Proceedings - National Plant Board

Transcription

WECOME RECEPTION
EASTERN PLANT BOARD, CAPS AND HIS – EASTERN CHAPTER
April 3, 2006
EXHIBITOR’S LIST
1.
Delaware Nursery & Landscape Association
Valann Budischak
Email: [email protected]
Website: In development phase
2.
Delaware Department of Agriculture
Aglands Preservation
Michael H McGrath
Website: www.state.de.us/deptagri/
3.
Delaware Soybean Board
Philip Towle
4.
American Beauties, LLC/Northcreek Nurseries, Inc
Steve Castorani
Website: www.Abnativeplants.com
5.
USDA-APHIS, PPQ
Colleen Kitzmiller
6.
Plant Industries
Lynn Harrison
7.
Delaware Beekeeping Association
Jeff Brothers
EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 1 of 134
8.
CAPS
Jim Kroon
9.
Claude E Phillips Herbarium
Delaware State University, Department of Ag & NR
Susan Yost
Website: www.herbarium.desu.edu
10.
Delaware Invasive Species Council
Eric Buehl
Website: www.sgnis.org
11.
University of Delaware
Delaware Diagnostics Plant Lab
Nancy Gregory
12.
Delmarvelous Chestnuts
Nancy Pettit
Website: www.delmarvelouschestnuts.com
13.
Greenbank Mill
Tony Shahan
Website: www.greenbankmill.org
14.
P. ramorum – USDA-APHIS-PPQ
Mary E. Mahaffey
EASTERN PLANT BOARD
81st ANNUAL MEETING
AGENDA
Atlantic Sands Hotel & Conference Center
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
April 3 - 6, 2006
Monday, April 3, 2006
Red Imported Fire Ant Horticultural Inspectors Workshop (optional)
8:00 a.m.
Coffee, sign in and introduction – Dolphin
9:00 a.m.
Field trip to Delmarva detection sites
12:00 p.m.
LUNCH – Grotto’s Pizza
1:00 p.m.
•
Roundtable - Dolphin
Development of Quarantine Treatments
Anne-Marie Callcott, Entomologist, Soil Inhabiting Pests
Lab, USDA, Gulfport, MS
•
Planning and Implementing Highway Inspection Blitzes Walker
(Gray) Haun, Administrator, Div. of Regulatory Services, TN
Department of Agriculture and Chair, National Plant Board Fire
Ant Committee
•
Documenting Violations and Taking Officer Statements Aldine
Valentine, USDA-IES
3:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Registration – Sands Hotel Lobby
5:30 – 9:00 p.m.
Special Delaware Welcome Reception – Swan Ballrooms
8:30 – 11:00 p.m.
Hospitality Suite - Room #354
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
All sessions in Swan Ballroom
7:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. Registration – Swan Ballroom lobby
7:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST - Sandpiper
8:00 a.m.
Opening Session 1 Joint Session with CAPS and HIS
MODERATOR: Carl Schulze, NJ
•
Call to Order and Opening Remarks – Carl Schulze, EPB President
•
Roll Call of States – Walt Blosser, EPB Secretary-Treasurer
•
Introduction of Guests and Attendees
•
Local Arrangements – Faith Kuehn, DE
•
Eastern Plant Board President’s Report – Carl Schulze
•
National Plant Board President’s Report – Ken Rauscher
•
NASDA Update – Bob Ehardt
9:15 a.m.
Session 2 NEPDN and USDA Lab Accreditation update
MODERATOR: Colleen Kitzmiller
State Plant Health Director, DE
9:15
National Laboratory Accreditation. Phil Berger, National Science
Program Leader, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST
9:35
P. ramorum Proficiency Testing. Laurene Levy, Laboratory Director
USDA-APHIS-PPA-CPHST
9:50
NEPDN Update, Land Grant University and State Department of
Agriculture Interaction. Karen Snover-Clift, Associate Director,
Northeast Plant Diagnostic Network
Tuesday, April 4, 2006, continued
10:20
BREAK
10:40
Roundtable Discussion with Speakers and Diagnostics lab personnel
Nancy Gregory, Plant Diagnostician, University of Delaware Plant
Diagnostic Clinic
Tom Evans, Associate Professor, University of Delaware, Department of
Plant and Soil Sciences
John Bowers, Plant Disease Specialist, Maryland Department of
Agriculture
11:15 a.m.
Session 3 Partner Updates
MODERATOR: Vicki Smith, CT
USDA-APHIS-PPQ
Vic Harabin, Regional Director, PPQ Eastern Region
USDA-APHIS-PPQ - ePermits
Sam (Richard) Johnson, Chief, Permit Services
Africanized honeybee
Dewey Caron, University of Delaware Cooperative Extension
12:15 p.m.
LUNCH – Atlantic Seafood Company
1:30 p.m.
Session 4 Trends and Challenges in Biotechnology
MODERATOR: Faith Kuehn, DE
1:30
BRS Introduction
Thomas Nesbitt, Regulatory Analyst, Policy Coordination Division,
Biotechnology Regulatory Services
1:55
NPB/BRS Survey – Findings and Plans
Kenneth Rauscher, President, National Plant Board and
Director of Pesticide and Plant Pest Management Division, Michigan
Department of Agriculture
Tuesday, April 4, 2006, continued
2:20
Future Trends in Plant Bioengineering
Barry Marrs, Athena Biotech, Newark, DE
2:40
Risk Factors Associated with Insect Biotechnology
David O’Brochta, Center for Biosystems Research, University of Maryland
3:00
BREAK
3:20
Roundtable Discussion with Speakers
5:00
Adjourn
5:30 – 6:30 p.m.
EPB Committee Meetings
7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Gala Group Dinner – Dog Fish Head Brewing Company
Walking distance - map provided in program
Shuttle van available, meet in Sands’ lobby at 6:30 p.m.
9:00 – 11:00 p.m.
Hospitality Suite - Room #354
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
All sessions in Swan Ballroom
7:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST, Sandpiper
8:00 a.m.
Session 5- Emerging Pest Situations & Response
Joint Session with HIS and CAPS
MODERATOR: Randy Ciurlino and Jim Kroon, DE
8:00
Phytophthora ramorum survey issues
Eric Ewing – HIS – West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture
Matt Travis – HIS – Maryland Dept. of Agriculture
8:50
Benefits and Best Use of High Tech Survey Tools
Jim Kroon – Delaware Department of Agriculture
9:10
PPQ's preparedness and responses to new pest threats
Joel Floyd – USDA-APHIS-PPQ – Pest Detection and
Management Programs
9:40
BREAK
10:00
Mitigating the Risk of Transporting Firewood
Tim Schmalz – Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets
10:20
Sirex noctilio in New York
Ken Carnes – New York State Dept. of Agriculture & Markets
10:40
Sirex noctilio and other pest issues in the USA
Vic Mastro – USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Otis Lab
11:30
CAPS Initiatives and Updates
Dick Bean, MD Department of Agriculture
11:45
SOD Update
Mary Mahaffey, USDA-AHPIS-PPQ
12:05
National Identification Services
Murali Bandla, USDA-APHIS-PPQ
12:25 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
LUNCH – Atlantic Seafood Company
Wednesday, April 5, 2006, continued
1:30 – 3:00 p.m.
Session 6- Potential Economic Impacts of
Regulatory Pests
MODERATOR: Tom Durkis, NH
1:30
Overview of Potential Economic Impacts of Regulatory Pests
Lynn J. Garrett, USDA-APHIS-CPHST, Center for Plant Health
Science & Technology
2:00
Pine Shoot Beetle, What states are doing and what they want to
do? 3 perspectives: Connecticut – Vicki Smith,
Maine – Ann Gibbs, New Jersey – Carl Schulze
2:30
Discussion
3:20 – 3:40 p.m.
BREAK
3:40 – 5:00 p.m.
Session 7 –Partner updates
MODERATOR: Vicki Smith
3:40
U.S. Forest Service
Noel Schneeberger, Entomologist, USDA Forest Service
4:00
ANLA
Craig Reggelbrugge, Senior Director of Government
Relations, American Nursery and Landscape Association
4:20
S.I.T.C.
Vionette James, SITC Director of Field Operations
4:40
DHS-CBP
Helen Sterling, Assistant Director of Trade Operations, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection
5:00
Adjourn
5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
DINNER – on your own
7:00 p.m.
Fire Ant Fiesta at The Beach House (White House)
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Swan Ballroom
7:00 – 8:00 a.m.
CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST - Sandpiper
8:00 – 12:00 a.m.
Session 7- Invasive Plant Species Round Table
MODERATOR: Ann Gibbs, ME
8:00
Introduction (Ann)
8:10
Overview of the Environmental Law Institute’s Model Law
Kathryn Mengerink, Environmental Law Institute
8:40
Sources of Funding for Invasive Weed Control Programs
Kristin Sewak, Natural Biodiversity, Johnstown, PA
9:00
Invasive Species Coordination at USDA-APHIS-PPQ
Bill Dickerson, USDA-APHIS-PPQ
9:10
Case Studies – Feedback from nurseries in CT and NH
Business effects after enactment of invasive plant laws
Vicki Smith, Connecticut Nurseries
Doug Cygan, New Hampshire Nurseries
9:30
BREAK
9:50-12:00 Roundtable with States
Wendy Rezac, President, DE Nursery & Landscape Assoc.
Faith Kuehn, Chair, DE Invasive Species Council
Greg Robertson, President, PA Landscape & Nursery Assoc.
Melissa Bravo, PDA Acting Interim Coordinator, PA Invasive Species
Council
Bob Tichenor, MD Invasive Species Council
John Peter Thompson, Invasive Species Contact, MD Nursery &
Landscape Assoc.
Carl Schulze, Vice-Chair, NJ Invasive Species Council
Thursday, April 6, 2006, continued
12:00 – 1:30 p.m.
LUNCH – on your own
1:00 – 3 p.m.
Session 8 - EPB Business Meeting
3:00 p.m.
Meeting adjourned
National Plant Board
Eastern Plant Board Annual Meeting
April 4, 2006
2005 Accomplishments
& Issues
Ken Rauscher
Website Rebuild
www.nationalplantboard.org
USDA Laboratory Reviews
CPHST Headquarters,
Raleigh
National Seed Potato
Certification Standards
Does it fit your State industry needs?
- Timeline -
Developing a cooperative
working relationship with
USDAUSDA-APHIS
Biotechnology Regulatory
Services
1
Services (BRS)
Educational Opportunities
Survey
BRS Final Report
3 Overarching Issues
21 Recommendations
Draft Report
6 Action Plans
Final Report/Survey Results
Exotic Species Management
Peer Review Committees
Citrus Greening/Citrus Canker
Commissioned by Congress
Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB)
Steering/Standing Committees
Sirex Pine Wasp
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)
P.ramorum
Snails
Bob Ehert
Dorthea Zadig
Doreen Watler
Richard Gaskalla
Mark Powell
Richard Orr
Tom O’Brien
Tom Sim
Charles Yoe
John Payne
Ken Vick
Ken Rauscher
Exotic Species
Management/Funding
(Sirex, ALB, EAB, Citrus Pests, SOD)
2006 Issues
Build a Broad Coalition of Support
Pursue Funding Solution
Focus on Early Detection/Rapid
Response
2
P.ramorum
Emergency Order Issued 12/24
CAPS
Challenges/Opportunities
USDA/CFIA Bilateral Shipping
Agreement
Identify Needed Improvements
HRI/ANLA Working Group
developing BMP
Work Cooperatively to
Implement Solutions
USDA/NPB Working Group
enhancing Certification Protocols
CAPS is our Oyster
Services
Department of Homeland
Security - Customs &
Border Patrol
Six Action Plans
Regular Management Staff/NPBStaff/NPB BOD Meetings
Continue to Develop the
Relationship at the National and
Regional Levels
Regular Interaction Opportunities at
NPB & Regional Board Meetings
State Interagency Committees
CPHST Lab Review
Peer Review
Phoenix Lab/Otis Lab
Ken Rauscher
Bill Dickerson
Bob Dahl
Connie Riherd
Carl Schultz
Ruth Welliver
John Caravetta
Umesh Kodira
Joint Committee to Review Draft
- April
Delivery to Congress - June
3
Other Activities...
Pine Shoot Beetle - minimize
impacts
NSHS/Laboratory Accreditation ongoing solutions
Executive Director Position
Gypsy Moth - funding shortfalls
Laboratory Diagnostic Network working together
4
NASDA & Message Mapping
Plant health emergency response
template “news”
• Multi-state partnership states are testing the template
• It is a useful document – especially when used with the
expertise of SES
Bob Ehart
Eastern Plant Board
Rehoboth Beach, DE
April 4, 2006
• At the moment, it isn’t as advanced – as a stand alone
document – as the NASDA Food Template, but it could be
– should be
• Stay tuned
2
Homeland security has
changed our lives
State/Federal Responses to
Emergency Events
• Still have our same job to do, but some things are different
• While state & federal actions may differ to some degree
during an emergency event, keeping the public informed
and, wherever possible, reassuring the public of the safety
of agricultural products are common goals.
• National Response Plan/Incident Command System
require us to speak a new language & to do some things a
different way
• Aren’t going to get a whole lot of additional resources
• High-stress situations will be the norm more frequently
3
4
A Major Concern Among
NASDA Members
NASDA/COSDA/APHIS
Emergency Communications Plan
APHIS would contact NASDA and its members prior to
announcing any information regarding an emergency
event.
• Seeming to be out of step with a federal announcement on
an emergency issue – where the media then focuses on the
perceived differences, elevating public concern
unnecessarily.
• 31 States, including Plant Board members, signed the
agreement
• We tried it this way…
5
6
1
Pitfalls
The goal is admirable, but, in reality,
there are pitfalls
• When dealing with a crisis, the time preceding a public
announcement is very precious, so it is understandable
that not everyone, who has a need to know, will know.
• However, there are consequences to being – or feeling –
out of the loop
7
8
People outside the loop
assume the worst
When not in the loop…
• We weren’t included because “they”… (real/perceived)
– didn’t think we needed to know
– don’t seem to realize the state agriculture agencies are
always contacted by local media
– said they didn’t have time to contact us
– couldn’t tell anyone for fear of a leak
– didn’t want me/us to know
• Seemingly conflicting statements can occur—in fact, have
occurred—an unintended consequence of not knowing
what is going on
9
10
When not in the loop…
Issues that agriculture faces in
crafting public messages
• We all have learned – that how we deal with the Media – is
important
• We would like to guard against this happening, so state
agricultural agencies can provide useful information to the
media, whether in the loop or just outside the loop
• We have also learned that we can all benefit from things
like spokesperson training
• We avoid “scripted” messages because we know that we
come across as “spinning the news” or worst yet, that we
might be lying
11
12
2
We have learned there are
other things to avoid too, e.g.:
Issues that agriculture faces in
crafting public messages
• We frequently deal with emergencies or other issues where
the media DEMANDS to know what’s going on NOW
(high-stress) – whether the event occurred in “our” state
or elsewhere
– Avoid using negative words, e. g., no, not, never,
nothing, none
– Avoid offering guarantees
• While most professionals are able communicators, many of
us are not taught to be able communicators during highstress situations
– Avoid speculating on worst-case scenarios
– Avoid repeating allegations or accusations
13
Risk Communications has helped us a
great deal. New advances can help us
even more
• Even fewer individuals are in-and-of-themselves expert in
communications theory, technical knowledge AND policy
nuances
14
Risk/Crisis Communication
We’ve learned:
• High-stress situations result in as little as 20% message
retention
• Since the 1980s, we’ve “practiced” risk communications
• We’ve improved our dialog with – and through – the
Media
• National news sound bites are usually 7-9 seconds or
about 30 words
• We’ve continued to “learn” what the Media will cover
• There are limits to recall – 3 messages
• We know that the Media, Public – and we – all act
differently during high stress situations (an FMD outbreak
will be a very high stress event)
• There is a bias in recall – first and last messages
15
Risk/Crisis Communication Research
further shows:
16
Trust factors in low stress situations
• Best to use 6th grade comprehension level
(Average Grade Level – 4)
Competency / Expertise
• Best to be repetitious - TTT model
80 / 85 %
All
• Beneficial to use visual aids – graphics – anecdotes
Other
• One negative statement requires three positives to
neutralize
Factors
15 / 20 %
17
18
3
Trust factors in high stress situations
Listening / Caring /
Determined in first
9/30 seconds
Empathy 50%
Competency /
Honesty /
Expertise
Openness
15 / 20 %
15 – 20 %
Dedication /
Commitment
15 / 20 %
Message Mapping is a new tool in
the Risk Communication Arsenal
• Adding what is known about high stress communications to
Risk Communications will help assure that we are
providing high quality information to the Public
• It also will increase the chances that the Media will cover
it – and the Public will remember it
19
20
We can know 95% of the
questions we will be asked.
Message Mapping does require
planning
• Would you be willing to help prepare sets of key words –
verified facts – for key questions – that you might be asked
by the Media?
• And would it be helpful for you to have a single sheet of
paper with this information in your file before you are
asked the questions?
• We have become accustomed to practicing how we say
things – through spokesperson training
• Message mapping adds developing – and practicing –
what we are going to say the things we must practice
These are rhetorical questions!
21
22
7 Steps in the Development & Use of
Message Maps as a Management Tool
7 Steps in the Development & Use of
Message Maps as a Management Tool
• Identify Stakeholders
• Develop Key Messages
• Identify a Complete List of Specific Concerns
– Overarching Questions
– Informational Questions
– Challenging Questions
• Develop Supporting Facts & Proof Points
• Conduct Message Testing – Sharing & Testing of
Messages with Partners Ensures Message Consistency &
Coordination
• Analyze Specific Concerns – Identify Common Set of
General Concerns
• Plan for the Delivery of the Prepared Message Maps
23
24
4
Message Mapping fills an important
need for NASDA
Message Mapping as a
Management Tool
• Communications messages crafted involving states and
federal agency expertise
• Allows the combination of the various schools of thought
regarding risk communications, while it focuses on the
need to communicate in high stress situations
• It allows policy, technical and communications experts to
flourish together
• Winnows down technical information to its essence
• Allows policy to be the fine art of compromise
• Helps result in consistent messages – being on the same
page – even if we may never speak with one voice
25
26
Management Tool
Using Message Maps
• Limit to 3 key messages
• Use 1 or all 3 Key Messages as Sound Bites
• Use 3 supporting statements for each key message
• 27/9/3 (27 words—9 seconds—3 thoughts)
• Answer Less Important Question & Bridge to Overarching
Messages
• Express current knowledge
• Allows Us to Stay on Prepared Messages
• Allows Us to Keep Messages Short/Focused
27
Management Tool for NASDA
• While knowing the details of an emerging emergency event
makes talking about it easier, would it be okay to take to
following tact – assuming it is a topic that has been
“mapped”?
28
Other Potential Applications
to NASDA
• Can use for “everyday” issues for programs beyond
USDA/state partnerships
• Ultimately useful for extraordinary emergencies –
homeland security
• “I don’t know the details of the incident you are
describing, but let me tell you how we would handle an
incident if it occurred in our state….”
29
30
5
Most valuable to NASDA if:
Where we are in the process:
• State technical & PIO staffs have been trained through the
Multi-States Partnership project & State specific training
• Our federal partners work with us – as evidenced by
APHIS involvement and commitment
• Our federal partners will invest in this effort – both
professional staff time & resources
• NASDA’s Board has authorized us to proceed with a
project internal to NASDA and with APHIS & to develop
key questions and vetted answers 10 priority issues
• Our affiliate organizations are involved – this means
you!!!
• APHIS has trained several of their LPA staff and other
personnel on the concept
• We are proposing a training session during 2006 NPB
meeting in Milwaukee
31
Next Steps (some concurrently)
• All NASDA Members were introduced/trained at 2006
Midyear meeting
• PIOs from 32 states were trained at COSDA’s 2005
annual meeting
32
Next Steps (some concurrently)
• The process will continue to expand to include policy,
technical and communications experts at the state and
federal level as more affiliate groups are introduced to the
method
• COSDA will be further trained during train-the-trainer
session in the 2006 COSDA annual meeting
• Affiliate organizations training will also begin
• COSDA members will serve as facilitators at the state level
• Teams will be put together to begin the process
33
• Many states will continue to advance through the MultiStates Partnership and other venues
34
Using Message Mapping as a tool is
not an original idea
• Multi-States Partnership for Security in Agriculture
A major issue in Message Mapping is being
able to deliver the message in the
• Many state and federal agencies – particularly public
health
27 / 9 / 3 format
• Guliani, Schwartzkoff…many others are practitioners
Let’s look at a couple of examples that
accomplish this expertly
35
36
6
“The number of casualties is more than any of us can
bear, and I believe the nation will become stronger,
stronger economically, politically, but most
importantly, emotionally.”
"Even one is too many. Let me say that again - even
one is too many. Many a time I've cried to sleep at
night thinking about the boys and their families."
General Norman Schwarzkopf on 20/20
after the Persian Gulf War
Rudy Guliani, September 12, 37
2005
We do not believe that we need to be as
skilled – or as emotional– as these examples
in order to be successful, but this tool is
extremely powerful
38
The following are examples of some first draft
message maps – offered as an illustration of
the early stage of message development
Continuous improvement in crafting messages
and expanding topics are goals
39
40
Message Map: SBR
Audience: Public/Media
What should I know about soybean rust?
Message Map: SBR
What additional info should I know re: SBR ?
Key Message 1
Soybean rust is a fungal
disease newly introduced to
the U.S. in 2004
Key Message 2
SBR can have an
economic impact on the
soybean industry.
Key Message 3
Early detection and
treatment is vital for
prevention.
Supporting Point 1.1
It has existed in other
countries for centuries.
Reduces yields between 5
to 80 percent.
National monitoring
network to track the
spread of the disease.
Since SBR occurs
worldwide, there will be
no impact on U.S.
soybean exports.
Increases production
costs.
Lists of fungicides labeled
for use against soybean rust
are available from your local
county extension and state
agricultural departments.
First detected in
Louisiana, it spread
quickly to other states.
Reduces profits.
Cost effectiveness of
curative sprays is limited.
41
Key Message 1
Key Message 2
Key Message 3
Soybean rust affects
soybeans and other legumes,
like kudzu, green beans,
alfalfa
Signs of SBR include tiny yellow
spots on the upper surface of
leaves and raised red pustules on
underside of lower leaves.
Eventually leaves die and fall off.
There are economic
considerations for the use of
fungicide treatment.
SBR is spread by windborne
spores that can be trans-ported
over long distances or by
people walking through rustinfected areas.
It can be mistaken for many
other diseases (spider mite
damage, bacterial blight).
Treatment may not be useful if
it is late in season or if weather
conditions are not favorable
for disease development.
SBR requires warm, highhumidity climates to survive.
Disease symptoms are not
visible to naked eye for
several days after infection.
Fungicides vary in their benefits
and costs. According to USDAERS, fungicide sprays may cost
approximately $25 per acre.
Most garden and yard
plants, grains like corn are
unaffected.
If you suspect rust symptoms, Fungicide application must
contact extension
be in accordance with the 42
immediately.
product label instructions.
7
Message Map: EAB
What should I know about EAB?
Key Message 2
Key Message 1
Emerald Ash Borer moves
short distances by flying
Signs of EAB infestation
or long distances with the
help of people.
Key Message 3
The only proven
treatment is removing
trees. Prevention is the
key.
Short flights from tree to
tree (up to ½ mile)
Leaves thin, turn yellow
and die. The tree declines
from the top down.
Remove trees to protect
homes and people and
prevent spread.
Moves on infected
nursery stock, wood
products, firewood.
Shoots will come from
bottom.
Awareness to prevent
spread.
D-shaped exit hole
emerges June-August
Message Map: EAB
What are you doing about EAB?
Key Message 1
We have an active
surveillance program.
Key Message 2
If we do find EAB, we have
limited control options, but
quick detection can help to
limit spread.
Key Message 3
Resources are available
for more information on
EAB.
Visual inspections of state We will remove trees in
forests and campgrounds. the infested area.
Check our State’s EAB
website.
Don’t move firewood.
Also encourage citizen
reporting.
We will increase our
surveillance activities.
Please call our 800
number.
Awareness is important &
contacting us is too
43
Ongoing regulatory
inspection of nursery
stocks.
Encourage everyone to
learn the signs and
symptoms of EAB.
Contact your local county
extension agent or
44
forester.
8
United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection and Quarantine
Definitions
The National Plant Protection Laboratory
Accreditation Program
(NPPLAP)
• Accreditation: The determination that
a laboratory is capable of performing
competent diagnoses.
• Certification: The determination that
an accredited laboratory has
undergone training, proficiency testing,
and quality assurance procedures for
a specific diagnostic method.
Why an accreditation program?
What will the NPPLAP accomplish?
• To enhance the ability of APHIS PPQ to respond to and
manage intentional and unintentional introductions of plant
diseases and pests by increasing the speed and reliability of
diagnostic tests.
• Thus, the purpose of the program is to accredit laboratories
in the National Plant Disease Network (NPDN), State Depts.
of Ag., and private or commercial sectors to carry out
diagnostic tests on plant pathogens or pests of regulatory
concern under defined standards for facilities, equipment,
personnel training, sample tracking, and methods.
• Ensure that the highest quality tests will
be performed, using validated methods
• Increase national laboratory capacity,
capabilities, and quality
• Facilitate rapid and more accurate
detection --> more rapid response -->
reduced impact of pest or pathogen
– NPPLAP is not intended to replace or supplement NSHS.
Essential Elements of the NPPLAP
Outcomes of NPPLAP planning
process:
•
•
Adequate facilities, instrumentation and equipment
Personnel qualifications
•
Sample control, sample integrity
– Participation in training programs
– Records management
– Test report content and format
•
•
•
•
•
Use of approved analytical methods
Methods development, methods validation
Good laboratory practices/ISO accreditation
Audit of facilities and records; random on-site review
Proficiency testing programs
•
Stakeholder buy-in
•
Strategy for technical development, deployment and industry
involvement
•
Continued stakeholder input
•
Transparent process
•
Continued and coordinated funding
•
Streamlining methods development and validation
•
Role and function of technical working groups
•
Develop PASS (Potentially Actionable Suspect) sample policy
–
Validation criteria
1
NPPLAP Steering Committee
•
Regulatory – Federal
•
CPHST (NSPL and/or NPGBL
Director)
•
PHP (NIS)
•
PDMP
•
ER/WR
•
VS
•
Regulatory – State
•
NPB
•
NASDA or State DA’s
•
•
•
•
Anticipated Needs for the NPPLAP
Non-Regulatory
NPDN
Professional Societies: APS, ESA, ASMUSDAARS
USDA-CSREES-Nat’l Prog. Staff, and NRI
Ag. Expt. Stations
University Extension
• Increased staffing and infrastructure for:
– Methods development
– Methods validation
– Training
– Proficiency test panel
development and deployment
– Quality management
•
•
•
•
At Large members
- additional technical resources: e.g. USDAOGC
- International (CSL, CFIA, Australia, etc)
- NAPPO, EPPO, IPPC??
– IT
Time Frame
• Laboratory Accreditation Workshop, Oct. 2004
• Planning committee met Sept., 2005
• Funding increase in APHIS’ 2007 budget
• National Coordinator to be hired in FY 07 mos.
The P. ramorum Provisional
Approval Program and Lessons
Learned:
• New staff being hired at Beltsville
• First laboratory or laboratories accredited in <18
mos.
Case Study: Provisional Approval
Program for Phytophthora ramorum
Provisional Approval Program for
Phytophthora ramorum: current process
1) Provisional approval guidelines for a ‘typical’ lab:
• Laboratory infrastructure guidelines
• Implement laboratory inspection policies and
procedures
• Develop and deploy proficiency test panels
• Modeled after NAHLN system, and is
comparable to other existing programs
Phytophthora ramorum
infection on tanoak
–
–
–
–
–
infrastructure - physical layout, HVAC
sample processing and flow
instrumentation - types, maintenance & calibration
personnel training and experience (hands-on training in
Beltsville is required)
Labs provide to APHIS documentation of above information
2) Inspection team is sent to laboratory
–
–
headed by APHIS CPHST
often includes scientist from NVSL or ARS
Proficiency panels generated
and tested at the NPGBL
2
P. ramorum provisional approval (con’t)
Provisionally Approved Labs
3) Following inspection, a report is prepared and is
sent to lab along with checklist
• 8 labs provisionally approved as of 3/20/05:
•
– Oregon State Univ.
Lab corrects deficiencies, if any
– OR Dept. of Ag.
4) A blind proficiency test panel is sent to lab
•
•
5) If lab passes panel, provisional approval is
granted
•
– WA Dept. of Ag.
results analyzed by APHIS
APHIS scientists must also pass test
– CDFA
– Univ. of Tenn.
– Univ. of Florida NPDN
PCR results of a
Proficiency panel
If lab does not pass panel, corrective measures taken and
a new panel is provided
– FL DPI
– USDA-AMS (Gastonia, NC): PPQ surge capacity lab.
• ≈ 13 additional labs in various stages of process
What does provisional approval mean in
terms of regulatory action?
Future development of P. ramorum
provisional approval
• Need to determine time interval for
– Majority of forwarded DNA samples are negative
Symptoms on leaves
proficiency testing
• USDA will accept negative results
• Need to improve current PT panel
• Potentially actionable suspect (PASS) samples
being defined: This policy will define which positive
samples require confirmatory testing (e.g., new
hosts, environmental finds, etc.)
– present panel only tests PCR proficiency, not DNA
extraction, ELISA, or host effects
– future panels in development (cooperative agreement w/
UC Berkeley)
– current and future panels will be compatible with real time
PCR
– At present, all positives need federal confirmation
ELISA plate ready
for reading
Real Time PCR data
Generated by instrument
3
Proficiency Test Development and
Deployment: YrYr -1 Lessons Learned
What is Proficiency Testing?
Laurene Levy
Renee DeVries & Vessela Mavrodieva
A type of external quality control to measure a
laboratory’s accuracy.
USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST
National Plant Germplasm and Biotechnology Lab
Eastern Plant Board Meeting, 44-4-2006
A method to verify that the performance of
each test site is in line with other labs
performing the same analysis.
PT Topics
Why do proficiency testing?

Successful performance in an external
proficiency test is a key indicator of high
laboratory quality.
Results in a lab are dependent on variables
like the method used, equipment, procedures,
and the skills and training of the analyst.
Proficiency testing is a valuable quality tool that
gives a snapshot of a labs measurements and
quality system at one point in time.
Proficiency Planning
Requires a validated method, preferably also a ringring-tested
method.
Identify expected participants
Contact participants for dates to receive panel
Identify the information to be supplied to the participants

PT panel letter
PT panel instructions
Work--Instruction(s
Work
Instruction(s)) for the validated method(s
method(s))
Lab form for sample setset-up
PT panel data submission forms and description of what to
include
Indicate in PT letter how data will be evaluated
Planning
Sample Selection / Propagation
Homogeneity and stability testing
Panel Assembly
Panel Distribution
Collecting & Grading Results
Reporting Results
Communicating with Participants
Sample Selection
Selection of Phyto
Phyto.. sp. narrowed to 23 samples
based on performance test results during
evaluation of purified DNA
14
14--20 samples per proficiency test (Initial
( Initial or
Maintenance?)
Maintenance
?)

Strong positive
Moderate positive
Low positive
Known negative
Selected panel samples rere- tested several times
randomly to verify stability of titers, for
homogeneity, stability in shipment, performance
with various level of analyst.
1
Sample Selection
P. ramorum PT panel 2006 - project
#
samp le
PT Panel Evaluation Objectives
Multiple Operator Evaluations
Ph ytoph. DN A
Health y DNA
1
PCR H2O
n/a
n/a
2
1:100 dilution of #1
n/a
n/a
3
Rhododendron DNA
0
1ng
4
Rhododendron DNA 1:10 #4
0
100pg
5
P. AAAAAA/Rhododendron DN A
100pg
1ng
6
100pg
1ng
7
P. BBBBBB /Rhododendron DN A
10ng
1ng
8
P. BBBBBB /Rhododendron DN A
100pg
1ng
9
P.CCCCCC/ Rhododendron DN A
100pg
1ng
10
100pg
1ng
11
P. AAAAAA/Rhododendron DN A 1:100 #10
1pg
10pg
12
P. AAAAAA /Rhododendron DN A 1:10 #11
0.1pg
1pg
13
P. AAAAAA / H 2O
100pg
0
14
P. CCCCCC (P. RRRRRRR)
100pg
0
Panel Assembly
Determine Number of Kits Needed
Initial letters of interest from the field in
response to inquiry / send an order form to
laboratory for PT panel development
Excel spreadsheet of laboratory address and
contact information
Date for PT determined with labs
Calculate how many PT are needed per lab
based on response of how many analysts
will perform the test.
Collecting and Evaluating Results
Laboratories email PT results
Results due within 4 weeks
Data entered into Excel spreadsheet
Grading key established – new this year
Qualitative Evaluation – for each sample, X% agreement of
answers, timeliness, data submission, etc.
Analy tical Evaluation – for each sample actual performance and
interpretation of data
Statistical Evaluation – perhaps new in 2007
PT panel results evaluation within 30 days of panel
return.
PT results discussed with participant lab if needed
Remedial action taken if panel is failed – what depends
on failure type
Test for contamination - H2O samples
Test for consistency - samples #5 &6 - the same concentration
Test for consistency - samples with the same healthy DNA
concentration # 3,5,6,7,8,9,10
Test for consistency between the runs
Test serial dilutions - samples # 3 & 4; samples 10, 11&12 (C
might be changed)
Test TxRd inhibition by high C of P. AAA DNA - samples #10#10 -12
Test accuracy by evaluating cross reacts and known negatives
Test interpretation of results between analysts
Panel Assembly
Assemble PT Kits
Randomize PT samples so that no lab receives
a duplicate panel.
Assign random numbers and label vials
Thaw DNA from evaluated samples and aliquot
Package into PT Kits for overnight delivery
Ship DNA, send all PT instructions/paperwork
and FedEx tracking number via email
Reporting Results
Summarize lab performance for each test
Excel charts
Reports generated
Word documents
Individual laboratory score – new this year
Distribution charts of all lab scores for each test – all labs
anonymous – at end of testing season
Comment sheet for suggested improvements
Certificate of Approval if necessary
Reports emailed out to each laboratory
2
Year--1 Lessons Learned
Year
Include multiple analysts in PT panel evaluation for
a range of performance expected
Provide information on how panel will be evaluated
Schedule panels with participants (still needed)
Develop and require data be returned in provided
data submission forms
Determine a grading system consistent with other
proficiency test programs (ICLN)
Include a comments sheet for participant
suggestions
3
NEPDN Training and Education
2005 Goals and Progress
NEPDN Education and
Training Update
Mary McKellar
Education and Training Coordinator
• Completion of exercise scenario by each
state in NE region
• Provide training and educational materials
for specific high risk pathogens or groups
of pathogens
• Provide monthly regional newsletter
• Train between 400 and 500 first detectors
in the Northeast region
National Select Agent Exercises
Regional Select Agent Exercises
Future Exercise Plans
• Exercises for each state are planned for
2006
• Differences from previous exercise:
– Sample arrival date will be unknown
– Utilize Diagnosticians SOP Notebook
– Include labs that did not participate last year
(i.e. LI, CT Ag Exp Station, etc.)
– Exercises will begin in March (sign up sheet)
state in NE region
of pathogens
1
state in NE region
of pathogens
NPDN First Detector Trainings
Regional First Detector Training
Regional First Detector Educator
Training
http://spdn.ifas.ufl.edu/
2
2005 NACAA Meeting
Buffalo, NY
• 60 participants from initial headcount
• 43 participants filled out registration forms
• Majority of participants were from the NE
and Southern regions
• 95% of them were county agents while 5%
classified themselves as administrators
• 2006 Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
“Multiple Entry Submit”
NPDN Training and Education
Committee Activities
•
•
•
•
Monthly conference calls
Online Crop Biosecurity Curriculum
Module Enhancement Working Group
Northeast participation
– Committee members?
– Regionally Significant Pathogen and Pests
Presentations?
2006 Goals
• A first detector in every county in NE region with
a focus on counties that border Canada
• Increase documentation of the type of training
conducted (FD vs. FDE) by registering
participants
• National newsletter
• Continue select agent exercise training
• Continue providing educational select agent and
significant pathogen materials
3
Regional Networks of Land Grant
University Facilities
NPDN Update
North Ce ntral Plant
Diagnos tic Network
Michigan Sta te University
Nancy Gregory
Diagnostician
Northeastern Plant
Diagnos tic Network
Cornell University
Western Plant Diag nostic Network
University of Californ ia, Davis
National Re posi tor y
Purdue University
Great Plains
Diagnos tic Network
Kansas State University
Souther n Plant
Diagnos tic Network
University of Florida
NPDN:
Founded 6/2002
USDA/Ho meland Security
Objectives for the 5 Regional Plant
Diagnostic Hubs
• Provide leadership and coordination of state
laboratories within a region
• Coordinate regional diagnostic resources
• Provide inter-regional communication
• Establish a national uniform reporting protocol
with all regions
• Utilize the National Repository to catalogue data
collected
• Build on existing investments (e.g. IPM Centers
and Diagnostics laboratories)
Diagnostic Functions
• Created Diagnostics Subcommittee to address issues
and create policies and procedures to be used by
network members
• SOP and Picture Clue Notebooks
Selection by Internal
CSREES Process
Network Responsibilities
•
•
•
•
Data collection (detectors/diagnosticians)
Communications system
Information storage and management
Data analysis
– Pattern recognition
– New events and analysis of new appearance
– Unusual patterns of endemic problems
• GIS
• Event propagation
• Tracking
• Reporting and alerts
– Coordinate with state and Federal regulatory bodies and link to
IPM Centers
• Database training and management (PDIS, DDIS,…)
Diagnostic
Lab
Module
Exercise
Scenario
Module
Video
Conferencing
Agricultural
Alert
Module
First
Detector
Module
Secure
Comm
Module
Image
Library
Module
Digital
Microscopy
GIS
Reporting
( Futur e)
e)
1
• Coordinated a number of training sessions with APHISPPQ-CPHST for significant pathogens
• Coordinated the permit process
• Assisted the provisional approval process with NPDN
laboratories
• Preparing for laboratory accreditation and certification
Photo Carrie Harmon, University of Florida
Photo Kent Loeffler, Cornell University
Photo Carrie Harmon, University of Florida
How much data is in the national
repository database?
YEAR
NO. RECORDS
2004
2,637
2005
47,460
2006
57
National Select Agent Exercises
How much data from each region?
(as of December 2005)
REGION
# RECORDS
GPDN
3,777
NCPDN
8,137
NEPDN
18,348
SPDN
13,216
WPDN
6,557
Regional Select Agent Exercises
2
Communications
NPDN First Detector Trainings
Regional First Detector Training
Regional First Detector Educator
Training
NPDN Vision
• Sensitive, High Quality, High
Throughput Diagnostics Distributed
Nation-Wide
• Skilled Nation-wide First Detectors
• Real-Time Assessment of the Health
Status of Our Nation’s Agriculture
• Predictive Capacity for Post-Introduction
Movements
NEPDN State Ag & Market Contacts
Terry Bourgoin Di vision of Pl ant Indus tr y- Mai ne Dept. of Agriculture207-287-3891
John Bowers Mar yl and D ept. of Agricultur e410-841- 5920
Randy Ciurlino Pl ant Indus tries Secti on- D el awar e D ept. of Agriculture302- 739-4811
Berr y Cr utc hfi eld Pl ant Indus tries Di vision- West Virginia D ept. of Agric ultur e304-558- 2212
Tom D ur kis Di visi on of Plant Industr y- N ew H ampshir e Dept. of Agriculture603-271-2561
Glen Freeman Di vision of Pl ant Indus tr y- New J ersey Dept. of Agriculture609-292-5484
Seong H wan Kim Penns yl vani a D ept. of Agriculture717- 772-5221
Dan Lawton Di vi sion of Ag. & R es ourc e Mr kt.- Rhode Island D ept. of Agriculture401- 222-2781
Brad Mitc hell R egulator y Ser vices- Boston, M ass ac hus etts617-626- 1801
Robert M ungari Di visi on of Pl ant Industr y N ew Yor k State Agriculture & Mar kets 518-457-1772 Ti m
Schmalz Ver mont D ept. of Agriculture802-241-3544
Carl Sc hulze, Jr. Di vision of Pl ant Indus tr y609-292- 5441 Kir by StaffordState EntomologistConnectic ut Ag. Experi ment Station203-974- 8485
•
3
Acknowledgements
• Karen Snover-Clift
– Assistant Director NEPDN, Cornell University
4
United States Departme nt of Agriculture
Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice
Eastern Region Report
Eastern Plant Board
Rehoboth Beach, DE
April 4, 2006
Victor Harabin
Regional Director
Areas of Focus
Building Relationships
• Communication
• Setting Direction
•
Joint Regional Goals
• Prepare and Respond to Emergencies
• Improve and Enhance Exclusion Activities in and
around our Ports of Entry
• Discover Exotic Pests as Early as Possible to
Ensure Effective Mitigation
• Enhance Pest Management Activities
• Strengthen PPQ Export Certification Program
• Maximize Effectiveness of PPQ’s Resources
Regional Office Changes
• New Staff
– Carlos Martinez, Assistant Regional Director
– Gary Clement, Assistant Regional Director
– Patrick Gomes
• Citrus Issues
• Fruit Flies
• Sterile Insect Technique
– Leon Bunce
• Forest Pest
• Witch Weed
• Japanese Beetle
New Pests in the Eastern Region
Emergency Programs
• Sirex noctilio
• Asian Longhorned Beetle – Illinois, NY, NJ
• Pink Hibiscus Mealybug
• Emerald Ash Borer – MI, IN, OH
• Plum Pox Virus – Pennsylvania
• Citrus greening
• Scritothrips dorsalis
(Chili thrips)
• Swede midge
• Citrus Canker and Citrus Greening
1
Financial Status – Eastern Region
FY 05
Core EPP
FY 06
3,934,000
SITC Changes
Difference
3,201,000
-733,000
Core Hy drilla **
80,000
399,000
319,000
Citrus Can ker
31,770,00 0
28,619,00 0
-3,151,000
ALB
35,000,00 0
26,000,00 0
-9,000,000
Sudden Oa k Death
200,000
200,000
0
Emerald Ash Borer
10,411,00 0
6,769,000
-3,642,000
AQI Appropriated
4,722,000
5,047,000
325,000
Biocon trol
1,732,000
1,763,000
31,000
Golden Nematode
652,000
660,000
8,000
Gy psy Moth
2,389,000
2,421,000
32,000
Noxious Weeds
838,000
835,000
-3,000
Pest Detections ** *
8,770,000
9,222,000
452,000
Plum Pox Virus
2,222,000
1,875,000
-347,000
SITC Management Team
– Ron Blaskovich/Vionette James
– Carlos Martinez/Derrick McNeal
– Joseph Messineo/Jamie Berlowitz
– Michael Shannon/Paul Hornby
** Note 1: Co ngressio nal earmark for the Lake Gaston, VA/N C
** * Note 2 : Pest Detection includes 250K for Biotech and a increase for CAPS agreement
Vionette James
Jamie Berlowitz
Philip Bailey
Vacant
2
ePermits
eAuthentication
Local
Registration
Authorities
Current Status and Capability
Sam Johnson
Permit Services Unit
Riverdale, MD
http://offic es.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app
eAuthentication
in Delaware
Counties
eAuthentication
LRA in Kent
County
ePermit Deployment Strategy
Recent Accomplishments
• Phased release with each new version to provide
additional functionality
• Oct. 2005: Internal Pilot Deployment of Release 2
• April 3, 2006: Public Release of Version 2.1
• Dec. 2005: Completed User Acceptance Testing
• Summer 2006: Expect Release of Version 3
– 526 Plant Pests/Noxious Weed Permits
– 526 Plant Pests/Noxious Weed Permits
• Jan. 2006: Completed User Acceptance Testing
–
–
–
–
585 Timber/Timber Products Permits
587 Plant/Plant Products Permits
588 ‘Departmental’ Permits
621 Protected Plant Permits
• Jan. 2006: Completed Security Certification and
Accreditation
1
Current Status:
526 Plant Pests/Noxious Weeds Permits
Application for 526
Permit
• Approximately 500 applications have been entered
into the system by Permit Services Staff
• Approximately 60 have been issued
Regulated Article
Category Look-up
Table
Article Lookup
Table
Intended Use
Origination State
2
Destination
View
Application
Tracking Sheet
Work Flow
New Permit Format
New Permit Format
3
Current Functional Limitations:
525 Plant Pests/Noxious Weed Permits
• State review process done outside the system
– Fax and email
• Containment inspection process done outside the system
– email
• Applicant review process done outside the system
Barcode Tracking of
Imported Plant Pests and Pathogens
This P ackage Contains
L IVING
IV I NG PL ANT P
PEST
ES T S OR P
PATHO
ATHO GE
GENS
NS
This Package Cont ains
LI V ING P L AN T PE S TS OR PAT HOG ENS
DO NOT OP EN EX CE PT IN THE PRES ENCE OF AN APHIS
DO NOT OPE N EXCEP T I N THE P RE SE NCE OF AN AP HI S
I NS PE CTOR OR DES IGNAT ED REPRES ENTATIVE OF US DA.
INSP ECTOR OR DESI GNATE D RE PRESE NT ATI VE OF USDA.
DELIVER TO
DELIVER TO
U.S. DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ANIMAL
ANI
M AL AND PL
P L ANT HEALT
HE ALT H INSPECT
I NS PE CT ION SERVICE
S E RVI CE
PL
P L ANT PRO TECT
TE CT ION AND QUAR AN TINE
TI NE
ANIM AL AND P LANT HE AL TH INS P E CTI ON SE RV I CE
P LANT P ROT E CTI ON AND Q UARANT INE
Pla nt Ge rmp lasm I ns pe ctio n St at io n
Build ing 5 80 , BARC -Ea st
Be ltsv ille, MD 2 07 05
– Fax
Sh p
i ment 5 /8
• Final permit issued outside the system
P P Q FORM 5 99 (A P R 2004)
PE RM IT NO.
P PQ F ORM 599 (A PR 20 04)
E
PERMI T NO.
Exp ri es 3/2 9/06
P26 -0 55 -0 22 0
– Conventional mail
Open Discussion
4
Africanized Honey Bees
Origin
Out of East Africa
Swarming into wild in Brazil
Native (Masai) harvest of rustic colony
In tree – nightime w/ smoke & fire
Unknown artist’s
Scary vision of AfHB
Beekeeper contem plating AHB swarm capture
Do we need to be concerned!
Changing American Beekeepers
& Beekeeping
Dewey M. Caron
Beekeeper inspection of AHB colony in Panama
Note: us ing jumbo smoker
Africanized bee spread in Americas
following introduction into Brazil (1957)
Isolated introductions X by truck/rail/beekeeper - eliminated
X
X X
X
X 2005
X Maine blueberry pollination
sampling shows increase of AHB
What is an Africanized Bee (AHB)?
A Killer Bee?
A m edia term
A Honey Bee Population?
Numerous importations
X OK X X AR
X AL into Eastern ports - eliminated
X LA X
YES with s ome distinctiveness
2005 Fl considered colonized
Pacific coast
of Peru/Ecuador
due to beekeeper
colony movement
AHB prefer smaller nest cavities
& build exposed nests more often
Workers ‘running’ off comb
AHB’s differ in some ways – swarm a lot, are frequently defensive
run on combs, rear workers in19 days, queens in 15 ½ days, are
slightly smaller bodied, early risers and not great dancers, - slight
variations in biology familiar in European (temperate) bees (EHB).
The Africanized bee is a Pollinator
papaya
The AHB is a better honey producer in
tropical climates (compared to EHB)
Tropical Honey Production
Melon pollination in
Costa Rica
Higher elevation (less tropical)
conditions in Bolivia
But it is a more difficult bee to manage
in planned pollination due to higher
swarming /absconding/defensiveness
1
Honey is a valuable medicine
in developing world
-- more than just food
The AHB is NOT a hybrid!
It is essentially pure African… but not easy
to ID in early stages of colonization
Honey for sale
In a Guatamalan
Market
Note: you buy bottle
or piece of comb
In wax paper
Shown is Tom Rinderer, USDA making morphometric measures of wings –
mt DNA is a more reliable (but costly) method to distinguish AHB or EHB
So … What has changed w/ AHB’s?
AHB’s?
Challenges w/ AHB
It can be unpredictable!
Pre AHB... Gentle EHB
It can sting a lot –
humans & animals have died
Exploding from colony as it is opened
Post AHB....
Need to be prepared for stings
Challenges w/ AHB
Need new locations
Challenges w/ AHB
Need to modify management
They raise lots
of brood – store
less honey
Need to plan for defensiveness
Must now isolate or conceal colonies w/ vegetative corral
and move them away from people & animals
They run off combs
when inspected
+ Keeping them home – must control
swarming & absconding
2
The major challenge
raising manageable stock
Queen finding &
rearing is very
difficult with AHB
So where has it colonized in US?
Where AHB colonize:
Not possible
to keep AHB &
EHB in same
apiary
XXX
(AHB not competitive)
Source: ars.usda.gov/AHBmap
Not here ....YET!!!
What needs to be done?
Inform beekeepers
Establish press relations (it will “hit” the press)
Revise bee laws
Keep on
beekeeping
It is a tropical/sub-tropical bee, not a temperate bee…
But it adapts to store more honey, cluster under colder temperatures & be less
defensive in more temperature (higher-elevation) locations in the Americas
So in summary....
beekeepers are part of “solution” – not part of “problem”
It is an excellent tropical/semitropical/semi-tropical bee
WHERE there is NO alternative!
Pre-AHB apiary
AHB Honey Bee population has changed
the face of American beekeeping but less so
In temperate/higher elevation climatic conditions
Where they have colonized they are superior competitors –
you can’t successfully keep European bees side-by-side
3
BUT...In South American highlands
AHB is more manageable
AND they are now a ready
resource for rural campesinos
A trapped
AHB swarm or
Abscond –
can be
transferred
to a hive
They CAN adapt to severe winters...but do better in the south!
USDA photo
So.... Will where will they be a
factor in US Beekeeping???
Primarily they are a
TROPICAL/SEMI-TROPICAL
ADAPTED BEE
So the answer is....
YET
Questions
4
APHIS Regulatory Changes
The Future of
Biotechnology Regulation
Anticipating New Technologies
CBI Sharing Rule
Allows APHIS to share CBI with States
Revision of APHIS biotech regulations
Overhaul of regulation of GEOs
T. Clint Nesbitt
Regulatory Analyst
Future technologies?
Revision of Regulations
CBI Sharing Rule
Currently, APHIS shares permit applications and
notifications with state regulatory officials
Cannot legally disclose information claimed as CBI by
the applicant
States have varying laws that protect CBI from
disclosure
Proposal: Change regulations to allow CBI to be
sent to certain state and tribal officials
States would sign an MOU agreeing not to disclose
CBI, either inadvertently or via request under state’s
public records law
Considering other options for ‘sunshine law’ states
1. Scope of Regulations
Current
Proposed
Possible
Impacts
“Plant Pests”
APHIS regulates a
GEO if there is
reason to believe it
could be a plant
pest
“Noxious Weeds”
Expand to add
organisms that
could pose a
noxious weed risk
Improved safety
Risk assessment has clearer
scientific
grounding
January 2004: APHIS announced intentions to
revise biotech regulations (7 CFR 340)
Preparing an environmental impact statement
(EIS) to consider impacts of changes
Nine areas of proposed changes
Plant pest: Any living stage of any of the following that
can directly of indirectly injure, cause damage to, or
cause disease in any plant or plant product:
a protozoan,
a nonhuman animal,
a parasitic plant,
a bacterium,
a fungus,
a virus or viroid,
an infectious agent or other pathogen,
any article similar to or allied with any of the articles
specified in the preceding subparagraphs.
1
2. Tiered Permitting System
Current
Noxious weed: Any plant or plant product that can
directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops
(including nursery stock or plant products), livestock,
poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation,
navigation, the natural resources of the United States,
the public health, or the environment.
3. “Conditional” Deregulation
Current
Deregulation
allows unconfined
release
Proposed
Allow unconfined
release under
some continuing
conditions
Possible
Impacts
Increased safety
Additional
opportunity for
data collection
Increased
regulatory burden
5. “Non-living” plant material
Current
Proposed
Possible
Impacts
Improved safety
APHIS only
Regulated non Some increase
regulates living
viable materials
transgenic material when risk warrants in regulatory
burden
Proposed
Possible
Impacts
Two-tiered system Multi-tiered system APHIS oversight
is proportional to
of field testing
based on risk
risk
(notification and
permits)
4. Research Exemptions
Current
Allow transgenic
Arabidopsis to be
moved interstate
without a permit
Proposed
Add other wellstudied, low-risk
transgenic plants
to the list
Possible
Impacts
Fosters research
without increasing
environmental risk
Reduces the
number of permits
6. Imported Commodities
Current
APHIS reviews
safety and issues
opinion letter if
item need not be
regulated
Proposed
Expedited risk
analysis which
incorporates
appropriate
reviews conducted
in country of origin
Possible
Impacts
More efficient
use of resources
without
compromising
safety
2
7. Shipping Containers
Current
Prescriptive
container
requirements;
issue variances
when appropriate
Proposed
Performancebased standards
Possible
Impacts
Retains APHIS
oversight
Creates
flexibility for
applicants
Field tests are
allowed, but crops
are never granted
non-regulated
status
Proposed
Current
No allowance for
regulated articles
in commerce
Proposed
Possible
Impacts
Reduces
Low levels of
emphasis on rare,
specific genes
would not trigger a random events
Focuses analysis
regulatory
on actual risk
response
Future technologies?
9. “Pharma” crops
Current
8. Adventitious Presence
Possible
Impacts
Long-term contract No compromise
in safety
with applicant
Clearer method
Comprehensive
for “commercializinitial review of
ation” under permit
permit and SOPs
Subsequent
review of changes
Developing new regulations for transgenic
animals
Other technologies???
General Strategy:
Cast a wide net
Incorporate efficient mechanisms for removing
low-risk applications from oversight
Services
Ensuring Safety Through
Effective Regulation
Please visit the program’s website at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs
3
Biotechnology Update
Eastern Plant Board
April 4, 2006
USDA-APHIS-BRS/NPB
• State Agency Collaboration
– Pilot Notification Inspection Program
Ken Rauscher
NPB Biotechnology Committee
Larry Bezark, California
Carol Okada, Hawaii
Robert Boesch, Hawaii
Aurelio Posadas, California
Mike Brown, Missouri
Robin Pruisner, Iowa
Bill Dickerson, N. Carolina
Mitch Yergert, Colorado
Richard Gaskella, Florida
Ken Rauscher, Michigan, Chair
Faith Kuehn, Delaware
States Survey
• National Plant Board Survey
– state input on biotechnology issues
– identify the needs and concerns of state
regulatory officials
– 43 States Responded
– Cooperative Agreement
Cooperative Agreement
• BRS/NPB: September 2005
– States desire to work more closely with BRS
– BRS provided overview of regulatory process
– NPB to develop survey to gather state
perspectives
BRS Survey Report
• 17 Recommendations
• 3 Overarching Issues
– Communication
– Identification of Roles & Responsibilities
– Training
1
Development of Action Items
NPB/BRS: Action Items-Work Teams
• Action Item 1: Develop Cooperative Agreements
• Met January 27, 2006
• Identified Action Items
– Developed work teams
–
–
–
–
–
–
Availability of State and federal resources, including staff
Access to CBI
Identify liability limits
Routine training of staff
responding to press inquiries
Flexibility to address the wide variety of State needs
• Team Leader: Judy Garrison
– BRS M embers: Sybil Wellstood, M ichael Wach
– NPB Members: Bob Boesch, M ike Brown
• Final June 1
• Action Item 2: User Friendly Contact List (Directory) for
use by Customers/Stakeholders
• Action Item 3: Develop a Two-Tiered Training Course for
BRS Regulatory Process
– BRS draft initial product (directory or flowchart) to describe
appropriate BRS contacts by area of expertise/interest. BRS
emergency numbers and other important APHIS contacts should
be included
• Team Leader: Sarah Lively, BRS
– NPB Member: Robin Pruisner
– BRS 101: Basic Info
– BRS 201: In-depth Training
• Team Leaders: John Cordts, BRS
– BRS M embers: Tom Sim, Emily Pullins, Dave Foley, Rebecca
Stankiewicz Gabel
– NPB Members: Ken Rauscher, Robin Pruisner, Larry Bezark
• Final March 1
• Action Item 4: Identify and Prioritize Key Electronic Data
Management Issues and Begin to Implement Necessary
Steps to Improve Them
• Action Item 5: Conduct Preliminary Assessment of States’
Abilities to Protect CBI data
– Form a Data M anagement Working Group
– Establish a list of priority issues around electronic data needs
– Develop operational plans for the highest priority issues
– NPB will conduct a preliminary assessment (via a poll) of states
and tribes
• Team Leader: Ken Rauscher, NPB
– BRS M ember: Craig Roseland
• Team Leader: Steve Bennett, BRS
– NPB Members: Mitch Yergert, Faith Kuehn
2
• Action Item 6: Identify and Prioritize Key Educational
Materials that BRS and others can develop around Regulating
GMOs
– Establish a workgroup
– Identify key educational material
– Develop new outreach material
• Team Leader: John Turner, BRS
– BRS M embers: Abbey Shafer, Rebecca Stankiewicz Gabel, Sara Lively
– NPB Members: Richard Gaskalla, Aurelio Posadas, Carol Holko
Outcomes
• Ongoing NPB/BRS collaboration
• Information sharing at national and regional
meetings
• Improved system of information flow,
permit review and biotechnology
monitoring
3
Introduction
Whither Plant Biotech?
Plant Biotechnology: Advances in Food,
Energy and Health
z Early Glimpses of Pre-crop Pipeline
z Regulatory Implications
z
Eastern Plant Board
81st Annual Meeting
Barry Marrs
Athena Biotechnologies, Inc.
Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology
1
3/15/2007
Agenda
2
3/15/2007
Overview
Global Population 10 Billion by 2030
z ‘Business As Usual’ Will Result in a
Hungrier, Sicker, More Polluted Planet
z Regulated Plant Biotechnology Can Help
z
Improving Crop Production
z (Enhanced Nutritional Content)
z (Production of Pharmaceuticals)
z Production of Energy Crops
z
Politics
Culture
Religion
Energy
Crops
Science
Health
Environment
Economy
3
3/15/2007
Improving Crop Production
z
4
3/15/2007
Targeted Growth, Inc.
Familiar strategies continue to be refined
– Pest resistance
– Herbicide tolerance
z
Newer areas making progress
– Yield increases
– Stress resistance
A gene that works to significantly enhance yield in canola…
Has been moved to soybeans…
5
3/15/2007
6
3/15/2007
1
Targeted Growth, Inc.
Production of Energy Crops
z
Field trials of beans are set for this year in Canada…
z
Cellulosic Waste Biomass
Preferable to Seed Crops for CO2 Balance
– US Department of Energy life-cycle analysis
states that ethanol from cellulose reduces
greenhouse gases by 90% compared to
gasoline
z
And cereal crops are under development…
The gene in question is cell cycle regulating
transcription factor.
7
3/15/2007
Opens New Opportunities for Biotech
Current processes for ethanol from waste
cellulosics involves fermentation of sugars
at conventional temperatures, requiring
cooling, followed by heating to distill off
product.
z Energy could be saved by performing all
processes at higher temps, including
conversion of cellulose to sugars
z
Athena Biotechnologies, Inc. is seeking a
partner to create a transgenic cellulosic
crop plant that would contain a
hyperthermal cellulase
z The hyperthermal cellulase would be
essentially inactive at all growth
temperatures, but waste would convert to
sugar at high fermentation temps
z
8
3/15/2007
9
3/15/2007
10
3/15/2007
Summary
It has been ten years since the first large
scale production using Crop
Biotechnology
z Inherent safety plus regulatory practices
have resulted in no adverse health or
environmental impacts
z We have only seen the very beginning of
what is possible
z
11
3/15/2007
2
81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard
Transgenic Insects:
Programs, Technology,
Benefits and Risks
The Problems:
David A. O’Brochta, Ph.D.
University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute
Center for Biosystems Research
College Park, Maryland, USA
Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms
Resear ch
Example:
Public Health - Re-emergence of malaria
>1 million deaths
300 million acute cases
40% world at risk
90% south of Sahara
Pre-Harvest Loss
2.
Post-Harvest Loss
3.
Public Health
Resear ch
The Problems:
1.
Applications of Transgenic Insect
Technology:
1. Beneficial insect improvement
2. Population suppression/eradication
Insecticide Resistant Mosquitoes Drug Resistant Parasites
Retards economic growth1.3% annually
Short term benefits of malaria control:
$3 billion - $12 billion per year.
Resear ch
3. Pest status modification
4. Gene finding and analysis
Resear ch
Technology:
Beneficial insect improvement:
Technology:
Population suppression/eradication:
1.
Insecticide resistance
1.
Sterile Insect Technique (SIT)
2.
Disease resistance
2.
Genetic Load Control
1
Deleterious genes
1
Conditional lethals
Resear ch
Resear ch
1
Technology:
Pest status modification:
1.
Technology:
Vectoral Capacity Control
e.g. Spread transgenes
through natural
populations that prevent
pathogen/parasite
transmission.
1.
Molecular Biology
2.
Biology
analog =
Resear ch
Resear ch
Technology:
Technology:
Biology
Molecular Biology
Gene vectors from Transposable Elements
Resear ch
Technology:
Resear ch
X
<1% - >50%
Technology:
Examples
Examples
Culex quinquifasciatus - mosquito
Ceratitis capitata - Mediterranean Fruit Fly
Resear ch
Resear ch
2
Technology:
Technology:
Examples
Aedes aegypti - Yellow fever mosquito
History of Insect Transformation
1960’s
1970’s
1980’s
NO SYSTEM
1990’s
NO SYSTEM
Today
DROSOPHILA SYSTEM
NEW INSECT SYSTEMS
7 INSECT GENE VECTOR SYSTEMS
Resear ch
Resear ch
Technology:
Benefits
State of the Art - 2006
Beetles
Flies
Drosophila melanogaster
Drosophila sp.
Ceratitis capitata
Bactrocera dorsalis
Anastrepha suspensa
Aedes aegypti
Culex quinquifasciatus
Anopheles gambiae
Anopheles stephensi
Anopheles albimanus
Stomoxys calcitrans
Musca domestica
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tribolium casteneum
Moths/Butterflies
Bombyx mori
Plectinophora gossypiella
Bicyclus anynana
Non-chemical
Specific
Sustainable
Low densities
Limited alternatives
Hymenoptera
Athalia rosae
Resear ch
Resear ch
Hazards
Some Notable Features
Insects
1. Pest status enhancement.
2. Transfer to nontargets
3. Change in host range
4. Change in ecological range and habitat
5. Change in life history of host
6. Invasion of new habitats
7. Change in parasite biology
8. Change in vectoral capacity
9. Change in life history of parasite
Resear ch
1.
TE vectors
2.
TE horizontal transfer
Applications
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Release sterile insects
Release fertile/fit
Un-managed systems
Spread desired
Transgene instability desired
Resear ch
3
History of Field Trials
Needs/Issues
1993
Predacious Mite.
Beneficial Improvement
Small plot.
2001
2005
Dr. M. Hoy, U. Florida
Pink Bollworm.
SIT, Outdoor Cage, APHIS
Pink Bollworm.
Env. Asses., field release,
sterile trangenic insects
Resear ch
1.
Oversight Authority -e.g. mosquitoes
2.
Review/Assessment Process - e.g. APHIS
3.
Support for Risk Analysis - USDA, NIH
Resear ch
4
P. Ramorum Survey
‘The Facts’
Phytophthora ramorum Survey
An Inspector’s Point of View
P. ramorum national survey
– Fourth year
– New National survey manual
– New Retail Nursery Survey Protocol
This is the 6th protocol for P. ramorum survey
Horticultural Inspection
Society – Eastern Chapter
P. Ramorum Survey
Survey manual/protocols
– Retail nursery protocol
Definitions include plant material and facilities not
regulated by many Eastern region states (cut
Christmas tree lots etc…)
Outlines strict measures which significantly impact
retail stores (close off sections of retail area)
Sanitation measures lack field practicality
– Treatments for concrete, nonnon-porous surfaces
More restrictive than CNP?
P. Ramorum – diagnostic tools
Diagnostic tools
– Standardization amongst the region?
– Poorly depicted symptoms
– Does not aid in the elimination of plant
material
- Need a good field guide for symptoms
Host list expanded to 60+ plants
– Some Koch’s postulates have yet to be completed
No good field diagnostic tools
6 high risk HAPs
HAPs,, but still ‘look at everything’
P.Ramorum – Host list
Host list continues to expand based on
contained greenhouse studies
Host list includes plants where Koch’s postulates
are yet to be completed
Host list centers on west coast plant species
Is the host list manageable?
Research focus on number of possible hosts
Can research efforts be refined on the plants
currently on the list and broken down into
Eastern/Western regions
P. Ramorum Survey – What plants
are we focusing on?
60+ HAPs
6 high risk
Still looking at multiple plants, multiple
symptoms
manageable number?
1
P. Ramorum – “West coast flavor”
P. Ramorum Survey
How about working on Eastern Region
oriented protocol?
West coast plants, lacking same plants in
the East.
Standardized protocol based on East
coast plants and nursery/retail facilites
Form useful in the field guides for P.
ramorum diagnostic guide
Look at review by field inspector
leadership / front line personnel review
period
Reduce host lists to based on priority
P. Ramorum An Inspector’s Point
of View -
of View -
The concern expressed here can relate to
many plant pests
Ask EPB look at the protocol writing
process and make sure a field inspector
reviews and is allowed to comment
Request to ‘tailor’ protocols to East region
concerns and situations
The Federal Order expires in 2007
Will our inspections aid in mitigating the
risk of possible introduction without the
Federal Order?
What have we learned from 33-4 years of
inspecting plant material?
2
General Information
2006 HIS Report to EPB

32nd annual meeting of the Eastern Chapter

13 participants representing 8 states

April 6, 2006

Accomplishments in 2005

Website

Newsletter
Constitution changes
Presentations

Functional
EPB and CAPS near 100% attendance

Update on Sirex noctilio
Computer generated inspection reports
Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance and Tracking
Pinewood Nematode
Hot Zone Trapping Program
Joint sessions with EPB and CAPS
HIS P. ramorum national survey concerns
Resolution #1
Whereas the Eastern Chapter of the Horticultural Inspection Society
Society
(HIS) was established to promote education, cooperation and
interaction among state horticultural inspection personnel,
Resolutions
Whereas participation of the inspectors from all member states is
is
vital in order to achieve the goals of the Society, and as the HIS
HIS is
actively engaged in an effort to increase participation, attendance
attendance at
the annual meeting is contingent on support of State Administrative
Administrative
personnel,
We resolve that:
The Eastern Plant Board (EPB) in cooperation with the HIS
proactively support membership and encourage increased
participation of horticultural inspection personnel from all 12 member
states at the Eastern Chapter meetings of the HIS.
1
Resolution #2
Whereas members of the Eastern Chapter of the Horticultural Inspection
Inspection
Society (HIS) are responsible for conducting much of the field work
work that has
been mandated by survey protocols, and
Whereas participation of the inspectors in these surveys is often
often a
requirement and primary means for successful completion of the surveys,
surveys,
It has become apparent during the process of following survey protocols,
protocols,
that said protocols are often in need of adjustment to maximize efficacy and
to meet actual field conditions encountered by the inspector,
We resolve that:
Award Nomination
Carl Carlson Award: Walt Blosser
The Eastern Chapter of the Horticultural Inspection Society (HIS)
(HIS) receive
the protocols in a timely manner and be given the opportunity to comment
on, and suggest changes to said protocols prior to their implementation.
impleme ntation.
Officers for 2007 Meeting

President:
President: Eric Ewing, WV
Vice President:
President: Michael Arnold, WV
Secretary:
Secretary: Mark Taylor, MD
Treasurer:
Treasurer: Sarah Scally,
Scally, ME
Newsletter Editor:
Editor: Peter Trenchard, CT
Thanks Delaware!
Questions?
2
P. Ramorum Survey
‘The Facts’
Phytophthora ramorum Survey
P. ramorum national survey
– Fourth year
– New National survey manual
– New Retail Nursery Survey Protocol
This is the 6th protocol for P. ramorum survey
Horticultural Inspection
Society – Eastern Chapter
P. Ramorum Survey
Survey manual/protocols
– Retail nursery protocol
Definitions include plant material and facilities not
regulated by many Eastern region states (cut
Christmas tree lots etc…)
Outlines strict measures which significantly impact
retail stores (close off sections of retail area)
Sanitation measures lack field practicality
– Treatments for concrete, nonnon-porous surfaces
More restrictive than CNP?
P. Ramorum – diagnostic tools
Diagnostic tools
– Standardization amongst the region?
– Poorly depicted symptoms
– Does not aid in the elimination of plant
material
- Need a good field guide for symptoms
Host list expanded to 60+ plants
– Some Koch’s postulates have yet to be completed
No good field diagnostic tools
6 high risk HAPs
HAPs,, but still ‘look at everything’
P.Ramorum – Host list
Host list continues to expand based on
contained greenhouse studies
Host list includes plants where Koch’s postulates
are yet to be completed
Host list centers on west coast plant species
Is the host list manageable?
Research focus on number of possible hosts
Can research efforts be refined on the plants
currently on the list and broken down into
Eastern/Western regions
P. Ramorum Survey – What plants
are we focusing on?
60+ HAPs
6 high risk
Still looking at multiple plants, multiple
symptoms
manageable number?
1
P. Ramorum – “West coast flavor”
P. Ramorum Survey
How about working on Eastern Region
oriented protocol?
West coast plants, lacking same plants in
the East.
Standardized protocol based on East
coast plants and nursery/retail facilites
Form useful in the field guides for P.
ramorum diagnostic guide
Look at review by field inspector
leadership / front line personnel review
period
Reduce host lists to based on priority
of View -
of View -
The concern expressed here can relate to
many plant pests
Ask EPB look at the protocol writing
process and make sure a field inspector
reviews and is allowed to comment
Request to ‘tailor’ protocols to East region
concerns and situations
The Federal Order expires in 2007
Will our inspections aid in mitigating the
risk of possible introduction without the
Federal Order?
What have we learned from 33-4 years of
inspecting plant material?
2
Two Examples of Electronic Survey
Electronic Survey Tools
• Sudden Oak Death Survey Tool
Jim Kroon
DE Dept of Agriculture
Dover, DE
• Red Imported Fire Ant Survey using
ArcPAD
• Recommendations
Sudden Oak Death Survey Tool
• A DE Dept of Ag Special
• Written in Excel using Visual Basic for
Applications
• Allows inspectors to record SOD survey
data on a PDA
• Born out of a desire to not fill out PPQ-391
Specimen Identification forms by hand
1
• Survey data is used to fill out PPQ-391
forms and create NAPIS data
• Not GPS-enabled
• NAPIS data was automatically created
once testing results were received from
the diagnostic lab
• Once DDA received results, those results
could be uploaded to NAPIS within
minutes
– However, the ability to fill out PPQ-391 forms
saves much more time than a GPS
connection would
• PPQ-391 forms saved electronically as a
Word Document
2
2004 SOD Survey Team
• 4 Member Team
What is the Benefit?
– Sample picker
– Sample bagger/organizer
– Sample photographer
– PPQ-391 data entry
Slowest Job
• 1 Nursery – 45 samples per day
2005 SOD Survey Team
• 2 Member Team
– Sample picker
– Data Entry/Sample bagger
– Sample photographer
Red Imported Fire Ant
Fastest Job
Data Collection using ArcPAD Software
• 2 Nurseries – 90 samples per day
ArcGIS
• Three License levels
– ArcView
– ArcEditor
– ArcInfo
• ArcPAD
– Mobile GIS program for data collection with
laptops and PDA
– Integrated GPS support
Red Imported Fire Ant Survey
• 2005
– Discovered RIFA at a
park in Rehoboth Beach
– Surveyed within ¼ mile
using numbered glass
vials with ant bait
– ArcPAD was used to
record trap locations
3
ArcPAD Advantages
• Works seamlessly with an attached GPS
receiver
• Stores data as a shapefile, so survey data
can be transferred directly between a
desktop computer running ArcView and
the PDA
• Customizable using ArcPAD Application
Builder
Recommendations
• Customized programs
– Efficient Use of Screen Space
– Features Customized for Specific Pests
– Good Example
• USDA Soybean Rust Scouter Program
4
Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture
Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice
PPQ's Preparedness and Responses
to New Pest Threats
USDA History with Foreign Plant Pests
Joel Floyd
Eastern Plant Board Meeting
April 5, 2006
Planning and Preparedness
Pest Detection and Management Programs
USDA, APHIS, PPQ
Current Factors Influencing Change in PPQ
1999- Safeguarding Review
Safeguarding Continuum
• Offshore risk management
• Port of entry measures
2002- Presidential Homeland Security
Directives
• Quarantine
• Pest Detection
• Emergency response
Homeland Security Presidential Directives
HSPD-5: Management of Domestic Incidents (NIMS/ICS)
HSPDHSPD--7: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritiz ation, and Protection
HSPD
HSPD 8: National Pre pare dness
HSPD-- 9: Comprehensive Policy to De fend Agriculture Against Te rrorism
HSPD
“ APHIS is an emergency response agency”
• Crop Biosecurity
Prevention
• Pre-clearance Programs
• Risk Analysis/Mitigations
• Quarantines
– Prevention
• Permits
– Preparedness
• Port of Entry
Inspections
– Response
– Recovery
Source: E. LaGasa, WA Dept Agriculture 2000
1
Prevention
Preparedness Off-shore Pest Information System
Preparedness
Response
Recovery
• Off-shore Pest Information
(OPIS)
• Pest Detection Initiatives
• New Pest Response
Guidelines
• Emergency Management
• International surveillance of plant pests and animal disease outbreaks
• Information collection, analysis, and distribution to appropriate entities
• OPIS database with the Global Pest and Disease Database (GPDD)
• Safeguarding specialists Dominican Republic, Brazil, and South Africa
Preparedness New Pest Response Guidelines
Preparedness Pest Detection
•
Also known as “Action Plans”
•
Developed for pests of greatest threat
•
Contents include:
– Pest Information
– Surve y
– Identification/diagnostics
– Regulatory
•
•
– Control
Cooperative Programs w ith States
Early Detection is the Key
• Shorter programs
• Less expensive
• More control strategies available
• Greater possibility of success
– Pathway information
•
Priorities:
– Select Agents
– Imminent Threats
– CAPS list
Preparedness: Emergency Management
Preparedness Emergency Management
• National Incident Management System (NIMS)
• National Response Plan
• ESF-11 (Emergency Support Function-Agriculture)
• Resource Tracking
• Skills Inventory
UnifiedCommand
Command
Unified
Incident
Command
System
(ICS)
Science Adv isor y
Panel
• Training
Public I nformatio n
Officer
Liaiso n Offi cer
– Table-top exercises
– Full-scale exercises
Intelli gence Officer
IES
Planni ng C hief
– ICS courses
Safety Officer
Opera tio ns
Chief
Lo gistics
Chief
• Communication/Notification
Protocols
Admi n/ F ina nce C hief
2
Response
Prevention
Preparedness
Detection
Response
Clinic/State Dept
Agric./NPDN
Ext. Age nt
Recovery
After Detection :
• Diagnosis/Identification
• Assessment/Consultation/Communication
Diagnosis/Identification
Presumptive ID
State or
Federal Pla nt
Inspec tor
State Plant Health
Director
Gro wer
Crop C on sul tan t
Private Laboratory
Confirmatory ID
PPQ- NIS/CPHST
NPAG
• Decision
Deployment
• Deployment
Assessment/
Consultation/
Comm unication
Em ergency
Program
Management
Program
Decision
ICS
Regula tor y
Actio ns
No Program
Response
Eradication
Containment
IPM
Response
Assessment/Consultation/
Communication
Diagnostics/Identification
• Suspect Samples/ Presumptive Positives
•
– State Departments of Agriculture
– Cooperating Land Grant Universities
New Pest Advisor y Group ( NPAG)
Administered out of CPHST, Raleigh, NC
•
– National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN)
– Private Laboratories
• Confirmatory Identification
– PPQ National Identification Service (NIS)
• National Specialists
• ARS Systematic Entomology Laboratory (SEL)
Mission: To assess new and imminent
plant pest introductions to determine
the recommended course of action.
– Evaluate new pest finds or threats
– Solicit expertise and consult
– Make recommendations
– PPQ Center for Plant Health Science and Technology
(CPHST)
( NPAG does not make policy).
Response
Response
Communication
Communication
The New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG)
80
73
Opened Cases
70
58
60
64
118 Pest Cases Considered
50
19
35
40
46
24
30
20
Pre-Assessed,
dropped from fu rther
consideration
13
14
10
Reviewed by ET
Closed
26
27
Pending
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conference Calls with States (National Plant Board)
SPRO Letter, Federal Orders
Trading partners notification
Collaborate/consult with other Federal agencies (FS, CSREES)
Consult with tribal goverments
Consult with industry
Press releases, factsheets (APHIS Legislative and Public Affairs)
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
3
Communication
Deployment
Assessment Teams
Response
Response
ICS
•
•
Command Post/ Unified
Command
•
Delim iting Sur vey
•
Traceback/Traceforward
Investigations
•
Emergenc y Action
Notification Issuances
•
Science Panel Formation
Deployment
Delimiting Survey
•Important to determine the
Scope of Program
•Performed Before a Program
Goal and Strategy is Decided
•“Tip of the Iceberg” Syndrome
15 mi
Infected
Ar ea
Area
10
1
0 mi
5 mi
K
K nown
nown
Focus
Focus
Traceback / traceforward
investigations - IES and SITC
Response
Detection
Response
Diagnosis/Identification
•
Clinic/State Dept
Agric./NPDN
Ext. Age nt
State or
Federal Pla nt
Inspec tor
State Plant Health
Director
Gro wer
Crop C on sul tan t
Private Laboratory
Confirmatory ID
PPQ- NIS/CPHST
Deployment
Em ergency
Program
•
Management
Program
Decision
No Program
ICS
Regula tor y
Actio ns
Declaration of Emergenc y vs.
Declaration of Extraordinary
Emergenc y
– Release of emergency funds,
– quarantine state, compensation
Regulator y Actions
– Emergency Action Notifications (EAN’s)
• Authority: Plant Protection Act of 2000
• With State “Stop Sale Orders”
– Set up quarantine boundaries
• Write “Interim Rule” for Federal Register
– effective upon publication
– Parallel with State quarantine
– Issuance of Compliance Agreements and
Limited Permits
NPAG
Assessment/
Consultation/
Comm unication
Deployment
Presumptive ID
Eradication
Containment
IPM
Response
Response
Deployment
Determining Action
•
Review guidelines or de velop new ones
•
Convene science panels - CPHST
•
Determine goal and de velop strategy
•
Ga in stakeholder cooperation
•
Consider options
– Eradication
– Suppression
– Containment
– Regulation without c ontrol program
– Best management practices
4
Response
Response
Show Me The Money
Elements of All Pest Programs
•
•
•
Science-based
Data management
GPS/GIS
Survey
•
•
Identification/Diagnostics
Regulatory
•
– Annual Regional Allocations
– APHIS Contingency Funds
– USDA Transfer of Funds
– Delimiting
– Monitoring
•
•
Monetary Instruments
– Cooperative Agreements
– Detailed Financial Work Plans
Control
–
–
–
–
–
Type of Funding
– Emergency (CCC) –Cost Share
– Appropriated from Congress
– Establish a Quarantine
– Regulate the movement of articles
through permits
•
Primary Sources
Host removal
Pesticides
Cultural
Sterile Insect Technique
Biological Control
Response
Develop a Strategic Plan
ASIAN
LONGHORNED
BEETLE
New Jersey
Performance
Measures
Size
of
area
Length of
Program
Program
Cost
4 miles 2
5 years
$6 million
29
miles 2
10 years
$90
million
Organized Chaos
•
Define Roles a nd Respons ibilities
•
Legal Authorities
– Federal and State
– Plant Protection Act and State Laws
– General MOU’s with State on Cooperation
Budget Projections
Cost/Benefit
Response
Illinois
New York
132
miles 2
16 years
•
Personnel a nd Res ources
•
Incide nt Command System
– State, Federal, Other assistance
$250
million
Prevention
Preparedness
Response
Thanks to everyone I borrowed slides, pictures, or ideas from.
Questions ?
Recovery
Education/outreach
Research
Integrated Pest Management
Or Best Management Practices
Coordination of Activities
5
Background
•
•
Special Needs Request Docket
•
•
April 4, 2006: published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register to establish criteria for special needs requests.
Requests are authorized by the Plant Pro tection Act
when special circumstances exist in a State or political
subdivisions of States that are not fully addressed by a
federal action.
The proposed rule would amend our domestic
quarantine regulations to establish a process for
requesting approval to impose prohibitions or
restrictions on the movement in interstate commerce of
specific articles that are in addition to those imposed
APH IS.
Four specific criteria are defined.
Comments
PPQ Point of Contact
•
This is a proposed rule and does not become regulation
until we have solicited and considered comments.
• Point of Contact:
•
We encourage comments and will consider all
comments that we receive on or before June 5, 2006.
Jim Writer
james.v.w [email protected]
301-734-7121
•
You may submit comments by either of the following
methods:
• For general information, only.
– Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Go to http://www.regulations.gov
– Postal mail
• Four copies of comments to APHIS Regulatory Analysis and
Development
– Complete details are in preamble to rule.
6
• Overall Program Objectives:
Vermont Emerald Ash Borer Survey
Pilot Program,
Summer 2005
Timothy Schmalz
Bonnie MacCulloch
Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets
Cooperative Agric ultural Pest Survey Program
– Determine presence/absence of emerald ash
borer (EAB) in Vermont
– Identify high risk pathways for EAB introduction
– Develop spatial database of high-risk sites and
their proximity to sensitive receptors
– Develop action plan cooperatively between VT
AAFM, APHIS PPQ/CAPS, VT FPR, USFS,
University of Vermont/private forestry
– Model applicable to any introduced pest
81st Annual Eastern Plant Board Meeting
April 5, 2006
Atlantic Sands Hotel, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
• Pilot Study Survey (Summer 2005):
ALB introduction model
Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program
July – October 2005
• ArcPad interface
– Gather and evaluate available resources identifying
statewide ash resources
– Where spatial data unavailable, develop coverages in-house
• Map urban and community ash trees
• Identify and map recreational and commercial sites
(campgrounds, sawmills, nurseries) with:
– substantial ash resources or
– locations proximal to nativ e ash resources
– Generate Arc GIS database to aid in detection, outreach
activities, and decision making processes
– GPS-enabled PDA
– Database capabilities
integral with GPS location
data collection
– User-friendly interface,
ease in ArcInfo integration
– (example – VT Nursery
coverage and Towns
coverage, appearance on
PDA)
Emerald Ash Borer Survey
Program
• EAB Urban Ash Trees Survey Method
– Obtain available ash locations from tree
wardens/city arborists/planning commissions
– Field reconnaissance of ash street and park trees
using GPS-enabled PDA, ArcPAD
• Urban tree survey
City of Burlington
• Other cities surveyed
included:
Essex, South Burlington,
Montpelier, Rutland,
Waterbury, UVM
Campus, Brattleboro,
Bennington
– Download collected field data to GIS in office,
develop database in ArcGIS
Emerald Ash Borer
Survey Program
1
• Cities surveyed
for ash street
trees
• Street-level tree
survey of
Burlington
– Several cities
have Access
databases
available
– Ideally updates
include GPS
data
– Performed by City
Arborist
– Ideal system for
locating and
maintaining urban
trees
Emerald Ash Borer
Survey Program
Emerald Ash Borer
Survey Program
• EAB Campground Survey
• Campground
locations
– Locate State and private campgrounds
likely to have abundant ash resources
– Perform site visits to confirm ash presence,
abundance, and locations
– Generate coverage showing campground
locations and relative ash abundance
– State and private,
with and without ash
– Field survey of ash
on-site, interviews
with State Foresters
and Rangers
Source: Vermont Campground Association,
R edstart Forestry,October 2005
Emerald Ash Borer
Survey Program
• Nursery Survey
• Nursery survey
– Conduct regular nursery inspections during
summer 2004 and 2005
– Obtain information on ash sales, other
species, volume of sales, sources of stock
– Generate nursery coverage including
merchant contact information
– Locations of
nurseries
throughout VT
Emerald Ash Borer
Survey Program
2
• Sawmill Coverage
• Sawmill locations
– Obtain sawmill and logyard locations, product, and
production class information from VT FPR,
Utilization Forester and mill owners/operators
Includes those
processing ash
timber
Work is ongoing
– Develop sawmill coverage based on available
data (Redstart Forestry – private consultant)
– Includes mills and logyards that are
stockpiling/processing ash timber
Source: Redstart Forestry,October 2005
VT ANR Fo rest Utilizatio n
Emerald Ash Borer
Survey Program
• Survey Conclusions
• Example
– Database of sawmills,
nurseries,
campgrounds within
1.5 miles of GMNF
– Data table w. contact
information for
nurseries from
selection
– More urban ash location data is needed
• GPS or GIS data for major urban areas, not merely databases
(Access, others)
• Stress value of urban trees to City councils, Selectboards
– Use of GPS-enabled PDA effective survey aid
– Survey activities provide effective outreach opportunity to
landowners, managers, nursery operators, others
– Comprehensive, large scale, forest cover type GIS data is
essential for hazard ranking
• Additional Work
Acknowledgements
– Identify ash resources in forested areas
(remotely sensed data, multi-spectral data,
object-oriented classification)
– Complete surveys of urban street and park
trees, all major cities and towns
– Complete sawmill data layer
– USDA APHIS/PPQ/CAPS
– Redstart Forestry and University of Vermont Forestry Dept.
– City Arborists/Tree Wardens/ Planning Commissions
(Burlington, South Burlington, Rutland, Waterbury,
Montpelier, Bennington, Brattleboro, Essex)
– Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of
Forests, Parks and Recreation, Forest Resource Protection
and Utilization Sections
– VT Campground Association
3
St Lawrence
Jeff ers on
Ham ilton
Sirex Update
Lew si
He rk m
i er
O swego
Ham ilton
Orleans
Oneida
Wa yne
Monro e
Genesee
O nonda ga
Cayuga
Presented by:
M adison
Ont ario
S enec a
New York State
Department of Agriculture & Markets
Division of Plant Industry
Director, Robert J. Mungari
Wyom ing
Livi ngst on
Yat es
Otsego
Cort land
Chen ango
To mpki ns
A llegany
St euben
Schuyler
Broome
Chemung
Chemung
Delaware
Tiog a
2005 Results
Counties
Positive for
Counties Positive for
Sirex noctilio
C lint on
Sirex noctilio in
F rank lin
Counties potentially
exposed to
S t Lawrenc e
2005
Es sex
Jeff erson
Sirex noctilio
Lewis
H am ilton
Warre n
Osw ego
W ashingt on
Orleans
N iagara
Oneida
Mo nroe
W ayne
Genesee
Eri e
W yoming Liv ings ton
Sc huy ler
C attara ugus
Alleg any
S aratoga
Herkimer
Madison
Seneca Cayuga
Yates
Chaut auqua
F ulto n
Ononda ga
Ont ario
Cort land Chenango
Montgome ry
Sc henec tady
R ens selaer
Otsego
Al bany
Schoharie
Tompk ins
Greene
St euben
Chemung Tio ga
D el aw are
C olumbia
Broome
Uls ter
D ut chess
Sullivan
Orange
Putnam
R oc kland Westc hes ter
N ew York Bronx
Queens N as s au
Kings
Ri chm ond Quee ns
Suf folk
1
2005 Sirex Survey Results
# of Trap s
# of Ad ult
Males
# of
Adult
Females
Total # o f
Adults
27
0
5
5
Inter cept
11
0
3
3
Lindgr en
518
0
54
54
20
0
23
23
576
0
85
85
Trap Type
Totals by Tr ap T ype
Cr ossoss vane
Log
Gr and T otal
Plans for 2006
2006 Trapping Survey
Determine the geographical distribution of Sirex
Survey is based on a 25 sq mile and 36 sq mile grid
system. One trap per grid
150 mile radius centered on the Port of Oswego and
CFIA Prescott find and Cambridge find.
718 Lindgren traps in NY
718 Intercept traps in NY
1436 total traps in NY
Total trapping area includes:
►
►
►
►
►
►
►

New York
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Survey Preparation and Networking
Sirex Survey Details and
Recommendations
► Organize
Sirex Survey Participants:
CAPS SSC (State)
CAPS PSS (USDA)
Department of Natural Resources
Representative
US Forest Service Representative
Department of Parks and Recreation
Representative
State Forest Products Association
2
NYS Forest Health Dept. of
Environme ntal Conservation
Sirex Trapping Recommendations
► Placement
USDA
APHIS/PPQ
U.S.
Forest Service
NYS
Department of
Agriculture & Markets
Division of Plant
Industry
of Traps
Fly-Over Data
FlyHot Zones
Risk Maps
Port Areas
“Hanging” midmid-bowl
in stress Pine Stands
Line
Line--up all supplies
required

Suspect Trees Found at SUNY
Oswego
Trees 11 -4
Trees 7 & 8
US Forest Service Risk Maps
Web Site:
Trees 5 & 6
http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/invasives_sirexnoctilio_riskmaps.shtm
http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/invasives_sirexnoct
ilio_riskmaps.shtm
3
Additional Supplies Required:
Sirex Trap Options
► Traps
with Short Eye Bolts
Ropes for each inspector
► Nylon Hanging Rope (30 feet per trap)
► RV antifreeze (1/2 gallon per trap)
► Shipping Alcohol (1/4 gallon per trap)
► Paint Filters (10 per trap)
► Zip
Zip--Lock Bags (20 per trap)
► Shipping Boxes (10 per trap)
► Replacement Lures (4 per trap)
► Throw
Lindgren
Funnel Trap
Log Trap
Intercept Trap
Fe male Sirex
Male Sirex
Cross Vane
Sticky Trap
Any Questions?
“Sirex noctilio” the
European invader that YOU
need to watch out for!
4
The Final Four?
Sirex noctilio
• Asian Gypsy Moth Lymantria dispar
• Asian Longhorn Beetle Anoplophora
glabripennis
• Emerald Ash Borer Agrilus planipennis
• Sirex noctilio
A worldwide pest of pines
Sirex noctilio
Vic Mastro
APHIS-PPQ
Otis PSDE Laboratory
Order: Hymenoptera
Family: Siricidae
Genus: Sirex
Species: noctilio
•
Of the approximately 100 species of
Siricids, 23 are native to North America.
We have 9 native Sirex species.
Native Range
Introduced
S. noctilio Adult Emerging
Sirex Adult Male
•Metallic dark-blue body
•Part of abdomen, wings and front
and mid-legs are chestnut brown
•7.0 – 40 + mm long
1
Sirex Adult Female
• Metallic dark-blue body
• Amber-coloured wings and legs
• Ovipositor sheath 2 - 3mm
• 10.0 – 40 + mm long
Sirex Larvae
•Creamy-white segmented body
•Dark-brown to black spine protruding from
tip of abdomen
•3 – 7 instars
•Variable size
Females Oviposit from
20 to 500 Eggs
They also inject a mucus which disrupts
the tree’s vascular system
Amylostereum areolatum
• Is a symbiotic/mutualistic Basidiomycetes fungi
which females transfer from mycangial sacs at
the base of the ovipositer.
• The fungi is necessary for Sirex larval growth
and development.
• The fungi robs the tree of moisture, disrupts the
vascular system, and destroys the cellulose and
lignin. The fungal activities aid the sirex larval
feeding and tunneling.
Larval Galleries
• Start under the bark,
but progress into the
wood.
• Round in cross section.
• Filled with frass and a
white fungal mat.
Larval development can last from 10 months
(3 in laboratory) to over 3 years.
2
Sirex Symptoms
Sirex Symptoms
•Resin beading
•Needles wilt and change color (from pale green to
yellow to reddish-brown)
• Fungal stain develops on cambium under bark
• Drill holes and perfectly round exit holes
• Larval galleries
•Tree dies from base up to crown
Control
•
•
•
•
Sometimes ovipositing
females become stuck
and their bodies or lower
abdomen persist on the
tree.
Sirex Biological Control Agents
Tree removal
Insecticides
Biological
Parasitoids
–
–
–
–
–
Ibalia leucospoides
Megarhyssa nortoni
Rhyssa hoferi
Rhyssa persuasoria
Schletterius cinctipes
Sirex Parasitic Nematodes
Beddingia (=Deladenus)
siridicola
Parasitic form
• Develops near Sirex larvae
(high CO2 levels)
• Infect Sirex larvae
• Nematodes in the Sirex
adult migrate from the body
cavity into eggs
• Nematodes move back into
tree from eggs
Parasitic form (right)
3
Sirex parasitic nematodes
Hosts
Beddingia (=Delandenus)
siridicola
Free living form
• Develops in the tree when
no Sirex larvae present
• Feed on Sirex fungus
• Lay eggs which hatch into
juvenile free-living form
• Up to 20 – 30 cycles
• All Pinus species.
• Stressed pines are preferred.
• Pines that produce a large resin
flow may be somewhat resistant.
• Possibly, species of Abies, Picea,
Larix, and Pseudotsuga act as
host.
Free-living form (left)
Survey
Sirex EAG responses n=4 each
700
600
500
female
male
400
300
200
100
0
H
ex a ir
an
-1
-o
he l
lim xa n
e
on
e
l im ne(
-)
on
en
al p
e(
ha
+
p
alp ine )
ha ne (
pin
-)
be ene
(
ta
pin + )
e
ne
ca
m
(
ph -)
ca e n
mp e(he )
n
ca e (+
)
m
ph
en
e
m
yc
ca ren e
re
ne
(
ca +2)
re
ne
(3
)
ca
re
ne
+
• Trap trees.
• Semiochemical baited traps.
• A cooperative project was initiated in September
of 2003 with Penn State University to identify
compounds which could be used to survey.
• To date, we have identified some female
attractants. Continuing work is focused on
optimizing a female attractant, developing a
male attractant, and developing an effective trap.
Normalized Response
800
Pine stimuli
Regulatory Issues
4
Emerald Ash Borer
B
A
C
A
1.8 m above ground
White
AB AB AB
Yellow
Red
B
Silver
Navy
Black
White
Red
AB AB
C
Silver
Navy
Purple
A
Purple
A
C
Green
A
Yellow
A
Black
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Green
Mean EAB caught per trap
(+ S.E.; n = 5)
2003 Box Trap Color Study
6.1 m above ground
Adapted from Francese et al. 2005.
5
Electroretinogram
Progress on Insecticides
• Systemics
– Imidacloprid
– Other nicotinoids
– Bidrin
– Emamectin benzoate
– Others
Progress on insecticides
• Topical cover sprays
- Pythrethroids
- Carbamates
- Bt
- OPs
- Beauveria bassiana
- Spinosads
Progress on biocontrol
• Spathius agrili
(Braconidae)
• Tetrastichus sp
(Eulophidae)
• Oobius agrili
(Encyrtidae)
• Other ?
Asian Longhorned Beetle
6
ALB Survey Technology
ALB Control
• Systemic pesticides
• Cover/contact pesticides
• Biocontrol organisms
• Attractants
• Traps
• Visual techniques
• Remote sensing
Principal hosts of ALB in US
Minor hosts and species of uncertain status
(in approximate order of preference)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Acer (maple)
Ulmus (elm)
Salix (willow)
Aesculus (horsechestnut)
Betula (birch)
Platanus (plane tree)
8 species attacked
3
4
2
3
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fraxinus (ash)
Albizia (mimosa)
Sorbus (mt.-ash)
Populus (poplar)
Celtis (hackberry)
Hybiscus (rose-of-sharon)
Prunus (cherry)
Tilia (linden)
Quercus (oak)
65 records (?), ovip. & exit
Two records, emergence
One record, emergence
Four records, oviposition+
One record, larva found
62 records, oviposition (-)
1 record, oviposition (-)
7
Eastern Cottonwood
Infestation rate adjusted for host
availability within limited spatial arenas
egg
• Consider limited area (200 m) around sources
(previously infested trees)
• Compare only those host species that are present
together in that limited spatial arena
• Calculate preference index as in preceding slide
extensiv e phloem fee din g
• “Natural choice test”
egg site
& initial
feedin g
xylem tun nel
Infestation rate adjusted for host abundance
(Chicago data)
Genus
Acer
Ulmus
Salix
Aesculus
Betula
Fraxinus
1
2
Infested
Not inf.
Total1
1046
5535
6581
218
2324
9
94
16
Proportion2
Index3
0.159
0.309
2542
0.086
0.167
103
0.087
0.169
103
119
0.134
0.260
8
292
300
0.027
0.052
64
2802
2866
0.022
0.043
All trees within 0.125 mi. (200 m) of infested trees
p <0.001 (χ2 test)
3
(Sums to 1.000)
Asian Gypsy Moth
Vic Mastro
APHIS- PPQ
Otis PSDE Laboratory
8
Eastern Plant Board
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Rehoboth Beach, DE
Dick Bean
Address identifications bottleneck

Increase training for prescreening samples
Additional personnel to assist National identifiers
Explore molecular identification techniques on target
pests

Ad hoc request for evaluation of alternative to sticky
Quality and content of National & Regional Meetings
traps
Pest list has targets that do not have survey
Limited additional funding for Sirex survey
techniques or identification
1
1 PSS/SPHD
Sponge Bob has snail as pet
Offer alternatives to restricted pests (i.e. snails)
NPDN data not ending up in NAPIS
2
Phytophthora ra mo ru m
Overview
Eastern Region
Look at 2004 vs. 2005
Review of 2005
Mary Mahaffey
Regional Program Manager
National Survey
Positives
Trace Forwards (TF)
Eastern Region, Raleigh, NC
What’s Happening in 2006
National Survey Plans
Positives
Tiffany Creek Update
Eastern Plant Board Meeting Rehoboth Beach, DE
April 5, 2006
Summary
Eastern Region (ER) National Surve y
Positive Detections (in red) in 2004 vs. 2005
Eastern Plant Board States
2004 – 9 Sites Positive
2
2
3
1
MD – 3
3
16
4
4
100% reduction!
NJ – 1
PA – 2 (both were Bonsai plants
1
9
2
2005 - 0 Positives
CT – 3
3
1
in private residences)
PR
6
PR
2004
51 Positive Sites – 11 States
2005 (12% fewer sites)
6 Positive Sites – 3 States
2005 National Nursery Survey
Entire Eastern Region (ER) participated.
Began in January (FL) and ended in December (GA).
Results:
EPB States –
2005
National Survey
Results
State
Sites Insp. Samples
ELISA + Conf irmed +
CT
58
220
12
0
DE
26
1,260
141
0
MA
141
176
25
0
MD
59
227
30
0
ME
34
508
27
0
– Nurseries inspected: 3,993
– Number of Samples: 19,651
NH
20
226
0
0
NJ
43
584
66
0
– Suspect (ELISA) positive: 1,301
– Confirmed Positive Samples: 28 (in 3 states: GA, SC & TN)
NY
100
526
29
0
PA
25
992
73
0
RI
27
272
5
0
VT
22
349
0
0
WV
36
368
4
0
TO TAL
591
5,708
412
0
1
Georgia – Site 1
Norcross – Retail/Garden Center (TF positive in 2004)
Positive Sites - 2005
May 23 – Kalmia latifolia ‘Sarah’ confirmed positive
Container grown Kalmia not wild grown
Georgia – 4
Trace Back (TB) to Tenn. Nursery or WA nursery (Both negative).
South Carolina - 1
Delimiting survey completed on June 6 all results negative .
June 16 - All plants in destruction block and buffer zone destroyed
nursery released.
Tennessee - 1
Georgia – Site 2
Georgia – Site 2 (part 2)
Alpharetta – Retail/Garden Center (TF positive in 2004)
Shade house 6 with Camellia has proven problematic
House 6 - Camellia sasanqua ‘Jean May’ confirmed positive in
May.
May – suspect positive soil treated with Zerotol. Soil in pots and plants
in pots on soil were subsequently re-tested with negative results.
House 5 - Pieris japonica ‘Mountain Fire’ confirmed in December.
Suspect soil samples taken in May from beneath positive Camellias
were confirmed positive in July.
− TBs - Camellia to CA & Pieris to TN (both inspected,
sampled results negative).
Plants removed and destroyed, soil treated - both houses.
Soil samples taken after treatment were negative, as were plant
samples from HAPS placed back in the shade houses.
Oct & Dec - leaf debris on ground positive while leaves in pots and
plants in pots on soil were negative.
Nov – soil confirmed positive (via soil incubation).
Site has dense thick layer of gravel making it impermeable to fumigants.
Currently deciding how to proceed at this site to treat the soil in both
shade houses. Rain has hindered some progress.
Georgia – Site 3
Cumming – Retail/Garden Center – Not positive in 2004
June 28 – Rhododendron sp. ‘Bessie Howell’ and Camellia
japonica ‘Kramer’s Supreme’
Confirmed Nursery Protocol (CNP) implemented
TB – Rhododendrons to TN nursery; Camellias to CA nursery.
Results TN & CA nursery were negative
Nursery opted to destroy all plants in the destruction block
and under quarantine, rather than wait the 90 days
Georgia – Site 4
Lawrenceville – Retail/Garden Center (TF positive in 2004)
June 28 – Camellia sasanqua ‘Bonanza’
TB to CA nursery that continues to test negative after
multiple inspections/sampling
Nursery elected to destroy plants in the destruction block
and buffer zone, to avoid the 90 day quarantine
2
South Carolina – One Positive Site
Hardeeville – Retail/Garden Center - Not positive in 2004
Tennessee – One site in 2005
Cleveland - Retail/ Garden Center - Not Positive in 2004
Aug - National Survey Samples of Camellia japonica ‘Professor
Sargent’ confirmed positive by Beltsville.
June 22 – Rhododendron elegans ‘elegans’ and Rhododendron
sp. ‘Boursault’.
CNP implemented; all plants destroyed (including buffer zone).
CNP implemented.
TB to Oregon producer – negative on followup.
Neither Oregon producer or this TN nursery was positive in 2004.
TB to Florida - FL nursery inspected and sampled all negative.
All CNP samples analyzed – results negative; nursery released.
Plants were sold to local landscapers; trace forwards negative to date.
This was the second nursery in this chain to have a positive.
Company website indicated stores in 5 states. SPHDs and SPROs in
those states were notified.
Major Trace Forwards – Three in 2005
Trace Forwards - 2005
Two from Oregon - 2
1. Late December 2004, six eastern states (5 in EPB)
received plants from a Portland, OR nursery that was found
positive. A total of 833 plants went to 16 nurseries; 27
plants were held; all results negative.
– CT: three nurseries; 40 plants; all sold
One from California - 1
–
–
–
–
MA: two nurseries; 165 plants; all sold
NJ: two nurseries; 19 plants; all sold
NY: two nurseries; 112 plants; 16 sampled; all negative.
PA: four nurseries; 75 pants; all sold
States attempted trace forward on sold plants.
Major 2005 Trace Forwards – Cont’d
2. Mid January 2005, six eastern states (none in EPB)
received plants from a McMinnville, OR nursery that was
found positive.
− A total of 3,382 plants
− 68 nurseries
− 284 plants were held
− 11 samples all negative
Major 2005 Trace Forwards - Cont’d
3. Late January 2005, nine eastern states (two in EPB)
received plants from a positive California Nursery.
− A total of 1,245 plants went to 22 nurseries; 749 plants
were held; 113 samples all negative.
− NY: one nursery received 25 plants; six on hand were
sampled; results were negative.
− PA: one nursery received 34 plants; all were sold
All trace forwards (TF) were on plants shipped before the
Federal Order (F.O.) was in affect.
After Jan 2005 there were no other TFs from western states.
3
2006 National Nursery Survey
Plans submitted by 27 ER states (including all EPB states)
Estimated Number of ER Sites for inspection – 615
278 in EPB states as follows:
• CT – 20
• DE – 20
Positive Sites - 2006
• NJ – 20
•
•
• MA – 20
• MD – 23 (TF + 20) •
•
• ME – 20
•
• NH - 20
Florida - 2
NY – 40 (TF +20)
PA – 25 (20 funded by PPQ, 5 by State)
RI – 20
WV – 30 (20 funded by PPQ, 10 by State)
VT – 20
States with survey underway – GA & FL.
Other southern states plan to start in April.
Florida – Site 2
Florida – Site 1
Tallahassee 1 – Retail/Garden Center (TF positive in ‘04)
Tallahassee 2 – Retail/Garden Center (TF positive in ‘04)
Site inspected as part of the CNP follow-up.
Site was negative in 2005.
March 3 leaf samples from Camellia japonica, C. sasanqua,
C. vernalis & C. hiemalis confirmed positive by Beltsville.
March 8 & 9 - Delimiting survey, additional sampling, buffer
zone establishment, destruction etc.
March 14 Beltsville confirmed positive additional samples
that had been taken for traceback purposes.
TB to AL, FL, GA, MS & SC. Inspections of these sites is
underway to date none are positive.
Site inspected as part of the CNP follow-up.
Site was negative in 2005.
March 3 leaf samples from Camellia japonica, C. sinensis
confirmed positive by Beltsville.
March 8 & 9 - Delimiting survey, additional sampling, buffer
zone establishment, destruction etc.
March 14 Beltsville confirmed positive additional leaf samples
that had been taken for traceback purposes.
Florida – Site 2 (Part 2)
TB to AL, FL, & GA. Inspections of these sites is
underway to date none are positive.
One positive water sample
Sample was taken from drainage pond.
Tiffany Creek
Long Island, NY
Additional water samples were taken March 8th.
All samples have been tested with negative results.
Suggests that positive was from run off from the
positive plants and that P. ramorum is not established
at this site.
Nursery uses city water to irrigate.
4
Tiffany Creek Quarantine
Tiffany Creek Survey Results
The Red Oak associated with a positive (and contested) result
was removed and destroyed.
The site was extensively surveyed & sampled all results
negative.
Protocol calls for spring & fall sampling at the site for two years.
Water, soil and leaf samples within a 100 meter (328.08 foot)
radius are to be collected.
• If negative for 2 years, quarantine will be lifted and it will be
published “that P. ramorum is known not to occur in the Tiffany
Creek Preserve” or other parts of New York state.
• Spring 2005
• Fall 2005
− 45 leaf samples
− 47 leaf samples
− 20 soil samples
− 20 soil samples
− 4 water samples
− 4 water samples
All PCR Negative
All PCR Negative
Spring 2006 Survey is scheduled for May when weather
conditions are conducive for Phytophthora.
Summary
Questions?
• Federal Order seems to
be working
– Fewer positives in 2005.
– No traceforwards once
F.O. was in affect.
• Still have more to learn.
www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ispm/pramorum
Canker on dead Tanoak in
California 3/23/2006
Mary Mahaffey, Eastern Region PPQ
[email protected]
(919) 855-7297
5
NIS Updates
Quick Topics
NCAPS 2006 Diagnostic Assignments
Eastern Plant Board
2006 Annual Meeting
Rehobeth Beach, DE
Joe Cavey
Murali Bandla
National Identification Services
Plant Safeguarding & Pest
Identification
USDA, APHIS, PPQ
Plant Safeguarding & Pest
Identification
USDA, APHIS, PPQ
2006 Taxonomic Work
Assignments for CAPS
N Screening handled by
State –> no further effort
N Screening not handled by
State –> Regional CAPS
subsub-Committee for
assignment
N Meet by December
N Use Diagnostic Support
Menu to assign surveys
needing support
N Domestic Identifiers – assign
first to assure full workload
N Extramural diagnostic labs
Consider pest &
geographic expertise
Consider assigning ample
work to keep program
viable
N Area Identifiers – assign
remaining work as port
workload & expertise allows
Molecular and Biochemical
Diagnostic Laboratory
(MBDL)
Located currently in Bldg 580, Beltsville,
MD
Will be staffed with two senior diagnostic
personnel and two support scientists to
be trained by CPHST.
Dr. Mary Palm was appointed as the
team leader.
NOperational Molecular Diagnostics
NPest Interception Training
List of Diagnostic Assignments for 2006 ER CAPS Surveys
(Total > 6340 Samples)
No.
Target Pest
Samples
250 Bark Beetle
450 Bark Beetle
240 Bark Beetle
?? BB/woodborer
480 pine shoot beetle
192 Sirex (port)
200 Sirex (woods)
1,920 BB/woodborer
300 Bark Beetle
500? Bark Beetle
675 Bark Beetle
Identifiers
Purdue Identifier
Purdue Identifier
Purdue Identifier
Carnegie?
Carnegie?
Carnegie?
Carnegie?
Carnegie?
Purdue Identifier
Purdue Identifier
Glenn Landau
No.
Target Pest
Identifiers
Samples
55 Bark Beetle
Purdue Identifier
50 BB/woodborer Purdue Identifier
100 Bark Beetle
Purdue Identifier
100 Bark Beetle
Purdue Identifier
980 pine shoot beetle Julieta Brambila
40 various moths Julieta Brambila
50? Spodoptera
Julieta Brambila
18 Dendrolimus
Julieta Brambila
96 Dendrolimus
Julieta Brambila
100 various moths Julieta Brambila
unknown snails
John Slapcinsky
94 snails
John Slapcinsky
NISNIS-MBDL
Expected to be fully operational by 2007
POR study was initiated for a future 10,000
sq. ft. lab and training facility addition by
2010.
1
Operational Molecular
Diagnostics
NISNIS-MBDL
CPHST
ARS
Optimization
&Validation
Diagnostic
test/method
development
Academic
institutions
Method
transfer to
MBDL
by CPHST
Private
Labs
Non-Routine diagnostics
Routine and
operational
diagnostics
Pest Interception Training
NAids to help inspectors find pests
infesting imported goods
NCooperative program with DHS, CBP
NDeveloped by PPQ Identifiers
NReviewed & formatted by NIS, CBP and
PDC
Pest Interception Training
Four modules developed:
NMediterranean tiles
NSeed inspection
NCut flowers from Australia and
New Zealand
NWood packing materials
Tests to be performed by MBDL in order of
transition:
NPhytophthora ramorum
NSoybean rust
NHuanlongbing
NRalstonia solanacearum
NCitrus canker
NPlum pox virus
Pest Interception Training:
PowerPoint Modules
NFor highhigh-risk pathways
NIllustrate inspection methods, tools and
pests
NRely heavily on images from actual
inspections taken by CBP & PPQ
inspectors and Identifiers
NContinued learning: modules will be
available to all CBP & PPQ employees on
a web site
Wood Packing Material
What to Inspect?
Look high and low for
feeding galleries.
Examine warehouse or
container walls for adult
beetles.
Look for piles of frass or sawdust
2
Inspectional Tools and Techniques:
Tools: Flashlight, gloves, knife, hammer,
Checking WPM for the
Presence of Pests
chisel, vials, safety goggles, and hardhat
Use your chisel to
remove the wood
in thin layers
Follow the hole to
the end of the
tunnel
Lepironia
Lepironia
This commodity
often is shipped as
“mixed greenery”
with other items.
The Genus
Lepironia will
probably not be
used on the
invoice.
Look for yellowing on the stem. There
will usually be a hole in the same area.
Lepironia
Inside the yellow area one can
find:
• Oecophoridae (Lepidoptera)
• Pseudococcidae (Homoptera)
They are usually found
together.
3
Overview of
Potential
Economic Impacts
of Regulatory Pests
Wednesday April 5, 2006
L ynn J. Garr ett
Agr icu ltural Eco nomist
Center for Plant H ealth Scien ce and Technolog y
USD A- APHIS- PPQ
Plant Pests Include:
•
Insects
•
Fungi
•
Bacteria
•
•
Viruses
Nematodes
•
Weeds
•
Vertebrate animals
•
Other organisms as defined
by the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) as amended
“Regulated” Classifications of Pests
• Regulated non-quarantine pest
– Presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of
those plants with an economically unacceptable impact
and w hic h is therefore regulated w ithin the territory of the
importing country. (IPPC, 1997)
• Regulated pest
– A quarantine pest or regulated non-quarantine pest
An Organism Can Become A
Regulated Pest When It Interferes With:
• Health
• Leisure
• Aesthetic satisfaction
• Recreation
• Stability of existing
biological systems
• Agricultural and material
production
David J. Moorhead,
Th e Un iv ersity o f Georg ia,
www.forestryimages.o rg
A Pest Becomes A Regulatory Pest
• Pest poses an actual or
expected threat
• Objective is reasonably
attainable
• Economic gains
outweigh the costs of
application of control
measures
Economic Considerations
(which pests get regulatory attention)
• With respect to domestic commerce, establishment of the plant
pest would: adversely affect producer revenues / interstate
commerce AND / OR have a significant economic impact on
producers and consumers
• With respect to foreign trade, establishment of the organism
would: reduce access to export markets AND / OR value of U.S.
exports
• With respect to public costs associated with entry and
establishment: extremely high $150 mil. or >, high $100 - $149
mil., moderate $50 - $99 mil.
1
Economic Impact –
IPPC Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms
Phytosanitary Measure
Phytosanitary Regulation
Regulated Area
IPPC Stamp Samples for U.S. Wood Packaging Materials
Methods For Estimating the Economic
Impact of Changes in Forest Health
Economic Impact of Some Selected
Forest Pests
• Hemlock Woolly Adelgid
• Contingent Valuation Method: based on asking
people how much they are willing to pay for
changes in environmental qualtity (Kramer et al.
2003)
– Economic Impacts on Residential Landscapes
• Case Study Approach by Holmes et al., 2005 used a
hedonic property value analysis w ith 4 hemlock health
categories:
– healthly & lightly defoliated <25% defoliated
• Averting Behavior Method: investigates how much
money homeowners actually spend for protection
of environmental attributes. This method was used
by Moeller et al. 1997 for analysis of gypsy moth
protection programs.
– moderately defoliated 25-50% defoliated
– severely defoliated 50-75% defoliated
– dead >75% defoliated
• Results: Economic damage begins to occur when
stands become moderately defoliated.
Asian Longhorned Beetle
Emerald Ash Borer
Economic Impact estimates based on value of lost
tree canopy and anticipated tree mortality
Economic Impact from spread by natural and artificial
means
– Tree canopy loss and tree mortality for urban areas
• 34.9 percent canopy loss
• 30.3 percent tree mortality (1.2 billion trees), valued at
$669 million
– Killed an estimated 15 million trees
• threatens all 16 species of ash
• costs for tree removal, disposal and replanting have
overwhelmed local governments
– Loss more difficult to quantify :
• Low ering of property value
• Loss of aesthetic and environmental benefits
– Approximate range of North American ash species
estimated at almost 8 billion trees
• cost of removal and replacement of dead ash trees
could reach $7 billion over a 25 year period
2
Policy Agenda: For Pest Management
Contingency and CCC Emergency Program Funding History For
Selected Plant Pests
Congressional Record and Rules
Terms Se arches
Million $
160
140
120
GWSS
Soybean Rus t &
Kar nal Bunt
100
80
60
20 05
20 04
20 03
20 02
20 01
20 00
19 99
19 98
19 97
For es t Pe s t EAB, ALB, SOD, GM
19 96
40
20
0
Me dite rr ane an
Fruit Fly
Number of Occurrences in
All Other
Congressional Record and Rules
160
200
180
140
"Invasive Species"
120
"Forest Pests"
100
"Plant P ests"
80
60
40
20
0
Citrus Cank e r, Gr ee ning,
C. Longhorn Bee tle
1985/86
99th
1987/88 19 89/90 1991 /92 1993/94
100th
101st
102nd
103rd
1995/96 1997/98 19 99/00 2001/ 02 2003/04
104th
105th
1 06th
107th
108th
2005/06
(Ma r)
109th
Fisca l Ye ar
Information for Policy Makers
Information on Economic Impact:
Presenting the Case to Decision Makers
(Herman Simon 1983, 1997)
•
•
•
•
Information detected
Information filtered
Information windowed
Information prioritized
• Policy makers live in a world of too much
information
• Information types: central, accurate, partially
relevant, not relevant at all
– Offering information as an “interpretation” a “spin” or in
some instances “distorting”
– prioritizing available evidence is at least as important as
the acquisition of evidence
• Complexity of the economic issues or impacts
• Multiple dimensions of evaluation
• Constant assessment of prioritization is required
Source: Jones, Bryan D. and Frank R. Baumgartner, 2005. T he Politics of Attention - How
Source: Jones, Bryan D. and Frank R. Baumgartner, 2005. T he Politics of Attention - How
Government Prioritizes Problems
Government Prioritizes Problems
Presenting Your Case:
N a t ion a l Im p or ta n c e of E a rly D e te c t ion
Things to Remember
• Thresholds of importance develop based on
perceived urgency
• These thresholds are dynamic
• Everyone understands dollars and cents
Detection Numbers
• Beware of the “scarcity of attention”; this is the way
decision makers set priorities – through the
allocation of attention
C ritica l
Po in t
H ig h Im pa ct
Th r esh o ld L e vel
L ow Im p act
Source: Jones, Bryan D. and Frank R. Baumgartner, 2005. The Politics of Attention - How Government Prioritizes
Problems
Tim e
3
Pine shoot beetle: much ado
about nothing?
A Pine Shoot Beetle
Management Area

Scotch pine and eastern white pine are favored
hosts
Also on jack pine, red pine, and austrian pine
Cause relatively little damage!
The Connecticut Experience
V. L. Smith
CT Agricultural Experiment Station
Pine shoot beetle biology:

Overwinter in the base of healthy trees
Emerge in spring when temperatures warm
Feed in shoots and cause damage
Pine shoot beetle quarantine:

Restrict movement of pine products: cut X’mas
trees, wreaths and garlands, logs/timber with
bark, nursery stock, bark nuggets
To prevent movement of adults in the wood

Beetle moves on its own despite quarantine
Has been found in all states surrounding
CT/MA/RI
Despite prodigious trapping, no PSB detected in
these states
1
Pine shoot beetle trapping:

In cooperation with USDAUSDA-APHISAPHIS-PPQ office
in Wallingford
Traps in all counties of CT
Pine shoot beetle trapping:

No PSB found yet
In 2005, found a checkered beetle predator of
PSB…
…who also feeds on other insects
Pine shoot beetle quarantine: logs

nuggets

April 1 to June 30: ground or fumigated within
48 hours (soft pine/hard pine)
July 1 to Sept. 30: movement with permit
Oct. 1 to March 31: soft not regulated, hard
ground upon arrival
Blackout dates into CT: April 1 to June 30
if debarked or fumigated
Movement with permit: July 1 to Sept. 30
Debark after arrival: Oct. 1 to March 31

Has made interstate trade around CT/MA/RI
difficult because of blackout dates to prevent
movement of adults
Trade through/between officially infested states
is easier
2
PSB Management Area:

Have CT/MA/RI treated as if infested to
facilitate trade
Probably are infested, but not officially
Free movement of wood products within the
management area
Objections to PSBMA:

PSBMA: complications

Letters from Commissioner of Ag to Sec.
Dunkle requesting inclusion in PSBMA
For CT, Commissioner of Ag is not the SPRO
Letters sent anyway, but added to the confusion
Using a quarantine to facilitate trade, not to
prevent movement of a pest
Setting a dangerous precedent regarding pest
movement
Potential threat to nonnon-infested areas in the
South
PSBMA: tempis fugit?

April 1 blackout date approaching/has arrived
Permission to enact PSBMA may come at any
time
Regard states as infested for purposes of
regulation, not reality
3
Pine Shoot Beetle – A Maine
Perspective
History of PSB in Maine
z
z
Ann Gibbs
Maine Dept of Agric.
EPB Meeting 4/5/06
Current Status of PSB in Maine
z
z
z
z
Quarantine regulates 2 counties
Moving bark to markets is a major concern
Currently bark processors are not in the
quarantine area
Need logs from surrounding infested areas
First beetle trapped in 2000
State quarantine enacted in 2001
–
–
z
Regulated part of a county
Need to move bark and logs
Beetles trapped in another county in 2001
Why Maine supports the pest area
concept
z
Allows movement of bark to major markets of
MA & CT
–
–
–
z
Mulch is valuable - $4.3 million in 2001
Mulch is profitable – used to be a hazardous
material
8 sawmills & 4 processors – lots of bark
Neighboring quarantined states supply logs
–
State needs logs from NH & VT
Next Steps regarding pest area
concept
z
If accepted Maine will probably increase the
regulated area to include counties that receive
pine from regulated areas (VT & NH)
z
If not accepted Maine will struggle to find
intrastate sources wood for the mills and this
will be a hardship
1
Issues for Today
ANLA Report to the
Eastern Plant Board
Rehoboth Beach, DE
April 5, 2006
Presented by:
K. Marc Teffeau,
Director of Research and Regulatory Affairs
z
z Barberry
z Emerald ash borer
z Ralstonia, Q biotype whitefly
z Hosta Virus X
z ANLA merger evaluation
z Floriculture & Nursery Research Initiative
P. Ramorum - Drivers in
This Process
z
Continued disease presence
z Protection of the natural ecosystem
z Insure continuation of Interstate and
Intrastate trade
z “Sunset” in 2007 of APHIS E.O.
z Regional concerns – CA,OR,WA
z State concerns – National Plant Board
z Bilateral (US – Canadian) trade
Recommended BMP’s
z
National view, regional implementation
z Industry development and evaluation
process underway
z More intuition than science
z Believe it is right thing to do…and may
yield benefits beyond P. ramorum
z Industry committed, but cannot happen
overnight
Collaborators
Criteria for Development of rBMPs
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Science based
Verified, when possible with research
Meet regulatory requirements
Operationally practical for industry
Cost effective
Collaborative development & “vetting” to
industry
Reviewed by research, regulatory and
industry communities.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
CANGC
OAN
WSLNA
CDFA
ODA
WSDA
USDA – APHIS
z
z
z
z
z
Nursery Operations
Land Grant Univs.
USDA - ARS
ANLA/HRI
1
Guidelines
Development Process
z
HRI Working
Group
Creation
Summer 2004
2006
Oct. 2005 Baltimore
Meeting
Industry Rep.
Nursery Industry
Subgroup
Researchers
Regulators
“National”
Standard?
Western States
Draft rBMP’s
Documentation Reviewed
z
USDA APHIS
z
z
z
z
z
z
Emergency Order
Certified Nursery
Protocols v6
Trace Forward ’06
RSPM 24
ISPM 10
z
z
z
z
z
Meets USDA - APHIS requirements
z Equivalent to Canadian protocols
z Acceptable to non regulated States
z Acceptable to industry and can be
implemented
z Mandatory and voluntary BMPS
z
Basic Design
Documentation of Program Procedures
•
CFIA Protocols
BC/CNLA effort
Jan 06 Bilateral
National Standard
March ’06 COMTF
Mtg
z
z
Aug. ‘06NPB
Annual MTG
•
•
z
Nov ’06 APHIS
•
Pest Prevention /Management
Training
Internal/External Monitoring/Audits
Records/Traceability
•
CDFA
ODA
CANGC
OAN guidelines
Current Projected Timeline - 2006
Oct 2005 HRI
MTG
Focus on the “2s” or “5s”
z
June 06?
NPB/APPHIS PPQ
P. ramorum
Working Group
z
Meets regulatory requirements
Adopted by industry
Standards Development Organization approach
Certification and Implementation methods
HACCP concept/systems approach
2
Research to Fill Gaps, Guide Effort
z
ARS funding work at Ft. Detrick
z
Paul Tooley, Nina Shishkoff, Tim Widmer
z
Grunwald-Parke multi-year project on
efficacy of systems approach funded for
2006 through Floriculture and Nursery
Research Initiative ($230,000)
z Forest Service, others…
Other P. ramorum Concerns
z
“Draft Retail Protocol” - industry does
not support - copy of Canadian protocol
-negotiation process w/APHIS
z Addition of Rosa “Meidiland” to HAP list
– 101 plants – Bad News /
Inappropriate use of “trademarked” plant
series
z “Guilt by Association”
z Came from Canada – proof?
z
Barberry Rules
z
Final rule on barberry
z Allows movement of clonally propagated
cuttings into or through protected areas
without 2-year growing period
z Adds 13 varieties to list of rust-resistant
Berberis spp.
z Effective Feb. 3
Ralstonia
z With
industry input, Certification Plan for
offoff-shore farms was developed – USDA
success story
z Have had NO introductions in 2004 or
2005
Emerald Ash Borer
z
z
z
z
Forecast—mostly bleak with scattered light
funding, diminishing late in the day
Found in Indiana
Market for Ash Trees – severely diminished
Research efforts continue in MI, OH
z
z
z
Host susceptibility, resistance
Controls
Coalition forming on forest pests (TNC)-Nature
Conservancy
Certification Components
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Greenhouse Structure and Materials
Water Source and Treatment
Growing Media Source and Treatment
General Sanitation Requirements
Scouting and Testing
Trace Forward/Trace Back Reporting
(unrooted and rooted cuttings)
Inspections annually by USDAUSDA-PPQ
pathologist(s)
pathologist(s)
Cooperation by host country
3
Reflections…
z A “Cadillac”
clean stock program
z Heavy investment by industry
z Extensive APHIS effort and commitment
z Designed with industry participation – to
fit the circumstances of the industry
z A possible model for SOME QQ-37
changes – but not a oneone-sizesize-fitsfits-all
approach!
Ad-hoc Whitefly Task Force
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Chaired by Dr. Osama El-Lissy, APHIS
SAF, ANLA, Cotton, Vegetable industries
z Inter-industry cooperation
z Research and Grower education
Greenhouse trials underway to evaluate chemicals on Q
Results show several chemicals are effective against new “Q-type”
(contrary to initial thinking)
Q biotype not a quarantine pest
Management Program for Whiteflies on Propagated Ornamentals
developed – emphasis on resistance management
http://www.mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/LSO/bemisia/bemisia.htm
HVX—In Response
z
z
z
z
z
z
Some growers changing buying habits
Mechanically spread
Garden center/retail concerns
Some heavily ELISA testing before planting
Range of views on domestic regulatory status,
action - USDA to get the Dutch to clean up
their act
Dutch propagators cleaning up their act.
Q vs. B Whitefly
z
z
z
z
z
B biotype of silverleaf whitefly (Bemesia tabaci)
present in U.S. since 1990s. Have learned to deal
with it – but may now be seeing resistance develop
“New” Q biotype discovered last year in Arizona
Q biotype present in Mediterranean and Europe;
controlled, but undesirable
Shows strong resistance to some – but not all -chemicals used in U.S. against whitefly
Grower education, cooperation are a major component
in preventing a major problem.
Hosta Virus X
z
Summer 2005:
Not a regulated pest
Various state responses
z American Hosta Society – “inspectors”
z Dutch growers acknowledge the issue
z
z
ANLA Merger Evaluation
z
Leadership exploring merger with
Professional Landcare Network
z ANLA—growing, landscape design, retail
z PLANET—landscape installation,
maintenance
z Little overlap, complementary strengths
z Merger would build capacity, ensure
green industry speaks with one voice
z Decision likely summer 2006
4
Floriculture & Nursery Research Initiative
z
z
z
z
Joint USDA –ARS/ANLA/SAF effort
Cong. Add On – $6.25 M FY 2006
Asking for $7.4 M for FY 2007
Funds emerging issues researchz
z
z
z
z
P. ramorum – Ft. Detrick & OSU Corvallis
EAB – Ohio State & Mich State
Ralstonia – Mich State, UFL, others
Whitefly – UC Davis
What ever new “s..t” that’s coming down the pike
5
Smuggling, Interdiction and
Trade Compliance Program
SITC Focus
COMERCE SITE SURVEYS
SPECIAL OPERATIONS
(PORTS OF ENTRY)
1
Special Operations
(Border Crossings)
Citrus Budwood in California

Investigation (con’t)
3300 citrus cuttings found at Morimoto Orchard
Interception by CBP on
3/31/04 at San Francisco
Mail Facility.
Intercepted via XX-Ray.
AFRICAN BUSH MEAT with HOOVES
attached

Smuggled Orchids
Newark International Airport
Highly Pathological Avian Influenza
Entered the United States at the JFKIA Postal facility
Destined to an apartment complex in North Carolina via
general delivery.
Residents of record appear to be of Liberian and
Nigerian nationalities. All trash from the complex is
dumped at a landfill. This may expose feral or US Wild
animals to exotic zoonotic diseases.
2
FY 05 Statistics

Number of Violations Issued
77

Market Inspections
15,688

Cargo Inspections
12,054

Cargo Blitzes
68

Market Blitzes
66

Weigh Stations Blitzes

Emergency Action Notifications

Weight of Seizures (kilos)

Value
Tools of the Trade
9
735
1,276,878
1,276,878
$3,300,809.77
$3,300,809.77
Agricultural Internet
Monitoring System (AIMS)
I.
AIMS Data
AIMS used as a regulatory tool:

Problem.
APHIS-regulated
organisms and commodities
are be ing sold on the inte rnet
goals. C reate a se cure
web application
the
process of:
Webcrawling
Evaluating sites for risk
Sending information le tte rs
Archiving and re trieving

information
AIMS provides website registration
information, including contact information and
physical address of the registrant.
Project
intrane t-based
that semi-automates
Example of FMD

Project
scope. US-based inte rne t sites
Disciplines.
Animals,
Inse cts, mollusks, weeds, Q56,
animal products and by-products
Additional
Partners/Support
State
¾
¾
¾
Plant Regulatory Officials
Authorities
Trace back assistance
Markey Surveys and Blitzes
Investigative
¾
¾
Violation
Investigations
Enforcement Services
Partners/Support
FSIS
FDA
State

¾
¾
¾
¾
Law Enforcement Agencies
Customs and Border Protection
Targeting
Alerts
Intelligence Gathering (ICAT)
Closing Pathways
3
Provide assistance to other PPQ
initiatives
SITC
wants to assist in enhancing
the ability of the Cooperative Pest
Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS)
Program to identify and target high
risk areas and sentinel sites within
the United States that have the
highest potential for exotic pest
introduction and to successfully
provide early detection of these
pests.
STOP AGRICULTURAL
SMUGGLING
ANTISMUGGLING
HOTLINE
1-800
800--877
877--3835
Contact
E-mail Address:
[email protected]
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq
/trade/
4
Agriculture Topics
Regional Plant Board Meeting
April 3-7, 2006
Helen Sterling, Assistant Director, Field
Operations , Buffalo
Field Office Participation in Plant Board Meetings
Samra Boukadida, Operations Specialist, Buffalo
Staffing
Larry Lewis, Asst. Area Director, New York
Enforcement: Avian Influenza / Wood Packing Material
Hal Fingerman, Agriculture Program Manager,
Baltimore
Significant Seizures/Interceptions
Field Office Area of Responsibility
Pest Risk Committees / Special Operations
Richard Mytkowicz, Operations Specialist, Boston
April 3, 2006
2
Regional Plant Board Meetings
Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo and New York Field Offices
Every Field Office Participating in 2006 PB Meetings
Areas of Responsibility
Regional Plant Board
CBP Field Office Representation
Central
Chicago, Seattle, Detroit
Baltimore
Boston
Buffalo
New York
Baltimore
Boston
Buffalo
NYC
Eastern
Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, New York
Philadelphia Portland
Champlain JFK
Southern
Atlanta, Houston, Laredo, Miami, New
Orleans, San Juan, Tampa
Washington
Houlton
Alexandria Newark
Bay
Western
Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San
Francisco, Seattle, Tucson
28 Ports
38 Ports
20 Ports
Five States
& DC
Six States One State
National
To Be Determined
April 3, 2006
3
Staffing
3 POEs
Two States
April 3, 2006
4
Staffing
Agriculture Specialists – FY 06 Nationwide Statistics
Continual Support of Agriculture
End of 1st Qtr: 1,891 GS401
1,891 = 1666 CBPAS + 225
supervisory / chief positions
Agriculture Operations Specialists / Program Managers
stationed at each Field Office
108 newly hired and onboard
since Oct 2005
Agriculture liaison with USDA SITC, USDA FSIS, USDA IES,
State Agriculture, CDC, FDA, etc.
End of FY 2006 – additional 180
agriculture specialists bringing
the total to 288 additional
positions
Enhance communication / coordination between
Headquarters and Field
Provide field office oversight on agriculture programs, data
management, etc.
Northern Border - Since 2003:
Agriculture staffing has doubled
and are now stationed at ports
of entry not previously staffed
April 3, 2006
Serve as a Subject Matter Experts
5
April 3, 2006
6
1
Enforcement - Avian Influenza
Avian Influenza
Clinically confirmed Human Cases
2003
Country
cases
Cambodia
Azerbaijan
0
0
2004
deaths
cases
2005
deaths
cases
2006
deaths
cases
USDA recognized countries affected
with Avian Influenza
Total
deaths
cases
Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan,
Cameroon, Cambodia, China, Egypt,
India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan,
Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria,
Korea South, Laos, Malaysia, Romania,
Russia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine,
Vietnam
deaths
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
1
7
1
5
5
7
5
5
China
0
0
0
0
8
5
7
5
15
10
Indonesia
0
0
0
0
17
11
12
11
29
22
Iraq
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
Thailand
0
0
17
12
5
2
0
0
22
14
Turkey
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
4
12
4
Viet Nam
3
3
29
20
61
19
0
0
93
42
Total
3
3
46
32
95
41
41
28
185
104
Increased targeting
Conducted Special Operations
Increased training of agriculture
specialists and cross training of
CBP officers
Topic specific musters developed
and conducted
Local and national criteria
developed for targeting
Increased communication with
USDA VMO, SITC and IES
Source: World Health Organization – statistics as of March 24, 2006
April 3, 2006
7
April 3, 2006
8
Enforcement – Avian Influenza
Shift in Phase Enforcement
Live Avian Seizures
Highly Profitable
2002 California - Exotic
Newcastle Disease (END)
Outbreak caused by smuggled
live birds
10 months / $160 million to
eradicate
Phase I
Phase II
September 16, 2005 - February 1, 2006 - July 4, 2006
January 31, 2006
Informed Compliance Enforcement of requirement for
via account managers violative crates and pallets via reand notices posted in exportation
cargo with
noncompliant WPM
Informed Compliance via account
managers and notices posted in
cargo with other types of
noncompliant WPM
Highly Pathogenic Avian
Influenza (HPAI) could dwarf
(END) numbers
Violative/Non-Compliant
Enforcement WPM affects:

Crates

Pallets
All other WPM informed
compliance such as dunnage,
bracing, etc.
Special Operations Conducted
April 3, 2006
9
Wood Markings
Final Enforcement Phase
Informed Compliance
via account managers
and notices posted in
cargo with
noncompliant WPM
Phase II
February 1, 2006 July 4, 2006
Enforcement of
requirement for
violative crates and
pallets via reexportation
10
WPM Fraudulent Stamps
Phase I
September 16, 2005 January 31, 2006
April 3, 2006
Phase III
Beginning July 5, 2006
Nationwide:
Approx. 35 a day
noncompliant
Full enforcement on all
types of WPM
Wood Boring Pests
discovered
Possible counterfeit or false
markings
Informed Compliance
via account managers
and notices posted in
cargo with other types
of noncompliant WPM
April 3, 2006
11
Albany, NY conducted an
inspection containing wood
packing material (WPM)
Infestation Noted within dunnage
Wood packing material was
stamped
WPM found to be non-compliant
April 3, 2006
12
2
Moth found in Dutch Peppers
Snails found in Philadelphia
Port of Arrival: Boston
Port of Arrival: Philadelphia
Shipment of Dutch Peppers
Shipments of Meat, Wine,
Metal
Port of Origin: Holland
Inspection of interior of
peppers revealed moths (51
shipments infested)
Port of Origin: Australia
Inspection of exterior of
containers revealed snails
Great example of
cooperative effort with
USDA
Significant impact on sea
containers in Philadelphia
and other seaports
April 3, 2006
13
April 3, 2006
14
Seizure of Live Tortoises
Prohibited Agriculture Products Seized at JFK Airport and New
York/Newark Area
Port of Arrival: JFK Mail
Declared as Video
Tapes/CDs
In one month:
290 Pest Interceptions by Air
Cargo with 154 requiring
action (one month)
Inspection revealed 50 live
tortoises (one infested with
tick)
32 Shipments refused entry
Cooperative effort with Fish
and Wildlife
284 Mail Interception Notices
of prohibited products
Port of Newark/New York leads the
nation in issuance of PPQ Form
591:
146 Violations have been written in
Oct.-Dec. totaling $15,000
Interceptions of the following first
finds:
Parasphaeria rusci on Ruscus
Polydontes undulate on Trigonella
TICK
Phaeoisariopsis sp on Phytolaca
sp (all from Israel)
April 3, 2006
15
16
CBP / USDA Coordination
Establishment of Pest Risk Committees
Peace Bridge, Buffalo, NY
Established in all DFO locations – divided by area coverage
and/or mode of travel.
In a bus/pax a live mango
seed weevil (Sternochetus
mangiferae) is discovered
Members: State Plant Health Director, Federal and State
identifiers, Investigators, USDA SITC, Officers, Program
Managers, Specialists, Veterinary Medical Officers, Exotic
Pest Coordinators – to name a few
Port of Origin: Trinidad
Mango Seed weevil is a
significant, quarantine pest
known to occur throughout the
Caribbean, but is not known to
occur in the United States.

April 3, 2006
Enhanced targeting and risk analysis/management
Improved response to agriculture issues and threats
Improve interagency partnership
Sternochetus mangiferae
Information sharing and outreach
April 3, 2006
17
April 3, 2006
18
3
Agriculture Special Operations
CBP / USDA SITC Joint Operations
Pest Risk Committee Meeting Successes
Buffalo Field Office: Established Pest Risk Committee Meeting
for entire Field Office (covers Buffalo to Champlain, NY and
ports in between)
Boston Field Office: Established Pest Risk Committee
Meetings in Vermont/New Hampshire, Maine, S. New England
(MA, CT, RI)
Baltimore Field Office: Established Pest Risk Committee
Meetings in Baltimore and at other area ports
Operation: “Summer Start”
JFK Airport – pax and
cargo determine pathways
for avian influenza. Several
prohibited agriculture
commodities intercepted
Four Canadian Entry Points
– identified unknown
pathway for fraudulent
phytosanitary certification
Operation: “Ancient Chinese
Secret”
Upcoming Operations –
Champlain, Buffalo, A-bay –
Pax for possible smuggling
herbs/plants. Prohibited
Products seized.
New York Field Office: Established Pest Risk Committee
Meetings in NYC/JFK and Newark, NJ
April 3, 2006
Operation: “Mockingbird”
19
Up for discussion
April 3, 2006
20
April 3, 2006
22
Any Questions?
Pest Risk Committees - Where are we going ?
Expand Pest Risk Committee meetings to other outlining
ports
Continue to Enhance / Improve Targeting Efforts
Continue to Identify and Close Risk Pathways
Conduct Effective Targeted Special Operations
April 3, 2006
21
4
ELI Goals
INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL
A Comprehensive Model State Law
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE
Presentation b y Kathryn J. Mengerink
To provide information to those involved in
the formation and implementation of invasive
species policies on:
– the current tools used by state invasive species
programs,
– how existing state programs can be
strengthened, and
– model approaches for states to improve upon
and expand their existing tools.
Environmental Law Institute, 2006
ELI: Present & Future Work
ELI: Past Work
• Aquatic Invasive Species & Global Change
• Aquatic Invasive Species & TMDLs
• Regional Cooperation: Opportunities and
Obstacles in the Chesapeake Bay & Florida
• regional monitoring and surveys, database development and
mapping, and education and outreach efforts,
• coordinate rapid response action plans,
• cooperate on risk and pathway analysis,
• make state plans more consistent in format and scope,
• increase coordination between councils, and
• review state laws and regulations to make them consistent.
ELI: Past Work
Prevention
Identifying & mitigating future threats; Detection;
Introduction / Import / Release requirements;
Quarantines; Education
Regulation
Permits & licenses; Transportation & shipping;
requirements; Post-release monitoring; Bonds &
Insurance
Control & Management
INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL
A Comprehensive Model State Law
General control & management authority; Emergency
powers; Biological control agents; Restoration
Enforcement & Implementation
Enforcement mechanisms; Funding
Coordination
Comprehensive invasive species council &
plan
1
Chapters of the Act
To address prevention, regulation, control and
management, enforcement and
implementation, and coordination.
Ch 1. General Provisions
Ch 2. Interagency Coordination and Planning
Ch 3. Classification and Listing
Ch 4. Prohibited Acts
Ch 5. Prevention
Ch 6. Permitting Programs
Ch 7. Control and Management
Ch 8. Enforcement and Implementation
Outline
• Role of the Invasive Species Council
• Classifying, Listing (Dirty & Clean
Lists) and Regulating
• Preventing Invasions
• Managing Invasive Species
Purpose
“Invasive Species”
• To recognize the adverse impacts
• To establish the means to address and
minimize adverse effects
• To promote research and education
• To prevent and control the spread of invasive
species
A non-native species, including the seeds, eggs, or
spores thereof or other biological material, capable
of spread, reproduction or propagation, whose
introduction or proliferation causes or is likely to
cause economic or environmental harm or harm to
human health or safety. . . . Invasive species do
not include species of plants or animal identified by
statute as commodity crops or livestock.
Invasive Species Council
• Serves advisory role to the Governor.
INTERAGENCY
COORDINATION & PLANNING
COUNCILS, DIRECTOR & PLAN
• Comprised of
– ex officio voting members that include Secretaries of the
Departments of Agriculture, En vironment, Natural Resources,
Transportation; Directors of Fish & Wildlife Agency and Forestry
Agency; President of Land Grant University; and Head of Sea
Grant College or University.
– appointed voting members from the following: agriculture and
horticulture industries; environment and conservation interests;
pet and/or aquarium industry; and port and/or shipping industry.
– non-voting members that are representatives of the federal
agencies involved in prevention, control and management in the
state.
2
Existing Invasive Species Council
-Arizona
-Delaware
-Florida
-Hawaii
-Idaho
-Maryland
-Minnesota
-Nevada
-New Hampshire
-New Jersey
-New York
-Oregon
-Pennsylvania
-Rhode Island
-Wisconsin
-Virginia
Council: General Authority
Adopt such regulations, rules and procedures as
are reasonably necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Act.
Pursuant to the state administrative code.
Includes authority to adopt the invasive species
plan.
Council: Regulatory Authority
• Enter and inspect any premises as necessary.
• Establish border check stations.
• Seize or destroy non-native or invasive
species from public or private ownership or
control.
• Conduct studies, undertake research and
engage in monitoring or tracking activities.
• Develop and implement rules for enforcement
mechanisms (e.g. notice, hearing, fines).
Council: Delegation Authority
• Delegate selected and clearly identified
elements of its authorities and duties to another
agency of the state.
• Council retains primary authority and
responsibility.
Council: Additional Authority
• Create and maintain internet sites, hotlines, and
other means of reporting.
• Produce educational materials and press
releases.
• Solicit proposals, review applications, make
grants for detection, prevention, control,
management or eradication or restoration of
natives.
• Apply for and receive grants.
Rationale for Council Authority
This approach allows a state to take advantage of
existing programs and expertise (delegation
authority) while still establishing a definitive
central authority to ensure a consistent and
comprehensive approach to invasive species
management.
Another Option: Vest primary authority with
agencies with existing experience, allowing
Council to retain some oversight and coordination
authority.
3
Director of the Council
Interagency Coordination & Planning
Invasive Species Management Plan
• Develop and update every five years.
• Administers and implements powers and duties
of the Council.
• Submits a budget and hires a staff.
• Include:
– Review of authority and resources to detect, monitor, prevent,
rapidly respond, eradiate, and control.
– Consider existing agency plans.
• Is housed in the designated agency.
• Set forth a framework for a comprehensive and
efficient state program.
• Guidance document with no force of law.
• Address nine elements . . .
• Agencies conduct evaluations and make available to
Council for planning.
• Make best efforts to implement plan.
Invasive Species Management Plan
Address nine elements . . .
1)
statewide coordination and intergovernmental cooperation
2)
Prevention of new in vasions (import, introduction, or
unintentional pathways)
3)
Inventory and monitoring
4)
Early detection, rapid response
5)
Control, management, eradication
6)
Restoration
7)
Public education
8)
Research
9)
Funding and resources for prevention, control, management
Invasive Species Advisory Committee
Council can appoint an expert committee that
has balanced representation from agencies,
regulated / benefited industry, environmental /
conservation interests, academia scientific
community, general public.
Classification and Listing
Classification & Lists Established: Activities
• establish and maintain lists of with additions,
removals or changes made by rule.
CLASSIFICATION & LISTING
• unlisted and non-native species are not yet
classified; may not be introduced or imported;
and are subject to classification and listing.
• promulgate list within one year and alter as
needed.
4
Classification and Listing
Classification & Listing Process
• for prohibited, restricted, regulated,
unregulated species: (1) adopt rule & add to
list; (2) notify person submitting notice or
petition; (3) provide public notice.
Classifications
Prohibited highly undesirable & not known to be
present in the state to any significant degree.
Restricted highly undesirable & known
populations exist in the state.
• anyone can petition and the Council acts on
petition in a timely manner (and can prioritize
response).
Regulated moderately undesirable & may or may
not be present in the state to a significant degree.
• public notice includes rationale for listing.
Unregulated not subject to regulation.
Unlisted Non-Native not yet classified.
Prohibited Species (Dirty List)
Restricted Species (Dirty List)
Highly undesirable & not known to be present in
the state to any significant degree.
Highly undesirable & known populations
exist in the state.
Prohibited Acts. No person may import, export,
purchase, sell, barter, distribute, propagate,
transport or introduce a prohibited invasive species
. . . and no person may possess.
Prohibited Acts. No person may import,
export, purchase, sell, barter, distribute,
propagate, transport or introduce a restricted
invasive species [unless exceptions apply].
The Council may seize or dispose of all specimens
unlawfully possessed, purchased. . .
The Council may seize or dispose of all
specimens unlawfully possessed, purchased
...
Example. ???
Restricted Species (Dirty List)
Example. New Hampshire Law
the sale, distribution, importation, purchase,
propagation, transportation, or introduction of
exotic aquatic weeds is prohibited. Species
include: variable milfoil, Eurasian milfoil, fanwort,
purple loosestrife. . .
NH list includes known and “not known” species,
but does not prohibit possession of “not known”
species.
Regulated Species (Dirty List)
moderately undesirable & may or may not be
present in the state to a significant degree.
Prohibited Acts. No person may introduce or
import a regulated invasive species without a
permit.
Example. Water Hyacinth in Massachusetts
Currently no restrictions. If climate change leads
to overwintering, there could be establishment.
5
Unregulated Species (Clean List)
Unlisted Non-Natives (No List)
Not subject to regulation (no prohibited acts).
Not yet classified.
Example. New Hampshire Wildlife Law
Prohibited Act. No person may introduce or
import an unlisted non-native species unless
Council notification and determination is
made to allow.
Non-controlled Species - Importation
(a) A permit to import wildlife shall not be required
for any person to import wildlife designated as
non-controlled…
… the following species or groups of wildlife shall
be designated as non-controlled: (1) Ornamental
aquarium fish, both fresh and marine, that shall be
kept in a closed system; (2) Amphibians. . .
Criteria for Classifying Non-Natives
Consider the following criteria:
Unlisted Non-Natives (No List)
Example. New Hampshire Wildlife Law
– whether the species is likely to be injurious, cause
economic harm or harm to human health / safety
– the magnitude of potential adverse effects
– likelihood of introduction
– likelihood of naturalization
– ability to eradicate or control spread
– whether and to what extent the species is present
Permits to Import Wildlife.
All species not specifically designated and listed under the
categories of non-controlled, prohibited or controlled shall
be designated as controlled and shall require a permit to
import. [“introduce” not included]
The executive director shall review each application, …
make a determination . . .
Decision to list must be based on sound science.
If reasonable threat, precautionary measures
should be taken.
No permit shall be issued if there is any significant disease,
genetic, ecological, environmental, health, safety or welfare
risks to the public or other wildlife species. . . .
Introduction Definitions
PREVENTING INVASIONS
• “Introduction” means the release, escape,
dissemination, establishment or placement of a
species into an ecosystem outside of its native
range as a result of human activity or failure to
act.
• “Unintentional” . . . Means the import,
introduction, transport or spread of species
incidental to another activity. . .
6
Threat Identification Program
• Creates program that studies and evaluates risk
of unintentional introduction and pathways.
• In evaluating programs, pathways and species:
– Obtain necessary science from state agencies.
– Make recommendations.
– Identify potential invasives from other states /
countries.
– Identify high-risk areas and pathways.
– Study possibility of public / private partnerships.
– Address any other areas of concern.
Detection Programs
Surveys and investigations
– Of any premises or entry points (public or private)
known or reasonably suspected to be infested with
any invasive or potentially invasive non-native. . .
Entry and inspection
– Any premise, plant, appliance or thing on premise to
confirm or detect . . .
Mapping
– Develop and maintain maps of infestation areas and
areas of particular vulnerability
Listing
– Annually, compile and maintain list identifying other
states and locations of invaders.
Import & Introduction: Prohibition &
Permits
Import & Introduction: Standards &
Conditions
Standards for introduction and importation
• Prohibition
– Prohibited, restricted or regulated species unless
permit.
– Unlisted non-native unless Council approves.
• Permits
– Considered based on potential economic harm,
human health & safety, competition with natives,
prolific breeders, agricultural pests.
• Notice and inspection
– No unreasonable risk (economy, environment, health)
– Scientific evidence that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Factors limit distribution & abundance & dispersal pattern.
No desirable ecologically comparable indigenous species.
No threat to e xistence of natives.
Socially-acceptable methods of eliminating / controlling.
Extent it will enhance economic / aesthetic values.
Not originating from infestation area.
No foreseeable risk of conflict with land-use policy.
Conditions
– For species above, permitees must provide timely
notice of import.
– Permits can come with conditions, e.g. monitoring.
Unintentional import, introduction,
or spread of species
Prohibited Act. Unlawful for any person to cause
the unintentional import, introduction or spread of
invasive or unlisted species by failure to comply
with any rule or regulation pursuant to prevention.
May adopt rules / regulations reasonable and
necessary & based on sound science to prevent or
curtail unintentional import or introduction. E.g.:
–
–
–
–
–
best management practices
pre- / post- entry notice and inspection
quarantine
permitting programs
import prohibitions, unless free of invasives; includes
packaging
Seizures
• Refuse entry, confiscate, seize, or destroy
• Any prohibited, restricted, regulated or
unlisted species
• Without an appropriate permit
• Expense born by owner
7
Quarantines
Education Program
• As necessary to protect the public and the
natural resources, including:
– Imports of certain identified species.
– Imports from certain locations.
– Species/goods transported through the state.
– Movement within the state from certain areas.
– To determine if goods are infested.
• Develop: Internet-based materials, workshops,
courses, public / industry outreach
• Target: landowners, private citizens, K-12 &
secondary educational institutions, state and
local officials, and management and employees
of relevant industries.
• Special emphasis: prevention
• Review program and can develop advisory
committee
Land Owners & Occupiers
• Provide notice to Council.
CONTROL & MANAGEMENT
• Control / eradicate unpermitted
introductions, populations of infestations of
prohibited / restricted / regulated
invasives.
• Council may prevent further spread.
• Council may serve control notice (appeal)
• Liable for costs.
Public Lands
Public Waters & Wetlands
• Owners of nonfederal land
Council or agents responsible for control,
management, and eradication of invasive
species on public lands.
• Below ordinary high water mark
• Not responsible for action
• Council or agents are responsible for
control, management, and eradication.
– Provide notice,
– Can cross adjacent land
8
Federal Enclaves
Biological Controls
Lands and waters subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States are not
subject to the provision of this Chapter.
• Prohibitions.
Council shall consult with federal agencies
and authorities.
• Permits.
– No use of prohibited, restricted, or regulated
invasive species, unless permit.
– No use of unlisted non-native species.
– May issue if no unreasonable risk.
Biological Controls
Restoration
Standard.
• Promote
– Meets described permit standard.
– Negligible risk to non-target species and public health
/ safety.
– Specific to target organism and not likely to become
pest.
– Public benefit and no adverse effect on public good.
– Applicant is competant, has post-release monitoring
and management plan.
– Applicant demonstrates compliance.
• Establish programs to support.
• Establish guidelines.
• Issue rules and regulations.
• Identify and dedicate funding.
Summary
• Role of the Invasive Species Council
• Classifying, Listing (Dirty & Clean
Lists) and Regulating
• Preventing Invasions
Thank you!
To download a free copy or order a hard
copy:
www2.eli.org/research/statebiodiversity.htm
Or contact me via email to get an
electronic copy: [email protected]
• Managing Invasive Species
9
Sources of Funding
for Invasive Weed
Control Programs in
Pennsylvania
Our Supporters
Pulling Together Initi ati ve
Focus on the Impacts
Kristin Sewak, Director
Some Fundamentals That
Contribute to Success in
Fundraising
Natural Biodiversity Funding Sources
2000-2006
Total = $1,187,740.00
Private: The Western PA
Watershed Program
$41,740 (4%)
$55,000 (5%)
$220,000
(19%)
$758,200
(63%)
In-Kind Services
(General)
In-Kind Services
(AmeriCorps)
State: PA DEP and PA
DCNR
$112,800 (9%)
Federal: USDA APHIS
and NFWF PTI
Tips
9Dedicated funding for invasive species
problems is extremely limited, but sources
are developing.
9Therefore, focus most on the impacted
resource and the goal at hand (curtailing
the impact)
• Our Strategy: Comprehensive and on-the-ground
• Develop mission and stick to it.
– Do not develop projects to obtain funds!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proposal Development: Be concise; take a tutorial
Reporting: Extremely important!
Outcomes: Track them faithfully.
Effectiveness: Adaptive management
Efficiency: Continually evaluate
Ecology: Baseline conditions and track progress
Economics: Assign $ value to work; Survey people
Social Impacts: Consider always.
Gain community support
Impact Focus Example #1
Ex) An invasive plant
monoculture is
impacting the
buffering capacity of
the riparian area
– Funding Solution:
Apply for grants that
fund riparian forest
buffer restoration,
including invasive
plant control.
1
Impact Focus Example #2
Tips (continued)
Ex) Invasive plants
are degrading
wildlife habitat.
9Track in-kind services: Hours, mileage and
other
9Determine ecological and economic value
of project
9Look for small grants to start: Local
businesses; nurseries; county government
9Expand as you learn.
– Funding Solution:
Obtain wildlife
habitat funding that
allows for invasive
plant control
measures (check
first).
nwf _27255' s Bac kyard Wildlife Habitat site
Natural Biodiversity
Sign-in
Date: 7/12/05
Time: 10am 2pm
Location: Hoodlebug
Trail
Event: Weed Whacker Work
Day
Name
Organization
Address
Phone
Email
Trout
Unlimited
200 Trout Rd
5551212
Joe Volunteer
TO TAL MILES:
TO TAL HOURS:
Roundtrip
Mileage
Hourly Rate
52
$17.19
52
-
-
4
Support of the creation of DCNR Invasive
Exotic Plant Management Tutorial
for Natural Lands Managers
The Cleveland Museum: $15,000 to conduct
a rare plant inventory in northwestern
Pennsylvania to assess impacts from
invasive species and changes in the levels
of Lake Erie.
$23.14
TO TAL IN-KIND:
(X 0.445)
$68.76
Grand Total = $91.90
DCNR’s “C2P2”
•
•
•
•
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/grants/
Community Conservation Partnerships Program
Fall and Spring Deadlines
Pay close attention to conservation priorities
– Wildlife habitat, etc.
DEP’s Growing Greener II
• http://www.growinggreener2.com/
• Implementation and repair only
– Watershed protection: Water quality/riparian
area focus
2
And….
PA Department of Agriculture
• http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/
– Click on “Funding Opportunities”
– Agriculture only
– Products category
In Delaware…
A Good Resource: State
Universities and Extension Offices
• Federal and PA Grants for IPM
(courtesy of Penn State’s PA IPM):
– http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/funding.html
DCNR Invasive Exotic Plant
Management Tutorial
for Natural Lands Managers
Our Website
www.naturalbiodiversity.org
– Transformation underway
– Will include our handbook (with funding sources)
www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/invasivetutorial/
3
Useful Websites
www.invasive.org
www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov
www.nps.gov/plants/alien
http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu
http://www.ma-eppc.org/
www.weedcenter.org
Our
Opinion
***
*****
****
*****
***
**
List-serves
• PA Biodiversity Partnership (PABIODIV)
– www.pabiodiversity.org
• Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council (MA-EPPC)
– [email protected]
• Listserver (& website) Clearinghouse
– http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/moreinfo.htm
• The Nature Conservancy’s Invasive Species Initiative
• Plant Conservation Alliance’s Alien Plant Work Group
– [email protected]
Exotic Pest Plant Councils
Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council (MAEPPC)
– www.ma-eppc.org
Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council (SEEPPC)
– www.se-eppc.org
Invasive Plant Atlas of New England (I-PANE)
– http://invasives.eeb.uconn.edu/ipane/index.htm
Foundation / Help Centers
• PA Association of Nonprofit Orgs
– http://www.pano.org/
• Foundation Center
– http://fdncenter.org/
• Grant Station (subscription-based)
• Boat U.S. Foundation Clean Water Grants
– www.BoatUs.com/Cleanwater/grants
Federal Grants
USDA Economic Research Service
– OPEN NOW: Program of Research on the
Economics of Invasive Species Management
(PREISM)
– Priority Research Areas:
• Management Incentives
• Economic Decision Analysis
• International Dimensions
– Due April 28th
Federal Grants (continued)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
– www.fws.gov/grants
• USFS’ Forest Lands Enhancement Program
– www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/flep.shtml
• NFWF’s Pulling Together Initiative www.nfwf.org
• APHIS Programs
• NRCS Programs
– Ex. Community Conservation Partnerships Initiative
• Focus Areas: Invasive species is 1 of 5
4
Points from the Invasive Plant Roundtable
April 6, 2006
Need to develop partnerships to deal with this issue and the focus should be on
education with minimal regulation.
Nurseries will supply what the public demands.
Contractors have a large influence on the public regarding plant choices,
because of the large planting in public settings.
Landscape plantings at malls and fast food chains are a great advertisement for
appropriate plantings. In these public areas it’s important to lead by example.
When controlling invasive plants “pick your battles” and use reasonable
approaches.
There needs to be a distinction between plants that are considered true weeds
and plants that have invasive tendencies. These 2 groups of plants should not
be grouped together.
The recycling movement should be used as a model for how to deal with invasive
species from a perspective of education. Recycling focuses on maintaining a
healthy environment and encourages the public to do the right thing.
New and interesting plants are the lifeblood of the nursery industry.
Funding for Control – develop a project proposal that is concise and stick to the
mission regarding what is to be controlled, focus on the impact of the invasive
species to control track the outcomes faithfully and report the findings, and
always consider community support
Compiled by Ann Gibbs
Eastern Plant Board Business Meeting Minutes – April 6, 2006
New Business:
1. Carol Holko reported on updates to the National Plant Board website and the web committee’s
decision to remove any summary older than two years. Removed summaries will be replaced by
a link to the appropriate state or commonwealth SPRO as the source for current regulatory
information. Additions also include a “SPRO Letter” page and a jobs page to post vacancy
announcements for SPRO and SPRO related agencies.
2. Carl Schulze reported on the status of the NPB committees, indicating that all seemed to be
appropriately staffed. It was recommended that Randy Ciurlino of the Delaware Department of
Agriculture replace Faith Kuehn on the IPCC Technical Committee and also add Dick Bean of the
Maryland Department of Agriculture.
3. The status of the IPCC as a viable entity was called into question and whether the original
concept is lost since representation moved to NASDA. It was suggested that
as in past, an invitation is extended to an IPCC representative to attend regional plant board
meetings.
4. Walt Blosser provided the Treasurer’s report after which a suggestion was made for NBP support
for payment to speakers. It was noted the speakers are not always able to take full advantage of
the EPB meeting due to limited funding allowances.
Old Business:
1. The issue of dues for states that are unable to make payments was revisited with no clear
resolution. Suggested options included: direct billing by the NPB, inclusion with NASDA dues
and only submit to dues to the NPB for paying states
Committees:
Committees were staffed as follows:
1. Audit Committee – Carl Shulze as committee chair and Ann Gibbs reviewed the Eastern Plant
Board financial records. EPB finances were found to be in order and balanced.
2. Awards Committee – Ann Gibbs served as chairperson and with Gary Gibson and Walt Blosser
made the following nominations.
a. Ann Gibbs for the Carl Carlson Award
b. Faith Kuehn for the Entomological Society of America Award
c. Bob Mungari for the NASDA Award
3. Nominations – Carl Shulze, Gary Gibson and Walt Blosser as chairperson made the following
EPB officer nominations.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Ann Gibbs, President
Walt Blosser, Vice President
Carol Holko, Secretary/Treasurer
Gary Gibson, EPB Executive committee
Nominated to the National Plant Board, Board of Directors were:
a. Ann Gibbs
b. Faith Kuehn
c. Carl Schulze
d. Gary Gibson as alternate
4. Program Committee – New Hampshire has agreed to host the 82nd Annual Meeting of the
Eastern Plant Board. The program committee will consist of the EPB vice president and staff
from New Hampshire. Due to staff limitations in New Hampshire help will be solicited from other
board members as needed.
Resolutions:
The following eight resolutions were considered and passed and appear elsewhere in these proceedings.
1. Appreciation of the Delaware Department of Agriculture
2. Gypsy Moth Suppression Funding and Gypsy Moth Slow the Spread (STS) Foundation
3. USDA-ARS Capacity to Diagnose Honeybees as Africanized Honeybees in a Timely Manner
4. Operational Review of the European Pre-clearance Program
5. Addressing Diagnostic and Taxonomic Support for CAPS
6. BLITZ Training and Coordination
7. Laboratory Accreditation/Authorization
8. Export Certification and Inspection