Proceedings Page 1 of 134

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 Email: [email protected] Website: www.state.de.us/deptagri/

3. Delaware Soybean Board Philip Towle Email: [email protected] Website: www.state.de.us/deptagri/

4. American Beauties, LLC/Northcreek Nurseries, Inc Steve Castorani Email: [email protected] Website: www.Abnativeplants.com

5. USDA-APHIS, PPQ Colleen Kitzmiller Email: [email protected]

6. Delaware Department of Agriculture Plant Industries Lynn Harrison Email: [email protected] Website: www.state.de.us/deptagri/

7. Delaware Beekeeping Association Jeff Brothers Email: [email protected] Website: www.state.de.us/deptagri/

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 1 of 134

8. Delaware Department of Agriculture CAPS Jim Kroon Email: [email protected] Website: www.state.de.us/deptagri/

9. Claude E Phillips Herbarium Delaware State University, Department of Ag & NR Susan Yost Email: [email protected] Website: www.herbarium.desu.edu

10. Delaware Invasive Species Council Eric Buehl Email: [email protected] Website: www.sgnis.org

11. University of Delaware Delaware Diagnostics Plant Lab Nancy Gregory Email: [email protected]

12. Delmarvelous Chestnuts Nancy Pettit Email: [email protected] Website: www.delmarvelouschestnuts.com

13. Greenbank Mill Tony Shahan Email: [email protected] Website: www.greenbankmill.org

14. P. ramorum – USDA-APHIS-PPQ Mary E. Mahaffey Email: [email protected]

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 2 of 134

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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 3 of 134

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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 4 of 134

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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 5 of 134

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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 6 of 134

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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 7 of 134

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)

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 8 of 134

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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 9 of 134

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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 10 of 134 National Plant Board 2005 Accomplishments Eastern Plant Board Annual Meeting & Issues April 4, 2006

Ken Rauscher

Website Rebuild www.nationalplantboard.org USDA Laboratory Reviews

CPHST Headquarters, Raleigh

Developing a cooperative National Seed Potato working relationship with Certification Standards USDA-APHIS Does it fit your State industry needs?

- Timeline - Biotechnology Regulatory Services

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 11 of 134 1 Biotechnology Regulatory BRS Final Report Services (BRS) 3 Overarching Issues Educational Opportunities

Survey 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 Bob Ehert Dorthea Zadig Doreen Watler Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Richard Gaskalla Mark Powell Richard Orr Tom O’Brien Tom Sim Charles Yoe P.ramorum John Payne Ken Vick Snails 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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 12 of 134 2 P.ramorum CAPS Emergency Order Issued 12/24 Challenges/Opportunities USDA/CFIA Bilateral Shipping Agreement Identify Needed Improvements HRI/ANLA Working Group Work Cooperatively to developing BMP Implement Solutions USDA/NPB Working Group CAPS is our Oyster enhancing Certification Protocols

Biotechnology Regulatory Department of Homeland Services Security - Customs & Border Patrol Six Action Plans Regular Management Staff/NPB- Continue to Develop the BOD Meetings 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 Joint Committee to Review Draft - April Ken Rauscher Bill Dickerson Delivery to Congress - June Bob Dahl Connie Riherd Carl Schultz Ruth Welliver John Caravetta Umesh Kodira

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 13 of 134 3 Other Activities... Pine Shoot Beetle - minimize impacts National Plant Board NSHS/Laboratory Accreditation - Executive Director Position ongoing solutions Gypsy Moth - funding shortfalls Laboratory Diagnostic Network - working together

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 14 of 134 4 Plant health emergency response template “news” NASDA & Message Mapping

• Multi-state partnership states are testing the template

• It is a useful document – especially when used with the expertise of SES

Bob Ehart • At the moment, it isn’t as advanced – as a stand alone Eastern Plant Board document – as the NASDA Food Template, but it could be – should be Rehoboth Beach, DE April 4, 2006 • Stay tuned

Homeland security has State/Federal Responses to changed our lives Emergency Events

• Still have our same job to do, but some things are different • While state & federal actions may differ to some degree • National Response Plan/Incident Command System during an emergency event, keeping the public informed require us to speak a new language & to do some things a and, wherever possible, reassuring the public of the safety different way of agricultural products are common goals. • 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/COSDA/APHIS NASDA Members Emergency Communications Plan

APHIS would contact NASDA and its members prior to • Seeming to be out of step with a federal announcement on announcing any information regarding an emergency an emergency issue – where the media then focuses on the event. perceived differences, elevating public concern unnecessarily. • 31 States, including Plant Board members, signed the agreement

• We tried it this way…

5 6

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 15 of 134 1 Pitfalls

• When dealing with a crisis, the time preceding a public announcement is very precious, so it is understandable The goal is admirable, but, in reality, that not everyone, who has a need to know, will know. there are pitfalls • 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 • Seemingly conflicting statements can occur—in fact, have occurred—an unintended consequence of not knowing – don’t seem to realize the state agriculture agencies are what is going on 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

9 10

Issues that agriculture faces in When not in the loop… 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 • We have also learned that we can all benefit from things media, whether in the loop or just outside the loop 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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 16 of 134 2 We have learned there are Issues that agriculture faces in other things to avoid too, e.g.: crafting public messages

• We frequently deal with emergencies or other issues where the media DEMANDS to know what’s going on NOW – Avoid using negative words, e. g., no, not, never, (high-stress) – whether the event occurred in “our” state nothing, none or elsewhere

– Avoid offering guarantees • While most professionals are able communicators, many of us are not taught to be able communicators during high- – Avoid speculating on worst-case scenarios stress situations

– Avoid repeating allegations or accusations • Even fewer individuals are in-and-of-themselves expert in communications theory, technical knowledge AND policy

13 nuances 14

Risk Communications has helped us a Risk/Crisis Communication great deal. New advances can help us We’ve learned: even more

• Since the 1980s, we’ve “practiced” risk communications • High-stress situations result in as little as 20% message retention • 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 • There is a bias in recall – first and last messages will be a very high stress event) 15 16

Risk/Crisis Communication Research further shows: 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 %

• Beneficial to use visual aids – graphics – anecdotes All Other • One negative statement requires three positives to Factors neutralize 15 / 20 %

17 18

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 17 of 134 3 Message Mapping is a new tool in Trust factors in high stress situations the Risk Communication Arsenal

Determined in first Listening / Caring / • Adding what is known about high stress communications to 9/30 seconds Risk Communications will help assure that we are Empathy 50% providing high quality information to the Public Competency / Honesty / Expertise Openness • It also will increase the chances that the Media will cover 15 / 20 % 15 – 20 % it – and the Public will remember it Dedication / Commitment

15 / 20 % 19 20

We can know 95% of the Message Mapping does require questions we will be asked. planning

• Would you be willing to help prepare sets of key words – verified facts – for key questions – that you might be asked • We have become accustomed to practicing how we say by the Media? things – through spokesperson training

• And would it be helpful for you to have a single sheet of • Message mapping adds developing – and practicing – paper with this information in your file before you are what we are going to say the things we must practice asked the questions?

These are rhetorical questions!

21 22

7 Steps in the Development & Use of 7 Steps in the Development & Use of Message Maps as a Management Tool Message Maps as a Management Tool

• Identify Stakeholders • Develop Key Messages

• Identify a Complete List of Specific Concerns • Develop Supporting Facts & Proof Points – Overarching Questions – Informational Questions • Conduct Message Testing – Sharing & Testing of – Challenging Questions 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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 18 of 134 4 Message Mapping fills an important Message Mapping as a need for NASDA Management Tool

• Communications messages crafted involving states and • Allows the combination of the various schools of thought federal agency expertise 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

• Helps result in consistent messages – being on the same • Allows policy to be the fine art of compromise page – even if we may never speak with one voice

25 26

Message Mapping as a Using Message Maps Management Tool

• Limit to 3 key messages • Use 1 or all 3 Key Messages as Sound Bites • Use 3 supporting statements for each key message • Answer Less Important Question & Bridge to Overarching • 27/9/3 (27 words—9 seconds—3 thoughts) Messages

• Express current knowledge • Allows Us to Stay on Prepared Messages

• Allows Us to Keep Messages Short/Focused 27 28

Message Mapping as a Management Tool for NASDA Other Potential Applications to 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 • Can use for “everyday” issues for programs beyond “mapped”? USDA/state partnerships

• “I don’t know the details of the incident you are • Ultimately useful for extraordinary emergencies – describing, but let me tell you how we would handle an homeland security incident if it occurred in our state….”

29 30

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 19 of 134 5 Most valuable to NASDA if: Where we are in the process:

• State technical & PIO staffs have been trained through the • Our federal partners work with us – as evidenced by Multi-States Partnership project & State specific training APHIS involvement and commitment • NASDA’s Board has authorized us to proceed with a • Our federal partners will invest in this effort – both project internal to NASDA and with APHIS & to develop professional staff time & resources key questions and vetted answers 10 priority issues

• Our affiliate organizations are involved – this means • APHIS has trained several of their LPA staff and other you!!! personnel on the concept

• We are proposing a training session during 2006 NPB • PIOs from 32 states were trained at COSDA’s 2005 meeting in Milwaukee 31 annual meeting 32

Next Steps (some concurrently) Next Steps (some concurrently)

• All NASDA Members were introduced/trained at 2006 Midyear meeting • The process will continue to expand to include policy, technical and communications experts at the state and • COSDA will be further trained during train-the-trainer session in the 2006 COSDA annual meeting federal level as more affiliate groups are introduced to the method • Affiliate organizations training will also begin • Many states will continue to advance through the Multi- • COSDA members will serve as facilitators at the state level States Partnership and other venues

• Teams will be put together to begin the process 33 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 • Many state and federal agencies – particularly public able to deliver the message in the 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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 20 of 134 6 "Even one is too many. Let me say that again - even “The number of casualties is more than any of us can one is too many. Many a time I've cried to sleep at bear, and I believe the nation will become stronger, night thinking about the boys and their families." stronger economically, politically, but most importantly, emotionally.” General Norman Schwarzkopf on 20/20 after the Persian Gulf War

Rudy Guliani, September 12, 372005 38

We do not believe that we need to be as The following are examples of some first draft skilled – or as emotional– as these examples message maps – offered as an illustration of in order to be successful, but this tool is the early stage of message development extremely powerful Continuous improvement in crafting messages and expanding topics are goals

39 40

Message Map: SBR Message Map: SBR Audience: Public/Media Audience: Public/Media What should I know about soybean rust? What additional info should I know re: SBR ? Key Message 1 Key Message 2 Key Message 3 Key Message 1 Key Message 2 Key Message 3 Soybean rust is a fungal SBR can have an Early detection and Soybean rust affects Signs of SBR include tiny yellow There are economic spots on the upper surface of disease newly introduced to economic impact on the treatment is vital for soybeans and other legumes, considerations for the use of the U.S. in 2004 like kudzu, green beans, leaves and raised red pustules on fungicide treatment. soybean industry. prevention. underside of lower leaves. alfalfa Eventually leaves die and fall off. Supporting Point 1.1 Supporting Point 2.1 Supporting Point 3.1 It has existed in other Reduces yields between 5 National monitoring Supporting Point 1.1 Supporting Point 2.1 Supporting Point 3.1 countries for centuries. to 80 percent. network to track the SBR is spread by windborne It can be mistaken for many Treatment may not be useful if spores that can be trans-ported it is late in season or if weather spread of the disease. other diseases (spider mite over long distances or by damage, bacterial blight). conditions are not favorable Supporting Point 1.2 Supporting Point 2.2 Supporting Point 3.2 people walking through rust- for disease development. infected areas. Since SBR occurs Lists of fungicides labeled for use against soybean rust Supporting Point 1.2 Supporting Point 2.2 Supporting Point 3.2 worldwide, there will be Increases production no impact on U.S. are available from your local SBR requires warm, high- Disease symptoms are not Fungicides vary in their benefits costs. county extension and state and costs. According to USDA- soybean exports. humidity climates to survive. visible to naked eye for agricultural departments. several days after infection. ERS, fungicide sprays may cost approximately $25 per acre. Supporting Point 1.3 Supporting Point 2.3 Supporting Point 3.3 Supporting Point 1.3 Supporting Point 2.3 Supporting Point 3.3 First detected in Cost effectiveness of Most garden and yard If you suspect rust symptoms, Fungicide application must Louisiana, it spread Reduces profits. curative sprays is limited. 41 plants, grains like corn are contact extension be in accordance with the 42 quickly to other states. unaffected. immediately. product label instructions.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 21 of 134 7 Message Map: EAB Message Map: EAB Audience: Public/Media Audience: Public/Media What should I know about EAB? What are you doing about EAB? Key Message 1 Key Message 2 Key Message 3 Key Message 1 Key Message 2 Key Message 3 Emerald Ash Borer moves The only proven We have an active If we do find EAB, we have Resources are available limited control options, but short distances by flying Signs of EAB infestation treatment is removing surveillance program. for more information on or long distances with the trees. Prevention is the quick detection can help to EAB. help of people. key. limit spread. Supporting Point 1.1 Supporting Point 2.1 Supporting Point 3.1 Supporting Point 1.1 Supporting Point 2.1 Supporting Point 3.1 Visual inspections of state We will remove trees in Check our State’s EAB Short flights from tree to Leaves thin, turn yellow Remove trees to protect forests and campgrounds. the infested area. website. tree (up to ½ mile) and die. The tree declines homes and people and from the top down. prevent spread.

Supporting Point 1.2 Supporting Point 2.2 Supporting Point 3.2 Supporting Point 1.2 Supporting Point 2.2 Supporting Point 3.2 Also encourage citizen We will increase our Please call our 800 Moves on infected Shoots will come from Don’t move firewood. reporting. surveillance activities. number. nursery stock, wood bottom. products, firewood. Supporting Point 1.3 Supporting Point 2.3 Supporting Point 3.3 Supporting Point 1.3 Supporting Point 2.3 Supporting Point 3.3 Ongoing regulatory Encourage everyone to Contact your local county Awareness to prevent D-shaped exit hole Awareness is important & inspection of nursery learn the signs and extension agent or spread. emerges June-August contacting us is too 43 stocks. symptoms of EAB. forester. 44

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 22 of 134 8 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Definitions The National Plant Protection Laboratory • Accreditation: The determination that Accreditation Program a laboratory is capable of performing (NPPLAP) 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 • Ensure that the highest quality tests will manage intentional and unintentional introductions of plant be performed, using validated methods diseases and pests by increasing the speed and reliability of diagnostic tests. • Increase national laboratory capacity, • Thus, the purpose of the program is to accredit laboratories capabilities, and quality in the National Plant Disease Network (NPDN), State Depts. • Facilitate rapid and more accurate of Ag., and private or commercial sectors to carry out detection --> more rapid response --> diagnostic tests on plant pathogens or pests of regulatory reduced impact of pest or pathogen concern under defined standards for facilities, equipment, personnel training, sample tracking, and methods. – 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 • Stakeholder buy-in – Participation in training programs • Strategy for technical development, deployment and industry • Sample control, sample integrity involvement – Records management • Continued stakeholder input – Test report content and format • Transparent process • Use of approved analytical methods • Continued and coordinated funding • Methods development, methods validation • Streamlining methods development and validation • Good laboratory practices/ISO accreditation • Role and function of technical working groups • Audit of facilities and records; random on-site review – Validation criteria • Proficiency testing programs • Develop PASS (Potentially Actionable Suspect) sample policy

1 EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 23 of 134 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

NPPLAP Steering Committee Anticipated Needs for the NPPLAP

• Regulatory – Federal • Non-Regulatory • Increased staffing and infrastructure for: • CPHST (NSPL and/or NPGBL •NPDN – Methods development Director) Professional Societies: APS, ESA, ASMUSDA- – Methods validation ARS • PHP (NIS) –Training • USDA-CSREES-Nat’l Prog. Staff, and NRI – Proficiency test panel •PDMP Ag. Expt. Stations •ER/WR • University Extension development and deployment •VS – Quality management • At Large members –IT • Regulatory – State • - additional technical resources: e.g. USDA- •NPB OGC • NASDA or State DA’s • - International (CSL, CFIA, Australia, etc) • - NAPPO, EPPO, IPPC??

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine

Time Frame

• Laboratory Accreditation Workshop, Oct. 2004 The P. ramorum Provisional • Planning committee met Sept., 2005 Approval Program and Lessons • Funding increase in APHIS’ 2007 budget • National Coordinator to be hired in FY 07 mos. Learned: • New staff being hired at Beltsville • First laboratory or laboratories accredited in <18 mos.

Case Study: Provisional Approval Provisional Approval Program for Program for Phytophthora ramorum Phytophthora ramorum: current process

1) Provisional approval guidelines for a ‘typical’ lab: – infrastructure - physical layout, HVAC • Laboratory infrastructure guidelines – sample processing and flow

• Implement laboratory inspection policies and Phytophthora ramorum – instrumentation - types, maintenance & calibration procedures infection on tanoak – personnel training and experience (hands-on training in Beltsville is required) • Develop and deploy proficiency test panels – Labs provide to APHIS documentation of above information • Modeled after NAHLN system, and is 2) Inspection team is sent to laboratory comparable to other existing programs – headed by APHIS CPHST – often includes scientist from NVSL or ARS

Proficiency panels generated and tested at the NPGBL

2 EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 24 of 134 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

P. ramorum provisional approval (con’t) Provisionally Approved Labs

3) Following inspection, a report is prepared and is • 8 labs provisionally approved as of 3/20/05: sent to lab along with checklist – Oregon State Univ. • Lab corrects deficiencies, if any – OR Dept. of Ag. 4) A blind proficiency test panel is sent to lab – WA Dept. of Ag. • results analyzed by APHIS – CDFA • APHIS scientists must also pass test – Univ. of Tenn. 5) If lab passes panel, provisional approval is PCR results of a – Univ. of Florida NPDN Proficiency panel granted –FL DPI • If lab does not pass panel, corrective measures taken and – USDA-AMS (Gastonia, NC): PPQ surge capacity lab. a new panel is provided • ≈ 13 additional labs in various stages of process

What does provisional approval mean in Future development of P. ramorum terms of regulatory action? provisional approval

• Need to determine time interval for Phytophthora ramorum Symptoms on leaves • USDA will accept negative results proficiency testing – Majority of forwarded DNA samples are negative • Need to improve current PT panel • Potentially actionable suspect (PASS) samples – present panel only tests PCR proficiency, not DNA being defined: This policy will define which positive extraction, ELISA, or host effects samples require confirmatory testing (e.g., new – future panels in development (cooperative agreement w/ hosts, environmental finds, etc.) UC Berkeley) – current and future panels will be compatible with real time – At present, all positives need federal confirmation PCR ELISA plate ready for reading

Real Time PCR data Generated by instrument

3 EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 25 of 134 Proficiency Test Development and What is Proficiency Testing? Deployment: Yr-1 Lessons Learned

Laurene Levy A type of external quality control to measure a Renee DeVries & Vessela Mavrodieva laboratory’s accuracy.

USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST National Plant Germplasm and Biotechnology Lab A method to verify that the performance of each test site is in line with other labs performing the same analysis. Eastern Plant Board Meeting, 4-4-2006

Why do proficiency testing? PT Topics

Successful performance in an external Planning proficiency test is a key indicator of high Sample Selection / Propagation laboratory quality. Homogeneity and stability testing Results in a lab are dependent on variables Panel Assembly like the method used, equipment, procedures, Panel Distribution and the skills and training of the analyst. Collecting & Grading Results Proficiency testing is a valuable quality tool that Reporting Results gives a snapshot of a labs measurements and quality system at one point in time. Communicating with Participants

Proficiency Planning Sample Selection Requires a validated method, preferably also a ring-tested Selection of Phyto. sp. narrowed to 23 samples method. based on performance test results during Identify expected participants evaluation of purified DNA Contact participants for dates to receive panel 14-20 samples per proficiency test (Initial or Identify the information to be supplied to the participants Maintenance?) PT panel letter Strong positive Moderate positive PT panel instructions Low positive Work-Instruction(s) for the validated method(s) Known negative Lab form for sample set-up PT panel data submission forms and description of what to Selected panel samples re-tested several times include randomly to verify stability of titers, for Indicate in PT letter how data will be evaluated homogeneity, stability in shipment, performance with various level of analyst.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 26 of 134 1 Sample Selection PT Panel Evaluation Objectives P. ramorum PT panel 2006 - project Multiple Operator Evaluations

# samp le Phytoph. DN A Health y DNA 1 PCR H2O n/a n/a Test for contamination - H2O samples 2 1:100 dilution of #1 n/a n/a Test for consistency - samples #5 &6 - the same concentration 3 Rhododendron DNA 0 1ng Test for consistency - samples with the same healthy DNA 4 Rhododendron DNA 1:10 #4 0 100pg concentration # 3,5,6,7,8,9,10 5 P. AAAAAA/Rhododendron DN A 100pg 1ng Test for consistency between the runs 6 P. AAAAAA/Rhododendron DN A 100pg 1ng Tes t serial dilutions - samples # 3 & 4; samples 10, 11&12 (C 7 P. BBBBBB /Rhododendron DN A 10ng 1ng might be changed) 8 P. BBBBBB /Rhododendron DN A 100pg 1ng 9 P.CCCCCC/ Rhododendron DN A 100pg 1ng Test TxRd inhibition by high C of P. AAA DNA - samples #10-12 10 P. AAAAAA/Rhododendron DN A 100pg 1ng Test accuracy by evaluating cross reacts and known negatives 11 P. AAAAAA/Rhododendron DN A 1:100 #10 1pg 10pg Test interpretation of results between analysts 12 P. AAAAAA /Rhododendron DN A 1:10 #11 0.1pg 1pg 13 P. AAAAAA / H2O 100pg 0 14 P. CCCCCC (P. RRRRRRR) 100pg 0

Panel Assembly Panel Assembly Determine Number of Kits Needed Initial letters of interest from the field in Assemble PT Kits response to inquiry / send an order form to Randomize PT samples so that no lab receives laboratory for PT panel development a duplicate panel. Excel spreadsheet of laboratory address and Assign random numbers and label vials contact information Thaw DNA from evaluated samples and aliquot Date for PT determined with labs Package into PT Kits for overnight delivery Calculate how many PT are needed per lab Ship DNA, send all PT instructions/paperwork based on response of how many analysts and FedEx tracking number via email will perform the test.

Collecting and Evaluating Results Reporting Results

Laboratories email PT results Summarize lab performance for each test Results due within 4 weeks Excel charts Data entered into Excel spreadsheet Grading key established – new this year Reports generated Qualitative Evaluation – for each sample, X% agreement of Word documents answers, timeliness, data submission, etc. Analytical Evaluation –for each sample actual performance and Individual laboratory score – new this year interpretation of data Distribution charts of all lab scores for each test – all labs Statistical Evaluation – perhaps new in 2007 anonymous – at end of testing season PT panel results evaluation within 30 days of panel Comment sheet for suggested improvements return. Certificate of Approval if necessary PT results discussed with participant lab if needed Reports emailed out to each laboratory Remedial action taken if panel is failed – what depends on failure type

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 27 of 134 2 Year-1 Lessons Learned 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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 28 of 134 3 NEPDN Training and Education 2005 Goals and Progress • Completion of exercise scenario by each NEPDN Education and state in NE region Training Update • Provide training and educational materials Mary McKellar for specific high risk pathogens or groups Education and Training Coordinator of pathogens Northeast Plant Diagnostic Network • Provide monthly regional newsletter • Train between 400 and 500 first detectors in the Northeast region

National Select Agent Exercises Regional Select Agent Exercises

NEPDN Training and Education Future Exercise Plans 2005 Goals and Progress • Exercises for each state are planned for • Completion of exercise scenario by each 2006 state in NE region • Differences from previous exercise: • Provide training and educational materials – Sample arrival date will be unknown for specific high risk pathogens or groups – Utilize Diagnosticians SOP Notebook of pathogens – Include labs that did not participate last year • Provide monthly regional newsletter (i.e. LI, CT Ag Exp Station, etc.) • Train between 400 and 500 first detectors – Exercises will begin in March (sign up sheet) in the Northeast region

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 29 of 134 1 NEPDN Training and Education 2005 Goals and Progress • 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

NPDN First Detector Trainings Regional First Detector Training

Regional First Detector Educator http://spdn.ifas.ufl.edu/ Training

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 30 of 134 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 NEPDN Training and Education Committee Activities 2006 Goals • Monthly conference calls • A first detector in every county in NE region with a focus on counties that border Canada • Online Crop Biosecurity Curriculum • Increase documentation of the type of training • Module Enhancement Working Group conducted (FD vs. FDE) by registering • Northeast participation participants – Committee members? • National newsletter – Regionally Significant Pathogen and Pests • Continue select agent exercise training Presentations? • Continue providing educational select agent and significant pathogen materials

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 31 of 134 3 Regional Networks of Land Grant University Facilities

NPDN Update Northeastern Plant North Ce ntral Plant Diagnos tic Net work Diagnos tic Net work Cornell University Michigan Sta te University

Nancy Gregory Western Plant Diagnostic Network Diagnostician University of California, Davis

Northeast Plant Diagnostic Network National Re posi tor y Purdue University Great Plains Diagnos tic Net work Kansas State University

Souther n Plant Diagnos tic Net work NPDN: University of Florida

Founded 6/2002 Selection by Internal USDA/Homeland Security CS REES Pr oc es s

Objectives for the 5 Regional Plant Network Responsibilities Diagnostic Hubs • Provide leadership and coordination of state • Data collection (detectors/diagnosticians) laboratories within a region • Communications system • Information storage and management • Coordinate regional diagnostic resources • Data analysis • Provide inter-regional communication – Pattern recognition – New events and analysis of new appearance • Establish a national uniform reporting protocol – Unusual patterns of endemic problems with all regions •GIS • Event propagation • Utilize the National Repository to catalogue data •Tracking collected • Reporting and alerts • Build on existing investments (e.g. IPM Centers – Coordinate with state and Federal regulatory bodies and link to IPM Centers and Diagnostics laboratories)

Diagnostic Functions Diagnostic Functions • Database training and management (PDIS, DDIS,…) • Created Diagnostics Subcommittee to address issues and create policies and procedures to be used by Diagnos tic Agricultural First network members Lab Alert Detector Module Module Module • SOP and Picture Clue Notebooks

Exercise Secure Image Scenario Comm Library Module Module Module

Video Digital GIS Conferencing Microscopy Reporting

(Futur e)

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 32 of 134 1 Diagnostic Functions Diagnostic Functions • Coordinated a number of training sessions with APHIS- • Coordinated the permit process PPQ-CPHST for significant pathogens • 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 How much data from each region? repository database? (as of December 2005) YEAR NO. RECORDS REGI ON # RECORDS

GPDN 3,777 2004 2,637 NCPDN 8,137

2005 47,460 NEPDN 18,348

SPDN 13,216 2006 57 WPDN 6,557

National Select Agent Exercises Regional Select Agent Exercises

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 33 of 134 2 Communications NPDN First Detector Trainings

Regional First Detector Training Regional First Detector Educator Training

NEPDN State Ag & Market Contacts NPDN Vision Terry B ourgoin Di vision of Pl ant I ndus tr y- Mai ne Dept . of Agricult ure207-287-3891

John Bowers Maryland Dept. of Agriculture410-841-5920

• Sensitive, High Quality, High Randy Ciurlino Pl ant I ndus tries S ecti on- D el awar e D ept. of Agricult ure302- 739-4811

Throughput Diagnostics Distributed Berr y Cr utc hfi eld Pl ant I ndus tries Di vision- West Virginia D ept. of Agric ultur e304-558- 2212

Nation-Wide Tom Durkis Division of Plant Industry-New Hampshire Dept. of Agriculture603-271-2561 • Skilled Nation-wide First Detectors Glen Freeman Di vision of Pl ant I ndus tr y- New J ersey Dept . of Agricult ure609-292-5484 Seong H wan Kim Penns yl vani a D ept. of Agricult ure717- 772-5221

• Real-Time Assessment of the Health Dan Lawton Di vi sion of Ag. & R es ourc e Mr kt .- Rhode Island D ept. of Agricult ure401- 222-2781 Status of Our Nation’s Agriculture Brad Mitc hell R egulator y S er vices- B ost on, M ass ac hus et ts617-626- 1801 Robert Mungari Division of Plant Industry New York State Agriculture & Markets518-457-1772 Ti m • Predictive Capacity for Post-Introduction Schmalz Ver mont D ept . of Agricult ure802-241-3544 Carl Sc hulze, Jr. Di vision of Pl ant I ndus tr y609-292- 5441 Kir by Staff ordSt at e Entomologist- Movements Connectic ut Ag. E xperi ment Station203-974- 8485 •

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 34 of 134 3 Acknowledgements

• Karen Snover-Clift – Assistant Director NEPDN, Cornell University

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 35 of 134 4 United States Departme nt of Agriculture United States Departme nt of Agriculture Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Eastern Region Report Areas of Focus Eastern Plant Board Rehoboth Beach, DE • Building Relationships April 4, 2006 • Communication Victor Harabin •Setting Direction Regional Director

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine

Joint Regional Goals Regional Office Changes

• Prepare and Respond to Emergencies • New Staff • Improve and Enhance Exclusion Activities in and – Carlos Martinez, Assistant Regional Director around our Ports of Entry – Gary Clement, Assistant Regional Director –Patrick Gomes • Discover Exotic Pests as Early as Possible to • Citrus Issues Ensure Effective Mitigation •Fruit Flies • Enhance Pest Management Activities • Sterile Insect Technique • Strengthen PPQ Export Certification Program – Leon Bunce • Maximize Effectiveness of PPQ’s Resources • 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 • Citrus greening • Plum Pox Virus – Pennsylvania • Scritothrips dorsalis • Citrus Canker and Citrus Greening (Chili thrips) • Swede midge

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 36 of 134 1 United States Departme nt of Agriculture United States Departme nt of Agriculture Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine Financial Status – Eastern Region FY 05 FY 06 Difference SITC Changes Core EPP 3,934,000 3,201,000 -733,000 Core Hy drilla ** 80,000 399,000 319,000 Citrus Can ker 31,770,000 28,619,000 -3,151,000 SITC Management Team ALB 35,000,000 26,000,000 -9,000,000 Sudden Oa k Death 200,000 200,000 0 – Ron Blaskovich/Vionette James Emerald Ash Borer 10,411,000 6,769,000 -3,642,000 AQI Appropriated 4,722,000 5,047,000 325,000 – Carlos Martinez/Derrick McNeal Biocontrol 1,732,000 1,763,000 31,000 – Joseph Messineo/Jamie Berlowitz Golden Nematode 652,000 660,000 8,000 Gypsy Moth 2,389,000 2,421,000 32,000 – Michael Shannon/Paul Hornby 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 ** Note 1: Congressional earmark for the Lake Gaston, VA/N C ** * Note 2: Pest Detection includes 250K for Biotech and a increase for CAPS agreement

United States Departme nt of Agriculture Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Plant Protection and Quarantine

Vionette James Jamie Berlowitz Philip Bailey Vacant

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 37 of 134 2 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

eAuthentication Local ePermits Registration Authorities Current Status and Capability

Sam Johnson Permit Services Unit Riverdale, MD

http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app

ePermit Deployment Strategy Recent Accomplishments

• Phased release with each new version to provide • Oct. 2005: Internal Pilot Deployment of Release 2 additional functionality – 526 Plant Pests/Noxious Weed Permits • April 3, 2006: Public Release of Version 2.1 • Dec. 2005: Completed User Acceptance Testing – 526 Plant Pests/Noxious Weed Permits • Summer 2006: Expect Release of Version 3 • 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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 38 of 134 1 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Current Status: Application for 526 Per mit 526 Plant Pests/Noxious Weeds Permits • Approximately 500 applications have been entered into the system by Permit Services Staff • Approximately 60 have been issued

Regulated Article Article Lookup Category Look-up Table Table

Intended Use Origination State

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 39 of 134 2 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

View Destination Application

Work Flow Tracking Sheet

New Permit Format New Permit Format

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 40 of 134 3 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Current Functional Limitations: Barcode Tracking of 525 Plant Pests/Noxious Weed Permits Imported Plant Pests and Pathogens

• State review process done outside the system This Package Contains This Package Contains LIVING PLANT PESTS OR PATHOGENS LIVING PLANT PESTS OR PATHOGENS – Fax and email D O N OT OP EN EX CE PT IN TH E PR ES EN CE OF A N A PH IS DO NOT OPEN EXCEPT IN THE PRESENCE OF AN APHIS I NS PE CTOR OR D ES IGN AT ED R EPR ES EN TA TIVE OF US DA . IN SP EC TOR OR D ESI GNA TE D RE PR ESE NT ATI VE OF USD A . • Containment inspection process done outside the system DELIVER TO DELIVER TO –email U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE PLANT PROTECTION AND QUAR ANTINE PLANT PROTECTION AND Q UARANTINE • Applicant review process done outside the system Pla nt Ge rm p lasm I ns pe ctio n St at io n Building 580, BARC -East –Fax Beltsv ille, MD 20705 Sh ip ment 5 /8 Exp ires 3/2 9/06 P P Q FORM 5 99 (A P R 2004) PE RM IT NO . P PQ F ORM 599 (A PR 20 04) PER MI T N O. P26-055-0220 • Final permit issued outside the system E – Conventional mail

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine

Open Discussion

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 41 of 134 4 Africanized Honey Bees Out of East Africa Origin Swarming into wild in Brazil

Native (Masai) harvest of rustic colony In tree – nightime w/ smoke & fire Unknown artist’s Beekeeper contemplating AHB swarm capture Scary vision of AfHB Do we need to be concerned!

Changing American Beekeepers & Beekeeping Dewey M. Caron Beekeeper inspection of AHB colony in Panama Note: using jumbo smoker

AAfricanizedfricanized bee spread in Americas following introduction into Brazil (1957) What is an Africanized Bee (AHB)? Isolated introductions X by truck/rail/beekeeper - eliminated A Killer Bee? X Maine blueberry pollination A media term sampling shows increase of AHB X X X X A Honey Bee Population? X 2005 Numerous importations X OK X X AR YES with some distinctiveness X AL into Eastern ports - eliminated X LA X 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 AHB is a better honey producer in The Africanized bee is a Pollinator tropical climates (compared to EHB) papaya Tropical Honey Production Melon pollination in Higher elevation (less tropical) Costa Rica conditions in Bolivia

But it is a more difficult bee to manage in planned pollination due to higher swarming /absconding/defensiveness

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 42 of 134 1 Honey is a valuable medicine The AHB is NOT a hybrid! in developing world The AHB is NOT a hybrid! -- more than just food It is essentially pure African… but not easy -- more than just food 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? 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 Challenges w/ AHB Need new locations Need to modify management

They raise lots They run off combs of brood – store when inspected less honey Need to plan for defensiveness Must now isolate or conceal colonies w/ vegetative corral + Keeping them home – must control and move them away from people & animals swarming & absconding

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 43 of 134 2 The major challenge So where has it colonized in US? raising manageable stock

Queen finding & Where AHB colonize: rearing is very difficult with AHB Not possible XXX to keep AHB & EHB in same apiary (AHB not competitive)

Source: ars.usda.gov/AHBmap

Not here ....YET!!! 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 beekeepers are part of “solution” – not part of “problem” defensive in more temperature (higher-elevation) locations in the Americas

So in summary.... It is an excellent tropical/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 Where they have colonized they are superior competitors – In temperate/higher elevation climatic conditions you can’t successfully keep European bees side-by-side

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 44 of 134 3 BUT...In South American highlands AND they are now a ready AHB is more manageable 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 So the answer is.... factor in US Beekeeping???

Primarily they are a TROPICAL/SEMI-TROPICAL

ADAPTED BEE YET

Questions

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 45 of 134 4 APHIS Regulatory Changes The Future of

Biotechnology Regulation CBI Sharing Rule Anticipating New Technologies Allows APHIS to share CBI with States Revision of APHIS biotech regulations T. Clint Nesbitt Overhaul of regulation of GEOs Regulatory Analyst Future technologies?

Biotechnology Regulatory Services Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture

CBI Sharing Rule Revision of Regulations

Currently, APHIS shares permit applications and notifications with state regulatory officials January 2004: APHIS announced intentions to Cannot legally disclose information claimed as CBI by the applicant revise biotech regulations (7 CFR 340) States have varying laws that protect CBI from disclosure Preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to consider impacts of changes Proposal: Change regulations to allow CBI to be sent to certain state and tribal officials Nine areas of proposed changes 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 1. Scope of Regulations

Current Proposed Possible Plant pest: Any living stage of any of the following that Impacts can directly of indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product: “Plant Pests” “Noxious Weeds” Improved safety a protozoan, a nonhuman animal, APHIS regulates a Expand to add Risk assessment has clearer a parasitic plant, GEO if there is organisms that a bacterium, reason to believe it could pose a scientific grounding a fungus, could be a plant noxious weed risk a virus or viroid, pest an infectious agent or other pathogen, any article similar to or allied with any of the articles specified in the preceding subparagraphs.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 46 of 134 1 1. Scope of Regulations 2. Tiered Permitting System

Current Proposed Possible Impacts Noxious weed: Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops Two-tiered system Multi-tiered system APHIS oversight (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, of field testing based on risk is proportional to poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, (notification and risk navigation, the natural resources of the United States, permits) the public health, or the environment.

3. “Conditional” Deregulation 4. Research Exemptions

Current Proposed Possible Current Proposed Possible Impacts Impacts

Deregulation Allow unconfined Increased safety Allow transgenic Add other well- Fosters research allows unconfined release under Additional Arabidopsis to be studied, low-risk without increasing release some continuing opportunity for moved interstate transgenic plants environmental risk conditions data collection without a permit to the list Reduces the Increased number of permits regulatory burden

5. “Non-living” plant material 6. Imported Commodities

Current Proposed Possible Current Proposed Possible Impacts Impacts

APHIS only Regulated non- Improved safety APHIS reviews Expedited risk More efficient regulates living viable materials Some increase safety and issues analysis which use of resources transgenic material when risk warrants in regulatory opinion letter if incorporates without burden item need not be appropriate compromising regulated reviews conducted safety in country of origin

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 47 of 134 2 7. Shipping Containers 8. Adventitious Presence

Current Proposed Possible Current Proposed Possible Impacts Impacts

Prescriptive Performance- Retains APHIS No allowance for Low levels of Reduces container based standards oversight regulated articles specific genes emphasis on rare, requirements; Creates in commerce would not trigger a random events issue variances flexibility for regulatory Focuses analysis when appropriate applicants response on actual risk

9. “Pharma” crops Future technologies?

Current Proposed Possible Developing new regulations for transgenic Impacts animals Other technologies??? Field tests are Long-term contract No compromise allowed, but crops with applicant in safety are never granted Clearer method General Strategy: non-regulated Comprehensive for “commercializ- status initial review of ation” under permit permit and SOPs Cast a wide net Incorporate efficient mechanisms for removing Subsequent low-risk applications from oversight review of changes

Biotechnology Regulatory Services Ensuring Safety Through Effective Regulation

Please visit the program’s website at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs

Biotechnology Regulatory Services Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 48 of 134 3 Biotechnology Update USDA-APHIS-BRS/NPB Eastern Plant Board • State Agency Collaboration April 4, 2006 – Pilot Notification Inspection Program

Ken Rauscher – Cooperative Agreement

NPB Biotechnology Committee Cooperative Agreement

Larry Bezark, California Carol Okada, Hawaii • BRS/NPB: September 2005 Robert Boesch, Hawaii Aurelio Posadas, California – States desire to work more closely with BRS Mike Brown, Missouri Robin Pruisner, Iowa – BRS provided overview of regulatory process Bill Dickerson, N. Carolina Mitch Yergert, Colorado – NPB to develop survey to gather state Richard Gaskella, Florida Ken Rauscher, Michigan, Chair perspectives Faith Kuehn, Delaware

States Survey BRS Survey Report

• National Plant Board Survey • 17 Recommendations – state input on biotechnology issues – identify the needs and concerns of state • 3 Overarching Issues regulatory officials – Communication – 43 States Responded – Identification of Roles & Responsibilities – Training

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 49 of 134 1 Development of Action Items NPB/BRS: Action Items-Work Teams • Action Item 1: Develop Cooperative Agreements – Availability of State and federal resources, including staff • Met January 27, 2006 – Access to CBI – Identify liability limits – Routine training of staff • Identified Action Items – responding to press inquiries – Developed work teams – Flexibility to address the wide variety of State needs • Team Leader: Judy Garrison – BRS Members: Sybil Wellstood, Michael Wach – NPB Members: Bob Boesch, Mike Brown • Final June 1

NPB/BRS: Action Items-Work Teams NPB/BRS: Action Items-Work Teams • Action Item 2: User Friendly Contact List (Directory) for • Action Item 3: Develop a Two-Tiered Training Course for use by Customers/Stakeholders BRS Regulatory Process – BRS 101: Basic Info – BRS draft initial product (directory or flowchart) to describe – BRS 201: In-depth Training appropriate BRS contacts by area of expertise/interest. BRS emergency numbers and other important APHIS contacts should • Team Leaders: John Cordts, BRS be included – BRS M embers: Tom Sim, Emily Pullins, Dave Foley, Rebecca • Team Leader: Sarah Lively, BRS Stankiewicz Gabel – NPB Member: Robin Pruisner – NPB Members: Ken Rauscher, Robin Pruisner, Larry Bezark • Final March 1

NPB/BRS: Action Items-Work Teams NPB/BRS: Action Items-Work Teams • Action Item 4: Identify and Prioritize Key Electronic Data • Action Item 5: Conduct Preliminary Assessment of States’ Management Issues and Begin to Implement Necessary Abilities to Protect CBI data Steps to Improve Them – NPB will conduct a preliminary assessment (via a poll) of states – Form a Data Management Working Group and tribes – Establish a list of priority issues around electronic data needs • Team Leader: Ken Rauscher, NPB – Develop operational plans for the highest priority issues – BRS Member: Craig Roseland • Team Leader: Steve Bennett, BRS – NPB Members: Mitch Yergert, Faith Kuehn

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 50 of 134 2 NPB/BRS: Action Items-Work Teams Outcomes • Action Item 6: Identify and Prioritize Key Educational • Ongoing NPB/BRS collaboration Materials that BRS and others can develop around Regulating GMOs • Information sharing at national and regional – Establish a workgroup – Identify key educational material meetings – Develop new outreach material • Team Leader: John Turner, BRS • Improved system of information flow, – BRS Members: Abbey Shafer, Rebecca Stankiewicz Gabel, Sara Lively permit review and biotechnology – NPB Members: Richard Gaskalla, Aurelio Posadas, Carol Holko monitoring

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 51 of 134 3 Introduction Whither Plant Biotech? Eastern Plant Board z Plant Biotechnology: Advances in Food, 81st Annual Meeting Energy and Health z Early Glimpses of Pre-crop Pipeline Barry Marrs z Regulatory Implications Athena Biotechnologies, Inc.

1 2 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007

Agenda Overview z Global Population 10 Billion by 2030 z Improving Crop Production z ‘Business As Usual’ Will Result in a z (Enhanced Nutritional Content) Hungrier, Sicker, More Polluted Planet z (Production of Pharmaceuticals) z Regulated Plant Biotechnology Can Help z Production of Energy Crops Politics Culture Religion

Energy Crops Science

Environment Health Economy 3 4 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007

Improving Crop Production Targeted Growth, Inc. z Familiar strategies continue to be refined – Pest resistance – Herbicide tolerance z Newer areas making progress – Yield increases A gene that works to significantly enhance yield in canola… – Stress resistance

Has been moved to soybeans…

5 6 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 52 of 134 1 Targeted Growth, Inc. Production of Energy Crops

z Field trials of beans are set for this year in Canada… Cellulosic Waste Biomass z 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 And cereal crops are under development… z Opens New Opportunities for Biotech

The gene in question is cell cycle regulating transcription factor. 7 8 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007

Production of Energy Crops Production of Energy Crops

z Current processes for ethanol from waste z Athena Biotechnologies, Inc. is seeking a cellulosics involves fermentation of sugars partner to create a transgenic cellulosic at conventional temperatures, requiring crop plant that would contain a cooling, followed by heating to distill off hyperthermal cellulase product. z The hyperthermal cellulase would be z Energy could be saved by performing all essentially inactive at all growth processes at higher temps, including temperatures, but waste would convert to conversion of cellulose to sugars sugar at high fermentation temps

9 10 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007

Summary

z 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

11 Recent Advances in Plant Biotechnology 3/15/2007

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 53 of 134 2 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard

Transgenic Insects: Programs, Technology, The Problems: Benefits and Risks 1. Pre-Harvest Loss

David A. O’Brochta, Ph.D. 2. Post-Harvest Loss University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute Center for Biosystems Research College Park, Maryland, USA 3. Public Health

Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Resear ch Resear ch

81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard

The Problems: Example: Applications of Transgenic Insect Public Health - Re-emergence of malaria Technology: >1 million deaths 300 million acute cases 1. Beneficial insect improvement 40% world at risk 90% south of Sahara 2. Population suppression/eradication Insecticide Resistant Mosquitoes Drug Resistant Parasites

Retards economic growth1.3% annually 3. Pest status modification Short term benefits of malaria control: $3 billion - $12 billion per year. 4. Gene finding and analysis

Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Resear ch Resear ch

81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard

Applications of Transgenic Insect Applications of Transgenic Insect Technology: Technology: Beneficial insect improvement: Population suppression/eradication:

1. Insecticide resistance 1. Sterile Insect Technique (SIT)

2. Disease resistance 2. Genetic Load Control 1 Deleterious genes 1 Conditional lethals

Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Resear ch Resear ch

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 54 of 134 1 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard Applications of Transgenic Insect Technology: Pest status modification: 1. Vectoral Capacity Control Technology: e.g. Spread transgenes through natural 1. Molecular Biology populations that prevent pathogen/parasite transmission. 2. Biology

analog =

Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Resear ch Resear ch

81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard

Technology: Technology: Biology Molecular Biology

Gene vectors from Transposable Elements <1% - >50%

Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Resear ch Resear ch

81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard

Technology: Technology: Examples Examples Culexquinquifasciatus - mosquito Ceratitis capitata - Mediterranean Fruit Fly

Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Resear ch Resear ch

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 55 of 134 2 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard

Technology: Technology: Examples Aedes aegypti - Yellow fever mosquito History of Insect Transformation 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s NO SYSTEM 1990’s Today NO SYSTEM DROSOPHILA SYSTEM NEW INSECT SYSTEMS

7 INSECT GENE VECTOR SYSTEMS

Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Resear ch Resear ch

81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard

Technology: State of the Art - 2006 Benefits Flies Beetles Drosophila melanogas ter Tribolium cas teneum 1. Non-chemical Drosophila sp. Ceratitis capitata 2. Specific Moths/Butterflies Bactrocera dors alis 3. Sustainable Anastrepha suspensa Bombyx mori Aedes aegypti Plectinophora gossypiella 4. Low densities Bicyclus anynana Culexquinquifasciatus 5. Limited alternatives Anopheles gambiae Anopheles stephensi Anopheles albimanus Stomoxys calcitrans Musca domestica Hymenoptera Athalia rosae

Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Resear ch Resear ch

81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard Some Notable Features Hazards Insects 1. Pe st status e nhance ment. 1. TE vectors 2. Transfer to nontargets 3. Change in host range 2. TE horizontal transfer 4. Change in ecological range and habitat 5. Change in life history of host Applications 6. Invasion of new habitats 1. Release sterile insects 7. Change in parasite biology 2. Release fertile/fit 8. Change in vectoral capacity 3. Un-managed systems 9. Change in life history of parasite 4. Spread desired 5. Transgene instability desired

Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Resear ch Resear ch

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 56 of 134 3 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard 81st A nnua l Mee ting - Ea ster n Pl ant B oard

History of Field Trials Needs/Issues

1993 Predacious Mite. 1. Oversight Authority -e.g. mosquitoes Beneficial Improvement Small plot. 2. Review/Assessment Process - e.g. APHIS Dr. M. Hoy, U. Florida 2001 Pink Bollworm. 3. Support for Risk Analysis - USD A, NIH SIT, Outdoor Cage, APHIS 2005 Pink Bollworm. Env. Asses., field release, sterile trangenic insects Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Univer sity of M aryl and B iote chno logy Inst itut e, Ce nter for Bios yste ms Resear ch Resear ch

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 57 of 134 4 P. Ramorum Survey ‘The Facts’ P. ramorum national survey Phytophthora ramorum Survey – Fourth year An Inspector’s Point of View – New National survey manual – New Retail Nursery Survey Protocol This is the 6th protocol for P. ram orum survey Horticultural Inspection Host list expanded to 60+ plants – Some Koch’s postulates have yet to be completed Society – Eastern Chapter No good field diagnostic tools 6 high risk HAPs, but still ‘look at everything’

P. Ramorum Survey P.Ramorum – Host list An Inspector’s Point of View An Inspector’s Point of View Survey manual/protocols Host list continues to expand based on – Retail nursery protocol contained greenhouse studies Definitions include plant material and facilities not Host list includes plants where Koch’s postulates regulated by many Eastern region states (cut are yet to be completed Christmas tree lots etc…) Host list centers on west coast plant species Outlines strict measures which significantly impact retail stores (close off sections of retail area) Is the host list manageable? Sanitation measures lack field practicality Research focus on number of possible hosts – Treatments for concrete, non-porous s urfaces Can research efforts be refined on the plants More restrictive than CNP? currently on the list and broken down into Eastern/Western regions

P. Ramorum – diagnostic tools P. Ramorum Survey – What plants An Inspector’s Point of View are we focusing on? Diagnostic tools 60+ HAPs – Standardization amongst the region? 6 high risk – Poorly depicted symptoms Still looking at multiple plants, multiple – Does not aid in the elimination of plant symptoms material manageable number? - Need a good field guide for symptoms

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 58 of 134 1 P. Ramorum Survey P. Ramorum – “West coast flavor” An Inspector’s Point of View How about working on Eastern Region Standardized protocol based on East oriented protocol? coast plants and nursery/retail facilites West coast plants, lacking same plants in Form useful in the field guides for P. the East. 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 P. Ramorum An Inspector’s Point of View - of View - The concern expressed here can relate to The Federal Order expires in 2007 many plant pests Will our inspections aid in mitigating the Ask EPB look at the protocol writing risk of possible introduction without the process and make sure a field inspector Federal Order? reviews and is allowed to comment What have we learned from 3-4 years of Request to ‘tailor’ protocols to East region inspecting plant material? concerns and situations

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 59 of 134 2 General Information

32nd annual meeting of the Eastern Chapter 2006 HIS Report to EPB 13 participants representing 8 states EPB and CAPS near 100% attendance April 6, 2006

Rehoboth Beach, Delaware Constitution changes

Accomplishments in 2005 Presentations

Update on Sirex noctilio Computer generated inspection reports Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance and Tracking Functional Website Pinewood Nematode Hot Zone Trapping Program Newsletter Joint sessions with EPB and CAPS HIS P. ramorum national survey concerns

Resolution #1

Whereas the Eastern Chapter of the Horticultural Inspection Society (HIS) was established to promote education, cooperation and interaction among state horticultural inspection personnel,

Whereas participation of the inspectors from all member states is Resolutions vital in order to achieve the goals of the Society, and as the HIS is actively engaged in an effort to increase participation, attendance at the annual meeting is contingent on support of State 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.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 60 of 134 1 Resolution #2

Whereas members of the Eastern Chapter of the Horticultural Inspection Society (HIS) are responsible for conducting much of the field work that has been mandated by survey protocols, and

Whereas participation of the inspectors in these surveys is often a requirement and primary means for successful completion of the surveys, Award Nomination It has become apparent during the process of following survey protocols, that said protocols are often in need of adjustment to maximize efficacy and to meet actual field conditions encountered by the inspector, Carl Carlson Award: Walt Blosser We resolve that:

The Eastern Chapter of the Horticultural Inspection Society (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.

Officers for 2007 Meeting

President: Eric Ewing, WV Thanks Delaware! Vice President: Michael Arnold, WV Thanks Delaware! Secretary: Mark Taylor, MD Treasurer: Sarah Scally, ME Newsletter Editor: Peter Trenchard, CT

Questions?

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 61 of 134 2 P. Ramorum Survey ‘The Facts’ P. ramorum national survey Phytophthora ramorum Survey – Fourth year An Inspector’s Point of View – New National survey manual – New Retail Nursery Survey Protocol This is the 6th protocol for P. ram orum survey Horticultural Inspection Host list expanded to 60+ plants – Some Koch’s postulates have yet to be completed Society – Eastern Chapter No good field diagnostic tools 6 high risk HAPs, but still ‘look at everything’

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 62 of 134 1 P. Ramorum Survey P. Ramorum – “West coast flavor” An Inspector’s Point of View How about working on Eastern Region Standardized protocol based on East oriented protocol? coast plants and nursery/retail facilites West coast plants, lacking same plants in Form useful in the field guides for P. the East. ramorum diagnostic guide Look at review by field inspector leadership / front line personnel review period Reduce host lists to based on priority

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 63 of 134 2 Two Examples of Electronic Survey

Electronic Survey Tools • Sudden Oak Death Survey Tool

Jim Kroon • Red Imported Fire Ant Survey using DE Dept of Agriculture ArcPAD Dover, DE • 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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 64 of 134 1 Sudden Oak Death Survey Tool Sudden Oak Death Survey Tool

• Survey data is used to fill out PPQ-391 • NAPIS data was automatically created forms and create NAPIS data once testing results were received from • Not GPS-enabled the diagnostic lab – However, the ability to fill out PPQ-391 forms • Once DDA received results, those results saves much more time than a GPS could be uploaded to NAPIS within connection would minutes • PPQ-391 forms saved electronically as a Word Document

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 65 of 134 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 Red Imported Fire Ant – Sample picker – Data Entry/Sample bagger Data Collection using ArcPAD Software – Sample photographer Fastest Job

• 2 Nurseries – 90 samples per day

ArcGIS Red Imported Fire Ant Survey

• Three License levels • 2005 –ArcView – Discovered RIFA at a park in Rehoboth Beach –ArcEditor – Surveyed within ¼ mile – ArcInfo using numbered glass • ArcPAD vials with ant bait – ArcPAD was used to – Mobile GIS program for data collection with record trap locations laptops and PDA – Integrated GPS support

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 66 of 134 3 ArcPAD Advantages Recommendations

• Works seamlessly with an attached GPS • Customized programs receiver – Efficient Use of Screen Space • Stores data as a shapefile, so survey data – Features Customized for Specific Pests can be transferred directly between a – Good Example desktop computer running ArcView and • USDA Soybean Rust Scouter Program the PDA • Customizable using ArcPAD Application Builder

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 67 of 134 4 Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

PPQ's Preparedness and Responses USDA History with Foreign Plant Pests to New Pest Threats

Joel Floyd Eastern Plant Board Meeting Pl ann ing and Pr ep ar edn ess Rehoboth Beach, Delaware Pest Detection and Management Programs April 5, 2006 USDA, APHIS, PPQ

Current Factors Influencing Change in PPQ Safeguarding Continuum • Offshore risk management 1999- Safeguarding Review • 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) Prevention HSPD-7: C ritical In frastru ctu re Identi fi cati on , Pri ori tiz ati on , an d Protecti on HSPD 8: Nati onal Pre pare dness • Pre-clearance Programs HSPD- 9: Com prehen si ve Poli cy to De fen d Agri cul tu re Again st Te rrori sm “APHIS is an emergency response agency” • Risk Analysis/Mitigations • Crop Biosecurity • Quarantines – Prevention •Permits – Preparedness • Port of Entry – Response Inspections – Recovery

Source: E. LaGasa, WA Dept Agriculture 2000

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 68 of 134 1 Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Prevention Preparedness Preparedness Off-shore Pest Information System Response Recovery

• Off-shore Pest Information (OPIS) • Pest Detection Initiatives

• New Pest Response • International surveillance of plant pests and animal disease outbreaks Guidelines • Information collection, analysis, and distribution to appropriate entities • Emergency Management • 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 –Survey – Identification/diagnostics – Regulatory • Cooperative Programs with States – Control • Early Detection is the Key – Pathway information • Shorter programs • Priorities: • Less expensive – Select Agents • More control strategies available • Greater possibility of success – Imminent Threats – CAPS list

Preparedness: Emergency Management • National Incident Management System (NIMS) Preparedness Emergency Management • National Response Plan • Resource Tracking • ESF-11 (Emergency Support Function-Agriculture) • Skills Inventory UnifiedUnified Command Command • Training

Science Adv isor y Public I nformation Incident Panel Officer – ICS courses Command – Table-top exercises System Liaison Offi cer Intelli gence Officer – Full-scale exercises (ICS) Safet y Of ficer IES • Communication/Notification Protocols

Planni ng C hief Opera tio ns Logistics Admi n/ F ina nce C hief Chief Chief

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 69 of 134 2 Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Prevention Preparedness Response Diagnosis/Identification Response Detection Presumptive ID Recovery Ext. Agent Clinic/State Dept Agric./NPDN Confirmatory ID

State or PPQ- NIS/CPHST After Detection : Federal Pla nt State Plant Health Inspec tor Dir e ctor • Diagnosis/Identification Gro wer Crop C on sul tan t Private Laboratory • Assessment/Consultation/Communication NPAG • Decision Deployment Eradication Em er ge n cy ICS • Deployment Program Assessment/ Regula tor y Containment Consultation/ D eci sio n M anageme nt Actions Communication Program IPM No Program

Response Response Diagnostics/Identification Assessment/Consultation/ Communication

• Suspect Samples/ Presumptive Positives • New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG) – State Departments of Agriculture Administered out of CPHST, Raleigh, NC – Cooperating Land Grant Universities • Mission: To assess new and imminent – National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN) plant pest introductions to determine – Private Laboratories the recommended course of action. • Confirmatory Identification – PPQ National Identification Service (NIS) – Evaluate new pest finds or threats • National Specialists – Solicit expertise and consult • ARS Systematic Entomology Laboratory (SEL) – Make recommendations – PPQ Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST) ( NPAG does not make policy).

Response Response Assessment/Consultation/ Communication The New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG) Assessment/Consultation/ 80 Opened Cases 73 Communication 70 64 118 Pest Cases Considered 58 • Conference Calls with States (National Plant Board) 60 P re-Assessed, dropped from further • SPRO Letter, Federal Orders consideration 50 19 Reviewed by ET • Trading partners notification 35 46 40 • Collaborate/consult with other Federal agencies (FS, CSREES) 30 24 26 Closed • Consult with tribal goverments 20 13 14 27 • Consult with industry 10 Pending • Press releases, factsheets (APHIS Legislative and Public Affairs) 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 70 of 134 3 Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Assessment/Consultation/ Response Deployment Response Communication Deployment ICS • Assessment Teams Delimiting Survey • Command Post/ Unified •Important to determine the Command Scope of Program • Delim iting Sur vey • Traceback/Traceforward •Performed Before a Program Investigations Goal and Strategy is Decided 15 mi • Emergenc y Action

Infected ArAre e a Notification Issuances •“Tip of the Iceberg” Syndrome 1010 mi 5 mi K nown • Science Panel Formation Focus Traceback / traceforward investigations - IES and SITC

Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine Response Diagnosis/Identification Response Deployment Detection Presumptive ID

Ext. Agent Clinic/State Dept • Declaration of Emergency vs. Agric./NPDN Confirmatory ID Declaration of Extraordinary Emergenc y State or PPQ- NIS/CPHST Federal Pla nt State Plant Health – Release of emergency funds, Inspec tor Dir e ctor – quarantine state, compensation Gro wer • Regulator y Actions Crop C on sul tan t Private Laboratory NPAG – Emergency Action Notifications (EAN’s) • Authority: Plant Protection Act of 2000 Deployment • With State “Stop Sale Orders” Eradication Em er ge n cy ICS – Set up quarantine boundaries Program • Write “Interim Rule” for Federal Register Assessment/ Regula tor y Containment – effective upon publication Consultation/ D eci sio n M anageme nt Actions – Parallel with State quarantine Communication Program IPM – Issuance of Compliance Agreements and No Program Limited Permits

Response Deployment Response Determining Action

• Review guidelines or de velop new ones • Convene science panels - CPHST • Determine goal and de velop strategy • Gain stakeholder cooperation • Consider options – Eradication – Suppression – Containment – Regulation without c ontrol program – Best management practices

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 71 of 134 4 Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Response Response Show Me The Money Elements of All Pest Programs • Primary Sources • Science-based • Data management – Annual Regi onal Allocations GPS/GIS – APHIS Contingency Funds •Survey – USDA Transfer of Funds – D elim it ing – Monitoring • Type of Funding • Identification/Diagnostics – Emergency (CCC) –Cost Share • Regulatory – Appropriated from Congress – Establish a Quarantine – Regulate the movement of articles • Monetary Instruments through permits – Cooperative Agreements • Control –Host removal – Detailed Financial Work Pl ans – Pesticides –Cultural – Sterile Insect Technique – Biological Control

ResponseDevelop a Strategic Plan Response Organized Chaos

Size ASIAN Length of Program LONGHORNED of Program Cost • Define Roles a nd Respons ibilities BEETLE area – Federal and State • Legal Authorities New Jersey 4 miles2 5 years $6 million – Plant Protection Act and State Laws – General MOU’s with State on Cooperation Budget Projections 29 $90 • Personnel a nd Res ources Illinois 10 years Cost/Benefit miles2 million – State, Federal, Other assistance • Incide nt Command System Performance 132 $250 New York 16 years Measures miles2 million

Thanks to everyone I borrowed slides, pictures, or ideas from. Prevention Preparedness Questions ? Response Recovery

Education/outreach

Research

Integrated Pest Management Or Best Management Practices

Coordination of Activities

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 72 of 134 5 Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Unite d States Dep artment of Agric ulture Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Anima l and P lant He alth Insp ection S ervice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Background

• April 4, 2006: published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to establish criteria for special needs requests. • Requests are authorized by the Plant Protection Act when special circumstances exist in a State or political Special Needs Request Docket 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 • Point of Contact: until we have solicited and considered comments. Jim Writer • We encourage comments and will consider all james.v.w [email protected] comments that we receive on or before June 5, 2006. 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 – Compl ete detail s are i n preamble to rule.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 73 of 134 6 • Overall Program Objectives: – Determine presence/absence of emerald ash Vermont Emerald Ash Borer Survey borer (EAB) in Vermont Pilot Program, Summer 2005 – Identify high risk pathways for EAB introduction – Develop spatial database of high-risk sites and their proximity to sensitive receptors Timothy Schmalz Bonnie MacCulloch Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets – Develop action plan cooperatively between VT Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey Program AAFM, APHIS PPQ/CAPS, VT FPR, USFS, University of Vermont/private forestry

– Model applicable to any introduced pest

81st Annual Eastern Plant Board Meeting Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program April 5, 2006 Atlantic Sands Hotel, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware July – October 2005

• Pilot Study Survey (Summer 2005): ALB introduction model •ArcPadinterface – GPS-enabled PDA – Gather and evaluate available resources identifying statewide ash resources – Database capabilities integral with GPS location – Where spatial data unavailable, develop coverages in-house data collection • Map urban and community ash trees • Identify and map recreational and commercial sites – User-friendly interface, (campgrounds, sawmills, nurseries) with: ease in ArcInfo integration – (example – VT Nursery – substantial ash resources or – locations proximal to native ash resources coverage and Towns coverage, appearance on – Generate Arc GIS database to aid in detection, outreach PDA) activities, and decision making processes Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program Emerald Ash Borer Survey July – October 2005 Program July – October 2005

• EAB Urban Ash Trees Survey Method • Urban tree survey City of Burlington – Obtain available ash locations from tree • Other cities surveyed wardens/city arborists/planning commissions included: Essex, South Burlington, Montpelier, Rutland, – Field reconnaissance of ash street and park trees Waterbury, UVM using GPS-enabled PDA, ArcPAD Campus, Brattleboro, Bennington – Download collected field data to GIS in office, develop database in ArcGIS

Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program Emerald Ash Borer July – October 2005 Survey Program July – October 2005

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 74 of 134 1 • Cities surveyed • Street-level tree survey of for ash street Burlington trees – Several cities – Performed by City have Access Arborist databases available – Ideal system for locating and – Ideally updates maintaining urban include GPS trees data

Emerald Ash Borer Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program Survey Program July – October 2005 July – October 2005

• EAB Campground Survey • Campground – Locate State and private campgrounds locations likely to have abundant ash resources – State and private, with and without ash – Perform site visits to confirm ash presence, – Field survey of ash abundance, and locations on-site, interviews – Generate coverage showing campground with State Foresters locations and relative ash abundance and Rangers

Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program Emerald Ash Borer S ou r ce: V ermo n t Camp gro und A sso ciatio n, July – October 2005 Redstart Forestry, October 2005 Survey Program July – October 2005

• Nursery Survey • Nursery survey – Conduct regular nursery inspections during – Locations of summer 2004 and 2005 nurseries – Obtain information on ash sales, other throughout V T species, volume of sales, sources of stock – Generate nursery coverage including merchant contact information

Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program Emerald Ash Borer July – October 2005 Survey Program July – October 2005

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 75 of 134 2 • Sawmill Coverage • Sawmill locations – Obtain sawmill and logyard locations, product, and production class information from VT FPR, Includes those Utilization Forester and mill owners/operators processing ash timber – Develop sawmill coverage based on available Work is ongoing data (Redstart Forestry – private consultant)

– Includes mills and logyards that are stockpiling/processing ash timber

Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program Emerald Ash Borer Source: Redstart Forestry, October 2005 July – October 2005 V T A N R Fo r est U tilizatio n Survey Program July – October 2005

• Survey Conclusions •Example – More urban ash location data is needed – Database of sawmills, nurseries, • GPS or GIS data for major urban areas, not merely databases (Access, others) campgrounds within • Stress value of urban trees to City councils, Selectboards 1.5 miles of GMNF – Use of GPS-enabled PDA effective survey aid – Data table w. contact information for – Survey activities provide effective outreach opportunity to nurseries from landowners, managers, nursery operators, others selection – Comprehensive, large scale, forest cover type GIS data is essential for hazard ranking

Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program July – October 2005

• Additional Work Acknowledgements – Identify ash resources in forested areas – USDA APHIS/PPQ/CAPS (remotely sensed data, multi-spectral data, – Redstart Forestry and University of Vermont Forestry Dept. – City Arborists/Tree Wardens/ Planning Commissions object-oriented classification) (Burlington, South Burlington, Rutland, Waterbury, – Complete surveys of urban street and park Montpelier, Bennington, Brattleboro, Essex) – Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of trees, all major cities and towns Forests, Parks and Recreation, Forest Resource Protection – Complete sawmill data layer and Utilization Sections – VT Campground Association

Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program Emerald Ash Borer Survey Program July – October 2005 July – October 2005

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 76 of 134 3 St Lawrence

Jefferson Hamilton

Sirex Update Le w is

O swego He rk im e r Hamilton Orleans Oneida

Monroe Wa yne

Genesee O nondaga

Cayuga Madison Presented by: Ontario Senec a New York State Wyoming Livingston Yat es Department of Agriculture & Markets Co r t lan d Otsego Chenango To mpki ns Division of Plant Industry Steuben Allegany Schuyler Director, Robert J. Mungari Broome Delaware Chemung Chemung Tiog a

2005 Results

Counties Counties Positive for Sirex noctilio Positive for C linton F ranklin St Lawrence Sirex noctilio in Counties potentially

Es sex 2005 Je ff er so n exposed to Lewis Sirex noctilio H am ilton Wa rre n Oswego Orleans Washington Niagara Oneida M o nr oe Wayne Fulton Saratoga Genesee Onondaga He r kime r Montgome ry On t ar io Madison Er i e SenecaCayuga Sc he ne c ta dy WyomingLivingston Rensselaer Yates Co rt la nd Otsego Al ba ny Chenango Schoharie To m pk i ns Schuyler Chautauqua C a tta ra ug u s Alleg any Steuben Greene C olumbia Tioga Delaware Chemung Broome

Uls te r Dutchess Sullivan

Orange Putnam

RocklandWe stc h es te r

Suf folk New YorkBronx QueensNassau Kings Ri chm on d Qu ee ns

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 77 of 134 1 2005 Sirex Survey Results

# of # of Adult Total # of Trap Type # of Traps Adul t Males Females Adul ts Cross- Plans for 2006 vane 27 0 5 5 Totals by Trap Type

Intercept 11 0 3 3

Lindgren 518 0 54 54

Log 20 0 23 23

Grand Total 576 0 85 85

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

►Organize Sirex Survey Participants: Sirex Survey Details and CAPS SSC (State) CAPS PSS (USDA) Recommendations Department of Natural Resources Representative US Forest Service Representative Department of Parks and Recreation Representative State Forest Products Association

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 78 of 134 2 NYS Forest Health - Dept. of Sirex Trapping Recommendations Environmental Conservation

►Placement of Traps Fly-Over Data USDA Hot Zones APHIS/PPQ Risk Maps Port Areas “Hanging” mid-bowl in stress Pine Stands Line-up all supplies NYS U.S. required Department of Fo rest Serv ice Agriculture & Markets Fo rest Serv ice Division of Plant Industry

Suspect Trees Found at SUNY Oswego

Trees 1-4 Trees 7 & 8 US Forest Service Risk Maps

Web Site: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/invasives_sirexnoctilio_riskmaps.shtm Trees 5 & 6

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 79 of 134 3 Additional Supplies Required: Sirex Trap Options

► Traps with Short Eye Bolts ► Throw 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) Lindgren ► Paint Filters (10 per trap) Funnel Trap ► Zip-Lock Bags (20 per trap) Log Trap ► Shipping Boxes (10 per trap) ► Replacement Lures (4 per trap) Cross Vane Intercept Trap Sticky Trap

Fe male Sirex Any Questions? Male Sirex “Sirex noctilio” the European invader that YOU need to watch out for!

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 80 of 134 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 Vic Mastro APHIS-PPQ Otis PSDE Laboratory

Sirex noctilio 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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 81 of 134 1 Females Oviposit from Sirex Adult Female 20 to 500 Eggs

• Metallic dark-blue body • Amber-coloured wings and legs • Ovipositor sheath 2 - 3mm They also inject a mucus which disrupts • 10.0 – 40 + mm long the tree’s vascular system

Sirex Larvae Amylostereum areolatum

•Creamy-white segmented body • Is a symbiotic/mutualistic Basidiomycetes fungi which females transfer from mycangial sacs at •Dark-brown to black spine protruding from the base of the ovipositer. tip of abdomen • The fungi is necessary for Sirex larval growth and development. •3 – 7 instars • The fungi robs the tree of moisture, disrupts the •Variable size 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.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 82 of 134 2 Sirex Symptoms Sirex Symptoms •Resin beading • Fungal stain develops on cambium under bark •Needles wilt and change color (from pale green to • Drill holes and perfectly round exit holes yellow to reddish-brown) • Larval galleries •Tree dies from base up to crown

Control • Tree removal • Insecticides • Biological • Parasitoids – Ibalia leucospoides Sometimes ovipositing – Megarhyssa nortoni females become stuck – Rhyssa hoferi and their bodies or lower – Rhyssa persuasoria abdomen persist on the – Schletterius cinctipes tree.

Sirex Biological Control Agents 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)

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 83 of 134 3 Sirex parasitic nematodes Hosts Beddingia (=Delandenus) • All Pinus species. siridicola Free living form • Stressed pines are preferred. • Develops in the tree when • Pines that produce a large resin no Sirex larvae present flow may be somewhat resistant. • Feed on Sirex fungus • Possibly, species of Abies, Picea, • Lay eggs which hatch into Larix, and Pseudotsuga act as juvenile free-living form host. • Up to 20 – 30 cycles

Free-living form (left)

Survey Sirex EAG responses n=4 each

800 • Trap trees. 700 600 • Semiochemical baited traps. 500 female 400 • A cooperative project was initiated in September male of 2003 with Penn State University to identify 300 200 Normalized ResponseNormalized compounds which could be used to survey. 100 • To date, we have identified some female 0 ir ) e + a ne (+) (-) (+) -1-ol e e(+ e(-) ene (+2) ne(-) n h e attractants. Continuing work is focused on exa e en p ycren h inene hene m carene exan in pine p m a ca care ne(3) H limon hap t m caren l imonenp hap e camphe ne(-) lp b ca optimizing a female attractant, developing a al a male attractant, and developing an effective trap. Pine stimuli

Regulatory Issues

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 84 of 134 4 Emerald Ash Borer

2003 Box Trap Color Study 50 45 B 40 35 = 5)

n 30 ; 25

S.E. A 20 C (+ 15 A AA 10 AA Mean EAB caught per trap trap per caught EAB Mean AB AB C AB AB AB 5 C B 0 Red Red Navy Navy Silver Black Black Silver White White Green Green Purple Yellow Purple Yellow 1.8 m above ground 6.1 m above ground

Adapted from Francese et al. 2005.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 85 of 134 5 Electroretinogram Progress on Insecticides

•Systemics – Imidacloprid – Other nicotinoids –Bidrin – Emamectin benzoate – Others

Progress on insecticides Progress on biocontrol

• Topical cover sprays • Spathius agrili (Braconidae) - Pythrethroids - Carbamates • Tetrastichus sp -Bt (Eulophidae) -OPs - Beauveria bassiana • Oobius agrili (Encyrtidae) - Spinosads

• Other ?

Asian Longhorned Beetle

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 86 of 134 6 ALB Survey Technology ALB Control • Attractants • Systemic pesticides • Cover/contact pesticides •Traps • Biocontrol organisms • Visual techniques • Remote sensing

Principal hosts of ALB in US Minor hosts and species of uncertain status (in approximate order of preference) • Fraxinus (ash) 65 records (?), ovip. & exit • Acer (maple) 8 species attacked • Albizia (mimosa) Two records, emergence • Ulmus (elm) 3 • Sorbus (mt.-ash) One record, emergence • Populus (poplar) Four records, oviposition+ • Salix (willow) 4 • Celtis (hackberry) One record, larva found • Aesculus (horsechestnut) 2 • Hybiscus (rose-of-sharon) 62 records, oviposition (-) • Betula (birch) 3 • Prunus (cherry) 2 records, oviposition (-) • Tilia (linden) 2 records, oviposition (-) • Platanus (plane tree) 1 • Quercus (oak) 1 record, oviposition (-)

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 87 of 134 7 Eastern Cottonwood Infestation rate adjusted for host

egg availability within limited spatial arenas

• 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 ding

• “Natural choice test” egg site & initial xylem tunnel feeding

Infestation rate adjusted for host abundance (Chicago data)

Pr opor - Ge nus Infested Not inf. Total1 Index3 tion2

Acer 1046 5535 6581 0.159 0.309

Ulmus 218 2324 2542 0.086 0.167

Salix 9 94 103 0.087 0.169

Aesculus 16 103 119 0.134 0.260

Betula 8 292 300 0.027 0.052

Fraxinus 64 2802 2866 0.022 0.043

1 All trees within 0.125 mi. (200 m) of infested trees 3 (Sums to 1.000) 2 p <0.001 (χ2 test)

Asian Gypsy Moth

Vic Mastro APHIS- PPQ Otis PSDE Laboratory

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 88 of 134 8 CAPS Initiatives and Updates CAPS Initiatives and Updates

Eastern Plant Board Address identifications bottleneck Wednesday, April 5, 2006 Increase training for prescreening samples Rehoboth Beach, DE Additional personnel to assist National identifiers Dick Bean Explore molecular identification techniques on target pests

CAPS Initiatives and Updates CAPS Initiatives and Updates

Ad hoc request for evaluation of alternative to sticky Quality and content of National & Regional Meetings traps

CAPS Initiatives and Updates CAPS Initiatives and Updates

Pest list has targets that do not have survey Limited additional funding for Sirex survey techniques or identification

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 89 of 134 1 CAPS Initiatives and Updates CAPS Initiatives and Updates

1 PSS/SPHD Sponge Bob has snail as pet Offer alternatives to restricted pests (i.e. snails)

CAPS Initiatives and Updates

NPDN data not ending up in NAPIS

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 90 of 134 2 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine Phytophthora ramorum Phytophthora ramorum Phytophthora ramorum Overview Eastern Region Look at 2004 vs. 2005 Review of 2005 Mary Mahaffey National Survey Regional Program Manager Pos itiv es United States Department of Agriculture Trace Forw ards (TF) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service What’s Happening in 2006 Plant Protection and Quarantine National Survey Plans Eastern Region, Raleigh, NC Pos itiv es

Eastern Plant Board Meeting Rehoboth Beach, DE Tiffany Creek Update April 5, 2006 Summary

2004 – 9 Sites Positive 2005 - 0 Positives 3 CT – 3 2 1 MD – 3 100% reduction! 2 3 NJ – 1 2 9 1 4 1 PA – 2 (both were Bonsai plants 3 16 4 in private residences)

6 PR PR 2004 2005 (12% fewer sites) 51 Positive Sites – 11 States 6 Positive Sites – 3 States

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 91 of 134 1 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine Phytophthora ramorum Phytophthora ramorum 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. Tennessee - 1 June 16 - All plants in destruction block and buffer zone destroyed nursery released.

United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine Phytophthora ramorum Phytophthora ramorum 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 – s us pect pos itive soil treated with Zerotol. Soil in pots and plants May. 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 − TBs - Camellia to CA & Pieris to TN (both inspected, were confirmed positive in July. sampled results negative). Oct & Dec - leaf debris on ground positive while leaves in pots and Plants removed and destroyed, soil treated - both houses. plants in pots on soil were negative. Soil samples taken after treatment were negative, as were plant Nov – soil confirmed positive (via soil incubation). samples from HAPS placed back in the shade houses. 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 hous es . Rain has hindered some progress .

United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine Phytophthora ramorum Phytophthora ramorum Georgia – Site 3 Georgia – Site 4 Cumming – Retail/Garden Center – Not positive in 2004 Lawrenceville – Retail/Garden Center (TF positive in 2004) June 28 – Rhododendron sp. ‘Bessie Howell’ and Camellia June 28 – Camellia sasanqua ‘Bonanza’ japonica ‘Kramer’s Supreme’ TB to CA nursery that continues to test negative after Confirmed Nursery Protocol (CNP) implemented multiple inspections/sampling TB – Rhododendrons to TN nursery; Camellias to CA nursery. Nursery elected to destroy plants in the destruction block Results TN & CA nursery were negative and buffer zone, to avoid the 90 day quarantine Nursery opted to destroy all plants in the destruction block and under quarantine, rather than wait the 90 days

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 92 of 134 2 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine Phytophthora ramorum Phytophthora ramorum Tennessee – One site in 2005 South Carolina – One Positive Site Hardeeville – Retail/Garden Center - Not positive in 2004 Cleveland - Retail/Garden Center - Not Positive in 2004 Aug - National Survey Samples of Camellia japonica ‘Professor June 22 – Rhododendron elegans ‘elegans’ and Rhododendron Sargent’ confirmed positive by Beltsville. sp. ‘Boursault’. CNP implemented; all plants destroyed (including buffer zone). CNP implemented. TB to Florida - FL nursery inspected and sampled all negative. TB to Oregon producer – negative on followup. Neither Oregon producer or this TN nursery was positive in 2004. 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 thos e s tates were notified.

United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine Phytophthora ramorum Phytophthora ramorum Major 2005 Trace Forwards – Cont’d Major 2005 Trace Forwards - Cont’d 2. Mid January 2005, six eastern states (none in EPB) 3. Late January 2005, nine eastern states (two in EPB) received plants from a McMinnville, OR nursery that was received plants from a positive California Nursery. found positive. − A total of 1,245 plants went to 22 nurseries; 749 plants − A total of 3,382 plants were held; 113 samples all negative. − 68 nurseries − NY: one nursery received 25 plants; six on hand were − 284 plants were held sampled; results were negative. − 11 samples all 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.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 93 of 134 3 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine Phytophthora ramorum Phytophthora ramorum 2006 National Nursery Survey Plans submitted by 27 ER states (including all EPB states) Estimated Number of ER Sites for inspection – 615 Positive Sites - 2006 278 in EPB states as follows: •CT –20 • NJ – 20 Florida - 2 •DE –20 • NY – 40 (TF +20) •MA –20 • PA – 25 (20 funded by PPQ, 5 by State) • MD – 23 (TF + 20) •RI –20 •ME –20 • WV – 30 (20 funded by PPQ, 10 by State) • NH - 20 •VT –20 States with survey underway – GA & FL. Other southern states plan to start in April.

Florida – Site 1 Florida – Site 2 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 inspected as part of the CNP follow-up. Site was negative in 2005. Site was negative in 2005. March 3 leaf samples from Camellia japonica, C. sasanqua, March 3 leaf samples from Camellia japonica, C. sinensis C. vernalis & C. hiemalis confirmed positive by Beltsville. confirmed positive by Beltsville. March 8 & 9 - Delimiting survey, additional sampling, buffer zone establishment, destruction etc. March 8 & 9 - Delimiting survey, additional sampling, buffer March 14 Beltsville confirmed positive additional samples zone establishment, destruction etc. that had been taken for traceback purposes. March 14 Beltsville confirmed positive additional leaf samples TB to AL, FL, GA, MS & SC. Inspections of these sites is that had been taken for traceback purposes. underway to date none are positive.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 94 of 134 4 United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine Phytophthora ramorum Phytophthora ramorum Tiffany Creek Quarantine Tiffany Creek Survey Results The Red Oak associated with a positive (and contested) result was removed and destroyed. • Spring 2005 • Fall 2005 The site was extensively surveyed & sampled all results − 45 leaf samples − 47 leaf samples negative. − 20 soil samples − 20 soil samples Protocol calls for spring & fall sampling at the site for two years. − 4 water samples − 4 water samples 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 All PCR Negative All PCR Negative published “that P. ramorum is known not to occur in the Tiffany Creek Preserve” or other parts of New York state. 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 Mary Mahaffey, Eastern Region PPQ California 3/23/2006 [email protected] (919) 855-7297

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 95 of 134 5 Quick Topics NIS Updates NCAPS 2006 Diagnostic Assignments Eastern Plant Board 2006 Annual Meeting Rehobeth Beach, DE NOperational Molecular Diagnostics

Joe Cavey Murali Bandla National Identification Services Plant Safeguarding & Pest NPest Interception Training Plant Safeguarding & Pest Identification Identification USDA, APHIS, PPQ USDA, APHIS, PPQ

2006 Taxonomic Work List of Diagnostic Assignments for 2006 ER CAPS Surveys Assignments for CAPS (Total > 6340 Samples) NScreening handled by NDomestic Identifiers – assign No. Target Pest Identifiers No. Target Pest Identifiers State –> no further effort first to assure full workload Samples Samples State –> no further effort 250 Bark Beetle Purdue Identifier 55 Bark Beetle Purdue Identifier NScreening not handled by NExtramural diagnostic labs 450 Bark Beetle Purdue Identifier 50 BB/woodborer Purdue Identifier State –> Regional CAPS Consider pest & 240 Bark Beetle Purdue Identifier 100 Bark Beetle Purdue Identifier sub-Committee for geographic expertise ?? BB/woodborer Carnegie? 100 Bark Beetle Purdue Identifier 480 pine shoot beetle Carnegie? 980 pine shoot beetle Julieta Brambila assignment assignment Consider assigning ample 192 Sirex (port) Carnegie? 40 various moths Julieta Brambila NMeet by December work to keep program 200 Sirex (woods) Carnegie? 50? Spodoptera Julieta Brambila NUse Diagnostic Support viable 1,920 BB/woodborer Carnegie? 18 Dendrolimus Julieta Brambila 300 Bark Beetle Purdue Identifier 96 Dendrolimus Julieta Brambila Menu to assign surveys NArea Identifiers – assign 500? Bark Beetle Purdue Identifier 100 various moths Julieta Brambila needing support remaining work as port 675 Bark Beetle Glenn Landau unknown snails John Slapcinsky workload & expertise allows 94 snails John Slapcinsky

Molecular and Biochemical Diagnostic Laboratory NIS-MBDL

(MBDL) Expected to be fully operational by 2007 Located currently in Bldg 580, Beltsville, MD POR study was initiated for a future 10,000 Will be staffed with two senior diagnostic sq. ft. lab and training facility addition by personnel and two support scientists to 2010. be trained by CPHST. Dr. Mary Palm was appointed as the team leader.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 96 of 134 1 NIS-MBDL Operational Molecular Diagnostics

CPHST ARS Tests to be performed by MBDL in order of transition: Optimization Method Diagnostic &Validation transfer to NPhytophthora ramorum test/method by CPHST MBDL development NSoybean rust NHuanlongbing Academic Private institutions Labs NRalstonia solanacearum Routine and Non-Routine diagnostics operational NCitrus canker diagnostics NPlum pox virus

Pest Interception Training: Pest Interception Training PowerPoint Modules

NAids to help inspectors find pests NFor high-risk pathways infesting imported goods NIllustrate inspection methods, tools and NCooperative program with DHS, CBP pests NDeveloped by PPQ Identifiers NRely heavily on images from actual inspections taken by CBP & PPQ NReviewed & formatted by NIS, CBP and NReviewed & formatted by NIS, CBP and inspectors and Identifiers PDC NContinued learning: modules will be available to all CBP & PPQ employees on a web site

Pest Interception Training Wood Packing Material What to Inspect? Look high and low for feeding galleries.

Four modules developed: Examine warehouse or container walls for adult NMediterranean tiles beetles. NSeed inspection NCut flowers from Australia and New Zealand NWood packing materials

Look for piles of frass or sawdust

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 97 of 134 2 Inspectional Tools and Techniques: Checking WPM for the Tools: Flashlight, gloves, knife, hammer, 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.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 98 of 134 3 United States Departme nt of Agriculture United States Departme nt of Agriculture Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Overview of Plant Pests Include: Potential • Insects Economic Impacts • Fungi of Regulatory Pests •Bacteria •Viruses Eastern Plant Board Meeting • Nematodes Wednesday April 5, 2006 • Weeds Rehoboth Beach, Delaware • Vertebrate animals • Other organisms as defined

L ynn J. G arr ett by the Federal Insecticide, Agricultural Economist Fungicide, and Rodenticide Center for Plant H ealth Science and Technology Act (FIFRA) as amended USDA-APHIS-PPQ

“Regulated” Classifications of Pests An Organism Can Become A Regulated Pest When It Interferes With: • Regulated non-quarantine pest • Health – Presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of • Leisure those plants with an economically unacceptable impact • Aesthetic satisfaction and w hich is therefore regulated w ithin the territory of the importing country. (IPPC, 1997) • Recreation • Stability of existing biological systems • Regulated pest • Agricultural and material – A quarantine pest or regulated non-quarantine pest production

David J. Moorhead, Th e Un iv er sity o f G eor g ia, w ww .fo r es try im ag es .o rg

A Pest Becomes A Regulatory Pest Economic Considerations (which pests get regulatory attention) • Pest poses an actual or • With respect to domestic commerce, establishment of the plant expected threat pest would: adversely affect producer revenues / interstate commerce AND / OR have a significant economic impact on • Objective is reasonably producers and consumers attainable • With respect to foreign trade, establishment of the organism would: reduce access to export markets AND / OR value of U.S. • Economic gains outweigh the costs of exports application of control • With respect to public costs associated with entry and m eas ures establishment: extremely high $150 mil. or >, high $100 - $149 mil., moderate $50 - $99 mil.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 99 of 134 1 United States Departme nt of Agriculture United States Departme nt of Agriculture Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

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 Economic Impact of Some Selected Impact of Changes in Forest Health Forest Pests • Hemlock Woolly Adelgid • Contingent Valuation Method: based on asking – Economic Impacts on Residential Landscapes people how much they are willing to pay for • Case Study Approach by Holmes et al., 2005 used a changes in environmental qualtity (Kramer et al. hedonic property value analysis w ith 4 hemlock health 2003) categories: – healthly & lightly defoliated <25% defoliated • Averting Behavior Method: investigates how much – moderately defoliated 25-50% defoliated money homeowners actually spend for protection – severely defoliated 50-75% defoliated of environmental attributes. This method was used – dead >75% defoliated by Moeller et al. 1997 for analysis of gypsy moth • Results: Economic damage begins to occur when protection programs. stands become moderately defoliated.

Asian Longhorned Beetle Emerald Ash Borer

Economic Impact estimates based on value of lost Economic Impact from spread by natural and artificial tree canopy and anticipated tree mortality means

– Tree canopy loss and tree mortality for urban areas – Killed an estimated 15 million trees • 34.9 percent canopy loss • threatens all 16 species of ash • 30.3 percent tree mortality (1.2 billion trees), valued at • costs for tree removal, disposal and replanting have $669 million overwhelmed local governments

– Loss more difficult to quantify : – Approximate range of North American ash species • Low ering of property value estimated at almost 8 billion trees • Loss of aesthetic and environmental benefits • cost of removal and replacement of dead ash trees could reach $7 billion over a 25 year period

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 100 of 134 2 United States Departme nt of Agriculture United States Departme nt of Agriculture Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Animal an d Plant Hea lth Inspection Serv ice Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Contingency and CCC Emergency Program Funding History For Policy Agenda: For Pest Management Selected Plant Pests Congressional Record and Rules Terms Searches Million $ 200 160 180 All Other 140

160 120 "Invasive Species" GWSS 140 "Forest Pests" 100 120 "Plant Pests" Soybean Rus t & 80 100 Ka r na l B u nt 60 80 Me dite rr ane an 60 Fru it Fly 40 For es t Pes t - in Occurrences of Number 40 20 EAB, ALB, SOD, GM Congressional and Record Rules 20 0 Citrus Canker, Greening, 1985/86 1987/88 19 89/90 1991 /92 1993/94 1995/96 1997/98 19 99/00 2001/ 02 2003/04 2005/06 0 C. Longhorn Beetle 99th 100th 101st 102nd 103rd 104th 105th 1 06th 107th 108th (Mar)

19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 109th Fi sca l Ye ar

Information for Policy Makers Information on Economic Impact: (Herman Simon 1983, 1997) Presenting the Case to Decision Makers • Information detected • Policy makers live in a world of too much • Information filtered information • Information windowed • Information types: central, accurate, partially • Information prioritized relevant, not relevant at all – Offering information as an “interpretation” a “spin” or in • Complexity of the economic issues or impacts some instances “distorting” – prioritizing available evidence is at least as important as • Multiple dimensions of evaluation the acquisition of evidence • Constant assessment of prioritization is required

Source: Jones, Bryan D. and Frank R. B aumgartner, 2005. T he P olitics of Attention - How Source: Jones, Bryan D. and Frank R. B aumgartner, 2005. T he P olitics of Attention - How Government Prioritizes Problems Government Prioritizes Problems

Presenting Your Case: National Importance of Early Detection

Things to Remember Critical Point • Beware of the “scarcity of attention”; this is the way decision makers set priorities – through the allocation of attention High Impact • Thresholds of importance develop based on perceived urgency Detection Numbers Threshold Level • These thresholds are dynamic

• Everyone understands dollars and cents Low Impact

Source: Jones, Bryan D. and Frank R. Baumgartner, 2005. The Politics of Attention - How Government Prioritizes Problems Tim e

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 101 of 134 3 Pine shoot beetle: much ado about nothing? Scotch pine and eastern white pine are favored A Pine Shoot Beetle hosts Management Area 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: Pine shoot beetle quarantine:

Overwinter in the base of healthy trees Restrict movement of pine products: cut X’mas Emerge in spring when temperatures warm trees, wreaths and garlands, logs/timber with bark, nursery stock, bark nuggets Feed in shoots and cause damage To prevent movement of adults in the wood

Pine shoot beetle quarantine:

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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 102 of 134 1 Pine shoot beetle trapping: Pine shoot beetle trapping:

In cooperation with USDA-APHIS-PPQ office No PSB found yet in Wallingford In 2005, found a checkered beetle predator of Traps in all counties of CT PSB… …who also feeds on other insects

Pine shoot beetle quarantine: logs

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

Pine shoot beetle quarantine: Pine shoot beetle quarantine: nuggets April 1 to June 30: ground or fumigated within Has made interstate trade around CT/MA/RI 48 hours (soft pine/hard pine) difficult because of blackout dates to prevent July 1 to Sept. 30: movement with permit movement of adults Oct. 1 to March 31: soft not regulated, hard Trade through/between officially infested states ground upon arrival is easier

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 103 of 134 2 PSB Management Area: Objections to PSBMA:

Have CT/MA/RI treated as if infested to Using a quarantine to facilitate trade, not to facilitate trade prevent movement of a pest Probably are infested, but not officially Setting a dangerous precedent regarding pest Free movement of wood products within the movement management area Potential threat to non-infested areas in the South

PSBMA: complications PSBMA: tempis fugit?

Letters from Commissioner of Ag to Sec. April 1 blackout date approaching/has arrived Dunkle requesting inclusion in PSBMA Permission to enact PSBMA may come at any For CT, Commissioner of Ag is not the SPRO time Letters sent anyway, but added to the confusion Regard states as infested for purposes of regulation, not reality

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 104 of 134 3 Pine Shoot Beetle – A Maine History of PSB in Maine Perspective z First beetle trapped in 2000 z State quarantine enacted in 2001 Ann Gibbs – Regulated part of a county Maine Dept of Agric. – Need to move bark and logs EPB Meeting 4/5/06 z Beetles trapped in another county in 2001

Why Maine supports the pest area Current Status of PSB in Maine concept z Quarantine regulates 2 counties z Allows movement of bark to major markets of z Moving bark to markets is a major concern MA & CT z Currently bark processors are not in the – Mulch is valuable - $4.3 million in 2001 quarantine area – Mulch is profitable – used to be a hazardous material z Need logs from surrounding infested areas – 8 sawmills & 4 processors – lots of bark z 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

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 105 of 134 1 Issues for Today

ANLA Report to the z Phytophthora ramorum Eastern Plant Board z Barberry z Emerald ash borer Rehoboth Beach, DE z Ralstonia, Q biotype whitefly April 5, 2006 Presented by: z Hosta Virus X K. Marc Teffeau, Director of Research and Regulatory Affairs z ANLA merger evaluation z Floriculture & Nursery Research Initiative

P. Ramorum - Drivers in Recommended BMP’s This Process

z Continued disease presence z National view, regional implementation z Protection of the natural ecosystem z Industry development and evaluation z Insure continuation of Interstate and process underway Intrastate trade z More intuition than science z “Sunset” in 2007 of APHIS E.O. z Believe it is right thing to do…and may z Regional concerns – CA,OR,WA yield benefits beyond P. ramorum z State concerns – National Plant Board z Industry committed, but cannot happen z Bilateral (US – Canadian) trade overnight

Criteria for Development of rBMPs Collaborators

z CANGC z Nursery Operations z Science based z OAN z Land Grant Univs. z Verified, when possible with research z WSLNA z USDA - ARS z Meet regulatory requirements z CDFA z Operationally practical for industry z ODA z ANLA/HRI z Cost effective z WSDA z National Plant Board z Collaborative development & “vetting” to z USDA – APHIS industry z Reviewed by research, regulatory and industry communities.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 106 of 134 1 Development Process Guidelines

HRI Working z Meets USDA - APHIS requirements Group Creation 2006 z Equivalent to Canadian protocols Summer 2004 Oct. 2005 Baltimore Meeting Nursery Industry z Acceptable to non regulated States Industry Rep. Subgroup z Acceptable to industry and can be implemented Researchers z Mandatory and voluntary BMPS “National” Western States Regulators Standard? Draft rBMP’s z Focus on the “2s” or “5s”

Documentation Reviewed Basic Design

z USDA APHIS • Pest Prevention /Management z CDFA z Emergency Order • Training z ODA z Certified Nursery • Internal/External Monitoring/Audits z CANGC Protocols v6 • Records/Traceability z OAN guidelines z Trace Forward ’06 • Documentation of Program Procedures z RSPM 24 z CFIA Protocols z ISPM 10 z BC/CNLA effort

Current Projected Timeline - 2006 National Standard

March ’06 COMTF Oct 2005 HRI Jan 06 Bilateral z Meets regulatory requirements MTG Mtg z Adopted by industry z Standards Development Organization approach z Certification and Implementation methods Aug. ‘06NPB Nov ’06 APHIS Annual MTG June 06? NPB/APPHIS PPQ z HACCP concept/systems approach P. ramorum Working Group

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 107 of 134 2 Research to Fill Gaps, Guide Effort Other P. ramorum Concerns

z ARS funding work at Ft. Detrick z “Draft Retail Protocol” - industry does z Paul Tooley, Nina Shishkoff, Tim Widmer not support - copy of Canadian protocol -negotiation process w/APHIS z Grunwald-Parke multi-year project on z Addition of Rosa “Meidiland” to HAP list efficacy of systems approach funded for – 101 plants – Bad News / 2006 through Floriculture and Nursery z Inappropriate use of “trademarked” plant Research Initiative ($230,000) series z Forest Service, others… z “Guilt by Association” z Came from Canada – proof?

Barberry Rules Emerald Ash Borer

z Final rule on barberry z Forecast—mostly bleak with scattered light funding, diminishing late in the day z Allows movement of clonally propagated cuttings into or through protected areas z Found in Indiana without 2-year growing period z Market for Ash Trees – severely diminished z Research efforts continue in MI, OH z Adds 13 varieties to list of rust-resistant z Host susceptibility, resistance Berberis spp. z Controls z Effective Feb. 3 z Coalition forming on forest pests (TNC)-Nature Conservancy

Ralstonia Certification Components

z With industry input, Certification Plan for z Greenhouse Structure and Materials off-shore farms was developed – USDA z Water Source and Treatment success story z Growing Media Source and Treatment z General Sanitation Requirements z Have had NO introductions in 2004 or z Scouting and Testing 2005 z Trace Forward/Trace Back Reporting (unrooted and rooted cuttings) z Inspections annually by USDA-PPQ pathologist(s) z Cooperation by host country

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 108 of 134 3 Reflections… Q vs. B Whitefly

z A “Cadillac” clean stock program z B biotype of silverleaf whitefly (Bemesia tabaci) present in U.S. since 1990s. Have learned to deal z Heavy investment by industry with it – but may now be seeing resistance develop z “New” Q biotype discovered last year in Arizona z Extensive APHIS effort and commitment z Q biotype present in Mediterranean and Europe; z Designed with industry participation – to controlled, but undesirable z Shows strong resistance to some – but not all -- fit the circumstances of the industry chemicals used in U.S. against whitefly z A possible model for SOME Q-37 z Grower education, cooperation are a major component changes – but not a one-size-fits-all in preventing a major problem. approach!

Ad-hoc Whitefly Task Force Hosta Virus X

z Chaired by Dr. Osama El-Lissy, APHIS z SAF, ANLA, Cotton, Vegetable industries z Summer 2005: z Inter-industry cooperation z Not a regulated pest z Research and Grower education z z Greenhouse trials underway to evaluate chemicals on Q Various state responses z Results show several chemicals are effective against new “Q-type” z American Hosta Society – “inspectors” (contrary to initial thinking) z z Q biotype not a quarantine pest Dutch growers acknowledge the issue z Management Program for Whiteflies on Propagated Ornamentals developed – emphasis on resistance management z http://www.mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/LSO/bemisia/bemisia.htm

HVX—In Response ANLA Merger Evaluation

z Some growers changing buying habits z Leadership exploring merger with z Mechanically spread Professional Landcare Network z Garden center/retail concerns z ANLA—growing, landscape design, retail z Some heavily ELISA testing before planting z PLANET—landscape installation, z Range of views on domestic regulatory status, maintenance action - USDA to get the Dutch to clean up z Little overlap, complementary strengths their act z Merger would build capacity, ensure z Dutch propagators cleaning up their act. green industry speaks with one voice z Decision likely summer 2006

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 109 of 134 4 Floriculture & Nursery Research Initiative

z Joint USDA –ARS/ANLA/SAF effort z Cong. Add On – $6.25 M FY 2006 z Asking for $7.4 M for FY 2007 z Funds emerging issues research- z P. ramorum – Ft. Detrick & OSU Corvallis z EAB – Ohio State & Mich State z Ralstonia – Mich State, UFL, others z Whitefly – UC Davis z What ever new “s..t” that’s coming down the pike

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 110 of 134 5 Smuggling, Interdiction and Trade Compliance Program

SITC Focus

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMERCE SITE SURVEYS (PORTS OF ENTRY)

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 111 of 134 1 Special Operations Smuggled Orchids (Border Crossings) Newark International Airport

Investigation (con’t) Citrus Budwood in California 3300 citrus cuttings found at Morimoto Orchard

Interception by CBP on 3/31/04 at San Francisco Mail Facility. Intercepted via X-Ray.

AFRICAN BUSH MEAT with HOOVES attached 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.

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 112 of 134 2 FY 05 Statistics Number of Violations Issued 77

Market Inspections 15,688

Cargo Inspections 12,054 Tools of the Trade Cargo Blitzes 68 Tools of the Trade

Market Blitzes 66

Weigh Stations Blitzes 9

Emergency Action Notifications 735

Weight of Seizures (kilos) 1,276,878

Value $3,300,809.77

Agricultural Internet Monitoring System (AIMS) AIMS Data

I. AIMS used as a regulatory tool: AIMS provides website registration

Problem. APHIS-regulated info rmatio n, inc luding co ntact info rmatio n and organisms and commodities physical address of the registrant. are being sold on the internet

Project goals. Create a secure intranet-based web application tha t semi-automates the process of: Webcrawling Eva lua ting sites for risk Send ing info rmation le tte rs Archiving and re trieving info rmation Example of FMD Project scope. U S-based in te rne t sites

Disciplines. Insects, mollusks, weeds, Q56, Animals, animal products and by-products

Additional Partners/Support Partners/Support

State Plant Regulatory Officials FSIS ¾ Aut ho rit ies FDA ¾ Trace back assistance ¾ Markey Surveys and Blitzes State Law Enforcement Agencies

Investigative Enforcement Services Customs and Border Protection ¾ Violation ¾ Targeting ¾ Investigatio ns ¾ Alerts ¾ Intelligence Gathering (ICAT) ¾ Closing Pathways

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 113 of 134 3 Provide assistance to other PPQ STOP AGRICULTURAL initiatives SMUGGLING

SITC wants to assist in enhancing ANTISMUGGLING HOTLINE the ability of the Cooperative Pest 1-800-877-3835 Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) Program to identify and target high risk areas and sentinel sites within Contact E-mail Address: the United States that have the [email protected] highest potential for exotic pest introduction and to successfully provide early detection of these http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq pests. /trade/

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 114 of 134 4 Regional Plant Board Meeting Agriculture Topics April 3-7, 2006

Helen Sterling, Assistant Director, Field Field Office Participation in Plant Board Meetings Operations , Buffalo Field Office Area of Responsibility Samra Boukadida, Operations Specialist, Buffalo Staffing Larry Lewis, Asst. Area Director, New York Enforcement: Avian Influenza / Wood Packing Material Hal Fingerman, Agriculture Program Manager, Significant Seizures/Interceptions Baltimore Pest Risk Committees / Special Operations Richard Mytkowicz, Operations Specialist, Boston

April 3, 2006 2

Regional Plant Board Meetings Eastern Plant Board Meeting 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 Washington Houlton Alexandria Newark Orleans, San Juan, Tampa Bay Western Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego, San 28 Ports 38 Ports 20 Ports 3 POEs Francisco, Seattle, Tucson Five States Six States One State Two States National To Be Determined & DC

April 3, 2006 3 April 3, 2006 4

Staffing Staffing Agriculture Specialists – FY 06 Nationwide Statistics Continual Support of Agriculture End of 1st Qtr: 1,891 GS401 Agriculture Operations Specialists / Program Managers 1,891 = 1666 CBPAS + 225 supervisory / chief positions stationed at each Field Office 108 newly hired and onboard Agriculture liaison with USDA SITC, USDA FSIS, USDA IES, since Oct 2005 State Agriculture, CDC, FDA, etc. End of FY 2006 – additional 180 agriculture specialists bringing Enhance communication / coordination between the total to 288 additional Headquarters and Field positions Provide field office oversight on agriculture programs, data Northern Border - Since 2003: management, etc. Agriculture staffing has doubled and are now stationed at ports Serve as a Subject Matter Experts of entry not previously staffed

April 3, 2006 5 April 3, 2006 6

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 115 of 134 1 Avian Influenza Enforcement - Avian Influenza Clinically confirmed Human Cases USDA recognized countries affected with Avian Influenza 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Increased targeting Country Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, cases deaths cases deaths cases deaths cases deaths cases deaths Cameroon, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Conducted Special Operations India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Cambodia 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 1 5 5 0 Increased training of agriculture Azerbaijan 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 5 Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, China 0 0 0 0 8 5 7 5 15 10 Korea South, Laos, Malaysia, Romania, specialists and cross training of Russia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, CBP officers Indonesia 0 0 0 0 17 11 12 11 29 22 Vietnam

Iraq 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 Topic specific musters developed and conducted Thailand 0 0 17 12 5 2 0 0 22 14

Turkey 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4 12 4 Local and national criteria developed for targeting Viet Nam 3 3 29 20 61 19 0 0 93 42

Total 3 3 46 32 95 41 41 28 185 104 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 Wood Packing Material Shift in Phase Enforcement Live Avian Seizures

Highly Profitable Phase I Phase II Violative/Non-Compliant 2002 California - Exotic September 16, 2005 - February 1, 2006 - July 4, 2006 Enforcement WPM affects: Newcastle Disease (END) January 31, 2006 Informed Compliance Enforcement of requirement for Outbreak caused by smuggled Crates via account managers violative crates and pallets via re- live birds and notices posted in exportation Pallets 10 months / $160 million to cargo with noncompliant WPM eradicate

Highly Pathogenic Avian Informed Compliance via account All other WPM informed Influenza (HPAI) could dwarf managers and notices posted in cargo with other types of compliance such as dunnage, (END) numbers noncompliant WPM bracing, etc. Special Operations Conducted

April 3, 2006 9 April 3, 2006 10

Wood Packing Material WPM Fraudulent Stamps Wood Markings Final Enforcement Phase

Phase I Phase II Phase III September 16, 2005 - February 1, 2006 - Beginning July 5, 2006 Albany, NY conducted an Nationwide: January 31, 2006 July 4, 2006 inspection containing wood Informed Compliance Enforcement of Full enforcement on all Approx. 35 a day packing material (WPM) noncompliant via account managers requirement for types of WPM Infestation Noted within dunnage and notices posted in violative crates and Wood Boring Pests cargo with pallets via re- discovered Wood packing material was noncompliant WPM exportation stamped Possible counterfeit or false Informed Compliance markings WPM found to be non-compliant via account managers and notices posted in cargo with other types of noncompliant WPM

April 3, 2006 11 April 3, 2006 12

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 116 of 134 2 Significant Seizures/Interceptions Significant Seizures/Interceptions

Snails found in Philadelphia Moth found in Dutch Peppers

Port of Arrival: Boston Port of Arrival: Philadelphia Shipment of Dutch Peppers Shipments of Meat, Wine, Metal Port of Origin: Holland Port of Origin: Australia Inspection of interior of peppers revealed moths (51 Inspection of exterior of shipments infested) containers revealed snails Great example of Significant impact on sea cooperative effort with containers in Philadelphia USDA and other seaports

April 3, 2006 13 April 3, 2006 14

Significant Seizures/Interceptions Significant Seizures/Interceptions Seizure of Live Tortoises Prohibited Agriculture Products Seized at JFK Airport and New York/Newark Area Port of Arrival: JFK Mail Port of Newark/New York leads the Declared as Video In one month: nation in issuance of PPQ Form Tapes/CDs 591: 290 Pest Interceptions by Air Inspection revealed 50 live Cargo with 154 requiring 146 Violations have been written in tortoises (one infested with action (one month) Oct.-Dec. totaling $15,000 tick) 32 Shipments refused entry Interceptions of the following first finds: Cooperative effort with Fish 284 Mail Interception Notices and Wildlife of prohibited products Parasphaeria rusci on Ruscus

TICK Polydontes undulate on Trigonella Phaeoisariopsis sp on Phytolaca sp (all from Israel)

April 3, 2006 15 April 3, 2006 16

CBP / USDA Coordination Significant Seizures/Interceptions Peace Bridge, Buffalo, NY Establishment of Pest Risk Committees

Established in all DFO locations – divided by area coverage In a bus/pax a live mango and/or mode of travel. seed weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae) is discovered Members: State Plant Health Director, Federal and State identifiers, Investigators, USDA SITC, Officers, Program Port of Origin: Trinidad Managers, Specialists, Veterinary Medical Officers, Exotic Mango Seed weevil is a Pest Coordinators – to name a few significant, quarantine pest known to occur throughout the Enhanced targeting and risk analysis/management Caribbean, but is not known to occur in the United States. Improved response to agriculture issues and threats Sternochetus mangiferae Improve interagency partnership Information sharing and outreach

April 3, 2006 17 April 3, 2006 18

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 117 of 134 3 CBP / USDA Coordination Agriculture Special Operations CBP / USDA SITC Joint Operations Pest Risk Committee Meeting Successes Operation: “Mockingbird” Operation: “Summer Start” Buffalo Field Office: Established Pest Risk Committee Meeting JFK Airport – pax and Four Canadian Entry Points for entire Field Office (covers Buffalo to Champlain, NY and cargo determine pathways – identified unknown ports in between) for avian influenza. Several pathway for fraudulent prohibited agriculture phytosanitary certification Boston Field Office: Established Pest Risk Committee commodities intercepted Meetings in Vermont/New Hampshire, Maine, S. New England (MA, CT, RI) Operation: “Ancient Chinese Upcoming Operations – Baltimore Field Office: Established Pest Risk Committee Secret” Meetings in Baltimore and at other area ports Up for discussion Champlain, Buffalo, A-bay – New York Field Office: Established Pest Risk Committee Pax for possible smuggling Meetings in NYC/JFK and Newark, NJ herbs/plants. Prohibited Products seized.

April 3, 2006 19 April 3, 2006 20

CBP / USDA Coordination 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 April 3, 2006 22

EPB 2006 Proceedings Page 118 of 134 4 ELI Goals To provide information to those involved in the formation and implementation of invasive INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL species policies on: A Comprehensive Model State Law – the current tools used by state invasive species programs, – how existing state programs can be ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE strengthened, and

Presentation by Kathryn J. Mengerink – 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.