funding – Page 9 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

The New Year – Where We Are & What Needs to be Done

dying ash tree, Fairfax County, Virginia; photo by F.T. Campbell

According to Aukema et al. 2010 (see references at the end of this blog), by the first decade of the 21^st Century, the number of non-native insects and pathogens damaging our forests had risen to at least 475. Sixty-two of the insects, and all of the 17 pathogens, were judged to have “high impact”, with both economic and ecological ramifications. More than 181 exotic insects that feed on woody plants are established in Canada (USDA APHIS 2009). Especially hard-hit is the eastern deciduous broadleaf forest — there is an exotic pest threat to nearly every dominant tree species in this ecosystem type.

The situation is actually worse than this article and others based on it depict. Aukema et al. 2010 did not include several highly damaging forest pests that are native to regions of North America (e.g., goldspotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease); nor did they include pests on U.S. islands, such as `ohi`a rust and Erythrina gall wasp in Hawai`i. Aukema et al. 2010 also did not include pests that attack palms or cycads – which are significant components of some ecosystems on the continent as well as on America’s tropical islands. Finally, some invaders have come to our attention since the database on which these authors relied was compiled, e.g., polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers and the rapid ohia death pathogen. (For a list of pests detected since 2003, see page 7 of Fading Forests III, available here; this list was compiled in 2014, so it does not include the most recently detected pests, such as rapid ohia death. For descriptions of most invaders discussed in this blog, go here.)

Of course, more important than numbers are impacts. Lovett et al. 2016 provide a summary of those impacts … but let’s get specific. Note that some of these species occupy wide ranges; it is not only the narrow endemics that are under threat.

Several tree species are severely depleted throughout their ranges: American chestnut, Fraser fir, Port-Orford cedar, butternut, Carolina hemlock, redbay and swamp bay, cycads on Guam
Other species or genera are already severely reduced in significant portions of their ranges and the causal agents are spreading to the remaining sanctuaries: whitebark pine.
In some cases, the causal agent has not yet spread, but threatens to: `ohi`a.
Some tree or shrub taxa are under severe attack across much of their ranges: ashes, eastern hemlock, American beech, dogwoods, tanoak, viburnums …

Many of America’s 300 species of oak face a variety of threats:

in the East, European gypsy moth, oak wilt, and – in some areas – winter moth;
in the South, oak wilt and Diplodia;
on the West coast, sudden oak death, goldspotted oak borer, the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, Diplodia, and foamy bark canker.

(For more about threats to oaks, see my blog from last April.)

Other threats are – so far – confined to relatively small areas, but they could break out. These include the multi-host insects Asian longhorned beetle; polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers; and spotted lanternfly. Tree genera containing species at risk to one or more of these insects include maple, elm, willow, birch, sycamore, cottonwood and poplar, sweet gum, oak. Only ALB and the lanternfly currently are the focus of federal and state programs aimed at eradication or containment. The widespread invasive tree, Ailanthus or tree of heaven, could support spread of at least the polyphagous shot hole borer and spotted lanternfly.

Of course, additional pests are likely to be introduced (or detected) in the future. Known threats include the various Asian subspecies of gypsy moth and ash dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus – previously called Chalara fraxinea). If history is any guide, we are likely to be surprised by a highly destructive invader that we have either never heard of or dismissed based on its behavior elsewhere. See my earlier blogs for discussions of what should be done to reduce the introduction risk associated with wood packaging and imports of living plants.

What Should We Do?

2017 brings a new Administration and a new Congress. At a minimum, we need to educate all these decision-makers about both the high costs imposed by tree-killing insects and pathogens and effective strategies to minimize those costs. How will our concerns be received? We don’t know yet.

We might have opportunities arising from the skeptical attitude toward trade voiced during the campaign. Will newly elected or appointed agency and Congressional staffers be open to re-considering the plant health threats associated with international trade? On the other hand, will mainstream agriculture’s traditional strong support for exports continue to overwhelm calls to strengthen phytosanitary measures? Even if our message about risks associated with trade gains a hearing, will officials be willing to consider more rigorous regulations? Or higher funding levels for agencies responsible for plant pest prevention and response?

I hope you will join the Center for Invasive Species Prevention and others in coordinated efforts to take these messages to the next Secretary of Agriculture (who has not yet been named!) and key members of the Senate and House of Representatives. Opportunities in the Congress include Senate confirmation of the new Secretary and the three Under Secretaries that oversee APHIS, USFS, and ARS; annual appropriations bills; and early consideration of possible amendments to the Farm Bill (which is due for renewal in 2019).

See my post from a week ago for more suggestions for how Congress could improve U.S. invasive species management programs.

Expect to hear from me often in the coming year!

SOURCES

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

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

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2009. Risk analysis for the movement of SWPM (WPM) from Canada into the US.

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.

What the new President & Congress Can Do re: Invasive Species

A new President and Congress take office in January. And outgoing President Obama recently amended the Executive Order on invasive species.

What might the new leaders do to improve America’s invasive species programs?

Here are a group of actions that I think would improve programs significantly:

amend the Lacey Act to strengthen controls over introduction and spread of invasive animals and animal diseases;
raise the political profile of invasive species issues by holding more frequent oversight hearings;
increase funding for invasive species prevention, containment, and control programs;
support proposals to amend the 2019 Farm Bill to strengthen on-the-ground programs, policies, and research aimed at minimizing invasive species introduction, spread, and damage;
during the confirmation process, Senators should ask President Trump’s nominees to leadership positions in the Departments of Agriculture and Interior about how they will address invasive species challenges.

Do we need new legislation mandating that federal land-managing agencies do X or Y with regard to invasive species? This was the focus of a hearing in May at which I testified.

Federal land-managing agencies are already authorized and – in some cases required – to act to control invasive species on lands and waters under their jurisdiction. Some of the existing statutes even authorize the agencies to apply fees paid by people who use the public lands for some purpose (e.g., livestock grazing, recreation) to management of invasive species.

Most of the statutes authorizing invasive species management incorporate that activity into the agency’s broader management goals for protection of wildlife, habitat, natural resources, historic or cultural sites, etc. For example, the USFS Manual §2900 lists 21 laws and 6 regulations or policies that govern the USFS’ management of invasive species. Some of these laws apply to all federal land-managing agencies, including:

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.)
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201, 1201 (note), 1236, 1272, 1305). §515
North American Wetland Conservation Act 1989 (16 U.S.C. 4401 (note), 4401-4413, 16 U.S.C. 669b (note)). §9 [U.S.C. 4408]
Sikes Act (Fish and Wildlife Conservation) of September 15, 1960 (16 U.S.C. 670g-670l, 670o, P.L. 86-797), as amended. §201
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 [16 U.S.C. §§470 et seq.]
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. §§1131 et seq.

Other statutes apply only to resource management authorities of the USDA Forest Service; these include:

Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. §§ 473 et seq.).
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq.).
Knutson-Vandenberg Act of June 9, 1930 (16 U.S.C. 576, 576a-576b). §3 [16 U.S.C. 576b]
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. §§1010 et seq.)
Anderson-Mansfield Reforestation and Revegetation Act of October 11, 1949 (16 U.S.C. 581j (note), 581j, 581k)
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. §§528 et seq.)
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 as amended by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. §6
International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. § 4501)
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (H.R. 1904), [16 U.S.C. 6501-6502, 6511-18, 6541-42, 6571-78]
Wyden Amendment (P.L. 109-54, Section 434).

For brief descriptions of all these statutes, see the references and links at the end of this blog posting.

Advocates have tried before to legislate a specific requirement that federal agencies combat invasive species. The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. § 2801 note; 7 U.S.C. § 2814) was amended in 1990 to add §15, “Management of Undesirable Plants on Federal Lands”. This section requires each federal agency to

1) designate an office or person adequately trained to develop and coordinate an undesirable plants management program for control of undesirable plants on federal lands under the agency’s jurisdiction, and

2) establish and adequately fund an undesirable plants management program through the agency’s budgetary process,

3) complete and implement cooperative agreements with state agencies regarding the management of undesirable plant species on federal lands, and

4) establish integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species targeted under cooperative agreements.

This approach hasn’t worked – no one is satisfied by the federal agencies’ “weed” management efforts.

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

I am not saying that the principal statutes governing invasive species management could not be improved. As noted above, several proposals have been put forward to strengthen laws which are the foundation for preventing introduction of invasive species. I will blog about specific proposals in the new year.

Sources

USFS Invasive Species Manual

ANSTF/NISC report “Federal Policy Options Addressing the Movement of Aquatic Invasive Species Onto and Off of Federal Lands and Waters. 2015. Committee on the Movement of Aquatic Invasive Species both onto and off of Federal Lands and Waters.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Support Effort to Declare UN “International Year of Plant Health”

Officials who carry out plant health programs around the world are trying to build public understanding and support for such programs by organizing an “International Year of Plant Health”. Such “international years” are designated by the United Nations General Assembly – so – as you can imagine – years of planning go into the effort.

So far, the proposal has been approved by the Council of Agricultural Ministers and will be considered by the Conference of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in June 2017. If approved by the FAO, the proposal will then be put to the full United Nations by sponsoring nations’ diplomats. The General Assembly meeting in 2018 would consider the proposal – assuming FAO does forward it.

The goal of the proposed Year is to persuade decision-makers and the public that protecting plants by preventing and containing pests is an essential foundation for countries’ efforts to achieve food security, economic development, and environmental protection. Organizers also want people to know that plant protection is also a necessary component of policies to facilitate trade.

The events associated with the “International Year of Plant Health” will recognize plant health disciplines and the many people and organizations who contribute at the global, regional and national levels. It is not intended to celebrate specifically the International Plant Protection Convention, or the standards and other measures it has adopted.

Plant health professionals are concerned that funds and other resources dedicated to plant protection services are shrinking despite the growing threat to agricultural and natural resources from the spread of pests. Without more attention, they fear that resources will fall even farther behind the need as agencies confront demands from other global challenges. They intend to make the case that healthy plants help solve — rather than compete with – such other big problems as climate change, changing migration patterns, biosecurity concerns, and economic development.

The proponents specific objectives are to:

Raise awareness among political decision makers at global, regional, and national levels.
Build up plant health efforts and resources at all levels to better match growing needs linked to increasing trade and the new pest risks caused by climate change.
Educate the broader public so it better understands the importance of protecting plant health.
Enhance dialogue and stakeholder involvement in plant health.
Increase information about the state of plant protection in the world.
Promote partnerships on national, regional, and global levels.

It is hoped that success in raising awareness and understanding will result in sustainable funding of national plant health systems that will, in turn, enable

Improved capacity to take on more plant health related projects and programs
More effective collaboration and solutions at the global level
Better plant health situation in all countries.

I assume that readers of this blog are stakeholders in the global plant protection network. Most of you are professionally engaged in forest or nature conservation (perhaps through research), or are active conservation advocates. Some of you might be affiliated with trade and grower associations. Please consider how you can help educate political decision makers about the importance of protecting plants from non-native organisms that potentially threaten native ecosystems or agricultural and horticultural production. The first task is to ensure that the incoming Secretary of Agriculture actively supports the proposal both among his colleagues (e.g., with the Department of State) and at the FAO Conference in June. Please use your contacts in the government – including the Congress – and with other stakeholders to promote the idea.

Assuming that the International Year of Plant Health is approved, there will be many opportunities to lead or collaborate in the planned outreach efforts. Our engagement might help shape the message. For example, we need to ensure attention to the many challenges currently hindering plant health protection, as discussed in my blogs and in numerous peer-reviewed articles and reports. Also, we need to make certain that the environmental and biodiversity aspects of plant protection are prominent among considerations.

And if the Year is not approved? In my mind, that action would prove even more that we need to educate those who do not yet see why healthy trees and other plants matter!

Let me know what you think we might do – by sending me an email using the “contact us” button. Together, we can use this proposal to join coalitions with the goal of promoting stronger, more effective protection for our forests and other natural resources!

Posed by Faith Campbell

Let’s Work Together to Curtail Threat to Our Forests from Non-Native Pests

Dear Forest Pest Mavens,

I believe you agree with me that non-native insects, pathogens, earthworms … and other organisms! … pose significant threats to North America’s tree species and the complex ecosystems of which they are such important components.

I hope you also agree that our society’s efforts to counter this threat fall far short of what is needed.

Official phytosanitary policies are not as strong as needed to prevent introduction and spread of these tree-killing pests.
Worse, those policies are not always enforced assertively – as I documented in my blog about a shipment of auto parts posted on 9 August.
The Congress does not provide sufficient funds and other resources to support active detection and response programs – either early in an invasion or later.
Businesses that import or trade in goods or packaging that can transport pests are not held responsible for taking actions aimed at reducing the likelihood of such transport or supporting recovery efforts. Opposing free trade has become a hot button election issue but one of its worst impacts — wholesale movement of pests — is never mentioned.

As I noted in my earlier blog, a key reason we see these weaknesses is because those who want stronger programs have not had an effective voice in educating federal policy-makers – the USDA secretary, senators, and members of Congress – about the damage caused by introduced tree-killing pests and the governmental actions needed to counter those impacts.

The election provides both a deadline and an opportunity.

The deadline: we should try to finalize some APHIS-proposed actions before this Administration leaves office. Outgoing officials often feel freer to take bold actions at this time.

The opportunities:

New officials who take office in January might be open to addressing “new” issues. We must begin efforts now to get our “asks” on their agenda. Specifically, we should approach the senators who will question appointees to USDA Secretary and Under Secretary positions during their confirmation processes. We should urge them to ask candidates how they would address plant pests and to make firm, specific commitments to do so
Also, Congress is beginning to consider provisions to include in the next Farm Bill (due to be passed by 2019).

Several coalitions work to raise the political profile of non-native, tree-killing pests, i.e., the Coalition Against Forest Pests; Sustainable Urban Forestry Coalition; Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition; Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Diseases. Many of the nation-wide forest-related organizations are members of one or more of these coalitions and I work hard for many of them. They are absolutely essential. . .

However, such “big tent” coalitions are unlikely to press for truly bold solutions, especially if new policies involve serious costs to economic interests or industries that are part of their membership. There is nothing nefarious in this; it is the way coalitions operate. In the case of forests pest issues, though, the absence of more forceful and nimble groups leaves a policy vacuum that no one currently fills.

Furthermore, these coalitions don’t offer an opportunity to concerned individuals and smaller organizations to learn about phytosanitary threats or provide them with opportunities to influence policy.

In the past, I have tried to provide this information through my one-way emails and blog postings. I would like now to upgrade these communications and to provide you with a way to interact with me and others, as well as to form joint positions. The goal is to re-balance the politics of phytosanitary policy – so that our political leaders understand and support both adoption and enforcement of strong, effective phytosanitary measures.

I suggest that we form a new, loose “coalition of the willing” who are ready to speak up and seek ways to stay abreast of developments and opportunities and to coordinate their actions with those of like-minded people. I suggest a loose structure –

I undertake to set up an email network that everyone could use. It would:
- communicate information about pest threats and opportunities to engage;
- communications could be initiated by anyone in the group (either through a “reply all” function or my promise to re-send any email sent to me — with the request that I do so);
- encourage people to work together – with my assistance – to form joint positions;
- provide lists of key contacts for specific issues — perhaps with specific talking points, letter templates, etc., to help in reaching out;
There would be no cost to participants;
Participants could take part anonymously if they wish – either generally or on specific issues;
If there is sufficient interest or need, we could form a steering committee to streamline and help guide the work;
Our goal would be communications that are straight-forward and clear — to each other and to policymakers — while avoiding gratuitous insults or insinuations.

Examples of issues on which I believe a new group could productively engage (and which the “big tent” coalitions likely will avoid) are:

Helping APHIS finalize its proposal to require that wood packaging coming from Canada conform to ISPM#15 standards (see blog posted on 9 August). We need to press the USDA leadership to approve the proposal; then press the Office of Management and Budget to approve it.
Press USDA to take two steps to improve enforcement of ISPM#15:
- End the policy of not fining importers for non-compliant wood packaging until they have five (!) non-compliances within a single year.
- Declare wood packaging to be a high-risk import and thus subject to mandatory inspection by Customs
Press Customs and Border Protection to include wood packaging compliance under its Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program.
Seek agreement on a strategy to encourage importers to shift to packaging made from materials other than solid wood boards. Proposals range from new regulatory requirements to C-TPAT to green certification-type voluntary programs.

I welcome suggestions for other topics we might explore!

Please let me know that you would like to join this coalition. Please feel free to forward this message and to invite others to join in.

[use the “contact” button on the www.cisp.us website]

Faith

Funding Levels Reveal Low Priority for Combatting Tree-Killing Pests

As the recent article demonstrated, non-native insects and pathogens pose a unique threat to America’s forests. See also my blog posted May 10.

As Scott Schlarbaum and I said in Fading Forests III:

“Ultimately, then, the future of American forests is in the hands of our nation’s people. In choosing our elected representatives, holding other government officials accountable, and making our private choices, we decide the priority of whether addressing the causes and solutions to these pest issues is a priority – and, thus, whether we will keep of our natural heritage. There is already a strong foundation for action.”

However, American society – as reflected in its political decisions – has not put a high priority on countering this threat. We outlined the long history of inadequate funding for USDA APHIS and USFS in chapters III and VI. Also, I wrote about the appropriations process for Fiscal Year 2017 (which begins in October) in my blog posted on March 22.

Recent action by the House of Representatives (see below) might signal a change. We shall have to wait to see whether this change lasts.

APHIS Funding

Too often, we think first of U.S. Forest Service funding as singularly important regarding non-native forest pests and pathogens. When it comes to prevention, though, its USDA’s Animal and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) that is key.

Total funding for the USDA APHIS in FY17 will be on the order of $939 million. The budget for its plant health program is about $310 million. Included in this sum are mere tens of millions for addressing tree-killing pests:

Tree and wood pests — $54 million in the Senate bill, but only $45.9 million in the House bill
“specialty crops” — $167.5 million in the House bill, $158 million in the Senate bill; with only about $5 million likely to be spent on managing the sudden oak death pathogen, especially movement of infected plants, soil, etc. in the nursery trade.

The Center for Invasive Species Prevention and others had requested the higher number for “tree and wood pests”. We think higher funding is appropriate given the number of highly damaging wood-boring insects already in the country – e.g., Asian longhorned beetle; emerald ash borer; redbay ambrosia beetle and its associated laurel wilt pathogen; the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers and their associated pathogens … (all these species are described here). Furthermore, there is every likelihood that additional pests will be detected in the country since the wood packaging pathways remains leaky (see the Lovett et al. article cited above and my blogs about the wood packaging material pathway posted in July through October 2015).

The House bill specifies that $15 million of the “specialty crops” money should be allocated to citrus pests and pathogens, fruit flies, a grapevine pest and a multi-host pest (light brown apple moth).

USFS Forest Health Funding

Funding levels for the USDA Forest Service also demonstrate a low priority to countering non-native tree-killing insects and pathogens.

Total funding for the USFS is about $5 billion. In making its request for $4.9 billion, the Administration allocated only $92 million to countering threats to forest health (on both federal and non-federal lands).

The House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee has a different – and welcome – view: the House bill provides $114.6 million for forest health protection. This is $15 million above the FY16 level and $22.55 million above the Administration’s request – a substantial increase unequaled in past years. The accompanying committee report expresses concern about severe insect and disease threats, especially in California. The report also notes that invasive forest pests threaten more than 58 million acres of the Nation’s forests. The Committee encourages the Service to continue its work to assess future risks, control existing threats, research and develop new control methods, and improve the health of forest ecosystems. Since only $5 million of the increase is to be used on non-federal lands, the “bump-up” for non-native pests will be modest.

A note of caution: the House expansion of funding for the forest health program was doubtless made easier by the House’s cuts to programs managed by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is funded by the same bill.)

The Senate bill follows the Administration in allocating only $92 million for forest health protection.

Not only has the Administration asked for less for the forest health program in recent years. The funding allocations within that total trouble me. In the current year (FY16), the USFS allocated only $20.2 million (15% of total forest health funds for this year) to specific projects targeting non-native insects or pathogens. Nearly $10 million of these funds went to just one species – European gypsy moth. The only other species receiving a significant proportion of the funds is hemlock woolly adelgid – HWA received $1.77 million. The second greatest allocation was to oak wilt — $466,000. Ranking third is white pine blister rust, which was allocated $420,000. A group of three species (goldspotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt) received a total $587,000. This low figure does not, in my view, reflect the great damage caused by goldspotted oak borer and laurel wilt. Furthermore, I assume that the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers are included in this grouping, although they are not listed specifically. Both shot hole borers threaten many tree species in southern California riparian areas, and pose a possible threat to trees in other parts of the country. All of these species are expected to receive less funding in FY17 under the Administration’s request. (Again, all these species are described here).

(Native pests – southern and western bark beetles – received a total of $7.2 million in FY16. Invasive plants were allocated $1.7 million. These figures are not included in my calculations in the preceding paragraph.)

USFS Research Funding

The House appropriations bill provides just under $292 million for research – the amount requested by the Administration. The Senate bill cut funding for research to $280 million – a cut of $11 million from the FY16 level. Worse, the Senate also added $2 million to the share of research funding allocated to foerst inventory. The only mention of non-native pests and diseases in the report accompanying the Senate bill is a paragraph instructing the USFS to work with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, USDA APHIS, and state agencies to address the threat to the Hawaiian Islands’ `ohi`a trees from the Ceratocystis fungus (the disease is described here). This report emphasizes the importance of continuing research on forest product utilization.

Even more troubling, for years the USFS has allocated only about 3% of its total research budget to research on “pest” species (including invasive plants). Of this total, about half – $5 million – has been allocated to projects targeting non-native insects or pathogens. This year (FY16), the highest funding went to hemlock woolly adelgid, at $1.782 million. The second greatest amount was allocated to emerald ash borer — $1.168 million.

(In FY16, the non-native western bark beetles received nearly $1.4 million in research funding; invasive plants received nearly $1.9 million. Again, these figures are not included in my calculations above. )

USFS Wildfire Funding

One explanation for the Administration’s lower funding requests is the great pressure on the USFS to fund management of wildfire. The agency now spends more than half of its annual budget to fight wildfires. This situation is expected to get worse as the climate warms and fires become even more frequent and intense.

The Obama Administration’s budget proposals for both FY16 and FY17 asked Congress to set up a system to pay the costs of fighting extreme wildfires in the same way it finances the federal response to other natural disasters. When hurricanes and tornadoes cause sufficient damage to be declared disasters by the president, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is authorized to exceed its annual budget and draw on a special disaster account. The account is adjusted each year to reflect the 10-year average cost of responding to such events. President Obama suggested creating a similar exception for USDA Forest Service and Department of the Interior.

Currently, the USFS must obtain funds through annual Congressional appropriations – which are adopted too early for an accurate assessment of that season’s likely fire damage. When fire-fighting costs exceed the appropriation, the USFS must transfer money from other accounts – setting back forest restoration projects and efforts aimed at preventing wildfires.

The Obama administration asked Congress to end the need for such transfers by appropriating 70% of the 10-year average it costs to fight wildfires each year and allowing the Forest Service access to a disaster fund.

However, the Congress has been unwilling so far to establish the disaster fund.

Conclusion

The House bill’s welcome increase for the USFS forest health protection program – if enacted – would address pests that are already widespread. Programs aimed at preventing introductions and responding to newly detected invasions – programs operated by APHIS – do not yet enjoy sufficient support from either the Administration or the Congress.

Advocates for stronger programs to combat non-native forest pests are exploring ways to ensure additional funding for key programs, especially early detection of and rapid response to newly detected outbreaks. You will hear more about these ideas in future!

SOURCES

Descriptions of the Administration’s fire-funding proposal can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/us/obama-to-propose-shift-in-wildfire-funding.html?_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=U.S.&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/253687-obama-officials-press-congress-to-change-wildfire-funding

Posted by Faith Campbell

Eradicate ALB – of course! But what about the other pests?

The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) is the target of most of APHIS’ spending on non-native, tree-killing insects and pathogens. I have been on the record for 18 years – representing a sequence of three organizations – supporting ALB eradication efforts. But other damaging pests do not get adequate attention. Much of the explanation is probably money – APHIS is inadequately funded. But why have the other tree-killers slipped from the attention of politically important constituencies? How do we reverse this situation so that needed actions are taken?

The ALB Eradication Effort

After consulting several sources — Haack 2009, periodic news releases by APHIS and the Ohio Department of Agriculture – I conclude that in the 20 years since ALB was detected in Brooklyn in 1996, US and Canadian authorities have removed at least 188,000 trees. Data on the numbers of high-risk trees treated with systemic pesticides are much less complete. However, it appears from these same sources that U.S. and state authorities have treated more than 800,000 trees. Easily available data do not reveal how many of the treated trees were later found to be infested and therefore had to be cut down. I do hope agency and academic scientists are tracking that information – it is crucial to evaluating the efficacy of programs that allow treatment of “high risk” trees instead of removing them. A related issue is how many trees at early stages of infestation are missed by surveyors.

In carrying out the eradication program over 20 years, APHIS has spent about $600 million (Santos pers. comm.; US Department of the Interior 2016). Canada has spent far less – something more than $35 million Canadian (Marcotte pers. comm.).

In FY15 APHIS allocated $41.6 million to eradication of the Asian longhorned beetle [US DoI 2016]. This represented 77% of all funds in the agency’s “Tree and Wood Pests” account. The President’s FY17 budget calls for cutting funding for this account from its current level of $54 million to $46 million. If Congress accepts President’s proposed cut and funding for ALB eradication remains at the FY15 level, the proportion allocated to this one pest would rise to 90% of the total account. Perhaps APHIS anticipates spending less on the ALB program. APHIS has announced (USDA news release) that it will no longer apply systemic pesticides to “high-risk” trees in order to prevent beetle infestation. Instead, the program will focus on identifying and removing infested trees. I worry that with ALB outbreaks still present in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, any reduction in the program would be risky. (Official USDA budget documents don’t provide an explicit funding level for the ALB program, so we can’t be sure whether cuts are planned.)

Certainly, ALB eradication deserves continued priority. The beetle kills trees in 15 botanical families – especially maples and birches, which constitute much of the hardwood forest reaching from Maine to Minnesota, as well as urban trees worth an estimated $600 billion. Furthermore, adequately funded eradication efforts have proven to be a successful tactic.

pshb_1 PSHB damage to coast live oak;

photo by Akif Eskalen, UCRiverside

Other tree-killing insects are being ignored

However, other species need to be addressed, too. If these efforts are to succeed, they need more than the leftovers from funding ALB work.

Some funds are available through the Farm Bill Section 10007 “Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program” grant program. Still …

The Asian gypsy moth demands constant attention from APHIS. That effort is ramping up in response to moth detections in the Pacific Northwest. Apparently most of the funds for this program are from the Farm Bill Section 10007 program – but how long can this funding source be sustained? (See my blog posted earlier in March.)

Efforts to eradicate the spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) from Pennsylvania continue. The lanternfly attacks 25 or more plant species that grow in the Mid-Atlantic states. Concern focuses on grapes and fruit trees including apples and stone fruits. (The lanternfly prefers tree of heaven (Ailanthus) (PA DoA) but the insect’s host range is too wide to use it as a biocontrol agent for this widespread invasive plant. The spotted lanternfly entered country as egg masses attached to imported slate. It has been detected in four counties in southeastern Pennsylvania ]

What is – or should be – done about the 20 species of non-native wood-boring and bark insects that have been detected for the first time in the United States over just the past decade? While some appear not to be causing major damage, that impression could be wrong. The polyphagous shot hole borer was first detected in California in 2003 ]. It has taken over 10 years to determine that the PSHB and very similar Kuroshio shot hole borer transport fungi that threaten over 300 plant species, including trees that make up the majority of trees in riparian areas and half of the trees planted in urban areas across southern California.

Tree species in other warm regions of the country such as the Gulf Coast are also at risk if the shot hole borers’ spread is not curtailed. Examples include native boxelder and American sweetgum; as well as such widely planted ornamentals as camellia, mimosa, and Japanese maple. The insects and the Fusarium pathogen that they transport might also attack other species in the oak, maple, sycamore, holly, and willow genera which grow in the Southeast.

Other funding needs

APHIS needs to continue efforts to slow the spread of and reduce impacts on forests from the emerald ash borer, including by continuing to support programs aimed at curtailing movement of firewood. While the emerald ash borer has spread to 25 states, significant areas of natural and urban ash forests remain pest-free, especially in the deep South, Great Plains, and Pacific Coast. APHIS might also continue funding research aimed at improving both biological control and breeding of ash trees resistant to the emerald ash borer. See my blog about resistance breeding posted in February.

APHIS must also have sufficient resources to respond when additional insect introduction are detected – which seems likely since an estimated 35 shipping containers entering the country each day carry wood packaging infested by damaging pests. [see my blogs about wood packaging posted in July and August 2015 and the SWPM fact sheets.

And – as the AGM and spotted lanternfly examples demonstrate – the risk of introduction of tree-killing insects goes far beyond imports of “agricultural” commodities – even when those commodities are widely interpreted to include wooden crates and pallets.

Please re-visit my blogs of 22 February to learn the details of funding issues and then contact your Representative and Senators to support increased funding for APHIS.

Posted by Faith Campbell

SOURCES

Haack, R.A., F. Herard, J. Sun, J.J. Turgeon. 2009. Managing Invasive Populations of Asian Longhorned Beetle and Citrus Longhorned Beetle: A Worldwide Perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2010. 55:521-46.

Marcotte, M. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Email to F.T. Campbell 29 April, 2013.

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture: Agriculture Secretary Urges Consumers to Help Keep Foreign Insect from Spreading through Pennsylvania, United States News for Immediate Release Nov. 3, 2014

Santos, R. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Email to F.T. Campbell, April 12, 2013.

USDA APHIS NEWS RELEASE 3/28/16

Contact: Rhonda Santos, (508) 852-8044, rhonda.j.santos@aphis.usda.gov

Suzanne Bond, (301) 851-4070, suzanne.m.bond@aphis.usda.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016. Safeguarding America’s lands and waters from invasive species: A national framework for early detection and rapid response, Washington D.C., 55p.

Emerald ash borer – crucial research needs funding!

ash tree dying after attack by emerald ash borer

We all know that the emerald ash borer (EAB) has caused enormous damage in the approximately 25 years since it was first introduced to Michigan and Ontario. (For more information, see writeup here. In brief, EAB has killed “untold millions” of ash trees across more than 170,000 square miles in 25 states and two provinces (map).
Apparently all North American ash are vulnerable – more than 20 species in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. The genus Fraxinus is one of the most widespread on the continent. These trees’ deaths are causing changes in forest species composition, structure, and function. Hundreds of arthropod species that depend on the genus will be affected.

Nevertheless, forests with important ash components are still outside the infested area and deserve greater protection.

Also, ash trees are among the most common ornamental trees planted in U.S. cities and towns. The death of these trees show us that EAB also has imposed billions of dollars in costs on people who had no direct role in the insect’s introduction and spread. Several studies have proposed estimates:
o Communities in Ohio would likely incur costs up to $4 billion if all ash trees on public land were removed and replaced (Sydnor et al. 2007).
o Communities in four Midwestern states would have to pay an estimated $26 billion to remove and replace as trees growing in parks, private lands, and along streets (Sydnor et al. 2011).
o The cost of treating or removing only half of the affected urban and suburban trees across the anticipated range of EAB during the 10-year period from 2009 to 2019 would be $20 billion (Kovacs et al. 2011).

ash tree killed by EAB; Ann Arbor, MI; courtesy of Major Hefje

Over the 14 years since EAB was detected, scientists have learned much about the insect, its hosts, and its management. Early detection of new outbreaks remains difficult. However, traps and lures are more effective than even a few years ago. Other new tools also have been deployed, including strategies for protecting high value trees, and slowing the rate of ash mortality in urban and natural forests.

Four biocontrol agents have been released at sites across the invaded area, although it is too early to know how effective they will be in suppressing EAB populations and protecting ash trees.

The systemic insecticide emamectin benzoate controls EAB for up to three years. This means that municipalities and property owners can now save mature ash trees. Studies show that treating such trees costs less than removing dead trees and planting replacements (Herms and McCullough 2014).

Scientists in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Massachusetts are testing whether treating just some trees in forest settings can help protect nearby ashes.

One of the most important potential responses to this insect is to breed resistant ash trees. The USDA Forest Service and USDA APHIS have funded such efforts since 2005 – only three years after the insect was detected. Scientists have demonstrated that some ash species that have coevolved with the insect in Asia – especially Manchurian ash – are resistant to EAB attack. More recently, they have been studying how to cross-breed the resistant and non-resistant species and how to evaluate the hybrid progeny for genetic resistance.

Dr. Pierluigi (Enrico) Bonello and others at Ohio State and Wright State University are studying how Manchurian ash trees resist EAB attack. Their focus is on the chemicals present in the trees’ tissues – how they differ in Manchurian ash compared to North American species. These studies have found that Manchurian ash trees contain chemicals that decrease growth and survival of EAB larvae, and decrease the attractiveness of the tree to ovipositing females.
The Ohio team next needs to continue their progress towards identification of the specific chemicals involved, insert the genes that produce them into other ash tree genomes, and produce a large enough number of progeny to test whether the new trees’ genes provide the expected protection.

The team is also studying the other side of this equation – how EAB larvae neutralize defense mechanisms of vulnerable ash species and how these trees may be manipulated to interfere with these adaptations of EAB.. This is a long-term project that needs consistent and sustained support over many years to bring about real capacity for restoring disappearing ash populations.

Unfortunately, funding for this vitally important work is not assured. USDA APHIS (link to 101 on CISP) has funded the team’s work to date, but may no longer be in a position to do so. . After all, it is 14 years since EAB was detected and a decade since APHIS stopped trying to eradicate it. The goal now is to manage EAB in the forest and in urban settings, over the long term. This task logically should fall to the USDA Forest Service.

Both APHIS and the Forest Service are challenged by the need to respond to the introduction of ever more non-native tree-killing insects and diseases; by the need for programs to address pests already present; and by simultaneous reductions in agencies’ budgets. APHIS’ budget for managing all “tree and wood pests” has fallen from $76 million to $55 million since 2011 – a 28% reduction. The USFS’ research budget has fallen less, proportionately: from $307 million to $292 million (a 4% cut).
However, the USFS Research budget has never been generous in funding research on non-native invasive species. Annual totals for invasive species research have been between $5 and $5.6 million since 2012. EAB specifically has been funded at between $1.2 and $1.8 million.
(For a longer discussion of funding shortfalls and other impediments to programs intended to help our forests recover from EAB and other non-native pests, read Chapter 6 of Fading Forests III, available here)

The emerald ash borer is the most destructive and costly forest insect ever introduced to the United States. Surely the government agency responsible for protecting our forests should provide additional resources to counter this threat.

Sources:
Herms, D. A. and D. G. McCullough. 2014. Emerald Ash Borer invasion of North America: History, biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annual Review of Entomology, Vol 59, 2014 59:13-30.

Kovacs KF, Mercader RJ,Haight RG, SiegertNW,McCulloughDG,Liebhold AM. 2011. The influence
of satellite populations of emerald ash borer on projected economic costs in U.S. communities, 2010–
2020. J. Environ. Manag. 92:2170–81

Sydnor TD, Bumgardner M, Subburayalu S. 2011. Community ash densities and economic impact
potential of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) in four Midwestern states. Arboric. Urban For. 37:84–89

Sydnor TD, Bumgardner M, Todd A. 2007. The potential economic impacts of emerald ash borer
(Agrilus planipennis) on Ohio, U.S., communities. Arbor. Urban For. 33:48–54
Posted by Faith Campbell

Cacti under Threat – Does No One Care?

Nearly 2 million square miles of ecologically significant and beautiful desert ecosystems straddle the U.S.-Mexico border regions. Cacti are either dominate or are extremely important components of these ecosystems. Two South American insects already present in the United States threaten to kill large numbers of these cacti and transform these desert ecosystems. Iconic species – prickly pears, saguaro, and organ pipe cacti – are at risk.

prickly pear cactus at Factory Butte; photo by S.E. Schlarbaum

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). Since then, it has spread west as far as southern Louisiana. Two small outbreaks on islands off Mexico’s Caribbean coast have been eradicated. If it reaches the arid regions of Texas, it is likely to spread throughout the desert Southwest.
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. In the American Southwest, at least 80 species of flat-padded prickly pears are at risk (Simonson et al. 2005) and there are more in Mexico, which is the center of endemism for Opuntia.
These cacti support a diversity of pollinators as well as deer, javalina (peccaries), tortoises, and lizards. Prickly pears also shelter packrats –which in turn are fed on by raptors, coyotes, and snakes; nesting birds and plant seedlings. Their roots hold highly erodible soils in place (Simonson 2005).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture began trying to slow the spread of the cactus moth in 2005 – 15 years after it was first detected in Florida (Mengoni Goñalons et al. 2014). However, the program never received an appropriation from Congress so funding was always inadequate. For several years, a patchwork of projects was stitched together: Mexico provided some funding; a volunteer network managed by Mississippi State University monitored lands along the Gulf Coast for the moth; and a laboratory operated by the Florida Department of Agriculture reared moths for research, sterile male releases and biocontrol host specificity testing.
The continuous funding problems led APHIS to abandon its regional program and focus on biocontrol, which is the only viable control measure in the desert Southwest where vulnerable cacti are numerous and grow close together. A newly described wasp, Apanteles opuntiarum (Mengoni Goñalons et al. 2014), is the most promising candidate.
Harrisia cactus mealybug might attack columnar cacti
The 2 million square miles of desert in Southwest United States and Mexico are home to more than 500 columnar cactus species in the Cactoideae (Zimmerman et al. 2010). Some are already endangered; others are totems of the desert, e.g., saguaro, organ pipe, and barrel cacti. The larger ones, particularly, play important ecological roles.
A second South American insect threatens columnar cacti in the Caribbean basin now and in the future could put others at risk in the American Southwest and Mexico: the Harrisia cactus mealybug (Zimmerman et al. 2010).
A mealybug in the genus Hypogeococcus has been killing several of the 13 columnar cactus species in southern Puerto Rico since 2005. Two are endangered species: Harrisia portoricensis and Leptocereus grantianus (USDA ARS). These cacti provide food or shelter for endemic bats, birds, moths and other pollinators (Segarra & Ramirez; USDA ARS). This mealybug is also now killing native cacti on the U.S. Virgin Islands (H. Diaz-Soltero pers. comm. August 2015).
Mealybugs in the same genus in Florida and Hawai`i do not attack cacti (University of Florida fact sheet; Hawai`i Department of Agriculture new pest report). In South America, though, insects in this genus feed on many columnar cacti, including ones in the genera Cereus, Echinopsis, Harrisia, Cleistocactus, Monvilea, and Parodia (USDA ARS; Zimmerman et al. 2010). Scientists are uncertain how many mealybug species are involved, which complicates efforts to determine the level of threat to columnar cacti on the U.S. mainland (H. Diaz-Soltero pers. com. August 2015). No one knows how vulnerable individual cactus species growing in the Southwest are to Hypogeococcus mealybugs (Golubov pers. comm. January 2011). Nor does anyone know whether natural enemies of mealybugs native to Mexico might also attack alien mealybugs and so prevent significant damage to native cacti (Zimmerman et al. 2010).
Still, the possible threat warrants studies to determine the vulnerability of these cacti to non-native mealybugs in the Hypogeococcus genus.
Meanwhile, scientists at the USDA ARS laboratory in Argentina have been searching for possible biocontrol agents but are stymied by the confusion over which mealybugs attach which cacti. Use of DNA sequencing and other tools should clarify these issues (H. Diaz-Soltero pers. comm. August 2015). However, no funds have been appropriated for this work, which has hindered progress (H. Diaz-Soltero pers. comm. August 2015).
To date, no organized constituency has advocated for protection of our cacti from these two pests. In the past I tried to persuade native plant societies, Nature Conservancy chapters, the leadership of the American Cactus and Succulent Society, and other groups that champion the desert to help lobby the Congress to fund USDA’s efforts. I was never successful.
Are Americans truly indifferent to the threat that many cacti in our deserts will be killed by non-native insects? Do they not realize that these threats must be countered before they reach the areas where cacti are dense and numerous?

Sources
California Plant Pest and Disease Report. 2005. Vol. 22 No. 1. Covering Period from July 2002 through July 2005.
Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 2006. http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/pi/ppc/2006-annual-report/new-pest-detections (accessed 11/1/10)
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
Segarra-Carmona, A.E., A. Ramirez-Lluch. No date. Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae): A new threat to biodiversity in fragile dry tropical forests. {title/org/other identifying information for Segarra-Carmona plus an entry for the pers. comm.}
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
USDA Agriculture Research Service, Research Project: Biological Control of the Harrisia Cactus Mealybug, Hypogeococcus pungens (Hemiptera:pseudococcidae) in Puerto Rico Project Number: 0211-22000-006-10 Project Type: Reimbursable
Zimmermann, H.G., M.P.S. Cuen, M.C. Mandujano, and J. Golubov. 2010. The South American mealybug that threatens North American cacti. Cactus and Succulent Journal. 2010 Volume 82 Number 3

Posted by Faith Campbell

Funding Shortfalls Threaten Our Trees – & Are Becoming Worse

Experts have recognized for two decades that funding of federal programs intended to prevent or respond to introductions of invasive species is inadequate. As regards tree-killing insects and pathogens, there have been spikes in the past, spurred by, first, detection of Asian longhorned beetle and emerald ash borer, then by federal spending increases to support recovery from the Great Recession.

But with renewed pressure to reduce the federal budget, programs operated by APHIS and the USDA Forest Service have suffered significant cuts in spending. For a history of these cuts, read Chapter 3 in Fading Forests III .

Funding for key programs continue. Most alarming is that these cuts are suggested by the Administration! in its annual budget sent to Congress. I don’t know whether the cuts are suggested by the agencies, or instead are imposed by higher-ups in the Department of Agriculture or at the President’s Office of Management and Budget.

Certainly there is competition for the available funds. APHIS is funded by the Agriculture Appropriations bill, which also funds agriculture programs that enjoy strong lobbying support as well as food stamps. The Forest Service is being squeezed by the ever-higher costs of managing wildfires.

Still, these cuts threaten to expose our wildland, rural, and urban forests to permanent destruction by non-native, tree-killing insects and pathogens.

Congress determines the final funding levels through the appropriations process.

Members of Congress work for us!!

Ask your member of Congress & senators to support adequate funding for APHIS & USFS programs that counter invasive, non-native tree-killing pests.

Congress’ actions are at the following stage as of the third week in July:

APHIS

The House Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations bill had cut funding for “tree and wood pest” group – although the bill did increase funding for the “specialty crops” program.

In both cases, groups with which I work had asked to maintain the FY15 level.

The Senate bill, adopted by the full Appropriations Committee on 16 July, has restored funding to the “tree and wood pest” line! Possibly because of this increase, it holds the “specialty crops” program funding to the FY15 level.

Funding specifics:

HOUSE Agriculture appropriations bill maintains overall funding for APHIS at the FY15 level ($871 million). This is $15 million above the President’s request in his budget; and about the same as the level of funding for the current fiscal year (FY 2015). Within this amount, the following is allocated to programs that address tree-killing pests:

$158,000,000, to remain available until expended, for specialty crop pests

(a very small proportion of this account, about $5 million, goes to sudden oak death management)

$45,500,000, to remain available until expended, for tree and wood pests (e.g., ALB, EAB)

SENATE Agriculture appropriations bill raised overall funding for APHIS to $876 M — $20 million above the President’s budget request and $5 M above both the current year and House level. Within this amount, the following is allocated to programs that address for tree-killing pests:

$156,000,000, to remain available until expended, for specialty crop pests
$54,000,000, to remain available until expended, for tree and wood pests

As I said above, it is disturbing that these programs do not enjoy sufficient support within the Administration. We all need to increase our lobbying of USDA – both at the APHIS level and above; and at OMB.

USDA Forest Service

Both the House and Senate Interior Appropriations subcommittee bills cut USFS funding for both research and forest health management.

The House interior appropriations bill provides only $207 million for research other than Forest Inventory and Assessment. The Senate interior appropriations bill provides $211 million for research other than FIA. Both figures are below the $220 million allocated for the current year (FY2015) and higher levels in previous years.

The House bill provides only $99 million for forest health management (on both federal and non-federal or “coop” lands). The Senate bill provides $100.7 million. Again, both figures are below the $104.6 million provided in FY15 and higher levels in previous years.

Funding for all USFS programs is under extreme pressure by the growing cost of fighting wildfires. Until this problem is resolved, it will be extremely difficult to obtain additional funds for other programs – even in the face of rising numbers of tree-killing pests across the country. There are also questions within OMB and among some advocacy groups about whether the USFS should assist states and cities in containing tree-killing pests. Some argue that the USFS should confine its efforts to pests that are attacking trees in National forests. My reply: if you wait for ALB or other pests to reach National forests before responding, you have thrown away any chance of containing the outbreak.