Center for Invasive Species Prevention

Public attitudes about tree-killing pests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

Sudden Oak Death – the situation worsened in 2016

oak tree infected by P. ramorum; photo by Bruce Moltzan, USDA Forest Service

Sudden oak death (caused by the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum) might seem to be an old story – after all, mortality of oaks and other trees in the San Francisco Bay area was first noted 20 years ago. See the information here or here or my earlier blogs at http://nivemnic.us/2016/04/; http://nivemnic.us/2016/02/; http://nivemnic.us/2015/08/; and http://nivemnic.us/2015/07/

Unfortunately, the story is very much alive – and the situation is getting worse.

In 2016, infected trees were detected in new sites in California. See the November 2016 California Oak Mortality Task Force (COMTF) Newsletter here.

Based on a “SOD Blitz” using surveys by local people, (summarized in the COMTF newsletter), the pathogen has expanded substantially in areas that received adequate moisture in winter/spring 2016.

For the first time, ramorum was detected in San Luis Obispo County. This is the southern-most county with wildland detections in the state. Nor is it a small single outbreak; the SOD Blitz identified the pathogen on California bay laurel at approximately eight locations throughout the county. The infestations appear to be recent, since oaks were not found to be infected.
New outbreaks were detected along the central and southern coasts of Mendocino County (north of the San Francisco Bay area).

Infected trees were also detected in areas where the pathogen activity had subsided as a result of the state’s recent drought, including:

Northern and central Sonoma County and Napa Valley.
Infection rates have increased in Marin County.
San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park and the San Francisco Botanical Garden.
Infection rates in Big Sur in Monterey County increased by 27%.
There have been sharp increases in infection in some areas that previously were marginally affected, g., western San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties.

In Oregon, the area infested by sudden oak death has been expanding since at least 2014. In 2015, 18 new outbreaks were detected. In 2016, another 65 new outbreaks were found. All are within the state’s quarantine area (which was doubled in size in 2015; it now covers nearly one-third of Curry County). Oregon officials believe this increase is a consequence of the combination of a wet/mild winter and spring and the establishment of the state-designated “Generally Infested Area” (58 square miles) where disease treatment is no longer required.

EU1 strain in forests in Oregon

Oregon has determined that the presence of the EU1 lineage of Phytophthora ramorum is more widespread than originally known. (My blog of August 2015 described the initial finding of a single tanoak infected by this lineage in 2015 and the importance of finding a genetically different form of the pathogen in the wild in North America.) As of late 2016, scientists had identified a second outbreak of the EU1 pathogen – on 1 grand fir seedling and 12 tanoaks. Additional trees might be infected; results were pending for another grand fir and 11 additional tanoaks. This outbreak was detected through follow-up on a stream bait detection. This new EU1 infestation is located between the 2015 EU1-positive tanoak site and a now closed ornamental nursery, which, based on molecular testing, was the probable source of the 2015 EU1 infestation. The new EU1 infestation was top priority for treatment in the fall; these activities have already begun (Information from Sarah Navarro, pathologist for Oregon Department of Forestry).

While sudden oak death has already killed more than 3 million tanoaks reaching from Monterey County north into Oregon, large areas occupied by tanoaks are still not infested. It is important to slow the spread of this pathogen.

The spreading devastation is particularly galling since scientists have shown than an aggressive, well-funded containment effort begun in 2002 could have measurably slowed spread of the disease. See reference and news report below.

References

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160502161111.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fplants_animals%2Finvasive_species+%28Invasive+Species+News+–+ScienceDaily%29

Cunniffe, N.J., R.C. Cobb, R.K. Meentemeyer, D.M. Rizzo, and C.A. Gilligan. Modeling when, where, and how to manage a forest epidemic, motivated by SOD in Calif. PNAS, May 2016 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1602153113

Lack of Regulation and Funding Shortfalls Raise Probability of Pests’ Spread

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA — Photo by John Boland – willows killed by Kuroshio shot hole borer, Tijuana River, California

The polyphagous (PSHB) and Kuroshio (KSHB) shot hole borers are causing havoc in riparian and planted landscapes in four counties in southern California and are spreading north. (For current information go here or here .

As I described in a blog last July, the two insects are known to attack hundreds of tree species; at least 40 are reproductive hosts. Trees known to support PSHB include box elder, big leaf maple, California sycamore, willows, cottonwoods, and several California oaks. The insect-fungi combinations threaten more than a third of trees in the urban forests in southern California, with a cost for the trees’ removal and replacement estimated at $36 billion. Costs and hosts are discussed more fully in the July blog linked to above.

The High Cost of Management

Already, UC Irvine has spent close to $2 million to manage trees on campus that have been attacked.

Orange County has both polyphygous and Kuroshio shot hole borers. One agency – Orange County parks – has spent $1.7 million on shot hole borer surveys, tree inventory, public outreach materials, staff training, and some research. The parks agency is trying to engage other county agencies, such as Public Works and Waste & Recycling to get their help. For example, Public Works is putting together a tree ordinance with enforceable provisions.

While scientists have not yet published their analysis of the vulnerability of forest areas in other parts of the country, we do know that some reproductive hosts are widespread across the country — box elder, sweet gum, Japanese wisteria, and tree of heaven. Less is known about the hosts for Kuroshio shot hole borer. For a full list of known hosts, visit the two sources linked to in the first paragraph.

How Agencies Should Respond to this Threat

The shot hole borers and associated fungi clearly represent serious threats to urban, rural, and wildland forests across California and probably much of the rest of the country. Clearly it is important that we:

Increase our understanding of these insects and their associated fungi – including their possible geographic and host ranges;
Use this evolving understanding to develop detection tools; and
Use this evolving understanding to develop methods to slow their spread or to protect trees.

So what is being done? Individuals – academics; staff of local, state, and federal agencies; and concerned conservationists – are working hard. But they get little support from state or federal phytosanitary agencies.

The Need for New State and Federal Regulations

I have written earlier about the refusal of California Department of Food and Agriculture to either designate the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers as quarantine pests [] or to regulate movement of firewood – one of the major pathways for spread of the insects.

Nor has USDA APHIS designated the insects and their fungi as quarantine pests. The apparent explanation for the agency’s inaction is the considerable taxonomic confusion about the beetles and the possibility that the insects are already established elsewhere in the U.S. In addition, since the two shot hole borers are currently known only from California, APHIS is unlikely to take action unless California does. However, there is no legal requirement that APHIS defer to the state on this matter.

The Results of Funding and Regulatory Shortfalls

Both CDFA and APHIS are providing some funds to support research and development. Research on detection, spread, and possible biocontrols — for the insects or fungi — have received a total of $385,000 in FY16 and $419,549 in FY17 from a grant program operated under the USDA Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program (Farm Bill Sec. 10007). Still, the principal investigators and affected county, state, and federal agencies are scrambling to fill funding gaps – projects that will improve our understanding and put forward practical advice.

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and Natural Communities Coalition (NCC) of Orange County are supporting research by Akif Eskalen and Shannon Lynch of UC Riverside on both (a) biocontrol using endophytes naturally occurring in various host tree species and (b) models to predict the disease’ behavior in native vegetation. Dr. Eskalen and Dr. John Kabashima of Orange County Cooperative Extension are seeking funds to support additional work on outreach and extension for advisors, land managers, master gardeners and homeowners.

Santa Barbara County officials – where at least one of the shot hole borer species was recently detected – are struggling to fund an expanded trap program to detect the insects. The CDFA does have traps deployed but UC Santa Barbara is considering launching a trapping program in riparian areas (where many of the host trees play especially important ecological roles). Officials are still not certain which species of insect is present (they think it is KSHB) and whether the beetles are carrying the typical fungal complex or something novel.

In the past, some of the work on the shot hole borers has been funded by associations of avocado growers. However, it is now clear that the beetle attacks only avocado tree branches, so it does not kill the tree. No longer facing a dire threat to their industry, the avocado commission is no longer funding research work on this pest-disease complex.

The experts – Dr. Eskalen for the fungi and his colleague Dr. Richard Stouthamer for the insects – have no funds to process samples sent to their laboratories for the confirmation of the beetles and fungi. They might soon have to charge fees for each sample – thereby discouraging collections that track each species’ spread and find new introductions.

In the absence of CDFA designation of the shot hole borers as regulated pests, neither state nor county agencies have a firm foundation on which to base regulations to curtail movement of firewood, green waste, or other pathways by which these pests can be spread to new areas.

Conservation Agencies are Cobbling Together Responses As Best They Can

Southern California staff of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife agency, responding to the damage caused by the Kuroshio shot hole borer in the Tijuana River estuary (described here and here), have formed a coalition to develop strategies for natural resource and urban forestry settings and ensure coordination. Natural resource agencies have access to some funding sources, such as Natural Communities Coalition (NCC) grants and funding for management of invasive species in protected habitats.

Southern California staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are seeking grants from internal agency sources – citing the threat to riparian-dependent wildlife, especially the endangered Least Bell’s vireo.

Santa Monica National Recreation Area and the three National forests in the vicinity – the Angeles, Cleveland, and San Bernardino National forests – have taken actions that should help prevent the shot hole borers’ introduction via firewood. Santa Monica Recreation Area does not allow wood fires, only charcoal (this action probably is in response to the high fire danger in the area rather than the pests specifically). The National forests’ webpages on camping include a graphic with the statements “Buy It Where You Burn It” and “Be aware that firewood can harbor insects and diseases; transporting it can move these pests to new locations.” (See my earlier blog about firewood alerts on National forests, parks, etc. here).

What You Can Do

Many Californians are pushing for action … they need our help! If you live in California, contact your state legislators. If you live elsewhere, your forests are also at risk from California’s failure to act. So, if you know someone who lives there, ask that person to contact his/her legislators. Ask the legislators to (a) demand state designation of PSHB, KSHB, and GSOB as quarantine pests and adoption of state firewood regulations and (b) support funding for these programs.

The U.S. Congress has a role in convincing APHIS to play a bigger role. Contact your federal Senators and Member of Congress and urge them to ask USDA APHIS to regulate movement of firewood, green waste, and nursery stock from areas infested by the polyphagous or Kuroshio shot hole borers and goldspotted oak borer.

President Trump will soon propose funding levels for government programs, including APHIS’ “tree and wood pest” program. Please keep informed about these proposals – and contact your Congressional representative to express support for adequate funding. Contact me using the “Contact us” button on our website if you wish to receive informative alerts about the upcoming appropriations process.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

Invasive insects cause tens of billions in damage

Formosan subterranean termite damage to a house in New Orleans; observed by Ed Freytag & Alan Lax; photo by Scott Bauer, USDA Agricultural Research Service; bugwood.org

A recent study documents the high costs imposed by invasive insects worldwide. The study, by Bradshaw et al. (source with link is at the end of this post) concluded that invasive insects cause at least $77 billion (US) in damage every year. This figure includes costs of $70 billion in estimates of damaged goods and service; and $6.9 billion in associated health costs.

What is more, this figure is “grossly underestimated” for a number of reasons:

There were few studies providing cost estimates. The authors started by reviewing more than 700 articles, but found that only 158 yielded usable economic estimates.
Most of the studies applied to North America and Europe; much of the globe is not included.
Ecosystem services eroded by invasive pests are rarely quantified.
The health cost estimate does not include the impact of malaria (in most areas, the vector is native rather than invasive), the Zika virus, or economic losses in tourism or productivity (these latter were too difficult to calculate).

While the most destructive of the insects identified in the reports was the Formosan subterranean termite, Bradshaw et al. question some of the economic data included in the single report on the termite. The most damaging insect for which they found “reproducible” economic estimates is the diamondback moth, a voracious consumer of cruciferous crops worldwide.

Other invasive insects cited as being associated with high damage levels are tree-killing pests familiar to readers of this blog: the brown spruce longhorn beetle, the European gypsy moth in North America, and the Asian longhorned beetle (write-ups on all three species can be read here. In my view, the high ranking of these insects reflects a (welcome!) effort by researchers to quantify tree pests’ impacts; although damages caused by agricultural pests are more easily reduced by pesticide applications.

The situation is likely to worsen in the future. According to the authors, climate change, rising human population densities, human mobility, and intensifying international trade will allow these costly insects to spread into new areas. Still, substantial savings could be achieved by increasing surveillance, containment and public awareness (my emphasis).

In an interview with Agence France Presse, one of the coauthors, Franck Courchamp said the best way to combat this growing threat — spread mainly through international commerce — is not more pesticides. Instead, “The solution is better ‘bio-security’,” he said. “This includes inspection of ship and air cargo from certain regions, legislation to ensure that high-risk imports must be treated and rapid eradication of new incursions.” (Interview is posted at http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/1102417/invasive-insects-cause-tens-of-billions-in-damage-study)

Source

Bradshaw, C. J. A. et al. Massive yet grossly underestimated global costs of invasive insects. Nat. Commun. 7, 12986 doi: 10.1038/ncomms12986 (2016). (Open access)

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

Statement of the Center for Invasive Species Prevention on withdrawing its proposal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to add the red swamp crayfish to the Lacey Act for further analysis

On September 26, 2016, the Center for Invasive Species Prevention (CISP) petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to add 43 species to those regulated under the Lacey Act. Among these species was the red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkia). We now plan to withdraw and reconsider that species after we do more analysis.

We recognize that this crayfish species has major economic value. It is an important part of peoples’ livelihoods in Louisiana in particular. By no means do we want anyone in that business to feel threatened by the Petition.

Right now, the CISP Petition has no official status within the Federal government. It has not been published in the Federal Register nor has the USFWS indicated any intent to make it an official agency proposal. Even if it did, such a listing would not affect collecting, harvesting, rearing or selling crawfish directly within Louisiana or within other range States.

We would like to clear up some other confusion. It is true that the Lacey Act is used to prevent first-time imports of non-native “injurious wildlife” into the United States. The law has other provisions, though, that help prevent additional introductions of damaging species already in the country, that help stop harmful species’ interstate spread, and that apply to native species invading outside of their native ranges. These latter aspects can provide nationwide protection at a time when individual State’s laws are uneven. Populations of the red swamp crayfish are turning up in the wild. One can see how quickly it has become a nationwide problem in the wild on the animated map at the U.S. Geological Survey’s website. Approximately a dozen states have responded with their own prohibitions or other regulations.

We do think it is important to set a precedent that USFWS acts, in some way, on all species it determines to be of highest risk of invasiveness. Our Petition aimed to get this ball rolling. Much further analysis and public comment would go into any eventual decisions that USFWS makes on individual species. It could leave regulation of species in widespread trade to individual States. On the red swamp crayfish, CISP will withdraw that species from our Petition and reconsider what the best options are. Then we will consider whether a new Petition tailored to that species is warranted.

posted by Peter Jenkins

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

Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB) – Newly Detected Infestation Shows Spread within Ohio

On November 18, Ohio authorities and APHIS announced the discovery of Asian longhorned beetle- infested trees in a section of Clermont County previously thought to be free of the insect. (The press release is not yet posted to the web; go here to see the most recent information).

The center of the newly discovered infestation is within the Williamsburg Township portion of the East Fork Wildlife Area, south of Clover Road. Tree inspection crews will continue to survey the area to determine the extent of the infestation. Any trees found to be infested will be removed as part of the eradication effort. Also, authorities will expand the ALB quarantine to include areas near the new infestation. When available, a map of the regulated areas will be posted at agri.ohio.gov.

This setback reminds us how difficult it is to contain or eradicate this insect.

ALB was first discovered in Tate Township in Clermont County, Ohio, in June 2011. That quarantine currently covers a 61-square miles area. According to the October 28 APHIS electronic newsletter, more than 2 million trees in the quarantine zone have been surveyed. The survey has detected 18,614 infested trees since 2011. 87,151 trees have been removed; Of these, 17,995 were infested and 69,156 were deemed at high-risk of either already being infested or likely to become infested in the immediate future.

Status of ALB in Other States

Massachusetts ALB was first detected in Worcester in 2008. The quarantine covers 110 square miles. At least 35,870 trees have been removed in the Commonwealth.

New York ALB was first detected in Queens in August 1996. APHIS and the state continue efforts to eradicate ALB from three separate infestations in Queens, Brooklyn, and Amityville. The quarantine covers a total of 137 square miles. The number of infested Trees for the entire New York program is 7,082. The number of trees removed is 23,731. Outbreaks in several sites have been declared eradicated:

Islip (Suffolk County) in 2011;
Manhattan and Staten Island in 2013.

In 2013, the Amityville area infestation was found to be larger than previously known.

The total number of trees removed in the Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio programs was 146,000. However, this is not the total for all the damage caused by the Asian longhorned beetle.

ALB outbreaks in Illinois (Chicago) and New Jersey were eradicated earlier, and their removals are not included in the total given above.

In Illinois, according to Haack et al. 2012, 1,771 trees were removed and 286,227 were treated with systemic pesticides (imidacloprid).

In New Jersey (again, according to Haack et al. 2009, 21,981 infested and high-risk trees were removed. Another 480,574 trees were treated. This total is not complete since the program had not yet succeeded in eradicating the ALB in New Jersey at the time of writing.

The total from all programs is 169,752.

The risk of new introductions remains.

During fiscal years 2010 – 2016, Customs (CBP) detected tree-killing pests in 4,984 shipments – an average of 807 shipments each year. (For the 2015 report, go here)
An analysis by Haack et al. (2014) concluded that one tenth of one percent of the wood packaging entering the U.S. after adoption of ISPM#15 still contained a tree-killing pest. Since the U.S. imports approximately 25 million shipping containers each year, and about half of these contain wood packaging, an “approach rate” of 0.1% equals 13,000 containers harboring pests that probably enter the country each year. That is 35 potential pest arrivals per day.
Customs send samples of intercepted wood packaging to an APHIS laboratory where the insect larvae are grown to adulthood and identified. The APHIS lab has received 1,068 insects from April 2012 through August 2016, taken from 786 separate interceptions of non-compliant wood packaging. Six of the insects were Asian longhorned beetles.

APHIS also detected 69 other pests in wood packaging sent from China.

The United States and Canada began requiring wood packaging from China to be treated in December 1998. (See my discussion of this regulation in Fading Forests II here. Since the Customs data begin in 2010, we can see that 11 to 16 years after the rule governing Chinese wood packaging went into effect, we are still receiving wood packaging with pests from that country.

Also, 700 pests arrived from 36 other countries, led by Mexico, Turkey, and Ukraine (see presentation here; search for “Nadel”)

What are APHIS & CBP doing about these flagrant violations of existing rules? Each violation exposes our forests to additional pest attack and our citizens to higher costs – either in local or federal taxes or personal costs to remove trees — as well as to mental anguish and health impacts.

The evidence is in. APHIS and Customs should tighten enforcement of ISPM#15 by:

Prohibiting imports in solid wood packaging (boards) from foreign suppliers which have a record of repeated violations over the 10 years ISPM#15 has been in effect. (It’s been 16 years for exporters from Hong Kong and mainland China). A reasonable number of violations should trigger this prohibition – perhaps eight over the entire period.

The U.S. should allow imports from those suppliers that are contained in other types of packaging materials, including plastic, metals, fiberboards …

Fining an importer for each new shipment found to be out of compliance with ISPM#15 if the foreign supplier of that shipment has a record of repeated violations (but fewer than the number that would trigger a ban) over the 10 years ISPM#15 has been in effect (16 years for exporters from Hong Kong & mainland China). The number of violations needed to trigger the fine might be five over the entire period – not just in one year.

Ensuring that exporting countries understand that foreign suppliers that change their names or take other steps to obscure their past import records will be prosecuted for fraud. This penalty should be severe so as to deter deliberate attempts to avoid the consequences of past actions.

References

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.

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

Firewood: Important Progress — and a Troubling Stalemate

After years of work, the combined efforts of many staff at federal agencies and non-profits have succeeded in placing a firewood alert message on the Reservation.gov website for all of the 3,163 federal campgrounds managed by the National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, and Corps of Engineers for which visitors can reserve a spot in advance. Only 43 federal reserveable campgrounds remain without messaging. These are managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

As of October 2016, visitors reserving campgrounds through the services of Reserve America or Recreation.gov for any National parks, National forests, or Army Corps reservoirs will find new information in the “Know before you go” section – a message about not moving firewood.

The messages vary somewhat by agency, but basically say: “Don’t move firewood!” They often add “buy firewood at or near your destination and burn it on-site.” Some messages include a brief explanation about the aim — to prevent or limit spread of invasive tree-killing pests. Some include a message that some states regulate firewood movement. There is a link to either the national program — dontmovefirewood.org – or to the pertinent state program, e.g., the California Firewood Task Force for National Forest campgrounds in Region 5.

Some federal campgrounds do not use the Reservation.gov system and therefore require separate efforts to improve firewood messaging. This includes several popular water-based recreation sites in the central southern states, such as the Arkansas River National Recreation Area and Oachita National Forest. Many states in this region also do not regulate firewood. [See my earlier blog contrasting management of firewood with management of boats and attached mussels or aquatic plants here and the article by Frank Koch and colleagues, referenced below.]

Those who succeeded in achieving the widespread adoption of this outreach program deserve our thanks and praise! They worked long and hard for this.

On a Less Positive Note…

Unfortunately, efforts to put a firewood certification program into place appear to have stalled.

In March 2010, in response to increasing concern across the country, APHIS issued a first-ever firewood strategy, with a number of important elements. It proposed the following:

Outreach Strategies:

State and Federal agencies should convene a communications steering committee.
Develop an online hub of firewood outreach materials.
Prioritize the outreach activities.
Use diverse methods to get consistent messages out about the risk of moving firewood.
Support the voluntary and regulatory efforts.

Voluntary Strategies:

Large-scale producers and retailers adopt best management practices.
National producers and retailers adopt an industry-run national certification program with labeling and recordkeeping requirements based on best management practices.
Public and private campgrounds make local or treated firewood available.
Firewood consumers and small-scale local producers adopt best management practices.

Regulatory Strategies:

APHIS should promulgate regulations for the interstate movement of firewood as soon as possible with requirements for labeling, recordkeeping and treatment based on best management practices.
States should publish intrastate movement regulations with requirements similar to the Federal regulations for labeling, recordkeeping and treatment as needed. Moving firewood 50 miles or less would be exempt from intrastate regulations provided this does not violate any quarantine that may be in place.
State, Federal, and private parks, forests and campgrounds should institute policies that encourage campers to use local firewood and to not move firewood out of the local area.

What has been done over the six and one-half years since the Strategy was released?

There has been tremendous progress on the outreach and voluntary strategies, with the Nature Conservancy’s Don’t Move Firewood program providing support and advice. However, these voluntary programs are inadequate without regulatory backup.

There has been less progress on the more formal certification and regulatory strategies proposed in 2010.

Geoff Friedman – a firewood producer based in northern California – reports that he has developed the software for a certification program and worked with producers to get their acceptance. However, implementing the required wood treatments and – especially – staffing a third-party certification program – would raise the cost of firewood by 50%, according to Friedman. The major retailers which sell packaged firewood – the “big box stores” – are not willing to adopt the program because of this increased cost. In the absence or regulations requiring treatment of firewood, the program has stalled. (In the East, many states already regulate firewood. However, those states’ treatment requirements vary. Friedman seems to believe that this challenge can be worked out.)

APHIS has not adopted national regulations and does not appear to be on the verge of doing so. I believe APHIS wanted to tie its regulations to the certification program that has now stalled. Eleven of the 50 states currently have their own state-specific regulations limiting the movement of firewood from other states into their state. Only two more states are known to be potentially considering legislation in 2017. Many — but not all — federal agencies have now engaged on discouraging visitors from bringing their own firewood (see above). Some National parks actually restrict visitors bringing firewood to wood that is certified by USDA – including the park with the highest number of visitors, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. However, Yosemite and other National parks in California are not among them. And these are vulnerable to goldspotted oak borer and the polyphagous or Kuroshio shot hole borers (see species write-ups here).

Worse, APHIS is actively moving toward dropping regulations trying to prevent spread of the emerald ash borer (see species write-up here). APHIS argues that with EAB now present in 30 states (although in many cases, in only one or a few counties), it is too late to try to prevent the insect’s further spread. The regulatory effort is using resources that would be better put to other strategies, such as expanding the biocontrol program. I concede that funding is tight, and likely to be cut further; and that other approaches – and other pests! – need attention.

However, the legal and logical foundation for nearly all state regulations governing firewood is the emerald ash borer. The promised federal regulation and certification program also rest primarily on the EAB risk. Many states – as well as APHIS – must base their regulation on one or more specific pests. Will these state regulations and promised federal programs survive the loss of the federal EAB regulatory program?

In any case, we are a long way from what is needed to get control of the firewood pathway. Each of the “lower 48” states should have an external quarantine. Hawai`i might need one too, if it imports firewood. (Hawai`i does import other types of risky wood products, including Christmas trees.) Also, all 50 states need internal restrictions on the distance firewood is moved. So far, only a fraction have them.

The incoming Trump Administration strongly objects to regulations, so it is highly unlikely that we will see progress on these matters in the near future.

Reference:

Koch, F.H., D. Yemshanov, R.D. Magarey, and W.D. Smith. 2012. Dispersal of Invasive Forest Insects via Recreational Firewood: A Quantitative Analysis J. Econ. Entomol. 105(2): 438-450 (2012);

Posted by Faith Campbell

Leigh Greenwood helped check the facts and dates mentioned in this blog