehensive synthesis of the state of invasive species by any country.”

 

How well are programs working?

The authors’ focus on rigor includes being scrupulously honest in their assessments of current program components. They note deficiencies and disappointments, even when the conclusions might be politically inconvenient. To be fair, all countries struggle to achieve success in managing bioinvasions. And South Africa is, in many ways, a developing country with a myriad of economic and social challenges.

So it is probably not surprising that, for most factors analyzed, the authors say data are insufficient to determine the program’s impact. Where data are adequate, they often show that programs fall short. For example, they conclude that control measures have been effective in reducing populations of established invasive species, usually plants, in some localized areas but not in others. While the situation would arguably have been worse had there been no control, current control efforts have not been effective in preventing the ongoing spread of IAS when viewed at a national scale. Only one of South Africa’s 72 international ports of entry has consistent inspection of incoming air passengers and cargo – and even those inspections are not carried out outside of regular working hours (e.g., nights and weekends).

The authors are even critical of the “Working for Water” program – which is the basis for most control efforts in South Africa and enjoys wide political support. WfW has two goals: providing employment and development opportunities to disadvantaged individuals in rural areas, and managing invasive alien plants. Despite substantial funding, the WfW program has supported control teams that have reached only 2% – 5% of the estimated extent of the most important invasive plants. Furthermore, programs structured to provide employment have not ensured use of the most efficient control strategies.

 

What’s needed in South Africa — and around the world

The authors conclude that South Africa needs new processes to monitor and report on bioinvasions in order to achieve evidence-based policy and management decisions. They call for (1) more research to determine and assess invasive species impacts; (2) better monitoring of the effectiveness of current control measures; and (3) the development of methods to look at the impact of bioinvasions and their management on society as a whole.

The authors say it is important for South Africa to improve its management of invasive species because their impacts are already large and are likely to increase significantly. They note that improving management efficiency will require difficult choices and trade-offs. They recommend a focus on priority pathways, species, and areas. They also stress return on investment.

 

I don’t know how this report has been received in South Africa. I hope government officials, media observers, landowners, political parties, and other stakeholders appreciate the honesty and expertise involved. I hope they take the analyses and recommendations seriously and act on them.

(Preparation of the report was was overseen by a team of editors and contributing authors employed by the South African National Biological Diversity Institute (SANBI) and the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology at (C.I.B). Drafts were widely circulated to contributing authors and other stakeholders for comments. An independent review editor will be appointed to assess the review process and recommend any ways to strengthen the process for future reports.)

 

Meanwhile, how do we Americans apply the same rigor to analyzing our own efforts?

 

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.

 

 

APHIS’ Strategic Plan – Focus on Deregulation & Trade Facilitation

APHIS’ headquarters building

USDA APHIS released its Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2019-2023 just after Thanksgiving. The report is 21 pages long. There is no evidence that any stakeholders were asked for input or review.

The Plan has a disappointing – but not surprising – emphasis on deregulation and “customer service”. A second – and more surprising weakness is the lack of attention to plant pests – even those of agriculture, much less natural resources. The emphasis is clearly on animal pests and diseases – including zoonotics.

APHIS’ mission is “To safeguard the health, welfare and value of American agricultural and natural resources.” To accomplish this mission, APHIS has set three goals:

  • Deliver efficient, effective, and responsive programs.
  • Safeguard American agriculture.
  • Facilitate safe U.S. agricultural exports.

Most references to protecting natural resources relate to finding more environmentally sensitive approaches for the program under which APHIS reduces human-wildlife conflicts (e.g., birds being struck by airplanes).

In the Plan, APHIS Administer Kevin Shea writes in his opening message that achieving APHIS’ difficult mission of protecting the health and value of America’s agriculture and natural resources cannot be accomplished by APHIS alone. Instead, the agency must work collaboratively with other government agencies and industry, and consult regularly with partners and stakeholders regarding programs’ effectiveness. Administer Shea also highlights the importance of “delivering our programs and services efficiently, effectively, with integrity, …” The agency promises to modernize information technology, data management, methods of communication with collaborators, exporters and importers, etc., in order to give good return on expenditure of taxpayer resources. APHIS also pledges to make decisions based on science. There are seven references to basing decisions on scientific data.

Fair enough. Such emphases were to be expected from Trump Administration and prefigured by USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue during his nomination hearing, e.g., facilitating exports, supporting better information technology.

However, the Plan refers to “customer service” or “customer experience” 34 times. An additional seven references are made to reducing regulatory burdens. The Plan also speaks of the need to “protect the health, welfare, and value of American agriculture and natural resources. … at a reasonable cost. … Easing regulatory burdens makes it easier to create jobs and promote economic growth.” (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps the recent proposal to deregulate the emerald ash borer is driven in part by the emphasis on minimizing costs to regulated industries and seeking alternative approaches? (Although the deregulation has been under discussion for several years, predating the Trump Administration.)

from APHIS PPQ website

The imbalance in attention to animal versus plant pests and disease is striking. Each of the 14 goals is supported by a number of specific tactics. There are a total of 100 “tactics” under the two goals most directly relevant to preventing or managing pest introductions. These goals are: “Protecting America’s agriculture” and “Promoting U.S. agricultural exports.” Of the 100 tactics, only ten are clearly related to plant pests; 19 are pretty clearly activities that apply to both plant and animal pests and diseases; and five are unclear as to whether they include plant pests as well as animal diseases. Thus, only a third of the tactics apply!

[In making this calculation, I did not include 43 tactics listed under the first goal (“Deliver efficient, effective, and responsive programs”) or three objectives under the goal of “Protecting American agriculture” that apply explicitly to wildlife management, regulating genetically engineered organisms, or ensuring humane treatment of animals.]

Specific examples of such lack of balance include the six examples illustrating the declaration (on p. 4) that “Pest and disease events are more frequent, more complex, and less predictable.” Five of the examples are animal diseases, the sixth is the insect-vectored human disease caused by the Zika virus.

In discussing its efforts to balance its safeguarding efforts against increasing requests for market access by international trading partners, APHIS mentions some activities pertinent to plant as well as animal pest management, e.g., examining disease and pest risks and inserting mitigation strategies into international agreements and interstate movement protocols. However, the only specific action it mentions is helping countries to build capacity to implement the Global Health Security Agenda.

The only reference to forest pests is under one of the 24 tactics associated with Goal 2. Safeguard American agriculture, Objective 2.1: Prevent damaging plant and animal pests and diseases from entering and spreading in the United States to promote plant and animal health. This tactic calls for strengthening the North American perimeter against pest threats from outside the region to prevent introduction of agricultural, forest, and other invasive pests.

Why are Plant Pests slighted?

Perhaps plant-related efforts were left out because they are less “sexy”? Or because they are more distantly linked to human health? The Plan does state that “The tactics in this plan represent only a portion of APHIS activities and by no means embody all the important work APHIS does to fulfill its mission.”

Who knows what was left out?

How will adoption of this strategy affect future efforts to address tree-killing insects and pathogens – both those already present in the country and those yet to be introduced?

Might PPQ Fill in the Gaps?

In 2014 APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine issued its own strategic plan. This supplementary plan made frequent mentions of safeguarding natural resources. Indeed, the third of the plan’s seven goals stated:                              

Goal 3: Protect forests, urban landscapes, rangelands and other natural resources, as well as private working lands from harmful pests and diseases

Several “tactics” under each goal also directly applied to protecting natural resources. I list them below:

1) Prevent the entry and spread of ag pests and diseases.

  • Coordinate with Canada to implement an effective multi-national system that reduces the threat of tree pests arriving from Asia and other parts of the world (e.g. AGM).

3: Protect forests, urban landscapes, rangelands and other natural resources, as well as private working lands from harmful pests and diseases

  • Maintain EAB regulatory framework to focus on the leading edge of infestations while minimizing impacts on regulated businesses in quarantined areas.
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of biocontrol releases in states and combining both regulatory & outreach activities to address the risks of moving logs, firewood, and nursery stock.
  • Examine detection technologies and partnering with states to determine and apply the most effective strategies to survey & eradicate the Asian longhorned beetle
  • Partnering with federal and state agencies to enact measures such as a public outreach campaign to mitigate the movement of forest pests through firewood.
  1. Ensure the safe trade of ag products, creating export opportunities for U.S. producers
  • play a leadership role in revising ISPM#15
  1. Protect the health of U.S. agricultural resources, including addressing zoonotic disease issues and incidences, by implementing surveillance, preparedness and response, and control programs
  • Strengthen partnerships with Tribal Nations to develop a robust surveillance and early detection system for detecting and reporting invasive species.
  • Work with all stakeholders to coordinate all-hazards agriculture and natural resources response support.
  • Develop science-based programs in collaboration with industry and academia to jointly identify practices that will mitigate pest damage. E.G., SANC program http://sanc.nationalplantboard.org/ [a Systems Approach to Nursery Certification] implemented jointly with the National Plant Board and nursery industry

Dare we hope that PPQ adopts an updated strategic plan that fills in some of the gaps in the overall APHIS plan?

 

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.

 

Comments on EAB deregulation show costs would be too high

Kelly Church (Grand Traverse Band Ottawa Chippewa) with baskets she wove from black ash

 

As you know, in September APHIS published a proposal to alter management of the emerald ash borer (EAB). Under the proposal, APHIS would no longer regulate movement of firewood, nursery stock, or other items that can transport EAB to new areas. Instead, APHIS proposed to rely on biological control to reduce impacts and – possibly – slow EAB’s spread. I have posted two blogs about the weaknesses of the underlying analysis and the decision by the Center for Invasive Species Prevention to oppose the proposal. The proposal, accompanying “regulatory flexibility analysis,” and 150 comments by the public are posted here.

The Don’t Move Firewood program has provided links to the individual organizations’ comments here.

 

Here I summarize major points made by those commenting on the proposal.

Most state agriculture departments accepted the proposal. Few commented at all, leaving that to the National Plant Board. The NPB letter consisted of only four paragraphs. In contrast, several state forestry agencies commented.

Several organizations, including the National Plant Board and AmericanHort, agreed with APHIS that the quarantine has not worked primarily because detection tools are so poor. As a result, EAB is able to firmly establish for several years and spread in a new area before authorities detect it and take action.

It is clear from the comments that deregulating EAB might save APHIS money and effort, but the action will exacerbate the already substantial burden on many other U.S. entities – ranging from federal agencies such as USDA Forest Service and National Park Service to homeowners; woodlot owners to (potentially) exporters of all sorts of products; to Native Americans. The economic components of this potential burden surely deserve more serious evaluation as required under several Executive orders.

Comments Categorized

1) The quarantine has slowed the spread of EAB and it remains valuable in granting communities time to prepare

Several of the commenters wished to counter the proposal’s inference that quarantines had failed; rather, they insisted that quarantine has slowed spread of the EAB and that this strategy is still valuable because it gives un-infested areas more time to prepare. Those voicing this view included the National Association of State Foresters; Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry; Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Wisconsin; several bands of Native Americans in Maine (Houlton Band, Penobscot, an individual member of the Penobscot); The Nature Conservancy; a man who is both park superintendent for the City of Kalispell, Montana and Chair of the Montana Urban and Community Forestry Association; three local conservancies in Oregon (West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District;  Four-County Cooperative Weed Management Area from Clackamas, Clark, Multnomah and Washington counties in the greater Portland Metro area; Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District); Jefferson County Colorado Invasive Species Management team; Maine Mountain Collaborative; Blue Hill Heritage Trust of Maine; a small woodland owner in Maine; and a Professor in the School of Forest Resources at the University of Maine.

Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division opposed the APHIS proposal. The Division noted that EAB spread in the east was facilitated greatly by the continuity of ash habitats whereas ash habitats are much more patchy in the West. Given this situation, human transport is the most likely means by which EAB will reach the West – either from infested portions of the U.S. or via trans-Pacific trade.

A few entities that supported APHIS’ proposal – e.g., the Southern Group of State Foresters and – in a separate letter – Texas Forest Service – also said the quarantine had been helpful.

As The Nature Conservancy said in its comments, the quarantine effectively limits two of the most important pathways, firewood and nursery stock. The result has been to protect much of the country from the pest and buying time to develop mitigation measures.

 

2) APHIS’ dismissal of quarantine is a worrying message (see also discussion of firewood below)

Several of the commenters expressed concern that APHIS too curtly dismissed the value of quarantine – both as it functioned to slow spread of EAB and as a tool used against a wide range of pests. Commenters raising issues about the proposal’s apparent undermining of quarantine as a strategy included the Kansas Forest Service; Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry; Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets and the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation; and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry. The Vermont and Wisconsin agencies asked APHIS to clarify to affected parties what it expects to achieve by the proposed deregulation. The Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa warned that the public might interpret the dropping of regulations as signaling that EAB is no longer important.

Five organizations unified under the banner of the Coalition Against Forest Pests noted that APHIS had set a precedent of dropping regulations when quarantines appear to fail.

A subset of these comments focused on a lack of clarity by APHIS as to its future strategy.

Several commenters said that APHIS had not outlined a coherent strategy for the future. The Kansas Forest Service even called the proposal an agency “exit strategy” rather than a coherent plan. Others raising this issue included the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry; South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Department of Game, Fish and Parks; and the Coalition Against Forest Pests. Maine noted that the proposal would shift the burden of regulation to the states. Maine and South Dakota said that APHIS, as the responsible federal regulatory agency, should provide a clear and consistent process for regulation of potentially infested products across state lines.

The Tennessee Forest Health Coordinator called for an analysis of EAB program successes that might point to ways in which APHIS could support alternative strategies. A professor of forestry in Maine said APHIS should evaluate and assess techniques specifically to optimize the effectiveness of education and outreach.

Among entities which supported APHIS’ proposed new approach, the Southern Group of State Foresters, Texas Forest Service, and two Vermont agencies – Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets and the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation – urged APHIS to champion a national, multi-agency approach to managing EAB, including creation of a national, voluntary treatment standard and label for firewood; redirecting all savings to research & management – including state surveys. These groups also advocated funding increases for APHIS, the USDA Forest Service, and state EAB programs; and support for states to carry out their enlarged responsibilities for survey, outreach, education, and assistance to affected parties.

The Vermont agencies wrote that EAB “is a nationally significant pest, … which warrants a significant federal role.” Because EAB impacts on communities, forest health, and the forest economy continue to expand, a decision to discontinue regulatory activities should be accompanied by increased federal support for research and management.

The National Association of State Foresters also called for APHIS to champion a national, multi-agency approach, with a somewhat longer list of components. These should include support state research and management efforts, the biocontrol program, identifying genetic strains of ash trees that are resistant to EAB, maintain national treatment criteria for wood products (including firewood), and reconvene the National Firewood Task Force. NASF also urged the USDA Forest Service to develop a cooperative management program to sustain and replace ash trees killed by EAB.

Dr. David Orwig of Harvard Forest also called for funding not just biocontrol but also research areas like silviculture, chemical control, ash utilization, and management guidelines.

This pattern of asking for continued or expanded federal engagement – beyond biocontrol – is quite apparent.  Some entitites that said they supported APHIS’ proposal nevertheless called for the agency to continue detection and response components of the program – expressly contrary to the proposal itself.

Thus, AmericanHort, the two Vermont agencies, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry, and two Maine departments called for APHIS to continue or increase its engagement in EAB detection and other management activities – including biocontrol, outreach to explain the change in strategy, and engaging the National Park Service and Forest Service in promulgating a consistent firewood policy.

Others who asked for similar commitments were straightforward in opposing the proposal. Thus the North Dakota Department of Agriculture and North Dakota Forest Service – in separate letters – asked that APHIS continue to provide resources to help states monitor EAB presence and respond to any new detections. The Oregon Department of Forestry asked that federal agencies continue to fund research and development of early detection and rapid response strategies for EAB; conservation of ash genetic resources and promotion of natural resistance; research on uses of dead ash; as well as classical biocontrol once EAB is established in a new area.

Several commenters said that they had considered APHIS to be a critically important partner in countering the EAB and were disappointed that the agency is backing away. Native Americans in particular considered the proposal to be a betrayal of the Federal government’s treaty responsibilities vis a vis recognized tribes. The Fond du Lac Band of Wisconsin wrote that upholding a federal EAB regulation is vital to the protections of important cultural and natural resources both on the Reservation and within territories ceded to the Band by several 19th Century treaties. The tribe cited EO 13175 issued by President Clinton. The Houlton Band of Maine said APHIS has a mission to defend federally recognized tribes against invasive species.  The federal government should not make a decision so contrary to its fiduciary trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes.

 

3) Need for continued APHIS leadership on firewood regulation

The importance of APHIS continuing to lead national efforts to curtail spread of EAB (and other pests) through careless movement of infested firewood was stressed by many commenters. Voicing this need were many of the entities which opposed the proposal, including Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry; Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; Southern Group of State Foresters; Texas Forest Service; the two Vermont agencies; The Nature Conservancy; and the National Association of State Foresters. As noted above, the NASF, Southern Group, Texas, and Vermont all said APHIS should support creation of a national, voluntary treatment standard & label for firewood. TNC said eliminating the EAB quarantine – the best known and understood firewood regulation – will exacerbate difficulties of outreach. Public outreach and education work best when they are backed up by core consistent rules. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and NASF called for reinstating the National Firewood Task Force (which APHIS led in 2009-2010).

Several entities that supported the proposal also called for continued APHIS engagement on firewood. One, the Wisconsin DNR Division of Forestry, urged APHIS to work with the National Park Service and Forest Service to create a consistent firewood policy. A second, the NPB, noted that it is developing guidance to states interested in initiating regulations, best management practices, or outreach programs. The NBP added that it welcomes any assistance from APHIS.

As The Nature Conservancy and Tennessee Forest Health Coordinator pointed out, the firewood effort – federal regulations, state regulations, education and outreach under the “Don’t Move Firewood” campaign – all helped curb movement of several tree-killing pests, not just EAB.

 

4) Others Pointed Out the Importance of Consistent Regulations to Keep Markets Open

A smaller number of entities addressed the similar importance of consistent rules governing interstate and US-Canadian trade in other types of vectors that can transport EAB and which are to be deregulated under the proposal. These included the NASF.  Several private groups from Maine and the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry noted the importance of reaching agreement with Canada, which is a major market for their wood products. The two South Dakota departments also expressed concerns.

The National Wooden Pallet and Container Association raised the prospect of truly tremendous disruption of trade. At present, the United States and Canada exempt wood packaging originating in either country from requirements that it be treated in accordance with international standards (ISPM No. 15). Canada has many reasons to fear that crates and pallets carrying exports from the U.S. might be infested by EAB once APHIS stops enforcing quarantine regulations. If Canada responds by ending the exemption and requiring wood packaging from the U.S. to comply with ISPM#15, that action would affect a wide range of U.S. exports – from fruits to auto parts. In 2017, the U.S. exported $282 billion worth of goods to Canada (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative)

 

5) The Economic Analysis Underlying the Proposal was Inadequate

Several commenters criticized the adequacy of the economic analysis. The most specific criticisms were put forward by the California Forest Pest Council; CISP; the five organizations commenting under the banner of the Coalition Against Forest Pests; and the National Wooden Pallet and Container Association. The latter two cited specific Executive orders and the Paperwork Reduction Act in calling for a review of the proposal by the Office of Management and Budget & USDA Office of General Counsel to reassess whether it meets the conditions for the reduced economic analysis. As noted above, the NWPCA mentioned specifically a fear that Canada might discontinue the mutual exemption under which wood packaging may move between the two countries without being treated in accordance with ISPM#15. The possibility of such an action would certainly push the proposal over the $100 million threshold for completing much more rigorous economic analyses.

Other economic concerns not adequately addressed in the view of the commenters relate to costs arising earlier due to the faster spread of EAB to un-infested western states. Costs imposed earlier than would otherwise be the case are considered relevant in regulatory decisions. Furthermore, businesses in these and possibly other states will face new regulations adopted by states to fill the void left by federal deregulation. Finally, the lack of consistency arising from separate state regulations will impede interstate or US-Canada commerce.

Non-regulatory costs – death of trees and associated removal costs – costs to the forest industry, plus municipalities and home owners in areas not currently affected by infestation – were also not discussed in the proposal.

Several commenters said that APHIS had underestimated the ecological and cultural values threatened by spread of EAB. These included the Fond du Lac Band, Penobscot band, TNC, the Oregon soil conservation district and weed management area; Maine Mountain Collaborative and Woodland Owners, as well as several individuals.

The Nature Conservancy noted that three-quarters of the native ash range of the conterminous United States and 14 of vulnerable species in the U.S. and Mexico are still free of EAB as a result of the quarantine.

A Minnesota community’s Parks Commission noted that loss of trees to EAB can lead to other problems and costs. Consequently, the goal of “saving money” will not be achieved. In short, EAB-caused tree mortality “affects communities, including residents, homeowners, and taxpayers. Funding should be directed both to slowing the spread of the pest and to treatment of affected trees.”

A small woodland owner in Maine asked why APHIS did not evaluate economic impacts to landowners & municipalities.

Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division added that pesticides used to control EAB might cause negative impacts in riparian and aquatic environments.

 

6) Several Commenters questioned whether freed-up funds would support biocontrol – or whether they should

As noted in my earlier blogs, there are questions about whether biocontrol will be efficacious in protecting forests across the continent. CAFP echoed these questions. Blue Hill Heritage Trust of Maine called biocontrol experimental.

The Fond du Lac Band pointed out that most tribes don’t accept biocontrol on their reservations – so spending all available funds on this approach doesn’t help Native Americans.

The Maine government and the Penobscot Band of Maine expressed doubt that increased funding would actually materialize.

 

7) Comments that do not fit neatly into these categories.

The California Department of Agriculture said that it intends to promulgate a state exterior quarantine to protect its agriculture (olive trees are hosts of EAB) and environment.

The South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Department of Game, Fish and Parks concluded that interstate regulatory options should be a higher priority than other methods of control.

The Houlton Band of Maine said that maintaining the domestic quarantine is the only federal action that can adequately address the universally agreed fact that human activities cause the rapid spread of EAB.

The Western Governors Association described the region’s vulnerability to EAB spread and, citing recent Association policy resolutions, said a decision of this magnitude should be made only after substantive consultation with Western Governors.

The National Association of State Foresters pointed out that a decline in federal funding for EAB detection surveys will significantly reduce state forestry agencies’ capacity to monitor and respond to EAB spread.

The Jefferson County, Colorado Invasive Species Management team recommended retaining the quarantine using either the 100th Meridian or Continental Divide as the containment boundary. It cited as a justifications the “culture of vigilance” created by strong quarantines. This vigilance saves financial resources and protects natural and agricultural resources.

Finally, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa said that abandoning methods that are in place for the prevention of EAB’s spread, such as federal and state quarantines, and favoring only options that focus on rehabilitating a site after it has undergone a severe infestation, presents a large and unnecessary ecological risk. Invasive species programs have always focused on “prevention” being the key.

 

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.

Worldwide – and U.S. – Proliferation of Phytophthora via the Nursery Trade – an Update

Phytophthora cinnanomi killing Ione manzanita in California; photo from Swiecki and Garbelotto, Distribution of Phytophthora cinnamomi within the range of Ione manzanita (Arctostaphylos myrtifolia).   Agreement between the California Department of Fish and Game and University of California

Phytophthora species are plant pathogens in the oomycote group (water molds, closely related to brown algae). More than 160 species have been described; new species are continually being isolated. Many Phytophthora species are deadly to naïve hosts; examples in the United States include sudden oak death, Port-Orford cedar root disease, disease on chestnuts and oaks.

Forests in Europe – especially the United Kingdom – and Australia are also suffering high levels of mortality associated with one or more Phytophthora species.

In recent years, several studies have documented the role of nurseries in spreading non-native Phytophthora species. Two strains of P. ramorum are widespread in European nurseries and in tree plantations and wild heathlands of southwest England, Wales, parts of Scotland, and Ireland. (See here and here.)

In April 2016 I blogged about the situation in Europe described by Jung et al. 2015 (see references at the end of the blog). Jung et al. concluded that diseases caused by Phytophthora pose a substantial threat to both planted landscapes and forest ecosystems across Europe. They found 56 Phytophthora taxa in 66% of 2,525 forest and landscape planting sites that were probably introduced to those sites via nursery plantings.

Barber et al. 2013 reported nine species of Phytophthora associated with a wide variety of host species in urban streetscapes, parks, gardens, and remnant native vegetation in urban settings in Western Australia. Phytophthora spp were recovered from 30% of sampled sites.

A new summary confirms that the threat is similar in North America. In British Columbia, Dale et al. (2017) found more than two times as many Phytophthora species were detected in soil and water samples in urban areas (23) than in natural areas (11). Urban samples also showed a much higher diversity of Phytophthora per site than natural environments. These Phytophthora species had been introduced initially into urban areas and had subsequently spread into native vegetation, particularly in areas near developed sites (wildland-urban interface areas).

Swiecki et al 2018 cite several sources and their own studies to show that the large and increasingly diverse contingent of introduced Phytophthora species pose an increasingly important threat to both urban forests and surrounding native forests and plant communities in California. It is clear that shrubs and herbaceous plants as well as trees are also at risk. These scientists have repeatedly found multiple non-native Phytophthora species at individual sites in northern and southern California sites where nursery stock had been planted. Sampling in 2014 identified about 60 different Phytophthora taxa in restoration planting sites and native plant nurseries. The sampled restoration plantings were mostly located in urban riparian corridors and peri-urban parks, open spaces, or protected watersheds.

I first discussed this issue in a blog in July 2016.

Swiecki et al (2018) have also found that Phytophthora species persist in drier ecosystems. When conditions are too dry for sporangium production, Phytophthora hyphae produce resistant survival structures that can tolerate drying and persist in dead root fragments or soil. In the presence of appropriate stimuli, e.g., moisture and root exudates, resistant structures germinate to produce sporangia or hyphae, leading to new infections. Even relatively short wet periods associated with rain or irrigation can be sufficient to stimulate zoospore release. Swiecki et al (2018) list examples of numerous Phytophthora infestations that developed in dry sites, such as dry foothills of the Sierra Nevada in Amador County, and the Oakland Hills of Alameda & Contra Costa County. Swiecki et al. (2018) also  note that P. cinnamomi has persisted in Australian forests in the absence of known primary hosts.

Phytophthora infections can also persist for decades in soil. In California, Swiecki et al. (2018) mention several examples:

  • Residual cinnamomi inoculum killed young sprouts of susceptible manzanitas (Arctostaphylos myrtifolia and A. viscida) planted on sites that were infected many years earlier.
  • A street planting of cork oaks (Quercus suber) apparently died due to Phytophthora root rot that had occurred 21 years earlier.
  • Both cinnamomi and P. cactorum were recovered from roots and soil beneath affected trees at least 60 years after the site had been a municipal woody plant nursery and adjacent residence.
  • A 7-acre area of native vegetation showing decline & mortality of multiple plant species was infested with multiple Phytophthora spp, including cactorum, P. cambivora, P. crassamura, P. ‘kelmania’ & P. syringae. The site was apparently infected 22 years earlier during a planting of a habitat restoration project using Ceanothus nursery stock. Subsequent spread was primarily downhill from the planting sites, facilitated by water flow, with additional spread along and near trails.

 

The Risk from the Nursery Trade

While Phytophthora-infested soil and plant debris can be transported on tools, vehicles, and shoes, or moved in large quantities when infested soil is excavated, graded, or imported, the principal threat is the nursery trade.

  • Jung et al. (2015) state that widespread contamination of nursery stock was the primary means by which these pathogens were introduced and spread in Europe. They found 49 Phytophthora taxa in 670 European nurseries. Phytophthora species were recovered from more than 90% of the sampled nurseries.
  • Swiecki et al. (2018) say that most of the common Phytophthora species detected in California are distributed globally, moved about with live plants or other infested materials. None is native to California.
  • Swiecki et al. (2018) cite studies reporting that thirteen species of Phytophthora were found in a survey for leaf spots in California nurseries in 2005 and 2006. Sampling of plants in or originating from Calif native plant nurseries alone has yielded about 60 Phytophthora At least eight species of Phytophthora were found in shipments of symptomatic and asymptomatic plants sent from west coast nurseries to Maryland. Parke et al. (2014) identified 28 Phytophthora taxa in four Oregon nurseries.
  • Not all infections are on the West Coast. Swiecki et al. (2081) reports that a survey in Minnesota nurseries of plants with symptoms – primarily on aboveground plant parts – found eleven species of Phytophthora.

Are scientists in other parts of the country looking for Phytophthora? I see no reason to think the situation in California is unique.

The damage caused by Phytophthora infections can be significant. In California and Oregon, sudden oak death,  and Port-Orford cedar root disease, have killed well over a million trees and disrupted the ecosystems of which they are a part. There are multiple locations in Northern California where introduced Phytophthora species, especially P. cinnamomi and P. cambivora, have caused localized to extensive decline and mortality in native forests and shrublands.

Phytophthora dieback has infected more than one million hectares in Western Australia. More than 40% of the native plant species of the region are vulnerable to the causal agent, P. cinnamomi.

Phytophthora dieback in Western Australia

 

Dieback in native forest in Western Australia; photo copyright Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife

In the United Kingdom, several Phytophthora species are causing widespread mortality of native shrubs and trees and commercial plantings.

In nearly all the studies, scientists have detected previously unknown pathogen-host relationships.

The threat from spreading pathogens with wide host ranges is not limited to the genus Phytophthora. The fungus Fusarium euwallacea associated with the Kuroshio and polyphagous shot hole borers  is known to kill at least 18 species of native plants in California and additional species in South Africa.    The laurel wilt fungus kills many trees and shrubs in the Lauraceae family. ‘Ohi‘a or myrtle rust kills several shrubs native to Hawai`i and threatens a wide range of plants in the Myrtaceae family in Australia and New Zealand. Some insects also have wide host ranges, including the Kuroshio and polyphagous shot hole borers; and Asian longhorned and citrus longhorned beetles.

When are national and international phytosanitary agencies going to adopt policies and programs that are effective in preventing the continued spread of these highly damaging tree-killing pests? At the national level, APHIS needs to aggressively use two authorities to curtail importation of plant taxa from countries of origin which present a risk of transporting additional species of pathogens:

  • NAPPRA, which allows APHIS to prohibit risky imports until it has conducted a pest risk analysis.
  • Programs under the revised “Q-37” regulations allowing APHIS to work with exporting countries’ phytosanitary officials to implement integrated pest management strategies to ensure that plants are pathogen-free before they are exported.

I have blogged about both programs before – NAPPRA here;  the Q-37 regulation strengthening here.

At the international level, the members of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) must recognize the failure of the international phytosanitary system and explore ways to strengthen it. See my numerous blogs on this topic (beyond those linked to here!) by visiting www.cisp.us or www.nivemnic.us and searching under the category “forest pathogens”.

 

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.

 

 

SOURCES

 

Jung, T. et al. 2015 “Widespread Phytophthora infestations in European nurseries put forest, semi-natural and horticultural ecosystems at high risk of Phytophthora disease” Forest Pathology. November 2015; available from Resource Gate

Swiecki, T.J., E.A. Bernhardt, and S.J. Frankel. 2018. Phytophthora root disease and the need for clean nursery stock in urban forests: Part 1 Phytophthora invasions in the urban forest & beyond. Western Arborist Fall 2018

Apparently can’t access current (2018) issues of “Western Arborist” on web unless subscribe

 

CISP Decision: EAB Deregulation Is Not Useful – Too Much Is at Risk

 

 

EAB; Dave Cappaert

I blogged about APHIS’ proposal to stop regulating movement of objects that can transport the emerald ash borer on 28 September. At that time, I and the Center for Invasive Species Prevention were undecided. Now we have taken a firm position: We are sympathetic to the situation in which APHIS finds itself and are disappointed that APHIS’ efforts against EAB have not been as successful as hoped. However, we believe the quarantine continues to serve a useful purpose in protecting North America’s ash (and through the firewood regulatory effort, other resources) and that the analysis APHIS provides does not justify the proposed termination of the regulatory program. Making this regulatory change, based on absent and questionable scientific data, would set a terrible precedent.

 

Problems Arising from Poorly Substantiated Proposal

Here I provide some additional information on points I made in the blog in September.

1) The APHIS documents are completely unbalanced. They provide no analysis of the economic or environmental impact of  the regulatory changes that will allow the pest to spread more rapidly to the large areas of the country that are not yet infested.

The proposal concedes that emerald ash borer currently is known to occupy only about one quarter of the range of native Fraxinus species within the conterminous United States. As the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis states, numerous sawmills, firewood dealers, nurseries, logging/lumber companies, pallet manufacturing companies, and other establishments operate in these un-infested areas. The analysis makes no mention of the costs to millions of homeowners and property owners, thousands of municipal governments, etc., of removing and replacing ash trees on their properties that are killed by the ash borer as it spreads into new areas. The “analysis” makes no attempt to quantify impacts on any of these entities.

 

Examples of ash populations currently free of EAB include:

  • In North Dakota, 84% of the forest land area is dominated by hardwood forest types; one of the three major forest-type groups is elm/ash/cottonwood. Ash represent 38% of urban forest trees (Nowak, Hoehn, Crane, Bodine.)
  • In California, velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina) comprises 3.1% of the state’s street tree population (McPherson et al.). Because ash are large relative to other street trees, they provide about double the proportion of leaf cover (and associated environmental services) than the number of trees (Nowak, Hoehn, Crane, Weller, and Davila).
  • Portland, Oregon: ash represented 4% of urban trees (Portland Parks).

No mention is made of the additional range of Fraxinus species in Canada and Mexico that will be put at greater risk of invasion as the beetle spreads in the United States.

2) The proposal to rely on biocontrol to control EAB in the future lacks any scientific analysis of either the current biocontrol program’s effects or other possible program components.

APHIS is apparently relying on the conclusion by Duan et al. 2018 – based on models rather than field research findings – that larval and egg parasitism at about 60% would lead to a net population growth rate of EAB at a rate below replacement, therefore rapidly reducing EAB populations when such parasitism rates are accompanied by moderate to high levels of host plant resistance. If heavy woodpecker predation can be relied upon, a parasitism rate on EAB larvae of about 35% would be sufficient to achieve a similar reduction in the EAB population growth, even with limited levels of host resistance or tolerance.

However, scientific publications reviewing the impacts of the decade-old EAB biocontrol program present a mixed picture.

Our reading of several published studies indicate that two biocontrol agents (Oobius agrili and Tetrastichus planipennisi) appear to have established and spread in the northern reaches of the EAB’s U.S. range and southern Canada. At least some ash species appear to be regenerating well in some of those areas. However, it is too early to determine whether a third biocontrol agent (Spathius galinae) can protect the all-important remaining large trees, which have thicker bark. It is also too early to determine whether a different biocontrol agent (Spathius agrili) will have an impact on ash survival and regeneration in the middle latitudes (south of the 40th parallel).

APHIS does not discuss current or planned future efforts to seek and test biocontrol agents more likely to thrive in the South and West – to which EAB will spread. It is hoped – but not yet proved – that S. agrili will be more effective south of the 40th parallel. The article said nothing about possible agents that might be effective farther south or especially in the West.

Some scientists question the probable efficacy of biocontrol. For example, Showalter et al. note that “Despite the presence of a full complement of coevolved natural enemies in Asia, EAB has caused high mortality of North American ash species planted there … Biological control is best applied to systems in which the hosts can at least partially resist or tolerate non-native PIP [phytophagous insects and phytopathogens] attack, especially if negative density-dependent responses of natural enemies are slow relative to how long it takes the non-native PIP to kill trees.” Even Duan et al. 2018 agree that Asian ash species are more resistant (although they emphasize the large impact of natural enemies in Asia).

The scientific literature indicates that the impacts of egg parasitoid O. agrili remain uncertain (Abell et al.).

Duan et al. 2018 list and provide brief evaluations of nine possible biocontrol agents:

  • 2: status not revealed (Sclerodermus pupariae, Atanycolus nigriventris)
  • 2: disappointing efficacy to date (Spathius agrili, Oobius agrili)
  • 1: apparently efficacious in some geographies in smaller trees only (Tetrastichus planipennisi)
  • 1: promising in northern parts of EAB range but too early to evaluate (Spathius galinae)
  • 2: considered to have too broad a host range to be released (Tenerus, Xenoglena quadrisignata)
  • 1: release delayed pending further study (Oobius primorskyensis)

Even the impact of the most promising agent, Tetrastichus planipennisi, is not altogether clear. Duan et al. 2018 cite their life table analyses as indicating that T. planipennisi has contributed significantly to reducing net EAB population growth rates. They note a 90% reduction in EAB larval density. However, they say that this decline might be attributed in part to either the impact of the parasitoid or the general collapse of EAB populations following widespread mortality of overstory ash. (emphasis added)

3) Neither the proposal nor the supplementary materials provides  any information about the current allocation of available funding among APHIS’ program components or how those allocations will change if the proposal is adopted.

For example, APHIS has set a goal of releasing biocontrol agents in every county with a known EAB infestation where the agent populations can be sustained. The proposal states that, by the end of the 2017 field season, parasitoids had been released in 27 of 32 states and 2 of 3 provinces in which EAB is present (Duan et al. 2018). APHIS does not explain how the current funding allocation hampers achieving the stated goal.

4) The proposal and accompanying regulatory flexibility analysis provide  no information about whether APHIS will expand efforts supporting such other EAB impact minimization strategies as breeding trees resistant to emerald ash borer attack.

Even biocontrol practitioners (e.g., Duan et al. 2018 ) point to the importance of including breeding of resistant trees in the future efforts.

5) The proposal offers only vague promises about continuing federal efforts to minimize the risk that human transport of firewood will facilitate spread of the emerald ash borer or other tree pests.

Unfortunately, the impact of an outreach message depends heavily on having a simple, straightforward, unified message. Absent the EAB quarantine, which provides a nation-wide standard for firewood treatment, the “Don’t Move Firewood” campaign will be confronted by the task of trying to explain diverse messages and policies/rules issued by various states, counties, provinces, and managers of parks and other public lands. Hampered by this welter of messages, even the well-managed DMF campaign will struggle to persuade the public to help curtail spread via this pathway.

APHIS today published a set of “frequently asked questions” that address some of the issues raised in this blog. Go here to read the answers.

 

The Center for Invasive Species Prevention urges all who care about protecting North America’s native flora from non-native insects and diseases to submit comments on this proposed rule before the deadline on 19 November. This can be done by visiting here http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0056.

 

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.

 

SOURCES

 

Abell, K.J., L.S. Bauer, J.J. Duan, R. Van Driesche. 2014. Long-term monitoring of the introduced emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) egg parasitoid, Oobius agrili (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), in MI, USA and evaluation of a newly developed monitoring Technique. Biological Control 79 (2014) 36–42

Duan, J.J., L.S. Bauer, R.G. van Driesche, and J.R. Gould. 2018. Progress & Challenges of Protecting North American Ash Trees from the emerald ash borer Using Biological Control. Forests 2018, 9, 142; doi:10.3390/f9030142

McPherson, G., N. van Doorn, J. de Goedec. 2016. Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 17 2016 (104-115)

Nowak, D.J., R.E. Hoehn III, D.E. Crane, A.R. Bodine. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values of the Great Plains: Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station Resource Bulletin NRS-71

Nowak, D.J., R.E. Hoehn III, D.E. Crane, L. Weller, A. Davila. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values: Los Angeles’ Urban Forest. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station Resource Bulletin NRS-47

Portland Parks and Recreation Street Tree Inventory Findings 2015. www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/treeinventory

Showalter, D.N., K.F. Raffa, R.A. Sniezko, D.A. Herms, A.M. Liebhold,  J.A. Smith, P. Bonello. 2018. Strategic Development of Tree Resistance Against Forest Pathogen and Insect Invasions in Defense-Free Space. Frontiers in Ecology & Evolution

Is EAB deregulation necessary? Is it helpful? What is at risk?

EAB risk to Oregon & Washington

USDA APHIS has formally proposed to end its regulatory program aimed at slowing the spread of the emerald ash borer (EAB) within the United States.  APHIS proposes to rely on biological control to reduce impacts and – possibly – slow EAB’s spread.  The proposal and accompanying “regulatory flexibility analysis” are posted here.

Public comments on this proposed change are due 19 November, 2018.

I will blog more fully about this issue in coming weeks. At present, I am on the fence regarding this change.

On the one hand, I recognize that APHIS has spent considerable effort and resources over 16 years trying to prevent spread of EAB – with less success than most would consider satisfactory. (EAB is known to be in 31 states and the District of Columbia now). While APHIS received tens of millions of dollars in emergency funding in the beginning, in recent years funding has shrunk. Over the past couple of years, APHIS has spent $6 – $7 million on EAB out of a total of about $54 million for addressing “tree and wood pests.” (See my blogs on appropriations by visiting www.cisp.us, scrolling down to “topics,” then scrolling down to “funding”). Funding has not risen to reflect the rising number of introduced pests. Presumably partly in response, APHIS has avoided initiating programs targetting additional tree-killing pests. For example, see my blogs on the shot hole borers in southern California and the velvet longhorned beetle by visiting www.cisp.us, scrolling down to “categories,” then scrolling down to “forest pest insects”. I see a strong need for new programs on new pests and money now allocated to EAB might help fund such programs.

 

On the other hand, APHIS says EAB currently occupies a quarter of the range of ash trees in the U.S. Abandoning slow-the-spread efforts put at risk trees occupying three quarters of the range of the genus in the country. (See APHIS’ map of infested areas here.) Additional ashes in Canada and Mexico are also at risk. Mexico is home to 13 species of ash – and the most likely pathway by which they will be put at risk to EAB is by spread from the U.S. However, APHIS makes no mention of these species’ presence nor USDA’s role in determining their fate.

I am concerned by the absence of information on several key aspects of the proposal.

  • APHIS makes no attempt to analyze the costs to states, municipalities, homeowners, etc. if EAB spreads to parts of the country where it is not yet established – primarily the West coast. As a result, the “economic analysis” covers only the reduced costs to entities within the quarantined areas which would be freed from requirements of compliance agreements to which they are subject under the current regulations. APHIS estimates that the more than 800 sawmills, logging/lumber producers, firewood producers, and pallet manufacturers now operating under compliance agreements would save between $9.8 M and $27.8 million annually. This appears to be a significant benefit – but it loses any meaning absent any estimate of the costs that will be absorbed by governments and private entities now outside the EAB-infested area.
ash tree killed by EAB; Ann Arbor, MI; courtesy of former mayor of Ann Arbor, MI John Hieftje
  • APHIS does not discuss how it would reallocate the $6 – 7 million it spends on EAB.  Would it all go to EAB biocontrol? Would some be allocated to other tree-killing pests that APHIS currently ignores?

 

  • APHIS provides no analysis of the efficacy of biocontrol in controlling EAB. It does not even summarize studies that have addressed past and current releases of EAB-specific biocontrol agents. (I will report on my reading of biocontrol studies in a future blog.)

 

  • APHIS says efforts are under way to develop programs to reduce the risk of pest spread via firewood movement. APHIS does not explain what those efforts are or why they are likely to be more effective than efforts undertaken in response to recommendations from the Firewood Task Force issued in 2010.

 

  • APHIS makes no attempt to analyze environmental impacts.

champion green ash in Michigan killed by EAB

  • APHIS says nothing about possibly supporting efforts to breed ash trees resistant to EAB.

 

I welcome your input on these issues.

I will inform you of my evolving thinking, information obtained in efforts to fill in these gaps, etc. in future blogs.

 

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.

 

 

Challenges to Phytosanitary Programs are International, Not Just in the U.S. How Should We Join Efforts to Defend Them?

 

dead ash killed by emerald ash borer; photo by Dan Herms, The Ohio State University; courtesy of Bugwood.com

I have blogged often about the funding crisis hampering APHIS’ efforts to protect our forests from damaging insects and pathogens (visit www.cisp.us, scroll down to “categories”, then scroll down to “funding”). Apparent results of this funding crisis include APHIS’ failure to adopt official programs to address several tree-killing pests (e.g., polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, goldspotted oak borer, spotted lanternfly …) and its proposal this month to end the regulatory program intended to slow the spread of the emerald ash borer (available here.)  (All these tree-killing pests are described here.)

The lack of adequate resources plagues phytosanitary programs in many countries as well as at the international and regional level. As we know, the threat of introduction and spread of plant pests is growing as a result of increasing trade volume and transportation speed; increasing variety of goods being traded; and the use of containers. All countries and international bodies should be expanding efforts to address this threat, not cutting back.

Assuming you agree with me that preventing and responding to damaging plant pests is important – a task which falls within the jurisdiction of phytosanitary institutions – what more can we do to raise decision-makers’ and opinion leaders’ understanding and support? Should we join phytosanitary officials’ efforts – e.g., the International Year of Plant Health – or act separately?

How do we encourage greater engagement by such entities as professional and scientific associations, the wood products industry, state departments of agriculture, state phytosanitary officials, state forestry officials, forest landowners, environmental organizations and their funders, urban tree advocacy and support organizations. (The Entomological Society of America has engaged on invasive species although it remains unclear to me whether ESA will advocate for stronger policies and higher funding levels.)

There is one group making serious, multi-year efforts to respond. Here, I describe efforts by the International Plant Protection Convention’s (IPPC) governing body, the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures. The Commission has recognized the crisis and is attempting to reverse the situation through a coordinated strategy. I invite you to consider how we all might take part in, and support, its efforts.

Efforts of the IPPC Commission on Phytosanitary Measures

The Commission’s goal is to ensure that strong and effective phytosanitary programs “become a national and global priority that justifies and receives appropriate and sustainable support.”  It seeks to achieve this by convincing decision-makers that protecting plant health from pest threats is an essential component of efforts to meet other, more broadly accepted goals, specifically the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) related goals (described here).

The IPPC Commission also sees that, to succeed, it must more effectively support member countries in improving their programs to curtail pests’ spread and impacts. IPPC plans to streamline operations and integrate more closely with other FAO work in order to save money.

The following are among Commission efforts, although all are hampered by the lack of funding:

  • Working with member countries, the Commission has persuaded the United Nations to declare 2020 the International Year of Plant Health. (I blogged about this campaign in December 2016.
  • Describing links between plant health and other policy goals. The Commission is mid-way through a multi-year program. One outcome has been presentations to member states’ phytosanitary officials attending the Commission’s annual meetings, each focusing on one specific aspect. In 2018, presentations focus on links between plant health and environmental protection (presentations from April 2018 are available here). (Did you know 2018 was the year of plant health and the environment?  I didn’t!) In 2016, the topic was plant health’s link to food security; in 2017, plant health and trade facilitation; in 2019, capacity development for ensuring plant health.)
  • Adopting a Communications Strategy. It has four broad objectives (available here).
  • increase global awareness of the importance of the IPPC and of the vital importance to the world of protecting plants from pests;
  • highlight the IPPC’s role as the sole international plant health standard setting organization aimed at improving safety of trade of plants and plant products and improving market access;
  • improve implementation of IPPC’s international standards (ISPMs); and
  • support the activities of the IPPC Resource Mobilization program.
  • Ramping up efforts to support implementation of its international standards. Since this 2014 decision, the Commission has conducted some pilot projects, restructured the Secretariat, and formed the Implementation and Capacity Development Committee. (I have blogged frequently about issues undermining one of those standards, the one on wood packaging material – ISPM#15. Visit www.cisp.us, scroll down to “categories”, then scroll down to “wood packaging”.)

Framework 2020-2030: the IPPC Strategic Plan

The IPPC is now finalizing its strategic plan (Framework 2020-2030), which is available here. APHIS circulated this plan in July for comment; I admit did not take the opportunity to comment because I could think of nothing to add. But now I want to link the international and domestic U.S. funding crises.

The plan describes how plant pests threaten

  • food production at a time rising human population and demand;
  • sustainable environments and ecosystem services at a time when recognition is growing of their importance for managing climate change and meeting food production goals;
  • free trade and associated economic development;

The plan notes that interactions between climate change and pests’ geographic ranges and impacts complicate efforts to address both threats. Also, it outlines the need for, and barriers hindering, collaborative research on plant pest. It suggests creation of an international network of diagnostic laboratories to support reliable and timely pest identifications.

The plan states several times that the IPPC is “the global international treaty for protecting plant resources (including forests, aquatic plants, non-cultivated plants and biodiversity) from plant pests …” (emphasis added). The Commission is attempting to improve its efforts to protect the environment through expanding its collaboration with the Convention on Biological Diversity, Global Environmental Facility and the Green Climate Fund. Much of the attention to environmental concerns is focused on interactions with climate change, followed by concerns about pesticide use. Indeed, the strategic plan states that “Political weight and subsequent funding for phytosanitary needs on national, regional and international level will only be available when phytosanitary issues are recognized as an important component of the climate change debate.”

The Plan describes other ways that the Commission and regional plant protection organizations might help countries overcome the major problems arising from their lack of capacity and resources. Another area of hoped-for activity is promoting collaborative research. All these proposals depend on finding funding.

However, the Strategic Plan does not reveal the extent to which its 2013 Communications Strategy has been implemented. Nor does it reveal the extent to which the effort to improve ISPM implementation has resulted in concrete progress.

 

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.

 

New Efforts to Counter the Invasive Shot Hole Borers (ISHB) in California

willow tree killed by Kuroshio shot hole borer in Tijuana River estuary (John Boland photo)

 

I have blogged several times about damage caused to riparian trees in southern California by polyphagous (PSHB) and Kuroshio Shot Hole Borers (KSHB) (collectively known as invasive shot hole borers, or ISHB). The most recent blog – in July – reported the rising intensity of ISHB infestation in Orange County parks. The polyphagous shot hole borer and its associated Fusarium fungus have been found throughout Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. The genetically distinct but morphologically indistinguishable Kuroshio shot hole borer occurs in San Diego, Orange, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. New outbreaks continue to be detected – for example, one near San Juan de Capistrano.

The threat to wildland, rural, and urban hardwood forests in southern California is obvious (see the write-up here, but this is not the full extent of the peril. Preliminary research indicates that the ISHB can survive as far north as Tehama County (at the northern end of the Central Valley, south of Redding), and possibly in other parts of the country (see Greer et al., referenced below). The two beetles reproduce in more than five dozen tree and shrub species – both native and ornamental trees – that grow not just in California but across the country.

It is agreed that the ISHB do best in well-watered trees – e.g., trees in parks or other urban areas, and in riparian zones. Some fear that when the southern California drought ends, large areas of hardwood forests will become newly vulnerable. The role of water also raises the potential threat to the many species of reproductive host trees growing in the Gulf Coast and other warm and humid regions of the country.

What can people and agencies do now to counter these damaging pests? Several experts who have been working with ISHB in southern California have developed a management strategy for guiding and prioritizing actions and implementing control mechanisms targetting the beetles and their fungal symbionts that together cause the plant disease Fusarium dieback (FD). See Greer et al. Southern Calif Shot Hole Borers/Fusarium Dieback Management Strategy – full reference and link provided at the end of the blog.

This strategy attempted to advise managers on addressing outbreaks in both natural and urban landscapes at a period of rapid spread of the pests. It includes sections on establishing a leadership and coordination entity, inventory and monitoring, short-term management options, public outreach, and research to identify long-term management strategies. I don’t believe the plan’s proponents have secured funding to implement it.

Meanwhile, the California Department of Food and Agriculture and other state agencies have been officially charged by the state legislature with developing a management strategy and coordinating efforts (see another of my blogs from July). I have been told that the state agencies are working with the southern California experts in developing the state’s strategy.

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has been instructed by the Congress (in the report accompanying appropriation of funds for the Department of Agriculture) to enhance its engagement with ISHB – beyond funding provided in the past under Section 10007 of the Farm Bill. APHIS has created a Federal Task Force which is focused on three shot hole borers – in addition to the Kuroshio and polyphagous shot hole borers, also the tea shot hole borer. Several USDA agencies in addition to APHIS — Forest Service, Agriculture Research Service – as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are developing an outline of federal agencies’ roles and responsibilities in light of state actions. The work is at an early stage.

I look forward to learning more about how each of these players plans to proceed.

Certainly, managing ISHB infestation and spread is extremely difficult. Current options in production agriculture (avocados are damaged by the pest/disease complex) and urban forests focus on the use of pesticides and removal of infested material. Then the wood and bark must be safeguarded against insects’ escape until the wood can be chipped and the insect larvae killed, for example, by using heat from solar radiation (solarization). Management options in the natural setting are limited to removal, chipping, and solarization of infested material. In any habitat, there are many logistical challenges when managing large amounts of wood.

The pest-derived difficulties have been magnified by the absence until recently of the official agencies with responsibility for managing “plant pests” (as I have complained in many blogs over the years). I hope the state and federal agencies now becoming involved will coordinate their efforts – among themselves and with the many academics, locally based agency staffs, and volunteers who have been working so hard over the past several years to counter these invaders. [To learn about these efforts, visit here.]

You have an opportunity to learn more about the shot hole borers by participating in the upcoming annual meeting of the Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Diseases in November. Our meeting this year is in Irvine, California – in the infestation zone. The meeting will follow the general schedule below:

  • Nov 5th: Travel day with informal evening social for those arriving early
  • Nov 6th: Dialogue Meeting all day (8am – 5pm)
  • Nov 7th: Joint CFD / Arbor Day Meeting and Field Trips (including one focused on ISHB) (8am- 5pm), Networking Reception (6-8pm).

Here are the quick links of interest:

Some of you might also participate in the periodic workshops about the several tree-killing pests invading southern California. UC Cooperative Extension San Diego will host an Invasive Tree Pests Workshop on Friday, October 19, 2018 in Mission Beach San Diego from 9:00am-2:45pm. This workshop will focus on Goldspotted Oak Borer, Invasive Shot Hole Borers, South American Palm Weevil, and pesticide law & regulation. CEU’s have been requested from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture. Registration is $30/person and lunch will be provided. Go to GSOB.org.

Reference

Greer, K., K. Rice, S.C. Lynch. Southern Calif Shot Hole Borers/Fusarium Dieback Management Strategy for Natural and Urban Landscapes. July 2018

http://www.southcoastsurvey.org/static_mapper/fieldguide/Southern%20California%20Shot%20Hole%20Borers-Fusarium%20Dieback%20Management%20Strategy%20for%20Natural%20and%20Urban%20Landscapes%20-%20updated%20July%202018.pdf

P.S. The polyphagous shot hole borer has been detected at numerous sites in South Africa. One of several web-based sources of information is 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.

 

 

APHIS’ Proposed Sudden Oak Death Rule – Ignored by Too Many Stakeholders!

P. ramorum-infected seedlings in a nursery; photo by USDA APHIS

As I blogged on 2 August, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing to update its regulations intended to prevent spread of the sudden oak death (SOD) pathogen (Phytophthora ramorum) via movement of nursery stock. The proposal is to incorporate into formal regulations several changes made through temporary “Federal Orders” issued in 2014 and 2015. This might sound boring – but it was actually an important opportunity to press APHIS to correct weaknesses in its current regulatory system. Whether APHIS’ ultimate program is weak or strong will affect how well we protect our forests against every kind of pest, not just SOD.

Unfortunately, few organizations seized this opportunity. Comments were submitted by only five organizations and three individuals. The organizations were the Center for Invasive Species Prevention, California Oak Mortality Task Force, several nursery industry associations in a joint comment, and the state departments of agriculture from Florida and Pennsylvania. It is most unfortunate that the other states appear to have given up on influencing APHIS’ decisions and did not comment. (Given the long history of APHIS failure to support states trying to adopt protective regulations – as described in Chapter 3 of my report Fading Forests III, available here – perhaps this is understandable.)

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (DoA) was quite critical of the proposal in its comments. It complained that APHIS is not consistent in the way it regulates various quarantine pests and the vectors on which they might be transported. Allowing shipping nurseries to submit fewer samples for testing and providing less regulatory oversight does not help protect receiving states such as Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania DoA noted that the Plant Protection Act has a preemption clause which prevents states from adopting regulations more stringent than those instituted by APHIS. While the law allows for exceptions if the state can demonstrate a special need, none of the five applications for an exemption pertaining to P. ramorum has been approved. (The Environmental Law Institute addressed this issue in 2011; see source at end of the blog.)

Copies of all comments can be viewed here.  Their main critiques of APHIS’ proposal include:

1) APHIS should mandate sampling at all nurseries selling SOD host or associated host plant species.

While any nursery that contains or sells host or associated host plant species can become infected, APHIS does not have any system for detecting P. ramorum in such nurseries which have been infection-free for three years. This point was made by CISP and the California Oak Mortality Task force (COMTF).

1(a) Risk associated with Nurseries in the Quarantine Zone

The Florida Department of Agriculture (FDACS) objected to allowing interstate shipment of any plants – both host and non-host species – from nurseries in the quarantine zones of California and Oregon. FDACS notes that where P. ramorum is in the natural environment, it is essentially impossible to be certain that available inoculum is not in the water column or soil and thus potentially to being shipped with containerized plants.

2) Level of risk.

APHIS says that the current regulations have reduced the risk of spread of P. ramorum via the nursery trade to a low risk. APHIS cites the fact that over a nine-year period (2004 – 2013), P. ramorum was detected at a “very small percentage—usually no more than 3 percent annually” of nurseries inspected under the current program. To the contrary, I (on behalf of CISP) argue that an annual level of risk of three percent is not a low level of risk, the nursery industry’s comments accept this level of risk as “low”.

3) Inspection, Sampling, and Certification Protocols

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture objects that while APHIS admits the pathogen might be transmitted in media, soil, water, potted material and containers, the proposed rule does nothing to assist states in protecting themselves from pathogen transport via these vectors. Pennsylvania DoA asked APHIS to provide greater oversight so as to ensure consistency in inspection and certification procedures.

I, on behalf of CISP, said all decisions should be based on sampling and testing of water, soil, growing media, pots, and plants (leaves, stems, roots). They should not rely only on visual inspection of plants.

The Florida Department of Agriculture did not address the certification procedure directly, but objected to allowing shipment of lots of plant material determined to be free of P. ramorum from a nursery in which infected plants have been detected. FDACS pointed out that infected plants could slip through because they were asymptomatic at the time of inspection or because leaves dropped from nearby infected plants contaminated the soil.

 

4) Updates to the List of Hosts Should Be Comprehensive

As I noted in my previous blog, APHIS’ proposed update does not include more than a dozen species growing in the wild or in gardens in the Pacific Northwest that scientists have identified as hosts of P. ramorum; and would designate Japanese larch (Larix kaempferi) as only an “associated” host.

The California Oak Mortality Task Force raised similar issues and warned that unexplained gaps in the host list cause unnecessary confusion and undermine the scientific foundation of regulations.

 

Source

Porter, R.D. and N.C. Robertson. 2011. Tracking Implementation of the Special Need Request Process Under the Plant Protection Act. Environmental Law Reporter. 41.

 

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.

 

Farm Bill Update – Please Thank Your Senators Right Away!

U.S. Senate

In May I blogged about adoption by the House of Representatives of its version of the Farm Bill, which will govern a wide range of policies for the next five years. I reported that the bill included weakened versions of a provision CISP has been seeking to establish programs to support long-term strategies to counter non-native, tree-killing insects and pathogens, e.g., biocontrol and breeding of trees resistant to pests.

I also reported that the House Farm bill contains provisions to which there is significant opposition from the larger environmental community. Several would gut some of our country’s fundamental environmental laws which have protected our health and natural resources since the early to mid-1970s. These provisions would:

  • Allow the U.S. Forest Service and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management to decide for themselves whether an activity might “jeopardize” an endangered species (eliminating the need to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service) (Section 8303 of the House Bill);
  • Allow the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to avoid preparing an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a long list of actions which currently must be assessed. That is, they could claim a “categorical exclusion” when taking a wide variety of “critical” actions aimed at addressing several goals. These include countering insect and disease infestations, reducing hazardous fuel loads, protecting municipal water sources, improving or enhancing critical habitat, increasing water yield, expediting salvage of dead trees following a catastrophic event, or achieving goals to maintain early successional forest. These “categorical exclusions” would apply to projects on up to 6,000 acres. (Sections 8311 – 8320); and
  • Require the EPA Administrator to register a pesticide if the Administrator determines that the pesticide, when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practices, is not likely to jeopardize the survival of a species listed under the Endangered Species Act or to alter critical habitat. That is, the Administrator would not be required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service when making such determinations unlike under current law. (Section 9111).

The Senate passed its version of the Farm Bill in late June. Unfortunately, the Senate bill does not include the long-term restoration program CISP seeks. However, it doesn’t include the above attacks on environmental laws, either.

With the current Farm Bill set to expire on September 30th, there is considerable pressure to adopt a final version soon.  House and Senate staffers have been meeting to find common ground. Representatives and Senators who are on the joint Conference Committee – charged with working out the final bill – will hold their first meeting next week, on September 5th.

In preparation for the meetings of the Conference Committee, 38 Senators have written to their two colleagues who will lead the Senate conferees. Their letter voices strong opposition to changing long-standing environmental law:

“These harmful riders, spread throughout the Forestry, Horticulture, and Miscellaneous titles of the House bill, subjected the legislation to unnecessary opposition on the House floor and now complicates [sic] the bipartisan cooperation needed to pass a final conference report.

Again, we write to express our strong opposition to gutting bedrock U.S. environmental and public health protections with provisions that threaten our air, water, lands, and wildlife.”

Senators signing the letter are:

California: Feinstein & Harris;    Colorado: Bennet;    Connecticut: Murphy & Blumenthal;    Delaware: Carper & Coons;    Florida: Nelson;    Hawai`i: Hirono & Schatz;    Illinois: Durbin & Duckworth;    Maryland: Cardin & Van Hollen;    Massachusetts: Warren & Markey;    Minnesota: Klobuchar &  Smith;    Michigan: Peters;    Nevada: Cortez Masto;    New Hampshire: Shaheen & Hassan;    New Jersey: Menendez & Booker;    New Mexico: Udall & Heinrich;    New York: Gillibrand;    Oregon: Wyden & Merkley;    Pennsylvania: Casey; Rhode Island:    Reed & Whitehouse;    Vermont: Sanders;    Virginia: Warner & Kaine;    Washington: Murray & Cantwell;    Wisconsin: Baldwin.

If your Senators signed the letter, please email, call, or write to thank them immediately. If your Senators didn’t  – please urge them to express their support for its content.

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.