Southern Plant Board 2009 Meeting Agenda.Indd

Southern Plant Board Th e Southern Plant Board, a regional member of the National Plant Board, is a non-profi t organization of the plant pest regulatory agencies of each of the states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Member agencies must be members in good standing of the regional 2009 Annual Meeting plant board in which their state or commonwealth is located. Organizational Structure Southern President-Gene Cross Vice-President-Sancho Dickinson Secretary/Treasurer-Harry Fulton Plant Contact Information for the SPB: c/o Gene Cross, President NCDA&CS-Plant Industry Division 1060 Mail Service Center Board Raleigh, NC 27699-1060 Phone: 919-733-3933, Ext. 218 Fax: 919-733-1041 Email: [email protected]

April 19-22, 2009 The Westin Poinsett Greenville, South Carolina Agenda Agenda

Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:10 am-9:35 am Citrus Health Response Plant Presentation Pat Gomes, USDA, APHIS, PPQ [PPT] 2:00 pm-6:00 pm SPB Meeting Registration—Mezzanine 9:35 am-10:00 am Light Brown Apple Moth Presentation and 6:00 pm-8:00 pm SPB Opening Reception—Gold Ballroom Discussion Craig Southwick, USDA, APHIS, PPQ [PPT] 8:00 pm-11:00 pm SPB Hospitality Room—Francis Marion Suite 10:00 am-10:30 am Break

10:30 am-11:00 am Preemption Presentation and Discussion Monday, April 20, 2009 Calvin Schuler, USDA, APHIS, PPQ

7:00 am-3:00 pm SPB Meeting Registration—Mezzanine 11:00 am-12:00 pm USDA Special Needs Exemption Process Presentation and Discussion 7:00 am-8:00 am Continental Breakfast (Provided as part of SPB Paula Henstridge, USDA, APHIS, PPQ and registration)—Mezzanine Wayne Dixon, FL [PPT]

8:00 am-8:45 am SPB Opening Session—Gold Ballroom 12:00 pm-1:00 pm Lunch (Provided as part of SPB registration)— Call to Order: Gene Cross, NC Poinsett Ballroom Roll Call: Harry Fulton, MS 1:00 pm-2:30 pm New Technology and Innovations: General Meeting Announcements and Presentations and Discussion Introductions: Christel Harden, SC • Ian Winborne, USDA, APHIS, Center for Welcome to South Carolina: Dr. Neil Ogg, Plant Health Science and Technology [PPT] Associate Vice-President, Clemson University, • Gene Cross, NC [PPT] Public Service Activities; Director, Regulatory Services 2:30 pm-3:00 pm Break Welcome to South Carolina: Commissioner Hugh Weathers, S.C. Department of Agriculture 3:00 pm-4:00 pm Firewood Regulations Panel and Discussion Opening Comments: Gene Cross Panel Members: • Phillip Bell, USDA, APHIS, PPQ [PPT] 8:45 am-9:10 am Phytophthora ramorum Presentation and • Harry Fulton, MS Discussion Tim McNary, USDA, APHIS, PPQ-Western • Paul Merton, USDA, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection [PPT] Region Offi ce [PPT] Agenda Agenda

4:00 pm-4:30 pm Clean Plant Network 2:45 pm-3:45 pm Compliance Agreement Presentation and Erich Rudyi, USDA, APHIS, PPQ, PHP [PPT] Discussion Tim McNary, USDA, APHIS, PPQ, Western 5:30 pm SPB-Baseball Outing Event-Greenville Drive Region Offi ce [PPT] Game (Transportation to this event is available if needed.) 3:45 pm-4:45 pm Pest Risk Committ ee Panel Presentation and Discussion 9:00 pm-11:00 pm SPB Hospitality Room—Francis Marion Suite Panel Members: • Calvin Schuler, USDA, APHIS, PPQ-Eastern Regional Offi ce Tuesday, April 21, 2009 • Kevin Haringer-Customs and Border Protection 7:00 am-3:00 pm SPB Meeting Registration—Mezzanine • Jeanett a Cooper, OK

7:00 am-8:00 am Continental Breakfast (Provided as part of SPB 4:45 pm-5:00 pm CAPS-Executive Briefi ng Registration)—Mezzanine Brian Kopper, USDA, APHIS, PPQ-Eastern Regional Offi ce [PPT] 8:00 am-11:00 am South Carolina Industry-BMW Plant Tour 5:00 pm-5:15 pm SPB Meeting Accomplishments and Overview 11:30 am-12:15 pm Lunch (Provided as part of SPB Registration)— Gene Cross, NC and Christel Harden, SC Poinsett Ballroom 6:00 pm-7:00 pm Focus Session for SPROs only—Phytophthora 12:15 pm-1:15 pm Presentation and Discussion of 2008 Farm Bill- ramorum—Gold Ballroom Implementation Plan for Section 10201-Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Dinner: On your own Prevention 8:00 pm-11:00 pm SPB-Hospitality Room—Francis Marion Suite Matt Royer, USDA, APHIS, PPQ [PPT]

1:15 pm-2:15 pm Offi cial Control Presentation and Discussion Diane Schubel, USDA, APHIS, PPQ [PPT] Wednesday, April 22, 2009

2:15 pm-2:45 pm Break 7:00 am-8:00 am Continental Breakfast (Provided as part of SPB registration)—Mezzanine Agenda Agenda

8:00 am Southern Plant Board Business Session—Gold 8:30 am-12:00 pm CAPS Morning Session (Concurrent Session)- Ballroom Includes att ending State Survey Coordinators Call to Order: Gene Cross, NC and Pest Survey Specialists—Francis Marion Agency Reports Meeting Room Western Region Briefi ng: Phil Garcia, USDA, APHIS, PPQ-WR Director 8:30 am USDA, APHIS, PPQ Meeting (Concurrent Eastern Region Briefi ng: Vic Harabin, USDA, Session)—Palmett o Meeting Room APHIS, PPQ-ER Director Southern Plant Diagnostic Network: Amanda Hodges [PPT] HISSC Update: Janet Lensing, KY [PPT] Plant Board Reports National Plant Board Report: Gray Haun, NPB 2009 Meeting Sponsors and Support President Southern Plant Board Report: Gene Cross, NC [PPT] Financial Contributions: SPB Business Session (Open to SPB Members/ • Monrovia Nursery Representatives) • S.C. Peach Council SPB Meeting Minutes: Harry Fulton, MS • USDA, APHIS, PPQ SPB Treasurer’s Report: Harry Fulton,MS [PPT] SPB Committ ee Reports Awards and Necrology: Frank Fulghum/ Meeting Supporters Larry Nichols, VA • Department of Plant Industry, Clemson University Audit: Benny Graves, MS • USDA, APHIS, PPQ-South Carolina State Plant Health Director’s Offi ce Nominating: Mike Evans, GA • S. C. Forestry Commission Policy and Resolutions: Sancho Dickinson, OK • Mast General Store Recap and Follow-up on 2008 SPB • Llyn Strong Jewelers Resolutions • Th e Barkery Bistro 2009 Policies and Resolutions Discussion [website] Other Discussion and Reports • SKY at Blue Ridge 2010 Meeting Location-Alabama, Dennis • Th e Cook’s Station Barclift • O. P. Taylor’s Toy Store Meeting Adjourned • Titan Farms 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

P. ramorum Positive sites – Years Compared Western Region

STATE 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

History of Phytophthora ramorum Positive Arkansas 1

Nurseries in the Eastern Region Since 2004 Arizona 1

California 54 55 28 7 13

Colorado 1 As of December 31, 2008 Louisiana 5 2 Oklahoma 1 Oregon 23 20 13 3 6

Texas 11 1

Washington 25 16 12 8 6

Total 123 93 53 18 9

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 WR P. ramorum Surveys - 2008 ER 2004 - 2008 Positive Nursery Sites State Host Non-Host TF Nurseries TB Others & Positive Negative nurseries Nurseries Nurseries State Sites Sites As of December 31, 2008 Certified Surveys Alaska 12 12

Arizona 23 23 ER AL CT FL GA IN MD ME MS NC NJ PA SC TN VA ER

California 618 649 167 20 2 13 1456 TOTAL CY 04 633 16 2190030 4 2 2 51 Hawaii 18 2 20 CY 05 00000004000 1 1 0 06 Idaho 6 6 CY 06 0010011011211 0 09 Louisiana 25 25 CY 07 00000010000100 02 Nevada 9 7 16 CY 08 00200110000200 06 New Mexico 575 575

Oregon 865 ? 12 16 5, 1R 888

Texas 123 1R 122

Utah 14 14

Washington 285 ? 305 6 580

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 2004 Eastern Region (ER) National Survey 2004 ER Positive Site Summary Positive Detections (in red) State (number of sites) - suspect source

CT (3) - TF from Hines, OR TN (1) - TF from Monrovia, CA 51 Positive Nursery Sites - 11 States PA (2) - TF from Specialty Plants, NC (9) - TF from Monrovia, CA CT (3) CA (indoor Bonsai plants) AL (3) - National Survey PA (2) NJ (1) - National Survey NJ (1) GA (16) - TF from Monrovia, CA MD (3) MD (3) - 2 National Survey; 1 TF SC (4) - 2 TF from Monrovia, CA; 2 VA (2) from Hines, OR National Survey TN (2) VA (2) - 1 TF from Monrovia, CA; 1 FL (6) - TF from Monrovia, CA NC (9) National Survey AL (3) GA (16) PR SC (4) FL (6)

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 2005 Eastern Region (ER) National Survey 2006 Eastern Region (ER) National Survey Positive Detections (in red) Positive Detections (in red)

9 Positive Nursery Sites - 8 States ME (1)* 6 Positive Nursery Sites - 3 states CT (1) TN (1) PA (1) GA (4) IN (1)* SC (1) MS (1)* AL (1) GA (1) FL (2)

PR *First time found in this state PR

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 2006 ER Positive Nursery Site Summary 2007 Eastern Region (ER) State (number of sites) - suspect source Positive Detections (in red) as of April 10, 2007

ME (1) - TF from Leo Gentry, OR. CT (1) - CNP follow-up. Likely reintroduction, not residual. PA (1) - National Survey. 2 Positive Nursery Sites - 2 States IN (1) - TF from Leo Gentry, OR. FL (1) MS (1) - National Survey. MS (1) AL (1) - National Survey. GA (1) - TF from Leo Gentry, OR. FL (2) - CNP follow-up.

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 2007 ER Positive Nursery Site Summary 2008 Eastern Region (ER) State (number of sites) - suspect source Positive Detections (in red) as of Dec. 31, 2008

As of April 13, 2007

FL (1) - CNP follow-up. 6 Positive Nursery Sites - 4 States MS (1) - CNP follow-up. FL (2) MS (1) NC (1) SC (2)

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 Presently in 2009 Other 2009 P. ramorum initiatives

Positive Nursery Sites (3): 1. Quality Assurance Review for P.ramorum. 2. CPHST’s Assessment Team for a Mississippi • Alabama (1) retail nursery. • Georgia (1) 3. Farm Bill’s appropriation for P.ramorum work in • New Jersey (1) the east. Focused on nursery survey in targeted states.

4 CHRP Goals • Preventing introduction & spread of 2009 CHRP Update citrus pests • Early detection & response Patrick Gomes • Promote best management practices = National Coordinator Recovery USDA APHIS PPQ • Maintain markets by ensuring April 20, 2009 requirements for shipment are met

1 2

Program Activities Surveillance Disease Surveillance Diagnostics • Citrus Commodity Surveys Regulatory • High risk areas (Hot zones) Investigation & Enforcement • Special surveys Emergency response Research & Development • Training on pest recognition Outreach/Education

Citrus Surveys • Alabama • Hawaii • Arizona • Louisiana • California • Puerto Rico • Florida • Texas • Guam

BACK TO TOP Major Pests Threats • Citrus canker • Citrus greening = Huanglongbing (HLB) – 3 strains • Asian & African citrus psyllids • Citrus leprosis virus • Citrus Variegated Chlorosis (CVC)

Citrus Canker Citrus Greening Xanthomonas citri ssp. citri “Candidatus

Water soaked Liberibacter asiaticus” “Halo” effect Bacterial lesions on leaves, fruit, twigs, branches & trunk

Blotchy mottle Small lopsided symptoms fruit, columella 9 staining, bitter 10 taste

Asian Citrus Psyllid Diaphorina citri Citrus Leprosis Virus Insect vector of Citrus Greening (CiLV)

Mite vector Brevipalpus spp.

Adult Nymph 11 12

BACK TO TOP Citrus Variegated Chlorosis (CVC) Plant pathogens Xylella fastidiosa • Some key disease threats cannot be cultured • Symptoms non-specific • Uneven distribution of pathogen within host • Diagnostics lack sensitivity and specificity Glassy-winged sharpshooter Latency of symptom expression Homalodisca vitripennis • Insect vector of CVC • Easy uptake and transmission by vectors

13 14

Diagnostics Response Capability Variability in titer • Incident Command System ≠ “Not detected” “Not present” • New Pest Response Guidelines Detected ≠ Live • Action Plans • Task Force/Action Committees • Training on Pest Recognition & Diagnostics

15 16

Enforcement Diagnostics • Smuggling, Interdiction & Trade Support services Enforcement (SITC) • • Investigative & Enforcement Services (IES) • Accreditation • State road stations • Methods development • End point & terminal inspections • Policies • Research

17 18

Packinghouse Stats Interstate Movement of Citrus Fruit 2007/2008 Season 2008/2009 Season Asymptomatic fruit only (mid Nov – June) (through 3/31/09) Packinghouse inspection Lots inspected – Lots inspected – Treatment with approved disinfectant 38,140 34,120 Limited Permit must accompany shipment Total canker finds – Total canker finds – Movement limited to non-citrus producing areas 247 309 Movement permitted for immediate export % lots infected – % lots infected – 0.65 0.91

Highlights Citrus Greening No shipments have been rejected for canker • 2005 – First detection in Florida Shipments moving to EU uninterrupted • 2008 - Infected trees found & removed in Shipments moving overland to Canada Orleans & Washington Parishes, Louisiana No detections of citrus canker during citrus • 2009 - Infected trees found on 2 properties surveys outside Florida in Charleston, SC New scientific findings regarding epidemiological significance of symptomatic fruit

BACK TO TOP Bogalusa, LA. HLB Positive Sweet Orange Citrus Greening in South Carolina March 24, 2009 - Plant tissue samples with symptoms collected from a lemon tree located on residential property in the City of Charleston March 30, 2009 - Samples tested at PPQ Regional lab April 2, 2009 - Findings confirmed by PPQ Molecular Diagnostics Lab in Beltsville, MD April 14, 2009 - MDL confirms 2nd tree infected same property April 17, 2009 – MDL confirms grapefruit tree infected at a second property

Photos by Brett Laird, LDAF. March 2009

Citrus Greening – Charleston, SC Infected Lemon Tree Charleston, South Carolina

1st find

2nd find

BACK TO TOP Pathways & Sources • Movement of propagative material • Movement of fresh cut foliage • Incidental movement of plant debris • E-commerce sale of plants • Hobbyists/gardeners

Average annual minimum temperature. • Domestic & foreign sources

Source: U.S. National Arboretum, USDA‐ARS 38

KAFFIR LIME ORANGE JASMINE Citrus hystrix Murraya paniculata Host of greening & psyllid

CURRY LEAF A major contributing cause to Bergera koenigii pest introduction is a lack of awareness by the general public and affected industry of the threat

BACK TO TOP National Campaign Outreach/Education Stop spread caused by movement of infected plants • Public awareness & involvement from areas under quarantine. Disrupt purchase of plants over the Internet using • Grower/Caretaker education banner ads • Educating others – Master gardeners, Create a “micro-site” that contains simple message – Don’t risk citrus; Don’t move citrus extension agents, scouts Create greater public awareness of the problem Understanding the threat Where is disease present; Areas under quarantine High risk activities associated with spread of disease Where to go for more information

43 44

www.saveourcitrus.org

Quarantine information by State

Using social media tools

45 46

Regulation changes underway • 7CFR301.75 – Citrus Canker Regulations • Interim Rule – Citrus Greening & Asian Citrus Psyllid • Proposed Rule – Citrus Nursery Stock

BACK TO TOP New Nursery Requirements Rule-making Process • Insect resistant enclosures • Pest risk assessment • Host free buffers • Risk management analysis • Nursery environ surveys • Environmental assessment • Controlled access • Economic analysis • Monthly inspections • Public comment • Reporting requirements & audit controls 49 50

Research R&D Component Major investments in basic & applied • Methods Development research by Florida and California producers • Basic Research National Academies of Science enlisted to review • Identify research needs/priorities & proposals & develop a strategic plan monitor progress ARS & CSREES increasing their efforts • International coordination ARS SWAT Assessment – April 2008

51 52

Center for Plant Health Science & Technical Working Groups Technology Citrus greening/Asian citrus psyllid – January 2006 Detection of CG positive psyllids – March 2007 Identifying critical needs & priorities Production of disease-free Citrus nursery stock – Developing & validating diagnostics September 2007 Response to early detection of Citrus greening Evaluating ways to control ACP and/or Asian citrus psyllid – August 2008 Systems approach to disease-free production of Convening Technical Working Groups Citrus nursery stock – October 2008 Conducting pilot projects Area-wide Control of Asian citrus psyllid – February 2009

BACK TO TOP • Over 400 participants from 26 countries Contact Information • Research underway in key [email protected] areas (919) 855-7313 • Priorities & needs discussed Key APHIS Websites • Proceedings will be http://www.aphis.usda.gov published by APS http://www.saveourcitrus.org

Thank you for your attention!

Questions?

Louisiana Program Statistics: June 2008 - March 2009 • New Response Guidelines Louisiana Cumulative Samples Cumulative Positive Total Sites Properties by Location Samples • Citrus Greening – updated April 2008 Inspected Surveyed • Citrus Variegated Chlorosis – Draft under review Insect Plant ACP CG • Citrus Leprosis – Draft under review Nurseries 136 8 14 6 Private 6,393 196 643 193 5** • ARS/NPRDS – APS Recovery Plan Residences

• Citrus Greening – Plan developed Citrus Groves 93 4 15 4 • Citrus Variegated Chlorosis – Plan in preparation Public Areas 92 4 9 2

Totals 6,714 212 681 205 5

** Confirmed Citrus Greening infected plants. 59

BACK TO TOP Collaboration with Mexico International Cooperation • Technical exchange • Many pathogens can only be studied at their • Diagnostic training & support origin • Technical exchange vital in developing • Operation Psyllid Watch detected detection & control strategies ACP in Tijuana, Tecate & Mexicali • Addressing the pest at source can mitigate • Coordinating survey & suppression risk of spread & introduction activities with Mexican Government • Helps gain acceptance of practices & establishment of international standards

61 62

Baja California, Mexico Baja California, Mexico Through April 16, 2009 Through April 16, 2009

Properties Surveyed Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Location Totals Samples by Positive Yellow Panel Tijuana Tecate Ensenada Mexicali Rosarito San Luis Rio Colorado Location Sites Traps

ACP CG Total 501 133 68 437 34 214 Nurseries 9 0 0 0 Traps serviced 3,373 883 212 1,934 224 1,026 Private Residences 8,748 399 399 0

Citrus Groves 8 3 3 0 Trapping density is 5 traps/sq mi. Public Areas 10 0 0 0 Density within 1 mile buffer along US border is 25 traps/sq mi.

Baja California, Mexico Through April 16, 2009

*Infested Grids Tijuana Tecate Ensenada Mexicali Rosarito San Luis ** Infested 135 sq mi 43 sq mi 48 sq mi 135 sq mi 20 sq mi RC Sites 47 sq mi

Total *82 **324 *25 **46 *3 **5 *14 **23 *1 **1 *0 **0

BACK TO TOP 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

Overview Light Brown Apple Moth • Update on LBAM detections and National Survey • Description of Regulatory Framework • Challenges and Future 1. General Update • Questions and Discussion 2. Regulatory Framework 3. Challenges

Craig Southwick USDA APHIS PPQ Western Region

Latest detection in a new County is in Yolo County, just across the border from Solano

• 2008 National Survey

Regulatory Framework

• APHIS PPQ quarantines by County by Federal Order • The California Department of Food and Agriculture regulates areas within 1.5 miles of an LBAM detection

Quarantine Requirements depend on Quarantine Requirements also depends on Type of Regulated Material distance from any LBAM detections Green Waste Handlers • Producers that ship and are less than 1.5 miles from an LBAM detection are within the state interior quarantine • Producers in a Federally regulated county are regulated under the Federal Order

Community Gardens Harvested Commodities

Commodity Inspections Nursery Inspections • Risk based fruit and vegetable inspections

• Coolers primary inspection point for commodities • 100 % Inspection of all nursery products moving off the site

Retail Inspections What are we doing to limit movement of the LBAM?

• Orders, Regulations, and Agreements – Federal Order – California State Regulations • LBAM Program – Detection Trapping – Regulatory Compliance – Regulatory Inspections • 30 day inspections – Regulatory Treatments • National surveys (to verify program is working)

Challenges Links • Court Rulings in in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties have effectively halted area wide eradication strategies pending • USDA APHIS PPQ’s LBAM Page environmental documentation • Even the most effective regulatory framework does nothing to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/index.s stop natural spread html

Future • CDFA’s LBAM page • Environmental documentation is being produced http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/lbam/lbam_main.html • Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) shows promise. A rearing facility in Moss Landing, CA is producing adults • SIT targeted area demonstrations are being planned for this year

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

Question and Discussion

3 7 CFR 301.1 through 301.1–3

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Special Need Special Need Request under the Request under the Plant Protection Act Plant Protection Act

There is now an amendment of the domestic Ordinarily, under section 436 of the PPA (7 U.S.C. 7756), no State quarantine regulations which established a or political subdivision of a State may regulate the movement in interstate commerce of any article, means of conveyance, plant, process by which a State or political biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant subdivision of a State could request approval -- product in order to impose prohibitions or restrictions on (1)to control a plant pest or noxious weed; (2)to eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed; or the movement in interstate commerce of (3)to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a biological specific articles that are in addition to the control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed if the Secretary has issued a regulation or order to prevent the dissemination of the prohibitions and restrictions imposed by biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed within the the Animal and Plant Health Inspection United States. Service.

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Confirmed positive P. ramorum sites Special Need Approximately 330 shipments (5,540 Special Need from trace-forward, national, and Request under the Request under the other surveys, 2004-2007. Blanks In April 2007, host plants) were sent to 4 provinces stream monitoring represent zeros. Plant Protection Act in Canada and 8,450 shipments Plant Protection Act detected the pathogen in a (292,450 host plants) sent to 39 U.S. 2004 2005 2006 2007 This map depicts the areas of the stream draining a United States currently regulated for states 2004. AL 3 1 NM 1 nursery found to Phytophthora ramorum. The three be infested in AZ 1 states regulated are the western‐ NY 1 Mississippi. most states of the continental CA 55 53 28 7 Additional stream OK 1 United States: Washington, Oregon, CO 1 sampling in and California. As there is forest OR 24 20 13 2 Mississippi led in infestation, we have quarantined the CT 3 1 December 2007 to PA 2 1 14 orange or more darkly shaded FL 6 2 1 the detection of an counties near the coast of California SC 4 1 infected willow as well as a part of Curry County in GA 16 4 1 3 along a drainage the southwest corner of Oregon and IN TN 2 1 ditch near a have restrictions on the movement nursery. Follow-up LA 5 2 TX 11 of nursery stock, forest products and sampling has been soil. Due to detections limited to MD 3 VA 2 negative. Infected nurseries, for the remainder of ME 1 WA 25 10 12 7 landscape California, Oregon and Washington, camellias were Stat the yellowish or lighter areas, we MS 1 1 22 7 11 6 detected and regulate the movement of nursery NC 9 es eradicated in stock only. Sites 177 91 62 21 Harris County, NJ 1 Texas, in March 2008. W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

BACK TO TOP Special Need Special Need Request under the Request under the Plant Protection Act Plant Protection Act There are generally three generations of LBAM per year in southern Australia and two to four in New Zealand . Eggs are The light brown apple moth LBAM has a host range in excess deposited in masses on the upper surface of (LBAM), Epiphyas postvittana of 150 plant genera in over 70 leaves of apple, pear, apricot, citrus, and (Tortricidae), is a native pest families, including nursery stock, other smooth‐leaved host plants. Pupation of Australia and is now widely cut flowers, stone fruit (peaches, occurs within these rolled leaf sites. distributed in New Zealand, plums, nectarines, cherries, and the United Kingdom, Ireland, apricots), pome fruit (apples and and New Caledonia. pears), grapes, and citrus. Although it was reported in Hawaii in the late 1800s, a recent LBAM detection in California is the first on the In the absence of insecticides, United States mainland. the percentage of damage to USDA confirmed the fruits in Australia and New detection of LBAM in Zealand ranges from 5 to 30% Damage is caused by larval feeding on the Alameda County, California and 12-70% respectively foliage, buds, shoots, and fruits of host on March 22, 2007 plants

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Alfalfa/ Lucerne Medicago sativa sativa Apple, paradise Malus pumila Special Need Apricot Prunus armeniaca Special Need Avocado Persea americana Request under the Bean, broad Vicia faba Request under the Plant Protection Act Blackberry Rubus fruticosa Plant Protection Act Blueberry Vaccinium spp. Chrysanthemum, Garden Chrysanthemum x morifolium The LBAM Host Map and Citrus Citrus spp. the LBAM NAPPFAST Map Clover Trifolium spp. (1-5 generations) were Cotoneaster Cotoneaster spp. added together to obtain Currant Ribes spp. the final Risk Map for Eucalyptus Eucalyptus spp. LBAM. The final risk map Feijoa Fruit Feijoa sellowiana has 8 classes with 2 being Grapevine Vitis vinifera the lowest relative risk and Hawthorn Crataegus spp. 9 the highest. Hop Humulus lupulus Jasmine Jasminum spp. A high risk level indicates Kiwifruit Actinidia chinensis that there are high levels of Lychee Litchi chinensis host commodities present Peach Prunus persica and conditions consistently Pears Pyrus spp. present for development Persimmon/ Ebony Diospyros spp. of the pest organism Pine Pinus spp. Pine, Monterey Pinus radiata Poplars Populus spp. Potato Solanum tuberosum Privet Ligustrum vulgare Rose Rosa spp. W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Special Need Special Need Request under the Request under the Plant Protection Act Plant Protection Act

National Survey 2008: State Risk Categories and Maximum Trap Numbers Eastern Region States with 350 or 200* traps Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia Pennsylvania * West Virginia **

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

CDFA Light Brown Apple Moth Pest Profile 3/2009 ECONOMIC IMPACT: The impact on production costs for LBAM hosts could top $100 million. It was estimated for Australia that LBAM causes AU$21.1 million annually in lost production and control costs, or about 1.3% of gross fruit value: for apples, pears, oranges and grapes (Sutherst 2000). Applying this percentage to the 2005 gross value of these same crops in California of $5.4 billion (USDA NASS 2006), the estimated annual production costs would be $70.2 million.

This estimate does not include economic costs to the nursery industry nor to other significant host crops in California, such as apricots, avocados, kiwifruit, peaches and strawberries. If the same level of costs were incurred by these as for the previous four crops, the additional costs would be $63.1 million, based on their 2005 gross value of $4.8 billion. Therefore, the total lost production and control costs in California could be $133 million for all of the crops mentioned above.

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Special Need Special Need Request under the Request under the Plant Protection Act Plant Protection Act

CDFA Light Brown Apple Moth Pest Profile 3/2009 CDFA Light Brown Apple Moth Pest Profile 3/2009

Exact economic impacts on international and domestic exports are uncertain at this time. California is the nation’s leader in agricultural ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: exports and in 2003 shipped more than $7.2 billion in both food and Establishment of this moth could cause direct environmental damage via agricultural commodities around the world (CASS 2004). Some countries increased pesticide use statewide by commercial and residential growers have specific regulations against this pest and many others consider it a and via adverse feeding impacts on native plants. Populations of regulated pest that would not be knowingly allowed to enter. Additional threatened and endangered plant species could be severely threatened or measures, such as preharvest treatments and postharvest disinfestation, extirpated should this moth adapt to feeding on them. would likely have to be taken to ensure that shipments to these countries are free from LBAM. In addition, LBAM is an exotic pest; i.e., it is not METHODS OF ARTIFICIAL SPREAD: established in the continental United States and, therefore, other states The most significant route of artificial spread is likely to be on live plants within the U.S. would likely impose restrictions on the movement of sold through nurseries and destined for commercial, ornamental and potentially infested fruits, vegetables and nursery stock. These garden plantings. Other methods of spread are on fresh produce, green restrictions could severely impact the domestic marketing of California waste and conveyances. agricultural products

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Invasion Biology of the Light Brown Apple Moth Special Need James R. Carey (UC Davis) Special Need Request under the Presentation to Assembly of the California Legislature Request under the Plant Protection Act Committee on Agriculture Plant Protection Act March 12, 2008

The history of eradication programs in which an exotic insect is as widespread Under the Plant Protection Act, section 436 (7 U.S.C. 7756(b)(2)), as LBAM is in California suggests that we have little if any chance of success States may request restrictions and prohibitions that are in addition because several key preconditions for conducting a successful eradication to restrictions and prohibitions imposed by our Federal regulations if program are unmet. These include having: there is a special need for a higher level of protection for that State 1.An effective eradication tool. Mating disruption pheromone is a “control” tool or political subdivision. and not an eradication tool. There are huge problems even with the use as a control tool. Never in the history of insect eradication has a pheromone ever been used for any eradication program, much less been successful in eradicating any insect population. APHIS requires that that wish to request additional restrictions or prohibitions on the interstate movement of articles into their 2. A monitoring system for delineating the full extent of the infestation at the jurisdictions provide the following information, and APHIS would beginning of the program as well as for identifying small populations in evaluate the information to determine whether States have scattered pockets at advanced stages. adequately demonstrated a special need under the Plant Protection 3. Strong public support so that ground crews deploying controls can have Act full access to private property over a sustained period.

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

BACK TO TOP Special Need Special Need Request under the Request under the Plant Protection Act Plant Protection Act 1. A State that requests additional restrictions or 3. The pest should be of significant concern for the prohibitions based on a special need must show that the State, in that it would harm or injure the environment, pest of concern does not exist in the State. Therefore a and/or cause economic harm to industries in the request should include current data showing that a State. The request should contain direct information scientifically sound detection survey was performed in the about what harm or injury would result from State, and the pest was not found establishment of the pest in the State

2. The pest should be a true concern for the State, which 4. The State should list characteristics that make it would be documented with a pest risk assessment or particularly vulnerable to the pest, such as unique other scientific data showing that the pest could enter the plants, diversity of flora, historical concerns, or any State and become established other special basis for the request for additional restrictions or prohibitions

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Special Need Special Need Request under the Request under the Plant Protection Act Plant Protection Act Regulated articles may not be moved into or within the petitioning States This was done in late February and forwarded to the from the following areas except as outlined hereafter: Deputy Administrator, PPQ by our SPB President on 26 February 2009. The petitioning states recommended the A.Prior notification for Epiphyas postvittana host plant material is required. The shipper shall send by mail, facsimile or e-mail a copy of the imposing of prohibitions and restrictions on the State Phytosanitary Certificate to the respective state regulatory offices. The movement in interstate commerce of specific articles that phytosanitary certificate must list the type and quantity of plants, the are in addition to the prohibitions and restrictions shipper’s address, the recipient’s name and address, and contact number(s) of the shipper and recipient. Commodities shipped in violation of the imposed by the USDA APHIS PPQ : requirements may be returned to their point of origin or destroyed at the Key elements were the mini pest risk assessment, the expense of the owner. economic analysis and other scientific and regulatory documents (CDFA, PPQ and others) which were provided B.A Phytosanitary Certificate is required for interstate shipments of plant material as opposed to the current Quarantine Compliance Certificate. The and discussed in the submitted special need request former provides a higher level of inspection efforts by the state regulatory authorities. Proof of insecticide treatment must accompany the phytosanitary certificate.

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Special Need Special Need Request under the Request under the Plant Protection Act Plant Protection Act Thank you to: Regulated articles may not be moved into or within the petitioning States from the following areas except as outlined hereafter: Richard Gaskalla Gene Cross Christel Harden

C. Plant material destined for interstate shipping shall be held a Craig Roussel John Obrycki Harry Fulton minimum of five weeks in an approved enclosed structure, treated with Dennis Barclift Terry Walker Larry Nichols an approved insecticide, monitored with pheromone traps at a density adequate to the enclosure space and undergo a 100% inspection before Stephen Schmidt Sancho Dickinson being shipped interstate. If an Epiphyas postvittana life stage is detected then re-treatment, 100% re-inspection and another minimum David Padilla Velez Mike Evans five-week hold are required before interstate movement occurs. For signing the Special Need Request for LBAM as a Multi‐State Petition D. A certified USDA-approved systems approach for the production of to the USDA APHIS PPQ host plants of Epiphyas postvittana destined for interstate movement VA, SC, PR, OK, NC, MS, LA, KY, GA, FL, AK, AL must be developed for review and approval by the petitioning States.

And to the USDA for providing a mechanism to better respond to pest risks

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Key Literature: Mini risk assessment: Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). R. C. Venette, E. E. Davis, M. DaCosta, H. Heisler and M. Larson, Dept. Entomology, University of Minnesota. 9/21/2003

Economic analysis: risk to US apple, grape, orange and pear production from the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). USDA APHIS PPQ PERAL. G. Fowler, L. Garret, A. Neely, D. Borchert and B. Spears. 2007

W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Special Need Request under the Plant Protection Act

Currently, 14 states require advance notification of shipment from California

W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

Special Need Special Need Request under the Request under the Plant Protection Act Plant Protection Act Alfalfa/ Lucerne Medicago sativa sativa Apple, paradise Malus pumila Noteworthy Host Plants Apricot Prunus armeniaca The only exceptions to this prohibition are when a State Avocado Persea americana or political subdivision of a State imposes regulations which are Bean, broad Vicia faba Blackberry Rubus fruticosa consistent with and do not exceed the regulations or Feijoa Fruit Feijoa sellowiana Blueberry Vaccinium spp. orders issued by the Secretary, Grapevine Vitis vinifera Chrysanthemum, Garden Chrysanthemum x morifolium Hawthorn Crataegus spp. Citrus Citrus spp. Hop Humulus lupulus Jasmine Jasminum spp. Clover Trifolium spp. or when the State or political subdivision of a State demonstrates to Kiwifruit/ Gooseberry, Chinese Actinidia chinensis Cotoneaster Cotoneaster spp. Lychee Litchi chinensis Currant Ribes spp. the Secretary, and the Secretary finds, that there is a Peach Prunus persica Eucalyptus Eucalyptus spp. special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions Pears Pyrus spp. Persimmon/ Ebony Diospyros spp. based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk Pine Pinus spp. Poplars Populus spp. assessment. Potato Solanum tuberosum Privet Ligustrum vulgare Rose Rosa spp.

W.N. Dixon, FDACS W.N. Dixon, FDACS Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC Southern Plant Board 2009: Greenville , SC

The Problem:

A Possible Solution for Verification • APHIS officials do not have a quick and efficient and Traceback of Agricultural way to verify fruit identity in the field. Commodities – The current system requires access to databases that are not generally available in the field. Ian Winborne – Frequently, fruit does not have any identifying marks that could aid in traceback and verification. USDA APHIS – Industry does not generally see that the costs of stickering Center for Plant Health Science and Technology fruit outweigh the benefits. Treatment Quality Assurance Unit • We are especially interested in this for irradiated [email protected] products.

1 2 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

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 Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

Possible Solutions 2D Barcodes: A Solution We Have Been Exploring • Radio Frequency Identifiers (RFID) • While we are still very much in the ‘idea’ phase, • Special inks and have not excluded any technology, we think • “Human Readable” – current system 2D barcodes have a lot of potential. • Barcodes • 2D barcodes are: – Easy to produce – Store a lot of data – Can be easily read – Can be small enough to fit on a fruit label – Inexpensive

3 4 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

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 Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

What is a Barcode? What is a 2D Barcode?

• Barcodes are graphical representations of data • 2D barcodes are graphical representations of data that can be read by optical scanners. that store data along two axes. – We are all familiar with grocery store barcodes like the • This arrangement of the data greatly increases the one below. storage capacity. – These don’t store much data, just a few numbers. • The 2D barcode below contains the URL for the – This is called a one dimensional barcode because the information is stored along one axis. SITC website – Lots of Data! http://www.aphis.usda.gov/international_safeguarding/sitc/index.shtml

5 6 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

How Can We Read a 2D Barcode? How Are People Using Cell Phones and 2D Barcodes? • Most new camera phones can read 2D • A 2D barcode is placed on a product or barcodes! advertisement. • A consumer takes a picture of the barcode with their camera to get more info about the product. • The phone software reads the barcode. • The data in the barcode is a website URL. • The phone’s browser opens the website and displays the content that relates to the barcode.

7 8 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

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 Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

Examples of Use Examples of Use • Traceback and • Advertisements -- Take consumer information a photo of the in Taiwan and Japan. advertisement with a • Consumers can take a camera phone and the picture of the barcode website for the movie will with their camera open. phone and see where the produce was grown and what pesticides were applied.

9 10 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

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 Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

How Can APHIS Use 2D Barcodes? APHIS Example

• 2D barcodes could be put on documents (like • A 2D barcode label created from IRADS and is put 203s), boxes of fruit, and/or individual fruit. on a box of mangoes in Thailand. • The barcodes would have a URL for a tracking – The barcode has the IRADS URL and an encrypted ID website and a encrypted ID number. number that relates to the IRADS treatment number. • A SITC officer scans the barcode with their blackberry camera. • The URL opens in the blackberry browser and the officer logs in. • Traceback or verification information that relates to the encrypted ID is displayed on their blackberry.

11 12 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

APHIS Example APHIS Example • The box of • The software mangoes ships and on the arrives in Long blackberry Beach, clears customs, and enters decodes the commerce. barcode. • A SITC officer finds the mangoes displayed in their boxes and takes a picture using their blackberry phone. 13 14 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

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 Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

APHIS Example APHIS Example

• The software decodes the IRADS URL and directs • The officer enters his login credentials in IRADS the blackberry’s browser to open IRADS. and a report like the one below opens in IRADS that shows information about the box of fruit.

15 16 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

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 Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

How Can this System be Implemented? Benefits to Industry

• Dynamic targets allow the 2D barcodes to work for • Equipment costs are low. Everything used to industry and government. create the examples in this presentation was • The government users of this system can have a already in the office: special “cookie” in their blackberries that tell the – In many cases, existing databases could be inexpensively system to take them to the official tracking site. modified to produce 2D barcodes. • If a member of the public without this “cookie” – Barcodes can be printed with conventional printers. takes a picture of the barcode with their phone, it – Camera phones are common. Users without cameras on their blackberries could be inexpensively upgraded. can take them to another site. • These public sites could contain coupons, fruit information, or other promotional materials.

17 18 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

Public Site Options Summary

• The public site that users are taken to can depend • 2D barcodes can store a large amount of data and on the packinghouse, the country, the treatment can be read by most camera phones. facility, or importer. • 2D barcodes are currently used for traceback in • So when the average shopper takes a picture of a other countries and could be used by APHIS. barcode on… • The equipment and infrastructure needed to – …a Mexican guava their phone might open implement this system is “off the shelf” and www.MeGustaGuavas.com and see guava nutritional inexpensive. facts, recipes, pictures of the groves in Aguascalientes, etc... • Industry can benefit if dynamic targets are – …a commodity that is being recalled might open a recall implemented. website that gives instructions on how to safeguard and return the commodity.

19 20 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

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 Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

Some Resources on the Web Examples to Try • ScoringAg has a commercial 2D barcode system: www.scoringAg.com • If you have a camera phone or know someone that • SEICA is the Japanese traceback system using 2D does, get them to try out scanning the barcodes in barcodes. Use the Google translator to open the next few slides. http://seica.info/default.aspx • The phone needs an internet connect and must • NeoReader makes software for phones that reads have software to decode the barcode. barcodes: http://www.neoreader.com/home.html – One software package is NeoReader, it can be downloaded from http://www.neoreader.com/ • This site has a barcode generator: http://www.bcmaker.com/demos/datamatrix.php • You can scan the barcode from the computer screen, just take a picture of the screen with the camera phone.

21 22 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

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 Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

National Plant Board APHIS website

23 24 Updated: 3-19-2009 Updated: 3-19-2009

BACK TO TOP Charting New Technologies: V{tÜà|Çz axã gxv{ÇÉÄÉz|xá axã gxv{ÇÉÄÉz|xá yÉÜ fàtàx exzâÄtàÉÜç cÜÉuÄxÅá Purpose: Explore new technologies that might ÂA New World is at assist SPROs in tracking and monitoring the Â movement of regulated articles. Hand” Expected Outcomes: Develop an understanding of some of these potential new technologies. Determine if these new technologies might be The Westin Poinsett incorporated into daily work. Greenville, SC Is there interest from SPB membership in exploring a pilot project? April 19-22, 2009

MEGATrends in the Implications of Making Food (and Green Industry other stuff) Easier to Track….. Fact: The Green Industry in the U.S. represents $148 billion Recent References: in economic impacts and two million jobs nationally. •Recent difficulties in tracing spinach and Taco Bell e-coli outbreaks have Fact: Nursery and floral production still represent one of the resulted in increased costs to producers and threatened the health of fastest growing sectors in the agricultural arena-however, consumers. there is a trend toward a maturing market. •Despite decades of steady progress, the safety of the nation’s food supply has not improved over the past three years. According to Dr. Stephen Sundlof, Director, FDA Food Center—”As the supply chains get longer and •Structural Changes in the Industry-Box store chains longer, there’s more opportunity to introduce contaminants that have a have exposed consumers to a diversity of nursery and public effect.” floral products, thus increasing the size of the pie. •Tracking Fido---Positioning Animals Worldwide (PAW) utilizes a small •Buyers are more sophisticated. rectangular box that attaches to the pet’s collar that connects with satelites •Competition is producing a greater emphasis on cost and and cell phone towers to provide a GPS location for the pet at all times. The system sends a text message to alert you that the pet is out of bounds service. and provides its location. Source: Crop Insurance Today, November, 2008

V{tÜà|Çz axã gxv{ÇÉÄÉz|xá NCDA&CS-Plant Conservation Program-Plant Marking Program NCDA&CS-Plant Conservation Program-Plant Marking Program

Ginseng and Venus Flytrap are designated as Special Concern Species (These species are unlawful to distribute, sell or offer for sale, except as provided for in regulations. Hawaii Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) Traceability and Food Safety Pilot Project

1 Ginseng *In 2007, the price topped at Plant Marking Program $1,000/pound. Plant Marking Program *As such, the demand and request for permits to collect on federal lands tripled. *Most biologists feel the Program Initiated in 1996 to address the populations are declining. illegal collection of ginseng.

Program is now utilized in 13 states and Venus Flytrap three countries for marking various items *Principal populations are found in North and South Carolina. including hay, pumpkins, artifacts, petrified *Currently found in 11 counties in NC. wood and endangered animals and plants. *General monitoring indicates a severe decline of the species statewide.

How is the Marking Program Tracking the Program’s Success Implemented?

Phase I-The program began with coded inserts. In the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Phase II-Utilized a ginseng was being poached at record rates. fluorescent dye mixed with a At the outset of the program in 1996, 80 silicon coded chip individuals were prosecuted in both state and to identify individuals were prosecuted in both state and location. federal courts. Phase III-Utilizes a DNA marking With the program implemented, only 6 system with a individuals are currently being prosecuted and distinctive marker (by location), a subject to active prison sentences. dye and scent marker for K-9s.

Monitoring the Program’s Success Hawaii RFID Traceabililty and Food Safety Pilot Project At the outset of the program, 16 five-acre plots were set up for monitoring on a yearly Project Goal -Develop and pilot test a relatively limited basis. and simple high technology (passive RFID) food traceability system that adds value to fresh produce Additionally, there are 29 non-intensive marketing efforts. plots monitored every three years. RFID Project Sponsors: USDA (CREES) and DoD, Based on monitoring results, reproductive Economic Development Alliance of Hawaii, Federal populations have rebounded. At one site: State Marketing Improvement Program, and Hawaii 1996-300 plants Farm Bureau Federation. 2006-1,524 plants

2 Project Objectives: Introduce Hawaii’s food producer, processor, distributor and shipping supply chain players to high technology tagging and capabilities using RFID. Provide Seal of Quality and fresh produce buyers with the assurance that the product they buy is directly traceable to the Hawaiian farm or processor. Assure that Hawaii’s farmers are supported through DVD: Hawaii’s Food Safety System supply chain efficiency, accountability and security as a key competitive marketing strategy. From Traceability to Certification Provide the state’s farmers with a unifying, easy to use and cost effective means of collecting and preserving quality and safety data. Reduce the financial and health exposure to DoD and public retailers, farmers and the buying public in the event of a product recall.

3 Cooperative Emerald Ash Borer Project 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

EAB is devastating but is not the only risk Emerald Ash associated with firewood? Borer - Firewood Firewood can spread a number Southern Plant of forest pests and Board diseases:

April 20, 2009 ALB Beech bark disease Dutch elm disease Emerald Ash Borer Gypsy moth Presented by: Hemlock woolly adelgid Philip Bell Oak wilt Redbay ambrosia beetle Eastern Region Program Manager Sirex woodwasp Sudden oak death USDA APHIS PPQ EAB

Firewood Firewood

- Before EAB – Firewood was like any other regulated article • All hardwood firewood regulated • Firewood of all hardwood (non-coniferous) - Firewood movement played a significant role in determining quarantine resolution, CA species § 301.53-2 stipulations, treatment options • Four (4) main modes of movement – John Q. Public (non-commercial) no logic -Thought to be the most effective mode of spread – Producers - bulk sales for 1º and 2º home heating – (especially stochastic anthropogenic dispersal) transportation limited (150 mi) – Big Box distribution – often brokered – moved large distances – - Harmonized regulation of Firewood with CFIA labeling issues – By-product – usually cash and carry from mill, arborists, municipalities

Firewood Firewood Commercial • Treatment options – 1) Removal of bark and an additional ½” of wood – 2) Kiln Drying (max. thickness of wood is three inches) –3) Fumigate • Compliance agreements templates are in place for producers – 4) Heat treatment and distributors • Quality Assurance • Only treatment used, until just recently, was removal of bark – Monitoring schedule –DBÆWeekly monitoring and underlying wood –HTÆWeekly monitoring • With approval of HT and KD we are working with CPHST to – Safeguarding Æ Monthly monitoring approve facilities • Firewood CAs listed on PPQ web site

1 FirewoodUnited States Distribution 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

Challenge for commercial Firewood – Non Commercial operations?

Employee turn-over

Quality Assurance

Firewood Non-Commercial

• Highlights agency’s lack of appropriate deterrent for non-commercial movement violations.

• Over 80 stipulations of $250.00 assessed.

• Because this product involves movement by the general public extensive outreach is continuous as part of the program.

• Highlights need to reform States’ authorities for agricultural penalties

Driving a 30 by 60 mile square on roads leading to the race way, a few days prior to the race, 42 event firewood sales locations were found, 21 were residentialRace andFans, 21 were Startbusiness ofYour some sort Engines

Don’’tt MoveMove EABEAB atat NASCARNASCAR SpeedSpeed

Risk AssessmentsUnited States Department & Pathway of Agriculture Analysis United States Department of Agriculture RegulatoryAnimal Outreach and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Plant Protection and Quarantine

Great Smoky Mountains Regulatory Outreach Operation – Bristol, TN (August, 2006 and 2008)

Bristol Motor Speedway •6 TN counties (at least) cater to race fans •77 Campgrounds listed on Speedway website •Plates from 40 different states observed •One camp near Speedway holds 2000 campers

Cooperative Emerald Ash Borer Project 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

What is the risk at parks and campgrounds?

One and two day drives from EAB quarantine

Fear of moving hitchhiking pests by firewood has prompted states to adopt Firewood policies

Besides education and outreach how do we deter non-commercial movement of firewood? Outreach… •Due to the high level of risk associated individual’s moving firewood the EAB program, in cooperation with IES, has developed a table of penalties for non- • Outreach: commercial violations of domestic quarantines. Since this development numerous stipulations of $250 and up have been issued for non-commercial firewood violations. PPQ is exploring spot penalty process for violations. $

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

Questions Art maybe, but still firewood, needs to be treated or mitigated for movement.

5 Movement of Firewood and Resolutions by Partners Invasive Species USDA, APHIS and Forest Service “develop, in cooperation with the National Plant Board and the national Association of State Foresters, a national education and outreach program with a clear national message that is consistent and uniform across state lines.” (NPB Resolution #2, 2007) Southern Plant Board Meeting April 20, 2009 Paul Merten-USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection

Resolutions by Partners Resolutions by Partners

Strong outreach and educational “USDA is encouraged to move campaigns are essential. Surveys have expeditiously to provide a shown the public to be generally standardized treatment and supportive of such measures if they adequately understand the reasons certification procedure for interstate behind them. Import regulations based movement of all firewood for the on international phytosanitary standards for the proper treatment of wood purpose of controlling the spread of products are already in place. destructive forest pest and Regulations are urgently needed for diseases.” (NASF Resolution inter-state commerce, particularly with regard to firewood. (FHTF( PP08-1) #2007-3)

Forest Service Actions Forest Service Actions

At this time we are not proposing a national policy on the movement of firewood on to, or off of, National Forest Systems (NFS) lands. We are Currently the Forest Service does not however, encouraging Regions to stay current and have a national firewood movement policy aware of the issue and implement local guidelines and policies as necessary and commensurate with Some National Forests have firewood threats from major forest insect and disease restrictions to slow the spread of pests invasive pests. Regions should also coordinate and consult with State regulatory agencies and and diseases - Superior and Allegheny the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), who have primary responsibility Some Regions/Areas have launched don’t for regulating the movement of items that may move firewood campaigns producing harbor pests, such as firewood. (Dept. Chiefs informational material and holding S&PF and NFS, November 2008) conferences

1 Forest Service Actions Forest Service Actions

The Western Wildland Environment Summer 2008 Robert Haack et al. Threat Assessment Center has a from the NRS conducted a survey of fellow looking at “Pathways and Risk the confiscated firewood collected Assessment of Emerald Ash Borer from the Mackinac Bridge in Movement Into and Within the Mackinaw City, MI Western United States” • Examined and split 1045 pieces of firewood from 21 genera, 26 species Exploring major pathways including firewood • Determined that 64% of the pieces had

Report still in draft current or past borer activity

(Haack et al. unpublished data)

Efforts of FHP and Cooperating State Forestry Organizations

Developing Information and Educational material in several media platforms explaining the potential spread of invasive species through movement of firewood

Collecting information on policies of firewood movement in the Southeast US

Implementing the message of firewood movement and potential invasive species spread in various public awareness efforts (emerald ash borer, laurel wilt, gypsy moth)

Support the Don’t Move Firewood website administered by The Nature Conservancy

Questions for Discussion

Can/should FHP do more?

What is the role/responsibility of the Forest Service as compared to APHIS?

Should the Forest Service develop a national firewood policy including the resolutions supported by the NASF and NPB? If so, what does it cover?

National Clean Plant Network (NCPN) Update 2009 The primary purpose of the NCPN is to develop and support a network of facilities that Southern Plant Board Meeting – April 19-21 cooperate to diagnose and treat high-value specialty crop germplasm (e.g. grapes, pomes. stone fruits, berries, citrus, etc) and establish Erich S. Rudyj, M.Sc. Biologist pathogen-free stocks available to nurseries and Program Coordinator National Clean Plant Network growers for propagation, including through state Plant Health Programs (PHP) certified nursery systems. Quarantine Policy, Analysis and Support Staff (QPAS)

April 2009 April 2009

NCPN Farm Bill 2008 Funding - Update NCPN Program Funding Logistics

• Competitive Cooperative Agreements Program

• $5 million each year for 4 years • Request for Proposals Anticipated June/July 2009

• FY 2009 – 2012 ($20 million total) • Cooperator Access to Funds >>> August/September 2009

• Funds are ‘No-Year’ – Available Until Expended • Funding Distribution – Operation > 60% • OMB Apportionment to APHIS – April 17, 2009 – Methods > 10% – Extension > 10% – Governance > 10% – Audits/Evaluations/Improvements > 10%

April 2009 April 2009

NCPN Business Plan NCPN General Meeting - 2009

• Purpose • Mission, Goals, Performance Measures, and Funding Plan – NCPN Updates – Discuss Business Plan • Cleared by APHIS, ARS, CSREES, OBPA, and OMB – Propose Program Funding Model

• Distributed at NCPN General Meeting (March 25-26) • Concluded March 25-26 – Stakeholder Feedback Requested – US Nat’l Arboretum, Washington, DC • About 60 Stakeholders • Final Anticipated in May 2009 – Representing Grapes, Fruit Trees, Citrus, Hops, Other Specialty Crops

• Highlight > 3 USDA Agency Administrators Sign NCPN MOU

April 2009 April 2009

NCPN MOU NCPN Governance – April 2009

A IS R H S 3 Agency Federal Core Working Group P A • Lays NCPN Foundation at Federal Level CSREES Tier 1 – Program Goals and Governance NCPN Nat’l Governing Body – 3 Agency Partners >>> APHIS / ARS / CSREES

• Signed at NCPN General Meeting – US Nat’l Arboretum Others Fruit tree CPN Grape CPN (GCPN) Tier 2 Governing Governing Body Pending – March 26, 2009 Body

No Regional networks at this time Eastern Western Dr. Meryl Broussard, CSREES GCPN GCPN Tier 3 Mr. Kevin Shea, APHIS Dr. Edward Knipling, ARS April 2009 April 2009

NCPN Governance – Plant Board Connection Specialty Crop Commodities in NCPN

• Specialty Crop Groups Must Form Networks • NCPN is Stakeholder Driven • National NCPN Members – NPB – Membership >>> States, Universities, Nurseries, Growers – Wayne Dixon (Florida) • NCPN Advisory Bodies: – Ken Rauscher (Michigan) – National – Tom Wessels (Washington) • Current Networks (2009): – Specialty Crop Commodity – Grapes – Local • Specialty Crop NCPN Members – NPB – Fruit Trees (Pomes and Stone Fruits) – Mike Colvin (California) – Grapes • Gov. Bodies Counsel NCPN on: – Cristel Harden (South Carolina) – Fruit Trees • Pending Networks (2010/2011)? – Policies – Jan Hedberg (Oregon) – Grapes – Procedures – Carol Holko (Maryland) – Grapes – Citrus – Funding Issues – Dave Johnson (Missouri) - Grapes – Berries – Nancy Osterbauer (Oregon) – Fruit Trees – Ruth Welliver (Pennsylvania) – Fruit Trees • Pending Networks (2012)? – Hops – Others April 2009 April 2009

Upcoming NCPN Issues – Plant Board Interests NCPN Governance – April 2009

A IS R H S 3 Agency Federal Core Working Group P A • Establishing GRAPE Foundation Blocks in Eastern USA CSREES Tier 1 – Discussion NCPN Nat’l Governing Body • Exploring NCPN Possibilities for a CITRUS Program – Discussion Others Fruit tree CPN Grape CPN (GCPN) Tier 2 Governing Body • Establishing FRUIT TREE Foundation Blocks in Eastern USA Pending Governing Body – Discussion No Regional networks at this time Eastern Western GCPN GCPN Tier 3

April 2009 April 2009

NCPN – Fruit Tree TIER 2 Voting Members NCPN – Fruit Tree Network - Purpose • Industry representatives: Lynnell Brandt, Brandt’s Fruit Trees, Parker, WA Goals: Phil Baugher, Adams County Nursery, Aspers, PA 1. Develop stratagem to preserve functionality of existing Robert Woolley, Dave Wilson Nursery, Hickman, CA programs Chalmers Carr, Titan Farms, Ridge Spring, SC 2. Provide platform for sustainable activities • State regulatory representatives: Christel Harden, South Carolina Action items: Nancy Osterbauer, Oregon 1. Formalize Tier 2 commodity committee Ruth Welliver, Pennsylvania 2. Develop charter • University research representatives: 3. Develop vision of the fruit tree network Simon Scott, Clemson University, Clemson, SC (Vice-Chair) 4. Develop FTCPN certification guidelines Ken Eastwell, Washington State University, Prosser, WA (Chair) 5. Review testing protocols and requirements • University extension representative: Steve Hoying, Cornell University, Hudson Valley, NY

NCPN – Fruit Tree Tier 2 Non-Voting Members WA State Univ. Initiative, 2008 Clemson Univ. Initiative, 2008 Stone Fruit and Pomes Stone Fruit and Pomes • CWG representatives APHIS (Quarantine), ARS (Research), CSREES (Extension) Program Name: Program Name: • National Virus Tested Fruit-Tree • Southeastern Budwood Program; • NCPN National Coordinator: Program [NRSP-5] > WSU Prosser Clemson Univ., South Carolina Program Importance: Program Importance: Erich Rudyj, NCPN Coordinator, USDA-APHIS • Primary source for virus tested Stone • Primary source for virus tested Peach and Pome fruits in the USA Tree Budwood for the SE USA • National Clonal Germplasm Repository (NCGR) representative: Reason for APHIS support Reason for APHIS support Vacant • Existing CSREES funding source set • Locally recognized and respected to expire soon authority in disease management • USDA-APHIS (PPQ) representative: • Maintaining high degree of • Maintaining high degree of Stone/Pome fruit national disease- Stone/Pome fruit national disease-free Margarita Licha, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Beltsville, MD free status status 3 Process about 100 new plant 3 Test at least 40 blocks of budwood accessions annually trees for certain viruses • American Nursery & Landscape Assn. representative: 3 Provide ‘back-up’ support for ongoing 3 Provide ‘back-up’ support for ongoing Mark Teffeau, ANLA/HRI, Washington, DC USDA activities USDA activities

• Subject matter experts: APHIS Funding for FY 2008 APHIS Funding for FY 2008 $225,000 $49,980 Invited ad hoc by Tier 2 voting members

Eastern Fruit Tree Mother Blocks NCPN Recent or Upcoming Meetings An Identified Need and Site Visits • Issue: • Nat’l Assn. of State Depts. of • National Grape & Wine Initiative – SE USA has a recognized need for ‘local’ fruit tree mother blocks Agriculture (NASDA) (NGWI) – April 6, 2009 – April 27, 2009 (Washington, DC) • Specialty Crop: – Peaches; possibly other fruit trees • Eastern Plant Board • NCPN National Governing Body – April 7-9, 2009 (Raleigh, NC) • Reason: Meeting – May 12-14, 2009 (Washington, DC) – Varietal differences; Seasonal variations; Locally applicable techniques • Southern Plant Board – April 19-21 (Greenville, SC) • NCPN Citrus Concept Meeting • Support: – Late June, 2009 (Florida) – NCPN National Governing Body • Clemson Fruit Tree Clean Plant – Fruit Tree Clean Plant Network (FTCPN) – Tier 2 National Group Center Site Visit • ASHS Nat’l Meeting – NCPN – Late April 2009 (South Carolina) Presentation • Next Steps? – July 2009 – Discussion April 2009

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

NATIONAL CLEAN PLANT NETWORK For Healthy Food, Farms, and Communities

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201

2008 Farm Bill: Plant Pest and Section 10201: Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Provision Disaster Prevention.

Dr. Matt Royer Secretary is to make available Commodity Credit Director, Pest Detection Corporation (CCC) funds for early detection and Emergency and Domestic Programs rapid response of pest threats.

The 5-year Farm Bill specifies that these funds are to be made available incrementally, starting with $12 million in FY09, $45 million in FY10, and $50 million in FY11 and thereafter.

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 1 2

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201 The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201

In consultation with the National Plant To establish a threat identification and Board and other interested parties, to enter mitigation program to determine and into a cooperative agreement with each address threats to the domestic State department of agriculture … production of crops.

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 3 4

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201 The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201

Develop risk assessments of the To provide funds and technical assistance potential threat to the agricultural industry …for audit-based certification of the United States from foreign sources, systems and nursery plant pest risk collaborate with the NPB, and implement management systems, in collaboration action plans for high consequence plant with the nursery industry, research pests and diseases. institutions, and other entities to address plant pests.

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 5 6

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201 The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201

July 29-31, 2008 December 17, 2008 APHIS convened a meeting, in Frederick, MD, with the National CAPS Committee Implementation Plan was approved by (includes National Plant Board the Department for release to the public. representatives), US Forest Service and the Cooperative State Research, Plan was sent to NPB and others. Education and Extension Service.

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 7 8

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201 The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201

Additions/revisions to the plan since December 2008:

February 17, 2009 • Benefit to small producers (98% of farms have annual revenue < $250k) Section 103 of the American Recovery and • 2009 “Stimulus Bill” allows use of the funds for Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus Bill) salaries and related administrative expenses, modified the 2008 Farm Bill to allow a including technical assistance, to implement the portion of the CCC funding provided (for plan (est. 10%). Sections 10201 and 10202) for administrative costs. • Performance Measures/Milestones (there will be additional ones)

• Changed Goal addressing “response” to “mitigation”

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 9 10

10201 Implementation Plan Goals 10201 Implementation Plan Goals (Developed subsequent to the July 2008 meeting) (Developed since the first meeting, July 2008)

1. Enhanced Analysis & Survey Goals APHIS Team Leaders

2. Domestic Inspection 1. Enhanced Analysis & Survey Dan Borchert, CPHST

3. Technology Enhancement 2. Domestic Inspection Tim McNary, PPQ-WR

4. Safeguarding Nursery Production 3. Technology Enhancement Dan Fieselmann, CPHST

5. Outreach and Education 4. Safeguarding Nursery Erich Rudyj, PHP Production 6. Enhance Mitigation Capabilities 5. Outreach and Education Heather Curlett, LPA

6. Enhance Mitigation Capabilities John Canaday, EDP

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 11 12

Implementation Plan Goal #1 Implementation Plan Goal #1

1. Enhanced Analysis & Survey 1. Enhanced Analysis & Survey

To enhance gathering and analyzing all Performance Milestone available data to efficiently and effectively make informed decisions, and to deploy Development of a high-level, on-line resources to detect pests as early as decision support tool for targeting areas possible. for survey by January 2010.

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 13 14

Implementation Plan Goal #1 Implementation Plan Goal #2

1. Enhanced Analysis & Survey 2. Domestic Inspection

Examples: To target domestic inspection activities at • Risk tools vulnerable points in the safeguarding • PPV survey continuum that result from the movement • P ramorum survey of products and commodities potentially • PHIS carrying pests of regulatory significance. • ACP- N. Mexico, Baja

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 15 16

Implementation Plan Goal #2 Implementation Plan Goal #2

2. Domestic Inspection 2. Domestic Inspection

Performance Milestone Performance Measures Identify major commercial distribution Percent of major commercial distribution locations that receive imported products in locations inspected each year. the 15 highest-risk States by January 2010. (evaluating the commodities produced and Number of canine teams trained for domestic resources present, as well as the pathways, inspection activities. including ports of entry and volume of imports, in each State.)

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 17 18

Implementation Plan Goal #2 Implementation Plan Goal #3

2. Domestic Inspection 3. Technology Enhancement

Examples: To provide training and deploy survey procedures • FF- in CA and tools that will improve our ability to rapidly • K9 teams detect and accurately identify pests of regulatory significance.

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 19 20

Implementation Plan Goal #3 Implementation Plan Goal #3

3. Technology Enhancement 3. Technology Enhancement

Examples: Performance Measure • PHIS- T&L component • T&L national coordinator Percent of traps, lures, and other high quality • T&L bulk procurement, stockpile survey supplies delivered to project survey sites within expected timeframes.

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 21 22

Implementation Plan Goal #4 Implementation Plan Goal #4

4. Safeguarding Nursery Production 4. Safeguarding Nursery Production

To develop science-based best management Performance Milestone practices (BMPs) and risk mitigation practices to exclude, contain, and control regulated plant pests Establishment of an audit-based nursery from the nursery production system. certification program. To develop and harmonize audit-based Nursery Performance Measure Certification Programs (harmonize different certification programs, audit and inspection Percent of nurseries certified under the audit- training for cooperators, and launching the based nursery certification program. program).

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 23 24

Implementation Plan Goal #4 Implementation Plan Goal #4

4. Safeguarding Nursery Production 4. Safeguarding Nursery Production

Performance Measure Examples:

Percent of nurseries per region that produce • P ramorum experimental nursery Phytophthora ramorum host material that are contacted and engaged in the process of standardizing best management practices.

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 25 26

Implementation Plan Goal #5 Implementation Plan Goal #5

5. Outreach and Education 5. Outreach and Education

To increase public understanding, acceptance, and support of plant pest and disease eradication and Performance Measure control efforts. Number of volunteers trained. To encourage public and stakeholder participation in pest surveillance and detection activities and instill public confidence in PPQ programs.

To increase the likelihood that the public will adopt behaviors to help mitigate the introduction or spread of exotic pests/diseases. Spring 2009 Spring 2009 27 28

Implementation Plan Goal #5 Implementation Plan Goal #5

5. Outreach and Education 5. Outreach and Education

APHIS will provide $100,000 of the funds Examples: under the Outreach and Education Strategy each year that funds are authorized by the • CSREES- outreach i.e. small producers Farm Bill to CSREES to ensure that small • Communication Specialist position? producers are aware of and engaged in these activities.

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 29 30

5 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

Implementation Plan Goal #6 Implementation Plan Goal #6

6. Enhance Mitigation Capabilities 6. Enhance Mitigation Capabilities

To provide an unencumbered mechanism to Performance measure determine the most suitable response and deploy resources quickly to mitigate potential economic Percent increase in the number of participants and environmental damage and further spread of exercised in PPQ’s national preparedness a detected pest of regulatory significance when training program. deemed appropriate.

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 31 32

Implementation Plan Goal #6 10201 Proposed Funding GOAL FY09 FY11+ 6. Enhance Mitigation Capabilities Enhanced Analysis & Survey $4,050,000 33%

Domestic Inspection $2,000,000 10% Examples: Technology Enhancement $2,200,000 18.5%

• ACP- N. Mexico, Baja Safeguarding Nursery Production $1,250,000 8.5% • PPV- NY • FF- CA Outreach and Education $500,000 4.4% Enhance Mitigation Capabilities $2,000,000 25.6% (33%) TOTAL $12,000,000 100%

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 33 34

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201 The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Sec. 10201

Next Steps Useful Links (saved in a doc on my computer): ..\Plans\5 Outreach\10201 Farm Bill website.doc

3/30/2009- Full Implementation Plan is posted on the APHIS website, as well as an Timeline (on my computer): ..\Plans\10201 Milestones v3.mpp updated timeline in the summary version as a “white paper.” http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/pest_detection/farm_bill.s The Implementation Plan: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/pest_detection/farm_bill.shtml White Paper: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/pest_detection/farm_bill.shtml html Federal Grants/Agreements: www.usaspending.gov 3/30/2009- The public may register via the Stakeholder Registry to receive updates and provide comments. AMS- Specialty Crops list: www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=DefinitionofSpecialtyCrops&right Nav1=DefinitionofSpecialtyCrops&topNav=&leftNav=CommodityAreas&page=SCBGPProcedures&resultType=&acct=fvgrn 3/30/2009- APHIS provides a transparent process of engaging stakeholders. Planning tprg begins for a working meeting, June 8-9, 2009 in Riverdale, MD with an objective of AMS- Specialty Crop Block Grant Program: developing detailed plans for outyears with stakeholders’ input. www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=SpecialtyCropBlockGrant%20Pro gram&rightNav1=SpecialtyCropBlockGrant%20Program&topNav=&leftNav=CommodityAreas&page=SCBGP&resultType= 4/2/2009- Meeting with the SCFBA Implementation Team- Horticulture/APHIS. USDA- Farm Bill Information from the Department Meetings: 4/3/2009- NPB BOD conference call. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&navid=FARMBILL2008&contenti d=farmbill_meetings.xml TBD- APHIS may begin spending CCC funds after the apportionment is received from OMB. All Farm Bill Topics: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/farmbill2008?navid=FARMBILL2008 ERS: By 9/30/09- Priorities are identified and funds disbursed to cooperators. http://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/Titles/TitleXHorticulture.htm#pestanddiseasemgmt

Spring 2009 Spring 2009 35 36

6 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

Official Control 101 What is Official Control?

Southern Plant Board Meeting • The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) defines official control as: Greenville, South Carolina April 21, 2009 – The active enforcement of mandatory phytosanitary Diane Schuble regulations and the application of mandatory phytosanitary National Coordinator for Official Control procedures with the objective of eradication or containment USDA APHIS PPQ of quarantine pests or for the management of regulated non- quarantine pests. Emergency and Domestic Programs (EDP) This refers to regulated pests in an importing country that are present Riverdale, MD but not widely distributed.

What Does This Have to Do with States? How does the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) prevent the spread & introduction of plant pests, Official Control can be conducted on the national or sub-national level and promote appropriate measures for their control? Federally Regulated Official Control State Managed Official Control (FROC) (SMOC) • Adopts International Standards for Plant pest programs run by Plant pests that APHIS PPQ Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) APHIS PPQ, such as: does not regulate, but • Karnal Bunt States may. – The guideline for the interpretation and application • Gypsy Moth of the concept of Official Control is found in ISPM • Imported Fire Ant No. 5, Supplement No. 1 This is the focus of the • P ramorum APHIS PPQ Official • Federal Noxious Weeds Control Program.

Why Does APHIS PPQ Wish to Establish This If APHIS PPQ Doesn’t Have the Resources, How Official Control Program? Can States Be Expected to Provide Them??? • Since APHIS PPQ does not have the resources to regulate every pest of limited distribution, Official Control gives • States may, depending on the pest, leverage existing States the opportunity to have their qualifying programs resources/programs to be in compliance with the IPPC, recognized. such as: – General Nursery Survey • Official Control is structured to require non- – Warehouse Survey/Distribution Ctr Inspections discriminatory phytosanitary action for a given pest in – Discretionary Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey foreign and domestic trade. This will formalize our (CAPS) Funding compliance with the IPPC. – Border Inspections

What Would States Be Expected to Do? What Information is Required for a Petition?

• Establish legislation for a target plant pest • Evidence the pest is present or absent in the State

• Collaborate with interested States and agree to a • Evidence the pest could enter and become established common program • A reasonable argument the pest could cause economic • Petition to APHIS PPQ for recognition of that and/or environmental harm program • A maintenance plan • Survey for, contain/eradicate target pest, and report results to APHIS PPQ, including exclusionary • Quarantine regulations activity.

What Would States Receive from APHIS PPQ? What Would States Receive from APHIS PPQ? • Protection at Ports of Entry from pests under official control when destined to States where that pest is under official control • Action from APHIS PPQ if a pest under official control is found in a State where that pest is under official control • Phytosanitary actions equivalent to those imposed by States in when originating in foreign commerce interstate commerce to be applied to foreign imports

Important Definitions Let’s look at some examples: • Pest- Any species, strain, or biotype of plant, animal, or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products. • Could these pests qualify for Official Control?

• Quarantine Pest- A pest of potential economic importance to the – Hemlock Wooly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae) area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present - Soybean Rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) but not widely distributed and being officially controlled. - Sweet Potato Weevil (Cylas formicarius) - Africanized bees • Regulated Non-Quarantine Pest- A non-quarantine pest whose

presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of those Not the best choices… plants with an economically unacceptable impact and which is therefore regulated within the territory of the importing contracting party.

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 Why Wouldn’t They Be Good Candidates? Why Wouldn’t They Be Good Candidates?

Hemlock Wooly Adelgid – States would not get the return for their Sweet Potato Weevil - States would not get the return for effort to qualify. This pest is not seen at ports of entry. their effort to qualify. Protection at ports of entry is already in place. Sweet potatoes are only enterable from Canada, where the pest does not occur.

Africanized Bees – All bees, by- products and their equipment fall under Federal Soybean Rust – It is not possible to contain this wind-born disease. Regulation (7CFR 322). Approach it as a Management Program.

How About These Pests for Official Control? Why? • Red-Banded Whitefly (Tetraleurodes persae) -Present in CA • They are present somewhere in the United States Threat to avocadoes? • There is an import pathway • Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (Halyomorpha halys) -Present in PA, NJ, DE, MD, SC, WV, OR • A technically sound containment/eradication program is Threat to citrus, fruit trees, ornamentals? possible, including prohibition in a State where that pest is not present • Painted Bug (Bagrada hilaris) -Present in CA Threat to crucifers, cotton, papaya?

What if YOUR State has an established pest What if YOUR State declines to join a petition for a that others plan to put under official control? pest that is or is not present there? That pest will not be actionable at ports of entry when destined to your State. • Join the petition if you can • Decline to join the petition contain/eradicate the pest if you are unable to from your State contain/eradicate the pest from your State Can you change your mind if you later decide the pest • Meet the requirements of does have an adverse economic impact in your another State’s external • Meet the requirements of State? quarantine, as well as another State’s external maintaining your own quarantine quarantine intrastate This already occurs! YES!

Official Control PPQ Steering Committee Diane Schuble, Leader Thank you for your attention! • Robert Griffin, Center for Plant From Emergency and Domestic Health Science & Technology Programs (EDP): • Tim McNary, Western Region • Alan Dowdy • Billy Newton, Eastern Region I’ll do my best to answer your questions, • Matthew Royer • Laney Campbell, Eastern Region Advisors: today and in the future. From Plant Health Programs (PHP): • Robert Bailey, Western Region • Joseph Cavey • Todd Schroeder, EDP • Eric Nichols, APHIS, Int’l Services Diane Schuble • Matthew Rhoads • Anna Rinick, Policy & Program Devel • Dorothy Wayson Also Consulted: National Coordinator for Official Control • Mark Dagro, PPQ Prof Devel Ctr • Evelia Sosa • Scott Sanner, SITC Riverdale, Maryland • Robert Huttenlocker, APHIS, IES • C. Fredric Mann • Kevin Harriger, US Customs [email protected] • Narcy Klag • John Greifer, APHIS, Int’l Services • Dorthea Zadig, CA Dept Food & Ag 301.734.8723 • Julie Aliaga • Gene Cross, NC Dept Ag & Consumer Ser • Shirley Wager-Page (until Feb 2009)

Domestic Compliance USDA-PPQ/NPB Joint Committee Agreements looking at federal and state…

Southern Plant Board Certificates April 21, 2009 Limited permits Compliance agreements

Committee Members: Three major issues identified by the Compliance Agreement Committee: PPQ Plant Boards zPhil Garcia Robin Pruisner Input from receiving states. zTim McNary Tom Durkis zJeff Grode Courtney Albrect Appropriate notification. zGary Clement Ken Rauscher zTodd Schroeder Geir Friisoe zJane Levy Gray Haun Authority to collect user fees to cover monitoring of zWilliam Newton CA’s or product shipments. zPaul Hornby zVicki Wohlers - Workgroups formed to look at each -

Three major issues identified by the Three major issues identified by the Compliance Agreement Committee: Compliance Agreement Committee: Input from receiving states. – PPQ ET Agrees Input from receiving states. 9 Increased collaboration and cooperation needed Appropriate notification. PPQ ET Partial agreement between PPQ and NPB members re: CAs 9 Database on CAs (origin and receiving info.) – o.k. 9 9 Periodic review of can we do better and how? 9 Notification on specific shipments – Appropriate notification. 9not for Certificates, Authority to collect user fees to cover monitoring of 9ok for Limited Permits. CA’s or product shipments. Authority to collect user fees to cover monitoring of CA’s or product shipments.

Three major issues identified by the Compliance Agreements, Certificates, Compliance Agreement Committee: and Limited Permits Next Steps Input from receiving states. EDP Staff Position assigned – Charlie Brown Appropriate notification. Plans include looking into Authority to collect user fees to cover monitoring of 9 Past (e.g. how do we learn about compliance?) CA’s or product shipments. PPQ ET agrees 9 Present (e.g. where are the main issues?) 9 PPQ will look into user fee authority associated 9 Future (e.g. PHIS and other “fixes”) with CAs, certificates, and limited permits with CAs, certificates, and limited permits Clearly the continued communication and collaboration between PPQ and NPB will be necessary to move these issues forward.

Phoenix CAPS Meeting

Working meeting designed to meet two major goals:

Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey (CAPS): • Allow CAPS management and the field to discuss the An overview of and developments since the national CAPS meeting program • Develop a series of recommendations for improvement

Brian Kopper, Ph.D. USDA-APHIS-PPQ

Breakout Sessions Surveys

• Surveys • A need to re-evaluate the commodity surveys

• Survey types (Commodity, Risk & Commodity-like) • What is working? What is not? • Survey Methodology and Guidelines • Managing Cooperative Agreements at the State Level • Are the guidelines clear? • Analytical Tools to Conduct CAPS Business • Appropriate Data to Collect and Record

Surveys Surveys

• A need to re-evaluate the CAPS guidelines • Are the guidelines clear? • commodity surveys • 75/25 split The message heard: • What is working? What is not? • Overall ‘yes’ • Keep things consistent for year to year The message heard:

• Commodity surveys can be too restrictive

Surveys Managing Cooperative Agreements

• Solution: • Work plan requirements (burdens) and increased • Keep 75/25 split but expand the commodity survey to include demands from OPM pathways and high risk areas (needs to be justified). • Overall importance of reporting nationally • Keep guidelines (and templates) as same as possible.

Managing Cooperative Agreements Managing Cooperative Agreements

• Work plan requirements (burdens) and increased demands from Solution: OPM • Hard to provide solution given that changes are made at the APHIS level The message heard: • Goal is to streamline and integrate as much as possible to better manage the program • With tight budgets scrutiny has increased • Agreements need to be transparent • Data needs to be accessible

Analytical Tools to Conduct CAPS Business Analytical Tools to Conduct CAPS Business

• Planning: Access available data to determine where to survey for • Planning: Access available data to determine where to survey for target pests target pests • Reporting: Simplification of work plan/accomplishment report • Reporting: Simplification of work plan/accomplishment report submission, trap/lure procurement, data reporting, etc submission, trap/lure procurement, data reporting, etc The message heard: • Cooperators want more access to PPQ systems • Getting data can be cumbersome: The work is getting done but it’s hard to quantify • Work plans and accomplishment reports need to be simplified

Analytical Tools to Conduct CAPS Business Appropriate Data to Collect and Record

• Solution: • What data do we need to record to meet our needs? • Prepare to integrate CAPS into PHIS in the coming years • Natives to regulatory incidents • Work towards making the whole CAPS “process” easier • Template for accomplishment reports • Transparent trap/lure procurement process • NAPIS and accountability reporting • PHIS survey templates and data availability

Appropriate Data to Collect and Record Appropriate Data to Collect and Record

• What data do we need to record to meet our needs? Solution:

• Natives to regulatory incidents • Set protocols need to be established

The message heard:

• The field has very different views regarding what data should be recorded

CAPS program contacts: Summary John Bowers Nat. Survey Coord. Brian Kopper ER Survey Coord. • The National CAPS meeting was a success Kristian Rondeau WR Survey Coord. • It provided “marching orders” for the program Vicki Smith EPB rep. • The NCC continues to make changes to meet the needs of the field Benny Graves SPB rep. & Congress Bob Dahl CPB rep. Dan Hilburn WPB rep. Bruce Shambaugh WR SPHD Jason Watkins ER SPHD Adam Silagyi ER PSS Erin Stiers WR PSS Ken Carnes ER SSC Mike Wallace ER SSC Dan Fieselmann CPHST

3 SPDN Program Update

Amanda Hodges , Ph.D. SPDN Associate Director University of Florida, IFAS Entomology & Nematology Department

www.sepdn.org

Diagnostic Lab Reports-SPDN Diagnostic Lab Reports-SPDN Total Samples-SPDN State 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AL 0 2711 2454 3121 3391 248 April 17, 2009 (Data Information Download) AR 3 1942 2175 2489 5196 607 FL 167 1358 1569 2136 1466 324 86,743 samples (2004-09) GA 14 22 30 0 1 0 KY 1690 1854 2174 2499 4628 159 National Repository-CERIS at Purdue LA 0 1 267 477 710 157 University MS 10 719 546 793 490 100 Direct Data Upload Tool Available, April 2009 NC 474 2511 4211 3893 3671 717 PR 0 2 5 23 64 3 Official NPDN Data Policy, December 2008 SC 5 371 1152 1561 753 113 TN 11 2005 2736 1225 1129 207 TX 0 680 1413 1643 989 260 VA 0 1605 1677 2060 1757 192

First Detector Training

Traditional and/or Webinar-Based Training Over 500 Sessions (nationally) Over 9,000 Registered First Detectors Training Materials Available to Educators Core Modules (5) and Special Topic Modules (11) Master Gardener Fact Sheets (Under Development) Searchable Catalog of Resources, 2009

http://cbc.at.ufl.edu/ http://cbc.at.ufl.edu/

System Requirements High-Speed Internet Connection Adobe® Flash Player Content Management-Based Authoring Tool Post-module quizzes consist of question test banks. Design Concept: Interactively Engage Learners

NPDN National Meeting Chilli Thrips, May 30, 2009 Miami, Florida December 6-10, 2009

http://www.npdn.org/

Plenary Session Highlights Featured Symposia

Dr. Clive Brasier, UK Forestry Commission, ‘New and Emerging Threats’, organized by Dr. Pat ‘International Trade: A Threat to Plant Shiel, USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Carolyn Klass, Cornell Biosecurity University, and Fred Warner, Michigan State University Dr. Wayne Dixon, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of ‘Genomic Tools and Resources for Pest Plant Industry, ‘Invasive Arthropods in Natural Identification’, organized by Drs. Phil Berger, Laurene Levy, and Pat Shiel, USDA-APHIS-PPQ Areas and Agricultural Plant Systems’ Laurene Levy, and Pat Shiel, USDA-APHIS-PPQ ‘Novel Techniques for Detection and Surveillance’, Dr. Jacque Fletcher, Oklahoma State University, organized by Drs. Paul Vincelli, University of ‘The Science and Practice of Foresenic Plant ‘The Science and Practice of Foresenic Plant Kentucky, and Pat Shiel, USDA-APHIS-PPQ Pathology’

‘Technology Tools and the NPDN’ organized Advise SPDN Governance: by Dr. Amanda Hodges, University of Florida The Advisory Council will meet at least twice ‘Spodoptera litura and S. littoralis Identification’, annually by conference call. with Instructor Julieta Brambila, USDA-APHIS- Additional conference calls will be scheduled with PPQ, and Instructor Assistant: Lyle Buss, the group on an as-needed basis. University of Florida SPDN Governance: SPDN Governance will consider the recommendations of the SPDN Advisory Council when developing the priorities of the region and in the operation of the network.

SPDN Advisory Council Questions??

Plant Pathology Department Chairs: John Sherwood Amanda Hodges, Ph.D. (GA), Dave Appel (TX) (GA), Dave Appel (TX) Assistant Extension Scientist State SPDN Subcontract PIs: Clayton Hollier (LSU) (Council Chair), Rick Cartwright (AR) Associate Director, SPDN State Plant Regulatory Officers: Gray Haun (TN), Entomology & Nematology Department Christel Harden (SC) University of Florida, IFAS Entomology Working Group Members: Eric Day Gainesville, FL (VA), Frank Hale (TN) [email protected] Land Grant University Diagnosticians: One vacant seat, Clarissa Balbalian (MS)(Council Secretary) (352) 392-1901 x. 199

BACK TO TOP Day 1 • Post Entry Quarantine – Jose Ceballos, National PEQ Training Coordinator HISSC – 2008 – First training for new training – History Lexington, KY – Goals – Paperwork! – Scenarios – Certification

Day 2

• Horticulture at Gainesway Farm – Ryan Martin, Director of Hort.

• Top 10 Nursery & Landscape Pests – Dr. Dan Potter, UK

• Tour

• Bees – Phil Craft, KY State Apiarist • Current Issues in Plant Pathology – Julie Beale, UK Plant Diagnostic Lab • Citrus Nursery Clean Stock Program – Stacey Simmons, Fl Dept of Plant Industry • Invasive Pests of Concern: EAB & HWA – Dr. Lee Townsend, UK

2009 Meeting

Sept 15‐17, 2009 Hot Springs, AR Highlights: Day 1 –WPS Day 2 – EAB, Dogwood Anthracnose, Phorid Fly for fire ant Day 3 – Herbicide damage on ornamentals $85 registration & $70 room rate

The Westin Poinsett Greenville, SC April 19-22, 2009

SPB Horticultural Tour to Holtkamp Greenhouses, April, 2008

Special Thanks To Our NPB Putting the Year in Perspective… Leadership Financial Crisis and Budgetary Issues: It has been noted that 45 of our U.S. states and territories are experiencing financial issues—Who are the other five? “One of the secrets in life is to make stepping stones out of stumbling Gray Haun and Carl Schulze-Our Washington Duo! blocks.” -Jake Penn Will our nation’s Capitol ever be the same?

Southern Plant Board Southern Plant Board Resolutions/Support Letters Resolutions/Support Letters

Refresher on 2008 Resolutions: Refresher on 2008 Support Letters: Phytosanitary Fee Collection by States Centralize compliance agreements Honey Bee Imports Funding for the GM STS Program National Honeybee Pest Survey and Quick Methods for Pest Identification Survey and tree removal program for Plum Pox Virus Funding for the CHRP in Florida Comprehensive review of P. ramorum

1 Southern Plant Board Issues Southern Plant Board Plant Pest Making stepping stones out of stumbling blocks Concerns Understanding the need for firewood regulations Plant Pest Threats- and education-pallet and firewood issues Sirex Woodwasp-Shift in USDA direction and Implementation of Official Control potential need for state regulations. Special Needs Exemptions for P. ramorum and LBAM-Continuing concerns for introduction and LBAM spread. Pea Leaf Miner-NPB fully supports regulating Citrus Health Response Plan-Clarify federal order imported commodities for pea leaf miner into all Implementation of Farm Bill states. Compliance agreement systems P. ramorum-Continued focus on comprehensive Plant Health Information System (PHIS) review, closing down known existing pathways and increased emphasis on regulatory USDA, BRS-Pilot project-additional states-FL & NC pathways.

Southern Plant Board Plant Pest Southern Plant Board- Concerns Organizational/Efficiency Issues

Redbay Ambrosia Beetle and Laurel Wilt-Impacts on Development of SPB statement and Redbay, potentially Sassafras, and federally protected service statements. species such as Lindera. Potential issue with movement species such as Lindera. Potential issue with movement SPB strategic and proactive planning. of firewood. How will SPB member states deal with Africanized honey bee introductions diminishing resources? Web 2.0 Technology (Social Media Tools- Use of new technologies to communicate, share information and network).

Southern Plant Board Committees

Audit Committee: Benny Graves, Chair, Joe Collins, Dennis Barclift, Harry Fulton, Advisor. Southern Plant Board Continue to make stepping stones out of stumbling blocks Resolutions Committee: Sancho Dickinson, Chair, Christel Harden, Richard Gaskella, Steve Schmidt. Special thanks to the 2009 Nominations Committee: Mike Evans, Chair, Terry Walker, Craig Roussel. Hosts Department of Plant Awards/Necrology Committee: Frank Fulgham and Larry Nichols , Co-chair, Shashank Nilakhe, Jeanetta Industry, Clemson Cooper. University

2 2009 Expenses April 1, 2008 To Date • NPB Dues $12,600.00 2009 SPB Financial Report • Registration Reimbursements for 2008- $ 200.00 • Nashville Expenses $20,419.22 Greenville, SC • HISSC 500.00 April 22, 2009 • Ball Game (Greenville) 800.00 • The Westin Poinsett 19,733.15 • Buses in Greenville 1,200.00 • BMW Tour 278.65 • Name Tags, etc. 269.32 • Other Reimbursements to Negar ?????? • TOTAL $55,955,02

2009 Income 2009 Meeting April 1, 2008 To Date • SPB Dues $10,725.00 Expenses • Registration $16,805.00 • Hotel (Room Rental, Catering, etc.) $19,733.15 • Industry Sponsorships 1,750.00 • Tour (Buses and BMW Tickets) 1,424.00 • USDA Sponsorship 5,828.00 • Ball Park Outing 800.00 • Interest on Checking Through March 280.85 • Other 278.65 TOTAL $27,530.00 • Other ????? • TOTAL $22,215.8

THE BOTTOM LINE April 22, 2009

• Cash on Hand $18,742.13 • CD (Matures in July) 14,569.87 • Dues Still Owed (Two members) 2,925.00 • Outstanding Debt • TOTAL ASSETS $36,237.00