Category: funding

Federal Funding for Forest Pest Programs — Act Now! to Help Congress Decide

If you have not communicated to your Representative and senators your support for adequate funding of U.S. government programs to address non-native insects and pathogens threatening our forests, please do so now!

If political leaders do not hear from us that expanding these programs is important, these programs will continue to languish. It is easiest – and most direct – to inform your representative and Senators of your support. Please do so!  If you do not agree that these programs should be expanded & strengthened, I ask that you send a comment outlining what approach you think would be more effective in curtailing introductions, minimizing impacts, and restoring affected tree species. I can then initiate a discussion to explore these suggestions. [I already have endorsed the suggestion to create a CDC-like body to oversee management of non-native forest pests.] You can find your member of Congress here. Your Senators here.

Last week the Biden Administration sent to Congress its proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2021. I find it falls short in key areas. Next, the House and Senate will pass a package of appropriations bills to set actual funding levels. This is the moment to press for boosted funding. In an earlier blog I explained my reasons for seeking specific funding levels.

Asian longhorned beetles – introduced in wood packaging (USDA photo)

Two USDA agencies lead efforts to protect U.S. wildland, rural, and urban forests from non-native insects and pathogens. Their funding is set by two separate – and critical — appropriations bills:

  • USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has legal responsibility for preventing introduction of tree-killing pests; detecting newly introduced pests; and initiating eradication and containment programs intended to minimize their damage.  Funding for APHIS is contained in the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  • USDA Forest Service (USFS)
    • The Forest Health Management (FHM) program provides funding and applied science to help partners manage pests. The program has two sides: the Cooperative component helps states and private forest managers, so it can address pests where they are first found – usually near cities – and when they spread. The federal lands component helps the USFS, National Park Service, and other federal agencies counter pests that have spread to the more rural/wildland areas that they manage.
    • The Research and Development (R&D) program supports research into pest-host relationships; pathways of introduction and spread;; management strategies (including biocontrol); and host resistance breeding

Forest Service funds are appropriated through the Interior Appropriations bill.

APHIS – the Administration’s official budget proposal, and justification, is here.

The Administration proposes a small increase for three of four APHIS programs that are particularly important for preventing introductions of forest pests or eradicating or containing those that do enter. The Administration proposed significant funding for a fourth program that plays a small but important role in managing two specific forest pests.

APHIS ProgramCurrent (FY 2021)FY22 Administration proposedFY 2022 Campbell recommended
Tree & Wood Pest$60.456 million$61 million$70 million
Specialty Crops$196.553 million209 million$200 million
Pest Detection$27.733 millionNo change$30 million
Methods Development$20.844 millionNo change$25 million

Tree and Wood Pests: It will be a major challenge for APHIS to eradicate the current outbreak of Asian longhorned beetles (ALB) in the swamps of South Carolina. APHIS should also address other pests. Even after cutting spending on the emerald ash borer (EAB), I think APHIS needs significantly more money in this account.

The Specialty Crops program is supported by such traditional USDA constituencies as the nursery and orchard industries, which probably explains the proposed increase. APHIS’ program to curtail spread of the sudden oak death (SOD) pathogen through interstate nursery trade receives funding from this program – about $5 million. I believe this program also now funds the agency’s efforts to slow spread of the spotted lanternfly.

SOD-infected rhododendrons in Indiana nursery in 2019

I would like the Pest Detection program to receive a small increase so the agency and its cooperators can better deal with rising trade volumes and associated pest risk. Similarly, Methods Development should receive a boost because of the need for improved detection and management tools.

USDA Forest Service – the Administration’s official budget proposal is here.  

While the Forest Health Management (FHM) and Research and Development (R&D) programs are the principal USFS programs that address introduced forest pests, neither has non-native pests as the principle focus. Non-native forest pests constitute only a portion of the programs’ activities. In the case of Research, this is a very small portion indeed.

President Biden’s budget proposes to spend $59.2 million on the Forest Health Management program and $313.5 million for Research. Both represent significant increases over spending during the current fiscal year. However, the FHM level is still below spending in recent years, although both the number of introduced pests and the geographic areas affected have been rising for decades.

In my earlier blog I suggested the funding levels:

USFS PROGRAMCurrent (FY21) FY22 Administration FY22  my recommendation
FHP Coop Lands$30.747 million$36.747 million$51 million (to cover both program work & personnel costs)
FHP Federal lands$15.485 million22.485 million$25 million (ditto)
    
Research & Develop$258.7 million; of which about $3.6 million allocated to invasive species$313.560 million$320 million; I seek report language instructing the USFS to spend more on invasive species

Under the FHM program, a table on pp. 46-47 of the budget justification lists existing and proposed spending on 14 pest taxa (plus invasive plants and subterranean termites). Spending on these 14 species is proposed to total $30.3 million. Of this amount, less than half – $14.9 million – is allocated to such high-profile invasive species of forests as the emerald ash borer (EAB), hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA),  sudden oak death (SOD), and threats to whitebark pine (recently listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act). (The USFS does not engage in efforts to eradicate Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) outbreaks; it leaves that task to APHIS.) And of the nearly $15 million allocated to invasive non-native pests, more than half – $8 million – is allocated to European gypsy moths. While I agree that the gypsy moth program has been highly successful, I decry this imbalance. Other non-native pests cause much higher levels of mortality among hosts than does the gypsy moth.

dead whitebark pine at Crater Lake National Park; photo by FT Campbell

I applaud the modest increases in the Administration’s budget for other non-native forest pests. These range from tens to a few hundred thousand dollars per pest. FHM also supports smaller programs targetting rapid ohia death, beech leaf disease, the invasive shot hole borers in southern California, Mediterranean oak beetle, etc. Budget documents don’t report on these efforts.

The imbalance of funding allocated to damaging non-native pests compared to other forest management concerns is even worse in the Research program.  Of the $313.5 million proposed in the budget for the full research program, only $9.2 million is allocated to the 14 pest taxa (plus invasive plants and subterranean termites) specified in the table on pp. 46-47. Of this amount, less than half — $4.5 million – is allocated to the high-profile invasive species, e.g., ALB, EAB, HWA, SOD, and threats to whitebark pine. The budget does provide extremely modest increases for several of these species, ranging from $12,000 for ALB to $114,000 for EAB. Again, some smaller programs managed at the USFS regional level might address other pests. Still – the budget proposes that USFS R&D allocate only 1.4% of its total budget to addressing these threats to America’s forests! This despite plenty of documentation – including by USFS scientists – that non-native species “have caused, and will continue to cause, enormous ecological and economic damage.” (Poland et al. 2021; full citation at the end of the blog). Poland et al. go on to say:

Invasive insects and plant pathogens (or complexes involving both) cause tree mortality, resulting in canopy gaps, stand thinning, or overstory removals that, in turn, alter microenvironments and hydrologic or biogeochemical cycling regimes. These changes can shift the overall species composition and structure of the plant community, with associated effects on terrestrial and aquatic fauna. In the short term, invasive insects and diseases can generally reduce productivity of desired species in forests. Tree mortality or defoliation can affect leaf-level transpiration rates, affecting watershed hydrology. Tree mortality … also leads to enormously high costs for tree removal, other management responses, and reduced property values in urban and residential landscapes.

eastern hemlock in Shenandoah National Park; photo by FT Campbell

I seek report language specifying that at least 5% of research funding should be devoted to research in pathways of invasive species’ introduction and spread; their impacts; and management and restoration strategies, including breeding of resistant trees. Several coalitions of which the Center for Invasive Species is a member have agreed to less specific language, not the 5% goal.

Two other USFS programs contribute to invasive species management. The Urban and Community Forest program provided $2.5 million for a competitive grant program to help communities address threats to urban forest health and resilience. Of 23 projects funded in FY2020, 11 are helping communities recover from the loss of ash trees to EAB. (On average, each program received $109,000.)

The Forest Service’ International Program is helping academic and other partners establish “sentinel gardens” in China and Europe. North American trees are planted and monitored so researchers can identify insects or pathogens that attack them. This provides advance notice of organisms that could be damaging pests if introduced to the United States.

REFERENCE:

Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. Editors T.M. Poland, T. Patel-Weynand, D.M. Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M. Lopez  Open access!

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.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Funding – Appropriations – Crucial to Protecting Our Forests from Pests

Two USDA agencies lead efforts to protect U.S. wildland, rural, and urban forests from non-native insects and disease-causing pathogens:

  • USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has legal responsibility for preventing introduction of tree-killing pests, detecting newly introduced pests, and initiating eradication and containment programs intended to minimize the damage they cause.
  • USDA Forest Service (USFS)
    • Forest Health Management (FHM) program assists partner agencies to counter pests where they are first found – usually near cities – and when they spread. This work falls primarily to the Cooperative component of Forest Health Management program. The Federal lands component helps the USFS, National Park Service, and other federal agencies counter pests that have spread to more rural/wildland areas.
    • Research and Development (R&D) program supports research into pest-host relationships, introduction & spread pathways, management strategies (including biocontrol) and host resistance breeding

Since 2010, several new tree-killing pests have been detected in the US, including polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, spotted lanternfly, two rapid ʻōhiʻa death pathogens, and Mediterranean oak beetle. Over the same period. the Asian longhorned beetle has been detected in two new states – Ohio and South Carolina; the emerald ash borer expanded its range from 14 to 35 states; laurel wilt disease spread from five states to 11; a second strain of the sudden oak death fungus appeared in Oregon and California forests; and whitebark pine has been proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for listing as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. (I have blogged often about policy failures that have contributed to these introductions; today I am focused on agencies’ ability to respond.)

Funding agencies’ essential programs has fallen behind these calamities.  APHIS funding has been steady or has risen slowly – at least not dropping – but not enough to deal with the growing threat.

Meanwhile, the key USFS programs have been cut by half or more. In 2010, USFS FHP and Research, together, allocated $32 million to efforts to understand and manage a dozen introduced pests: Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, sudden oak death, hemlock woolly adelgid, goldspotted oak borer, laurel wilt, thousand cankers disease, European gypsy moth, Port-Orford cedar root disease, Sirex woodwasp, and white pine blister rust (especially on whitebark pine). By 2021, this total had fallen to about $10 million. There was no indication that any USFS R&D funding has been allocated to recently detected, highly damaging pests, i.e., rapid ʻōhiʻa death, the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, Mediterranean oak beetle, or beech leaf disease. USFS FHP has funded work on some of these pests through its “emerging pest” fund – but that fund is limited to $500,000 for the entire country.

At present, more than 228 tree species growing in the “lower 48” states are infested by an exotic pest. The 15 most damaging of the introduced species threaten 41.1% of the total live forest biomass in the 48 conterminous states. Additional trees on the Hawaiian and other Pacific islands are also being killed by non-native insects and pathogens. Non-native forest pests have caused a 5% increase in total mortality by tree volume nation-wide. The greatest increases in mortality rates have been a four-fold increase for redbay; and a three-fold increase each for ash, beech, and hemlock.

Introductions of tree-killing pests occur because we import things! The highly damaging wood-borers can arrive in crates, pallets, and other forms of packaging made of wood. Other pests – especially plant diseases – come here on imported plants. Gypsy moth and spotted lanternfly egg masses can be attached to virtually any hard surface, e.g., steel slabs, vehicles, stone, containers, or ship superstructures.

Imports from Asia pose a particularly high risk – illustrated by the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, sudden oak death, and spotted lanternfly.

U.S. imports from Asia rose almost a third between 2019 and 2020. No part of the country is safe. While nearly half of imports from Asia enter via Los Angeles/Long Beach, California, another 21% entered via New York – New Jersey and Savannah. Other ports in the “Top 10” were the Northwest Seaport Alliance of Seattle and Tacoma, Oakland, Norfolk, Houston, Charleston, Baltimore, and Mobile.

Pests don’t stay in the cities where they first arrive. Instead, they proliferate and spread to other vulnerable trees – often assisted by people moving firewood, plants or household goods. For example, less than 20 years after their first detections, the emerald ash borer has spread to 35 states, the redbay ambrosia beetle to 11.

[For more information, read my earlier blogs posted here or species-specific descriptions here.]

Please contact your Representative and Senators and urge them to push for increased funding for key programs managed by these two agencies.  I describe funding needs below.  I list members of the appropriate Congressional subcommittees at the end of this blog.

APHIS headquarters

USDA APHIS programs (all included under “Plant Protection and Quarantine”)

APHIS ProgramFY 2020 (millions)FY 2021 (millions)FY 2022 ask
Tree & Wood Pest$60.000$60.456$70 million
Specialty Crops$192.000$196.553$200 million
Pest Detection$27.446$27.733$30 million
Methods Development$20.686$20.844$25 million

APHIS’ “Tree & Wood Pests” account has traditionally supported eradication and control efforts targeting only three insects: the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB), emerald ash borer (EAB), and gypsy moth. The program to eradicate the ALB has received about two-thirds of the funds — $40 million. There is encouraging progress in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. Clearly, this program must be maintained until final success is achieved. Plus the program must now counter the Charleston, South Carolina, outbreak, where more than 4,000 infested trees have been detected in an area of 58 square miles. (See my blog here, which describes the difficult conditions arising from wetlands in South Carolina.)

APHIS has terminated its emerald ash borer regulatory program, which had previously been funded at about $7 million per year. (See my blog). APHIS has said it will now focus on production and release of biocontrol agents, although it has not indicated the funding level. It is probable that EAB will now spread more rapidly to the mountain and Pacific Coast states, threatening both riparian woodlands and urban forests.

APHIS’ “Specialty Crops” program funds APHIS’ regulation of nursery operations to prevent spread of the sudden oak death pathogen. APHIS must improve that program to avoid a repetition of the 2019 incident, in which plants infected by the SOD pathogen were shipped to 14 states.

This budget line also supports efforts to manage the spotted lanternfly, which has spread from Pennsylvania to seven other mid-Atlantic states.

The “Pest Detection” budget line supports the collaborative state –federal program that detects newly introduced pests. Successful eradication and containment programs depend on early detection.

The “Methods Development” program assists APHIS in developing detection and eradication tools essential for an effective response to new pests.

USDA Forest Service

USFS PROGRAMFY20FY21  FY 22  ask
FHP Coop Lands$32 M$30.747M$51 million (to cover both program work & personnel costs)
FHP Federal lands$19 M$15.485M$25 million (ditto)
    
Research & Develop$305 million$258.7 million; of which about $3.6 million allocated to invasive species$320 million; seek report language specifying $5 million for invasive species

The Mission of the USDA Forest Service is “To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” To achieve this mission, the Forest Service needs adequate funding to address the difficult challenge of containing the spread of introduced pests, protecting host tree species from mortality caused by those pests, and restoring decimated tree species to the forest. Meeting this challenge requires gaining scientific understanding of the pest’s and host’s biology and what motivates people to avoid activities that facilitate pests’ spread (e.g., transporting firewood that might harbor wood-boring insects).

Given the hundreds of damaging non-native pests, the Forest Service must set priorities. One attempt to do so is “Project CAPTURE” (Conservation Assessment and Prioritization of Forest Trees Under Risk of Extirpation). Priority species for forests on the continent are listed below. A separate study is under way for forests in Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.

  • Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia)
  • American chestnut (Castanea dentata) 
  • Allegheny chinquapin (C. pumila)
  • Ozark chinquapin (C. pumila var. ozarkensis)
  • redbay (Persea borbonia)  
  • Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
  • pumpkin ash (F. profunda)
  • Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana)
  • Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)
  • tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus)
  • butternut (Juglans cinerea) 
  • eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
  • white ash (Fraxinus americana)
  • black ash (F. nigra)
  • green ash (F. pennsylvanica).

These 15 priority species should be the focus of both comprehensive gene conservation programs and tree breeding and restoration programs. Unfortunately, USFS programs do not reflect this recommendation.

Forest Health and Management Programs  (FHM)

Despite severe cuts (see above), FHM has continued its commitment to projects addressing Port-Orford-cedar root disease, threats to whitebark pine, and thousand cankers disease; plus it is support for managing “lingering” ash which appear to survive EAB attack. However, I am concerned about past reductions in programs targetting laurel wilt and sudden oak death. And as I noted above, several highly-damaging pests lack a “program” at all. I applaud establishment of an “emerging pest” line. However, competition will be fierce for the $500,000 – pitting the invasive shot hole borers in California against the coconut rhinoceros beetle and rapid ‘ōhi‘a death in Hawai`i, against beech leaf disease in Ohio to Massachusetts.

And where is federal leadership on managing continued spread of the emerald ash borer, now that the USDA APHIS has terminated its regulatory program?

USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Research Program

Effective programs to prevent, suppress, and eradicate non-native pests depend on understanding of the pest-host relationship gained through research. In recent years, about 1.5% of the USFS Research budget has been allocated to the non-native pests listed above. Past reductions have hit programs targetting hemlock woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, sudden oak death, and the Sirex woodwasp. Programs targetting several other high-impact pests, including the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, goldspotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt have been funded at a steady rate. I could find no documentation of USDA Forest Service research into beech leaf disease, rapid ʻōhiʻa death, or other pests currently killing trees.

Members of Key Congressional Committees

Note that some Representatives or Senators are members of subcommittees that fund both APHIS and the USFS. It is especially important that they hear from their constituents!

APHIS is funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill. Members of the House Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development:

  • Sanford Bishop Jr., Chairman              GA
  • Chellie Pingree                                     ME
  • Mark Pocan                                         WI
  • Lauren Underwood                              IL
  • Barbara Lee                                         CA
  • Betty McCollum                                  MN
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz                FL
  • Henry Cuellar                                      TX
  • Grace Meng                                         NY
  • Jeff Fortenberry, Ranking Member   NE
  • Robert Aderholt                                   AL
  • Andy Harris                                         MD
  • David Valadao                                     CA
  • John Moolenaar                                     MI
  • Dan Newhouse                                       WA

Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development:

  • Tammy Baldwin, Chair                                  WI
  • John Merkley                                                   OR
  • Dianne Feinstein                                             CA
  • Jon Tester                                                        MT
  • Patrick Leahy                                                   VT
  • Brian Schatz                                                    HI
  • Martin Heinrich                                                NM
  • Ranking Republican John Hoeven                ND      
  • Mitch McConnell                                             KY
  • Susan Collins                                                   ME
  • Roy Blunt                                                        MO
  • Jerry Moran                                                     KS
  • Cindy Hyde-Smith                                           MS
  • Mike Braun                                                      IN

The USFS is funded through the Interior appropriations bill. Members of the House Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies: add states

  • Chellie Pingree, Chair                          ME
  • Betty McCollum                                  MN
  • Derek Kilmer                                       WA
  • Josh Harder                                         CA
  • Susie Lee                                             NV
  • Marcy Kaptur                                      OH
  • Matt Cartwright                                   PA
  • David Joyce, Ranking Member         NC
  • Mike Simpson                                      ID
  • Chris Stewart                                       UT
  • Mark Amodei                                      NV

Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies:

  • Jeff Merkley, chair                              OR
  • Dianne Feinstein                                  CA
  • Patrick Leahy                                       VT
  • Jack Reed                                            RI
  • Jon Tester                                            MT
  • Chris van Hollen                                  MD
  • Martin Heinrich                                      NM
  • Ranking Rep. Lisa Murkowski             AK
  • Roy Blunt                                            MO
  • Mitch McConnell                                 KY
  • Shelly Moore Capito                            WV
  • Cindy Hyde-Smith                               MS  
  • Bill Hagerty                                         TN
  • Marco Rubio                                        FL

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.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Asian longhorned beetle – Eradication in South Carolina will be Extremely Difficult

arrows indicate red maples in the swamps of ALB regulated site in South Carolina
photo by David Coyle

The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) is one of the most threatening of the hundreds of non-native insects and pathogens introduced to American forests since European colonization began 400 years ago. The ALB attacks about 100 species of trees in 12 or 13 genera; it prefers maples, poplars, willows, and elms. Forests with substantial components of susceptible species constitute 10% of forests on the U.S. mainland and nearly all of Canada’s hardwoods.  Host trees species also make up a significant proportion of trees in urban areas.  A two-decade old estimate is that ALB could cause more than $1.2 billion in damage to urban trees [Coyle et al. 2021; full citation at the end of the blog]. The contemporary estimate would be higher.

The ALB began showing up in imports and in warehouses less than a dozen years after the U.S. opened trade with China [see Chapter 3 of Fading Forests II; url provided at the end of this blog]. Now there is a new infestation in South Carolina that threatens to be the most difficult to eradicate. Given the level of resources and extended commitment this will demand from APHIS and South Carolina, I worry that the agencies and Congress will give up. To find more money, will the agency take funds from other pests that also need to be addressed? Will it seek – and receive – emergency funding? Congress is currently considering funding for APHIS for the fiscal year that begins in October. Let’s inform them of the need to ensure adequate resources to carry forward necessary eradication efforts.  

ALB in the U.S.: 25 Years of Repeated Infestations and Eradications

The first established ALB population to be detected was that in Brooklyn, New York, in 1996. Since then, seven more outbreaks have been detected in the United States [Poland et al. 2021; South Carolina press release] plus two in Canada. Several populations have been eradicated: a single population in Illinois, several populations in New Jersey, three populations in New York; a small outlying population in Ohio (APHIS newsletter Feb 2021); and two Canadian outbreaks.

Despite the U.S. and Canada having adopted regulations requiring treatment of wood packaging from China effective January 1999, ALB larvae continue to be detected in wood packaging from that country.  Between 2012 and 2017, the ALB was intercepted six times in wood packaging made of Populus wood – each time originating from a single wood-treatment facility in China (Krishnankutty et al. 2020 – full citation at the end of the blog).

Port of Charleston; photo by Walter Lagrenne, South Carolina Port Authority

ALB Near Charleston, S.C.: Recently Detected; Must be Eradicated

The most recent detection is near Charleston, South Carolina. As usual, a beetle was found by a member of the public. Dendrological studies indicate that this infestation was seven years old at the time of its detection in May 2020, meaning it began about 2013 (Coyle et al. 2021). As the authors note, it has proved impossible to determine whether the South Carolina outbreak resulted from transport of infested wood from the Ohio outbreak or from China directly.  Lots of visitors travel from the Midwest to South Carolina every winter. The center of the primary area of infestation includes a railway and an RV park which might be utilized by such travelers. On the other hand, two ports that receive high volumes of incoming shipping containers including wood packaging are nearby — Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA (Coyle et al. 2021).  Charleston imported almost 666,000 containers (measured as 20-foot equivalents, or TEUs) in 2013.

Even under the best circumstances, eradicating an ALB infestation is difficult. Eradicating the Chicago outbreak took ten years [Poland et al. 2021]; eradicating the Brooklyn infestation took 23 years [APHIS ALB newsletter]. Massachusetts might be on the verge of eradicating the Worcester outbreak twelve years after it was detected because only one infested tree was found in 2020 [Felicia Hubacz at Northeast Forest Pest Council meeting, March 2021]

Eradication entails removing large numbers of trees – more than 171,000 in the Northeast and Midwest; and pesticide treatment of at least 800,000 [Poland et al. 2021]. Tens of thousands of trees must be inspected – especially in areas with significant woodland areas like the South Carolina site. In Clermont County, Ohio, 3,500,000 trees have been surveyed in the regulated area – which is 56 square miles [APHIS newsletter]

In South Carolina, APHIS and the state are already regulating 72.6 mi2 — and that is before the full extent of the infestation has been delimited. This regulated area is larger than the Ohio and New York regulated areas, although smaller than that in Massachusetts (110 mi2 Coyle et al.). As of February 2021, 4,425 infested trees have been identified (APHIS newsletter]. Ninety-eight percent are red maples; half of the others are willows (Coyle et al.) In May 2021, APHIS expanded the quarantine zone to 76.4 square miles (APHIS press release May 21, 2021).

So APHIS and South Carolina face a great deal of hard work. But acreage and numbers of trees affected don’t convey the real extent of the challenge.

The first challenge is anticipating the timing of events in the ALB life cycle. Scientists understand a great deal about the ALB life cycle. However, that knowledge all applies to areas with temperate climates such as the U.S. northeast, southern Canada, and Europe. South Carolina has a subtropical climate. How will the warmer climate affect the beetle’s speed of development, timing of emergence, etc. Already, dendrologial studies indicate that the ALB in South Carolina might complete development from egg to mature adult much faster – in less than a year rather than one to four years (Coyle et al.)

working conditions in the South Carolina swamps;
photo by David Coyle

An even bigger challenge will be trying to carry out searches for infested trees and standard responses. Removing infested trees and removing or applying pesticides to at-risk host trees is standard practice. Much of the regulated area has standing water and/or saturated soil. These conditions – plus the presence of venomous snakes and alligators – make visual surveys from the ground or by tree climbers difficult. Use of lifts and bucket trucks will be impossible. When infested trees are found, felling trees in swampy conditions presents a heighted risk for felling crews. And it will be impossible to operate the equipment needed to remove or chip infested trees (Coyle et al.). I believe it is impossible to use soil injection to treat at-risk trees under such conditions.

SOURCES

Coyle, D.R., R.T. Trotter, M.S. Bean, and S.E. Pfister. 2021. First Recorded Asian Longhorned Beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) Infestation in the Southern United States.  Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2021) 12(1): 10; 1–6

Krishnankutty,  S., H. Nadel, A.M. Taylor, M.C. Wiemann, Y. Wu, S.W. Lingafelter, S.W. Myers, and A.M. Ray. 2020b. Identification of Tree Genera Used in the Construction of Solid Wood-Packaging Materials That Arrived at U.S. Ports Infested With Live Wood-Boring Insects. Commodity Treatment and Quarantine Entomology

Poland, T.M., T. Patel-Weynand, D.M. Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M. Lopez. 2021. Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. Springer.

USDA APHIS Asian longhorned beetle monthly newsletter for March 2021. Sign up here https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/pests-diseases/asian-longhorned-beetle/ALB-eNewsletter  

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.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Congressional Action to Protect Trees from Non-Native Pests

Representative Peter Welch (D-VT)

Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont has reintroduced his bill to improve programs intended to prevent introduction of non-native forest pests and enhance efforts to reduce their impacts. The latter provisions include support for breeding trees resistant (or tolerant) to the pest. I hope H.R. 1389 will be adopted – then spur new efforts to conserve and restore forest trees! Please follow my suggestion below.

The Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act H.R. 1389 is co-sponsored by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Annie Kuster & Chris Pappas (NH), and Elise Stefanik (NY).

For updates, visit https://www.congress.gov/search?q={%22congress%22:[%22117%22],%22source%22:%22all%22,%22search%22:%22HR%201389%22}&searchResultViewType=expande

When he introduced the bill, Rep. Welch said 

“Invasive species are devastating to forests which are a central part of Vermont’s economy and our way of life. This bill will fund efforts to revitalize damaged forests and highlight the need for making this a priority within the federal government.”

Major provisions of H.R. 1389:

  • Expands USDA APHIS’ access to emergency funding to combat invasive species when existing federal funds are insufficient and broadens the range of actives that these funds can support.
  • Establishes a grant program to support institutions focused on researching methods to restore native tree species that have been severely damaged by invasive pests.
  • Authorizes funding to implement promising research findings on how to protect native tree species.
  • Mandates a study to identify actions needed to overcome the lack of centralization and prioritization of non-native insect and pathogen research and response within the federal government, and develop national strategies for saving tree species.

As I have described in earlier blogs, the measures adopted by federal and state governments to prevent non-native pathogen and insect pest introductions – and the funding to support this work – have been insufficient to meet the growing challenges. In just the past decade, several new tree-killing pests have been detected: polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, spotted lanternfly, two rapid ʻōhiʻa death pathogens, Mediterranean oak beetle, velvet longhorned beetle. Over the same period, the Asian longhorned beetle has been detected in Ohio and South Carolina; the emerald ash borer expanded its range from 14 to 35 states; the redbay ambrosia beetle and its associated fungus spread from five states to 11; a second strain of the sudden oak death fungus appeared in Oregon forests; and whitebark pine has been proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for listing as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

During this same period, funding for the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection program has been cut by about 50%; funding for USFS Research projects targetting 10 high-profile non-native pests has been cut by about 70%.

One reason for this disconnect between need and resources is that the non-native tree pest problem is largely out of sight and therefore does not lend itself to the long-term public attention needed to remediate the threats. It is up to us to raise the political profile of these issues.

On the positive side, the passage of time has brought forth new solutions, a deeper understanding of the genetics of plants and animals, new measures for igniting public awareness and invasive identification, new technologies and strategies for helping trees adapt, and a recognition of what resources and organization it will take to mount a proper solution to the problem.

“Project CAPTURE” (Conservation Assessment and Prioritization of Forest Trees Under Risk of Extirpation) has proposed priority species for enhanced conservation efforts. Top priorities in the continental states are listed below. A separate study is under way for forests in Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.

dead redbay on Jekyll Island, Georgia
  • Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia)
  • American chestnut (Castanea dentata) 
  • Allegheny chinquapin (C. pumila)
  • Ozark chinquapin (C. pumila var. ozarkensis)
  • redbay (Persea borbonia)  
  • Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
  • pumpkin ash (F. profunda)
  • Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana)
  • Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)
  • tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus)
  • butternut (Juglans cinerea) 
  • eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
  • white ash (Fraxinus americana)
  • black ash (F. nigra)
  • green ash (F. pennsylvanica).

For a brief explanation of Project CAPTURE, see my earlier blog here. For an in-depth description of the Project CAPTURE process and criteria for setting priorities, read Potter, K.M., M.E. Escanferla, R.M. Jetton, and G. Man. 2019. Important Insect and Disease Threats to United States Tree Species and Geographic Patterns of Their Potential Impacts. Forests 2019, 10. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/58290

Please ask your representative to co-sponsor H.R. 1389. Please ask your senators to sponsor a companion bill. For more information, contact Alex Piper at Alex.Piper@mail.house.gov or 202-306-6569 .

H.R. 1389 is endorsed by Vermont Woodlands Association, American Forest Foundation, Center for Invasive Species Prevention, the Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition,, Entomological Society of America, and North American Invasive Species Management Association.

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.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

APHIS funding of programs targetting tree pests (& some others)

spotted lanternfly; photograph by Holly Ragusa, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

Since Fiscal Year (FY)2009, APHIS has had access to a program that has permanent funding, not subject to the vagaries of annual budgeting and appropriations. The Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program established by 7 U.S.C. Section 7721. The program was initially funded at $12 million for FY2009; $45 million in FY2010; $62.5 million in 2014-2017; and $75 million since FY2018.

Funds are provided under a competitive grants program to universities, states, Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, non-profits, and Tribal organizations “to conduct critical projects that keep U.S. crops, nurseries, and forests healthy, boost the marketability of agricultural products within the country and abroad, and help us do right and feed everyone.” [USDA press release “USDA Provides $66 Million in Fiscal Year 2019 to Protect Agriculture and Natural Resources from Plant Pests and Diseases” February 15, 2019]

By my calculation, total funding of tree pests projects during the period Fiscal Year (FY09) through FY20 was about $94 million. This represented 15.6% of nearly $600 million in total funding under the program during this period.

In the initial years, forest pest projects received about 10-12% of total funds. In later years, the proportion has been higher – e.g., 30% in FY19, 13.8% in FY20. The early years were dominated by management of the sudden oak death pathogen (SOD), Phytophthora ramorum. In FY09, SOD projects receive $7.5 million, or 8% of all tree pest funding. This funding helped set up the National Ornamental Nursery study center (NORS-DUC); later years paid for research projects on SOD management issues and nursery surveys. 

In the most recent years, funding has been dominated by detection, management, and research on spotted lanternfly – which is not primarily a forest pest. Thus, in FY 19, 56.8% ($10,339,126) of $18,195,000 allocated to tree pests; in FY20, 30% ($2,606,094) of the $8,705,920 allocated to all tree pests.  

The FY2019 program also provided $1,107,965 in 14 states and nationally for P. ramorum survey, diagnostics, mitigation, probability modeling, genetic analysis, and outreach (USDA press release 2019). This was appropriate considering the shipment of SOD-infected plants to nurseries in 18 states in spring 2019.

Current Year Funding

APHIS has released the list of projects funded under the Plant Protection Act Section 7721 in FY2021. Link to website APHIS funded 354 projects in 49 states, Guam, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, at a total cost of $63.225 million. APHIS is retaining ~ $14 million to allow responses to pest and plant health emergencies. Total funding for forest pests – by my calculation – was $8,715,046 (13.7% of the total).

My analysis finds that in FY21, 13 states had no funded projects that applied to tree pests: Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Utah.

Most commonly funded projects:

  • Surveys and other efforts addressing wood borers: 37 projects, including
    • Thousand cankers disease: 4 (all surveys)
    • Emerald ash borer: 6 projects (surveys and management, including biocontrol)
    • Asian longhorned beetle: 3, of which 2 are outreach
    • Laurel wilt disease: 1 project
    • Detection tools for wood-borers, including citrus longhorned beetle, Sirex noctilio, Agrilus biguttatus, and Australian Cerambycids
  • Phytophthora ramorum: 20 projects, primarily nursery surveys but including a few management projects. The projects were in 18 states.
  • Surveys for Asian defoliating moths in the Lymantra genus: 15 projects
  • Surveys and control efforts targetting spotted lanternfly: 13 projects in 6 states. These included research conducted by the APHIS Otis laboratory in Massachusetts. The grants totaled $2,788,010, or 32% of total forest pest funding.

APHIS funded 16 outreach projects (there is some overlap with above), including three specifically mentioning firewood. The latter included principal funding for the “Don’t Move firewood” national campaign.

Other projects that I find interesting:

  • 2 projects targetting hemlock woolly adelgid
  • 1 targetting red palm weevil
  • 4 projects targetting Asian giant hornet in Washington and Oregon and the APHIS Otis laboratory. California has a project relating to a wider range of hornets that was also funded in FY20.
  • Biocontrol of several invasive plant species in Florida – Australian pine/Casuarina, Brazilian pepper, and Ailanthus
Harrisia cactus attacked by the mealybug; photo by Yorelyz Rodríguez-Reyes

As readers of this blog know, I also care deeply about threats to our native cacti – especially flat-padded Opuntia and tubular cacti endemic to Puerto Rico. Over the 13 years of program, funded following projects for cacti:

  • FY11  $244,368 for efforts to develop sterile insect methodology to control cactus moth
  • FY17   develop biocontrol for Harissia cactus mealybug $210,000
  • FY19   Harissia cactus mealybug – $355,774; cactus moth $216,243
  • FY20   Harrisia cactus mealybug $301,930
  • FY 21 cactus moth biocontrol $175,659 and $352,236 for Harrisia cactus mealybug biocontrol

Clearly, having access to $75 million that is not subject to the limits imposed by Administration budget priorities or Congressional appropriations has allowed considerable freedom. The fund has allowed APHIS to support work on pests that have not been designated “quarantine pests,” e.g., walnut canker disease of walnut, the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, hemlock woolly adelgid, and the cactus pests. The program also funded many projects targetting the spotted lanternfly (SLF) – both before and after the lanternfly became a formal APHIS program (which occurred after it was detected outside Pennsylvania). Now that SLF has been found in several states, funding has partially shifted to appropriated funds. The FY21 appropriation included an additional $4 million for management of SLF; this was incorporated in the “specialty crops” line item.

So far, there has been no funding for beech leaf disease through this program; I don’t know whether any of the people working on this disease had applied.

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.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

APHIS Deregulates Emerald Ash Borer – Now it is up to the States

APHIS formally proposed to stop regulating movement of firewood, nursery stock, and other articles that can transport the emerald ash borer (EAB) in 2018; I blogged in opposition to this proposal at the time.  Now APHIS has evaluated the 2018 comments on its proposal and has decided to proceed with its plans.

I recently blogged about the current and probable future status of ash. A study confirmed that robust regeneration of ash seedlings and saplings seen in various invaded areas will not result in recovery of mature ashes that can perform their ecological role. 

APHIS received 146 comments on the proposal. Twenty-five supported the proposal as written; 121 raised concerns. Many of the latter were a few sentences without supporting information. These comments and the final rulemaking can be read here.

How has APHIS responded to the serious questions raised? Dismissively.

I certainly concede that EAB has been difficult to manage and has spread rapidly. However, I continue tobelieve that maintaining the quarantine serves important purposes and the analysis APHIS provides does not justify terminating of the regulatory program. I remain concerned.

Neither the proposal nor the final regulation tells us how much money and staff resources have been dedicated to detection or enforcement of the regulations in recent years. Therefore we don’t know how many resources are now available for supporting other activities that the agency thinks are more effective. APHIS also refuses to provide specific information on how it will allocate the freed-up resources among its (minimal) continuing efforts. For example, APHIS has supported resistance-breeding programs. Will it help them expand to additional species, e.g., black and Oregon ash?

How Does APHIS Propose to Curtail EAB Spread?

APHIS states in the final rule that it is ending the domestic quarantine regulation so that it can allocate resources to more effective strategies for managing and containing EAB. The agency wants to reallocate funds “to activities of greater long-term benefit to slowing the spread of EAB … These activities include further development and deployment of EAB biocontrol organisms; further research into integrated pest management of EAB that can be used at the local level to protect an ash population of significant importance to a community; and further research, in tandem with other Federal agencies, into the phenomenon of “lingering ash … ”

However, APHIS has not funded detection efforts since 2019. (Detection methods were only partially effective, but they gave us some information on where EAB had established.) APHIS is now ending regulation of the movement of vectors. APHIS concedes that biocontrol agents cannot be effective in preventing pest spread. So – what efforts – other than continued support for the “Don’t Move Firewood” campaign – will APHIS make to slow the spread of EAB?

Environmental and Economic Impacts: Not Adequately Assessed

Second, APHIS still has not analyzed the economic or environmental impact of the more rapid spread of EAB to the large areas of the country that are not yet infested – especially the West Coast – that are likely to result from deregulation. As even APHIS concedes, the EAB is currently known to occupy only 27% of the range of native Fraxinus species within conterminous US. There are additional large ash populations in Canada and Mexico – although neither country commented on the proposal — unfortunately!

Instead, APHIS largely restates its position from the proposal that it is too difficult to calculate such impacts. Furthermore, that it is APHIS’ “experience that widely prevalent plant pests tend, over time, to spread throughout the geographical range of their hosts …” In other words, APHIS denies the value of delaying invasions – yet that has always been a premise underlying any quarantine program.

The final regulation refers to an updated economic analysis, but no such document is posted on the official website. The rule does not mention costs to homeowners, property owners, municipal governments, etc. I believe it would not be so difficult to estimate costs to these entities by applying costs of tree removal in the Midwest to tree census data from major West Coast cities. Also, it might have been possible to provide some estimate of the ecological values in riparian forests by analogy to data from the Midwest developed by Deborah McCullough and others.

Biological Control: Effective – or Not

In the final regulation, APHIS concedes that the biocontrol agents currently being released have geographic and other limitations. However, APHIS does not address concerns raised by me and others about their efficacy. APHIS does say explicitly that it has not [yet?] begun efforts to find biocontrol agents that might be more effective in warmer parts of the ash range, especially the Pacific Northwest and  riparian areas of the desert Southwest. However, APHIS has conceded that these areas are almost certain to be invaded – so should it not take precautionary action?  

APHIS states several times that it cannot promise specific funding allocations among program components or strategies – such as resistance breeding – that might be pursued in the future. The agency stresses the value of flexibility.

U.S. Forest Service biologists have higher expectations; see their podcast here.

I wish to clarify that I do not oppose use of biocontrol; I strongly supported then APHIS Deputy Administrator Ric Dunkle’s decision to initiate biocontrol efforts for EAB early in the infestation. My objections are to overly optimistic descriptions of the program’s efficacy.

Firewood: Outreach Only, No National Regulation

As noted, APHIS has promised to continue support for public outreach activities, especially the “Don ‘t Move Firewood” campaign. The program’s message will continue to encourage the public to buy firewood where they burn it and to refrain from moving firewood from areas that are under Federal quarantine for other pests of firewood (e.g., Asian longhorned beetle). This campaign and the new National Plant Board guidelines link stress that firewood is a high-risk pathway for many pests of national or regional concern; they do not focus on any particular species. Leigh Greenwood, director of Don’t Move Firewood, thinks this is a good approach.

In 2010, the National Firewood Task Force recommended that APHIS regulate firewood at the national level. APHIS does explain why the agency did not do so. The agency says national regulations would be overly restrictive for some states and that requiring heat treatment would not be feasible in the winter for producers in Northern states. Finally, a Federal regulation would not address a significant non-commercial pathway – campers. [I have serious questions about APHIS’ assertion that it can regulate only commercial movement of vectors across state lines. Contact me directly for details on this.]

Perhaps APHIS is not required to analyze the probable overarching efficacy of the several efforts of 50 states. Given the states’ many perspectives and obvious difficulty in coordinating their actions on phytosanitary and other policies, I fear a scattered approach that will result in faster spread of EAB. I hope the National Plant Board guidelines on firewood regulation and outreach can overcome the history.

Most federally-managed recreation areas adopted an education campaign on firewood in autumn 2016; I blogged about it then.

Imported Wood Will be Minimally Regulated

APHIS clarifies that it will take enforcement actions against imports of ash wood only if inspectors detect larvae but can identify them just to family level and not below. APHIS will allow the importation if the larvae can be identified as EAB specifically. This policy reflects international standards, which do not allow a country to erect restrictions targetting a pest from abroad if that pest is also present inside the country and is not under an official control program. (See my discussion of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in Chapter 3 and Appendix 3 of Fading Forests II, available here.) 

APHIS does not discuss how it will react to pests identified to the genus – several other Agrilus also pose pest risks. (See here and here.)

APHIS recommends that states leery of accepting yet more EAB-infested wood from abroad petition the agency under the Federally Recognized State Managed Phytosanitary Program (FRSMP) program, under which APHIS would take action to prevent movement of infested material to that particular state.

Lessons Learned

Finally, one commenter asked whether APHIS would analyze the program to learn what could have improved results. APHIS replies that the agency “tend[s] to reserve such evaluations for particular procedures or policies in order to limit their scope …” I hope APHIS is serious about “considering” doing a “lessons learned” evaluation. It is important to understand what could have been done better to protect America’s plant resources.

My take: the EAB experience proves, once again, that quarantine zones must extent to probable locations – beyond the known locations. The pest is almost always more widely distributed than documented. This has been true for EAB, sudden oak death, ALB, citrus canker … Failure to regulate “ahead” of the pest guarantees failure. I recognize that adopting this stance probably requires a change in the law (or at least understanding of it) and of current international standards adopted by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). However, absent a more aggressive approach, programs are doomed to be constantly chasing the pest’s posterior.

Finally, let us mourn the loss of ash so far, the future losses … and opportunities missed.

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.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Money for Key Programs in FY2021 – 1st Round

Congress has begun work on funding the government for Fiscal Year 2021, which begins on 1 October 2020.

The House Appropriations Committee has adopted bills funding USDA APHIS (via the agriculture appropriations bill) and USDA Forest Service (via the interior appropriations bill). Both provide steady or increased funding for programs important to preventing, eradicating, containing, and managing non-native tree-killing pests.

However, the Senate must act also – and I don’t yet know whether it will support these spending increases — or even whether it will pass an appropriations bill.

Still – we should applaud members of the House Agriculture and Interior subcommittees for supporting these programs (go here to see if your representative is on the committees). The same link provides justifications for funding the various programs.

USDA APHIS funding for key programs

Program                    FY2020           Admin’s Request         FY2021

APHIS Plant Protection           

Ag Quarantine (appropriated)     32,330,000     33,350,000                 33,070,000

Pest detection       27,446,000      27,967,000                  37,824,000

Methods develop    20,686,000      21,045,000                  20,946,000

Specialty crops          192,013,000    183,079,000                198,912,000

Tree & wood pests        60,000,000      56,336,000                  60,600,000

In its report, the Appropriations Committee reiterated its longstanding instruction that the Secretary of Agriculture tap funds in the Commodity Credit Corporation to fund emergency actions to “arrest and eradicate” plant pests. The report also called for APHIS to maintain funding levels and cost-share requirements for addressing the Asian longhorned beetle. (I expect emergency funds will be needed to address the newly detected ALB outbreak in South Carolina.) The Committee noted that it had provided $4 million in additional funds to counter the spotted lanternfly  outbreak.

In addition, the Committee instructed APHIS to work with the USDA Forest Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and Climate Hub to assist U.S. tropical areas (Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, Marianas) to address several issues, including:  

  • Land  and forest resource management; and
  • Biology and control of invasive insects, plant diseases, weeds and integrated pest management strategies;

Forest Service – funding for key programs

Program                FY2020                       Pres’ request                FY2021

Research &

Development     $305,000,000              $249,330,000              $311,830,000

State & Private

Forestry overall       $346,990,000              $217,443,000              $300,296,000

Forest Health

Management          $100,000,000              $84,636,000                $101,136,000

In its report, the Appropriations Committee said that it expected the USFS to develop a research program that reflects the committee’s priorities and other activities most critical to forest health, especially addressing climate change adaptation, preventing spread of disease and invasive species, and watershed improvement. The Committee also supported research on holistic approaches to countering the harmful effects of terrestrial invasive species, utilizing a coordinated approach that incorporates expertise in forestry, veterinary science, aerospace engineering, biotechnology, agronomy and applied economics.

Addressing the Forest Health Management program, the Committee report encouraged the USFS to address high priority invaders, including the emerald ash borer and native western bark beetles.

The bill also rejected the President’s proposal to eliminate the Urban and Community Forestry program. Instead, it provided $8 million above the FY2020 level (that is, $40 million); this total includes $2 million allocated to helping communities hard-hit by the emerald ash borer to replant their urban forests.

Now that the House has acted, the next step – usually – is for the Senate Agriculture and Interior appropriations subcommittees to mark up their own bills. However, those who follow Congress closely don’t expect the Senators to be able to reach agreement on spending levels. Instead, they expect, the Senate will pass a “continuing resolution” that maintains current funding levels for the various programs. Perhaps after the election, they might then adopt more detailed bills.

Please – if one of your Senators is on either of these subcommitees (see the lists here), ask him or her to support the House spending levels on these programs.

I have written extensive descriptions of the impact of funding inadequacies in Fading Forest 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.

For a detailed discussion of the policies, practices, and funding shortfalls that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Hope for eastern hemlocks – IF funding can be obtained

eastern hemlocks in Great Smoky Mountains National Park

As we all know, eastern (Tsuga canadensis) and Carolina (T. caroliniana) hemlocks have suffered huge losses due primarily to the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae – HWA). In New England, there has been more than a 60% decrease in total hemlock basal area since 1997 and a virtual absence of hemlock regeneration in HWA-infested areas. HWA continues to spread – most recently into western Michigan and Nova Scotia (all information, unless otherwise indicated, is from Kinahan et al. 2020; full citation at end of this blog). [However, Morin and Liebhold (2015) found that hemlock basal volume continued to increase for the first 20 years or so after invasion by the adelgid, due to ingrowth of immature hemlocks. See “results” in Morin et al., full citation at the end of the blog.]

This loss deprives us of a gorgeous tree … and unique habitats. Hemlock-dominated forests were characterized by deep shade, acidic and slowly decomposing soil, and a cool microclimate. They provided unique and critical habitat for many terrestrial and aquatic species.

A team of scientists based at the University of Rhode Island has carried out an experiment comparing cuttings from eastern hemlocks apparently resistant to HWA to susceptible ones. Matching sets of resistant and susceptible trees were planted at eight sites in seven states – Ithaca and Bronx, NY; Boston; southern CT; Lycoming County, PA; Thurmont, MD; southern WV; and Waynesville, NC. All plantings were within or adjacent to forests containing HWA-infested hemlocks.

After four years, 96% of the HWA-resistant hemlocks had survived, compared to 48% of the control plants. The HWA-resistant plants were 32% taller, put out 18% more lateral growth, had 20% longer drip lines, and were in 58% better condition. HWA was found on trees at only three out of the eight plots. HWA density on resistant eastern hemlocks was 35% lower than on HWA-susceptible hemlocks, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Trees in all eight plots were infested with elongate hemlock scale (Fiorinia externa – EHS), a second insect damaging hemlocks in eastern North America. However, the HWA-resistant hemlocks had EHS densities 60% lower than those of the controls.

Kinahan et al. note that identification and use of host tree populations’ potential for pest resistance has played a role in other programs managing non-native pests and pathogens, including Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight.  

The same scientists note that significant effort has been put into biocontrol or insecticides for management of hemlock woolly adelgid, but without achieving the desired improvement of forest health. Attempts to cross eastern hemlocks with HWA-resistant hemlocks unfortunately produced no viable offspring. However, Kinahan et al. were inspired to explore possible genetic resistance within natural populations of eastern hemlocks by the 1) evidence of resistance in Asian and western hemlocks; 2) the different foliar terpene profiles in those species; and 3) the presence of apparently healthy mature hemlock trees growing in proximity to heavily infested trees.

They asked forest managers and other concerned groups to help locate stands with trees that were mature and apparently completely healthy, were located within HWA-devastated hemlock stands, and had not been chemically treated. They chose a small stand of eastern hemlocks growing within the Walpack Fish and Wildlife Management Area in northern New Jersey. This stand was called the “Bulletproof Stand”. They evaluated HWA resistance in five of these trees, then chose two for propagation and planting in the test.

New Jersey’s “bullet-proof stand” on the left
photo by Richard Casagrande

The trees were planted in September 2015. Due to funding gaps, they were not revisited for four years. Thus, Kinahan et al. re-evaluated the resistant and vulnerable trees in Autumn 2019 – with the results I reported above.

Does this study prove that clonal propagation of apparently resistant hemlocks is an effective strategy to restore the species?

It is not that simple.

The difference in survival and condition was striking, but the authors note several caveats:

1) they had not recorded pre-experiment data on plant height or other variables, so they cannot be certain that variation in initial plant height or dripline did not contribute to current treatment-level differences in these variables.

2) they cannot distinguish between the impacts of HWA and EHS on plant growth.

3) since they could not monitor the planting sites for four years, they cannot definitively link increased mortality of HWA-susceptible trees to higher pest densities. However, the lower pest densities and higher survival of HWA-resistant hemlocks are consistent with herbivore-driven tree mortality.

They also cannot assess the impact of other environmental stressors (drought, cold, etc.) on their results.

4) The small number of trees planted at each site prevented detailed site-level analyses.

The scientists conclude that their work is most appropriately viewed as a ‘proof of concept’ experiment highlighting the need for future research exploring how HWA-resistant eastern hemlocks might best be integrated into existing HWA management.

Unfortunately, the Rhode Island researchers report they cannot persuade the US Forest Service to support continuing this effort. Will these promising hints not result in action?

Kinahan et al. stress the importance of the reduced pest densities (both HWA and EHS) on the putatively resistant hemlocks. They think this might be a result of the higher terpene concentrations in the twigs and needles. Finally, they note that lower densities of sap-feeding herbivores may also indirectly provide protection against other consumers, including gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) and hemlock looper (Lambdina fiscellaria).

SOURCE

Kinahan, I.G., G. Grandstaff, A. Russell, C.M. Rigsby, R.A. Casagrande, and E. L. Preisser. 2020. A four-year, seven-state reforestation trial with eastern hemlocks (Tsuga canadensis) resistant to hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae). Forests 11: 312

Morin, R.S. and A.M. Liebhold. 2015. Invasions by two non-native insects alter regional forest species composition and successional trajectories. Forest Ecology and Management 341 (2015).

Posted by Faith Campbell

P.S. I have been working with colleagues to promote a more coordinated and well-funded program to combat non-native forest pests – including much greater reliance on identifying and breeding resistance to the pest. Visit here to see this effort.

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.

Progress – Now Threatened – On Protecting Our Cacti

prickly pear cacti in Big Bend National Park
photo by Blake Trester, National Park Service

The cacti that are such important components of desert ecosystems across nearly 2 million square miles straddling the U.S.-Mexico border are under threat from non-native insects – as I have noted in earlier blogs. Of course, cacti are important in other ecoregions, too – I wrote recently about the columnar cacti in the dry forests of Puerto Rico.

Flat-padded prickly pear cacti of the genus Opuntia are threatened by the cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum.

In 1989, the cactus moth was found in southern Florida, to which it had spread from the Caribbean islands (Simonson 2005). Recently, the moth was found to have spread west as far as the Galveston, Texas, area and near I-10 in Columbus, Texas, about 75 miles west of central Houston (Stephen Hight, pers. com.) Two small outbreaks on islands off Mexico’s Caribbean coast have been eradicated.

In Florida, the cactus moth has caused considerable harm to six native species of prickly pear, three of which are listed by the state as threatened or endangered.

When the cactus moth reaches the more arid regions of Texas, it is likely to spread throughout the desert Southwest and into Mexico. In the American southwest, 31 Opuntia species are at risk; nine of them are endemic, one is endangered. Mexico is the center of endemism for the Opuntia genus. In Mexico, 54 Opuntia species are at risk, 38 of which are endemic (Varone et al. 2019; full citation at end of this blog).

The long-term effects of the cactus moth on these North American Opuntia are unknown because there may be substantial variations in tolerance. The attacks observed in the Caribbean islands have shown great variability in various cactus species’ vulnerability (Varone et al. 2019).

The Opuntia cacti support a diversity of pollinators as well as deer, javalina (peccaries), tortoises, and lizards. Prickly pears also shelter packrats and nesting birds (which in turn are fed on by raptors, coyotes, and snakes), and plant seedlings. Their roots hold highly erodible soils in place (Simonson 2005).

While scientists have been concerned about the possible impacts of the cactus moth since it was detected in Florida 30 years ago, a substantial response began only 15 years later. The U.S. Department of Agriculture began trying to slow the spread of the cactus moth in 2005 (Mengoni Goñalons et al. 2014), with a focus on surveys and monitoring, host (cactus) removal, and release of sterile males. This program was successful at slowing the moth’s spread and eradicating small outbreaks on offshore islands of Alabama, Mississippi, and Mexico.

Cactus moth damage to native cacti in Florida
photo by Christine Miller, UF/IFAS

However, the moth continued to spread west and the program never received an appropriation from Congress. The primary funding source was a US – Mexico Bi-National Invasive Cactus Moth Abatement Program. Both countries contributed funds to support the research and operational program to slow the spread in the U.S. Funds were provided through USDA Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Mexican Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SEGARPA). Unfortunately, funding was reduced by both entities and became inadequate to maintain the Bi-National Program.

Therefore, in 2012, APHIS abandoned its regional program and shifted the focus to biocontrol. This is now considered the only viable control measure in the desert Southwest where vulnerable cacti are numerous and grow close together. The biocontrol project has been funded since 2012 through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention program (which receives funding through the Farm Bill). It has received a total of slightly more than $2 million over seven years. More than half the funds went to the quarantine facility to support efforts to rear non-target hosts and verify the biocontrol agent’s host specificity. About a quarter of the funds supported complementary work of an Argentine team (both the cactus moth and the most promising biocontrol agent are native to Argentina). Much smaller amounts have supported U.S.-based scientists who have studied other aspects of the cactus moth’s behavior and collected and identified the U.S. moths being tested for their possible vulnerability to attack by a biocontrol wasp.

Here are details of what these dedicated scientists achieved in just the past seven years at the relatively low cost of roughly $2 million. Unfortunately, the project now faces a funding crisis and we need to ensure they have the resources to finish their work.

Some Specifics of the BioControl Program

After literature reviews, extensive collections, and studies in the cactus moth’s native habitat in Argentina (Varone et al. 2015), a newly described wasp, Apanteles opuntiarum (Mengoni Goñalons et al. 2014), has been determined to be host specific on Argentine Cactoblastis species and the most promising candidate for biocontrol. Wasps were collected in Argentina and sent to establish a colony in a quarantine facility in Florida to enable host specificity studies on North American Lepidoptera (Varone et al. 2015).

Quarantine host specificity studies and development of rearing technology has not been straightforward. Initially, it was difficult to achieve a balanced male/female ratio in the laboratory-bred generations; this balance is required to maintain stable quarantine laboratory colonies for host range testing. This difficulty was overcome. A second challenge was high mortality of the cactus-feeding insects collected in the Southwest that were to be test for vulnerability to the biocontrol wasp. These desert-dwellers don’t do well in the humid, air-conditioned climate of the quarantine facility! For these difficult-to-rear native insects, scientists developed a molecular genetics method to detect whether eggs or larvae of the cactus moth parasitoid were present inside test caterpillars after they were exposed to the wasps. For easy to rear test insects, caterpillars are exposed to the wasps and reared to adulthood. Host specificity tests have been conducted on at least five species of native U.S. cactus-feeding caterpillars and 11 species of non-cactus-feeding caterpillars (Srivastava  et al. 2019; Hight pers.comm.).

To date there has been no instance of parasitism by Apanteles opuntiarum on either lepidopteran non-target species or non-cactus-feeding insects in the Florida quarantine or in field collections in Argentina (Srivastava et al. 2019; Varone et al. 2015; Hight pers.comm.).

The scientists expected to complete host-specificity testing in the coming months, then submit a petition to APHIS requesting the release of the wasp as a biocontrol agent. Unfortunately, the project’s request for about $250,000 in the current year was not funded. This money would have funded completion of the host specificity testing, preparation of a petition to APHIS in support of release of the biocontrol agent into the environment, and preparation of the release plan.

Meanwhile, what can we expect regarding the probable efficacy of the anticipated biocontrol program?

Some of the wasp’s behavioral traits are encouraging. The wasp is widely present in the range of the cactus moth, and persisted in these areas over the years of the study. The wasp can deposit multiple eggs with each “sting”. Multiple wasps can oviposit into each cactus moth without detriment to the wasp offspring. Unmated wasp females produce male offspring only, whereas mated females produce mixed offspring genders. In the field, female wasps attack cactus moth larvae in a variety of scenarios: they wait at plant access holes to sting larvae when they come outside to defecate; they attack larvae when they are moving on the surface of the pads; they can sting the youngest cactus moth larvae through the thin plant wall of mined the pads; and they enter large access holes created by older larvae and attack larger larvae. The wasps are attracted by the frass (excrement) left on the outside of the cactus pads by cactus moth larvae (Varone et al. 2020).

However, I wonder about the extent to which the cactus moth is controlled by parasitoids in Argentina. Cactoblastis eggs are killed primarily by being dislodged during weather events (rain and wind) and by predation by ants. First instar larvae are killed primarily by the native Argentine cactus plants’ own defenses – thick cuticles and release of sticky mucilage when the young larvae chew holes into the pads where they enter and feed internally. As larvae feed and develop inside the pads, the primary cause of mortality is natural enemies.

Of all the parasitoid species that attack C. cactorum, A. opuntiarum is the most abundant and important. When the larvae reach their final state (6th instars), they leave the pads and find pupation sites in plant litter near the base of the plants. It is at this stage that the parasitism from A. opuntiarum is detected in the younger larvae that were attacked while feeding inside pads. As the moth larva begins to spin silk into which to pupate, larvae of the wasp erupt through the skin of the caterpillar and pupate within the silk spun by the moth. Predation by generalists (ants, spiders, predatory beetles) accounted for high mortality of the unprotected last instar and pupae (Varone et al. 2019).

Finally, the cactus moth has three generations per year when feeding on O. stricta in the subtropical and tropical coastal areas of the Americas and the Caribbean. In Argentina, on its native host, the moth completes only two generations per year (Varone et al. 2019).

 How to Get the Program Support Needed

Opuntia in Big Bend National Park
Photo by Cookie Ballou,
National Park Service

To date, no organized constituency has advocated for protection of our cacti from non-native insect pests. Perhaps now that the Cactoblastis moth is in Texas, the threat it represents to our desert ecosystems will become real to conservationists and they will join the struggle. The first step is to resolve the funding crisis so that the agencies can complete testing of the biocontrol agent and gain approval for its release. So now there is “something people can do” – and I hope they will step forward.

I hope Americans are not actually indifferent to the threat that many cacti in our deserts will be killed by non-native insects. Many are key components of the ecosystems within premier National Parks, and other protected areas. Cacti also are beautiful treasures in botanical gardens. I hope conservationists will agree that these threats must be countered, and will help to ensure funding of the final stages of the biocontrol tests.

Sources

Mengoni Goñalons, C., L. Varone, G. Logarzo, M. Guala, M. Rodriguero, S.D. Hight, and J.E. Carpenter. 2014. Geographical range & lab studies on Apanteles opuntiarum (hymenoptera: braconiDae) in AR, a candidate for BC of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in North America. Florida Entomologist 97(4) December 2014

Simonson, S.E., T. J. Stohlgren, L. Tyler, W. Gregg, R. Muir, and L. Garrett. 2005. Preliminary assessment of the potential impacts and risks of the invasive cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum Berg, in the U.S. and Mexico. Final Report to the International Atomic Energy Agency, April 25, 2005 © IAEA 2005

Srivastava, M., P. Srivastava,  R. Karan, A. Jeyaprakash, L. Whilby, E. Rohrig, A.C. Howe,  S.D. Hight, and L. Varone. 2019. Molecular detection method developed to track the koinobiont larval parasitoid Apanteles opuntiarum (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) imported from Argentina to control Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Florida Entomologist 102(2): 329-335.

Varone, L., C.M. Goñalons, A.C. Faltlhauser, M.E. Guala, D. Wolaver, M. Srivastava, and S.D. Hight. 2020. Effect of rearing Cactoblastis cactorum on an artificial diet on the behavior of Apanteles opuntiarum. Applied Entomology DOI: 10.1111/jen.12731.

Varone, L., G. Logarzo, J.J. Martínez, F. Navarro, J.E. Carpenter, and S.D. Hight. 2015. Field host range of Apanteles opuntiarum (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Argentina, a potential biocontrol agent of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in North America. Florida Entomologist — Volume 98, No. 2 803

Varone, L., M.B. Aguirre, E. Lobos, D. Ruiz Pérez, S.D. Hight, F. Palottini, M. Guala, G.A. Logarzo. 2019. Causes of mortality at different stages of Cactoblastis cactorum in the native range. BioControl (2019) 64:249–261

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.

2021 Funding: Crisis for USFS, OK for APHIS – Both Need Your Support

As happens every year, the Administration has proposed a budget for funding government programs in the next Fiscal Year (FY) – which begins on October 1, 2020 (FY2021). This proposal is not the final word. Congress will pass appropriations bills that will specify actual funding levels. NOW is the time for you to tell senators and representatives in Congress how much money you think agencies need to count tree-killing pests next year.

Pest programs most affected:

  • Sudden oak death (SOD):
  • Combination of goldspotted oak borer, laurel wilt, and thousand cankers disease
  • Port-Orford cedar root disease
  • Threats to whitebark pines
  • emerald ash borer

USDA Forest Service (USFS)

For the USFS, the Administration proposes alarming cuts.

Forest and Rangeland Research Program

FY18                           F719                FY20               FY21 proposed

297,000,000                300,000,000    305,000,000    249,330,000

[In FYs 18 – 20, Forest Inventory & Analysis received $77 million of this total; the proposal for FY21 is $78.5 million. Under this proposal, inventory would receive more than 30% of all research funding!]

The Administration proposes to cut USFS R&D overall by 25%. Also, it calls for closing the Pacific Southwest Research Station in California.

These proposed cuts would come on top of severe reductions over the past decade. Although the appropriation does not provide specific spending figures for invasive species, funding for research conducted by the seven research stations on ten non-native pests decreased from $10 million in FY2010 to just $2.5 million in FY2020 – a cut of more than 70%. The Service’s ability to develop effective tools to manage the growing number of pests threatening the health of the Nation’s forests is already crippled by the earlier cuts.

The proposal to close the Pacific Southwest Research Station is particularly unwise. This Station provides USFS’s crucially important expertise on both sudden oak death (SOD) and threats to Hawaiian forests, including rapid ʻōhiʻa death (ROD). These pathogens are already causing widespread and severe damage to forests in the region and leading experts work here.

USFS R&D must address two new threats associated with sudden oak death:

  1. need to better understand the possible impacts of the second, apparently more aggressive, genetic strain of the SOD pathogen now present in Oregon’s forests.
  2. studies to determine which of the newly detected Phytophthora species found in Southeast Asia Link to blog and other regions might cause significant damage to America’s trees.  

Other programs that USFS R&D should continue or expand:

  • study the possible threat posed by the ambrosia beetle recently detected in Napa Valley of California.
  • understand the epidemiology and probable impacts of the recently detected beech leaf disease present from Ohio to Connecticut and possibly more widespread.

Forest Health Management Programs 

Recent funding levels:

FY18                           F719                            FY20               FY21 proposed

96,500,000                  98,000,000                  100,000,000    73,636,000

The Forest Health Management (FHP) Program supports federal agencies’ and partners’ efforts to prevent, monitor, suppress, and eradicate insects, diseases, and invasive plants. The White House proposes a $23 million cut, including a cut of $10 million to programs working on “cooperative lands” – all areas other than federal lands. This proposed cut is short-sighted and worrisome. First, these forests support a wide range of forest values. Second, non-native pests usually are usually first introduced in cities or suburbs – because they accompany imports destined for population centers. These newly arrived pests initially cause enormous damage to urban forests. Counter-measures need to be initiated where and when the pests arrive and their populations are low. We cannot afford to wait for them to spread to national forest lands, when management will be harder and more expensive.

Despite ever-rising numbers of non-native forest pests over the past decade, funding for FHP work on Cooperative Lands has fallen by about 50%. Pest species suffering the largest cuts in recent FHP budgets are the combination of gold spotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt; Port-Orford cedar root disease, and threats to whitebark pines.

As I reported in a previous blog, an estimated 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states is at risk from the 15 non-native pest species causing the greatest damage. Nevertheless, the Administration proposes to eliminate programs for several of the most hard-hit host tree species (redbay/laurel wilt, Port-Orford cedar, and whitebark pine) in FY2021. This proposal is contrary to priorities recommended through the CAPTURE project, which called for enhanced conservation efforts targetting these species specifically.

Also alarming is the cut to the informal “emerging pest” account. This valuable program funds projects targetting newly detected threats. Thus, in FY2019, FHP provided $125,000 to evaluate the probable impact of laurel wilt disease on sassafras, an important understory tree that grows throughout most of the Eastern Deciduous Forest. The program provided another $116,000 to support efforts to detect and understand beech leaf disease. Already, cuts in the overall FHP budget have necessitated cutting this valuable account  from $1 million in FY19 to $750,000 in FY20 – and will probably result in additional cuts  in FY21.

The budget proposes to cut funding to counter sudden oak death (SOD) Link to DMF by 15% — on top of a 52% cut since FY2018. SOD has killed an estimated 50 million trees from southern Oregon to central California. Not only does the pathogen continue to spread. Establishment of a second, more aggressive, genetic strain of the pathogen in the Oregon forest threatens to exacerbate the pathogen’s impact.

The forests of Hawai`i are facing their gravest threat ever from a growing number of pests. FHP supported detection/monitoring of the thrips attacking a dry forest tree, naio. There is a continuing need to address threats to Hawaii’s most widespread tree, ʻōhiʻa lehua – which makes up 80% of  native forests –  from the introduced “rapid ʻōhiʻa death” fungi.

Finally, stakeholders will depend on leadership by the FHP program to manage spread of the emerald ash borer if the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service acts as expected and terminates the program under which it regulates movement of firewood, nursery stock, and other items that spread this pest. California and Oregon and other Western states are at greatest risk.

What You Can Do

Senators and representatives serving on the two Interior Appropriations subcommittees will determine the final funding for USFS programs.  

Please ask them to support $303 million for USFS Research and Development. Since the budget does not specify funding levels to be allocated to non-native insects, pathogens, or other invasive species, ask for “report language” instructing USFS to increase the funding for this vital research area to five percent of the total research budget. Ask them also to support maintaining the Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Also, ask them to support maintaining USFS Forest Health and Management Programs at the FY20 level of $100 million in FY21. Ask them to support $44 million for the “cooperative lands” program.

Members of the House Interior Appropriations subcommittee

  • Betty McCollum, Chair                        MN
  • Chellie Pingree                         ME
  • Derek Kilmer                           WA
  • José Serrano                            NY
  • Mike Quigley                           IL
  • Bonnie Watson Coleman         NJ
  • Brenda Lawrence                     MI
  •  
  • David Joyce, Ranking Member            OH
  • Mike Simpson                          ID
  • Chris Stewart                           UT
  • Mark Amodei                          NV

Members of the Senate Interior Appropriations subcommittee

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

Again, while the tree-killing pests are usually introduced first in cities or suburbs, the pests don’t stay there. Instead, they proliferate and spread … eventually threatening forests across the continent.  

APHIS has legal responsibility for preventing such pests’ entry, detecting newly introduced pests, and initiating eradication and containment programs intended to minimize the damage they cause. The risk of new introductions is tied to international trade. In 2017, an estimated 17,650 shipping containers (or 48 per day) infested by wood-boring insects entered the United States. Examples of such introductions include the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, and several ambrosia beetles which carry the fungi now killing redbay and sassafras in the East, and sycamore and willow trees southern California. Other pests, such as gypsy moths and spotted lanternflies, are transported here as egg masses attached to hard-sided imports, containers, or ship superstructures. Yet more forest pests are brought here with or in imported plants. Two rapid ʻōhiʻa death (ROD) pathogens and beech leaf disease are among newly detected pests probably introduced this way.

APHIS needs to be able to respond to these pests and to the others that will be introduced in coming years. To do so, APHIS must have adequate funding for four programs: “tree and wood pests” program at $60 million; “specialty crops” program at $192 millon; “methods development” at $28 million; and “detection” at $21 million.

The “Tree and Wood Pests” account currently supports eradication and control efforts targeting only three insects: the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB), emerald ash borer (EAB), and gypsy moth. The program to eradicate the ALB has received about two-thirds of the funds — $40 million. It has succeeded in eradicating 85% of the infestation in New York and some of the outlying infestations in Ohio. There is encouraging progress in Massachusetts, although at least one infested tree was detected recently in a new town within the quarantine zone. Clearly, this program must be maintained until final success is achieved everywhere.

The EAB program has been funded at $7 million in recent years. APHIS has proposed to terminate the EAB regulatory program. Program termination would greatly increase the risk that the EAB will spread to the mountain and Pacific coast states, where both riparian woodlands and urban forests would be severely damaged. Many stakeholders have urged APHIS to continue to regulate movement of firewood and other materials that facilitate the EAB’s spread.

The “Specialty Crops” program funds for APHIS’ regulation of nursery operations to prevent spread of the sudden oak death pathogen. Were SOD to become established in the East, it would threaten several oak species, sugar maple, and black walnut. It is therefore alarming that in 2019, plants infected by the SOD pathogen were shipped to 18 states. link to blog APHIS must step up its regulatory efforts to prevent a repetition of this disaster.

What You Can Do

Members of the Senate and House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees will set  final funding levels for APHIS programs. Ask your members of Congressto support maintaining the FY2020 funding levels for four APHIS programs: Tree and Wood Pests, Specialty Crops, Methods Development, and “Detection Funding”.

Also, ask them to adopt report language urging APHIS to continue regulating the EAB’s spread. 

Members of the House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee

  • Sanford Bishop Jr., Chairman              GA
  • Rosa DeLauro                                      CT
  • Chellie Pingree                                     ME
  • Mark Pocan                                         WI
  • Barbara Lee                                         Calif 13th (Oakland)
  • Betty McCollum                                  MN
  • Henry Cuellar                                      TX
  •  
  • Jeff Fortenberry, Ranking Member      NE
  • Robert Aderholt                                               AL
  • Andy Harris                                         MD
  • John Moolenaar                                               MI

Members of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee

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.