Invasives

WGA Biosecurity and Invasive Species Webinar Today from Montana

by

Livestream keynote, roundtables at today’s Invasive Species Workshop. This is another webinar from WGA on Biosecurity and Invasive Species. As always, anyone in the NCFP community is invited to watch and summarize for us, either as a comment or a separate post (email to Sharon). Here’s the link, it will also be available afterwards. The keynote is at noon MT. Apparently feral swine have made it north of the Canadian border. I listened to the one by Hans Bodenhamer, a science teacher at Big Fork High School on how the cavers and biologists are working together to study bats- that one’s worth a look. Working together to get knowledge and manage. Great story!

Here’s a link to the agenda.

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock will speak today in Helena at the Western Governors’ Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative workshop focused on early detection and rapid response. The schedule and links to watch the event livestream may be found below. All events are listed in Mountain Time and may also be viewed on Facebook.

Wednesday, Nov. 14

Rapid Response for New Species and Disease Detections – Funding, Authorities, and Collaboration (8:20 a.m.)
WGA Executive Director Jim Ogsbury will deliver opening remarks, leading in to this panel on effective partnerships, policies, and data sharing to help managers respond to new occurrences of invasive species.

Regional Invasive Mussels Partnerships and Action Plans (9:30 a.m.)
Researchers and land managers will examine effective regional partnerships to control the spread of invasive mussels, as well as opportunities and challenges to coordinate management actions between agencies.

Terrestrial Invasive Species Case Study (10:45 a.m.)
Panelists will examine the impacts of terrestrial invasive species on Western landscapes. Innovative management strategies and private landowner-led projects will be highlighted.

Keynote: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (12 p.m.)

Where and When to Intervene on Invasive Species? The Costs of Control at Early, Middle and Late Stages of Infestation (12:45 p.m.)
Panelists will highlight case studies of the various stages of invasive species control and how to most effectively demonstrate impact with limited funds.

Aquatic Invasive Species Case Study (1:45 p.m.)
Panelists will discuss the impacts of aquatic invasive species in the Mountain West and exciting technologies that improve invasive mussels monitoring.

Monitoring Invasive Species Infestations and Vectors (3 p.m.)
How invasive species managers are approaching the challenge of monitoring the spread of invasive species by focusing on specific vectors, or pathways.

International Coordination on Feral Swine Management (4 p.m.)
Populations of invasive feral swine have been confirmed north of the Montana-Canada border. Panelists will discuss collaborative management efforts at state, federal and international levels.

Western Governors’ Roundtable on Invasive Species

by
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead urged attendees to “make a difference” on land management and invasive species policy at the WGA Working Lands Roundtable.

Remember invasive species? They were one of the Four Threats that Chief Bosworth outlined in (2006?) (a) fire and fuels, (b) invasive species, (c) loss of open space, and (d) unmanaged recreation (this was focused on OHVs).

It seems like invasive species never get their due attention in media accounts of problems, which seems to have been focused on climate change since then. Nevertheless, folks all over are still working on these problems and are learning a great deal. Here’s a link to a recent meeting and webinar from the Western Governors’ Association.

Since we are basically a kind of DIY journalism institution, any of you readers who feel inclined could watch one or more of them and summarize for the rest of us. Here’s one panel but there are a variety of interesting ones..

Restoration Following Invasive Species Impacts when Sensitive Species are Present
(Biosecurity & Invasive Species Initiative Session): Panelists discussed strategies and best practices
Noreen Walsh, Fish & Wildlife Service

to restore western landscapes affected by invasive species when threatened, endangered and other at-risk species are present. Panelists: Noreen Walsh, Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, US Fish and Wildlife Service; Tom Spezze, Senior Director of Conservation – Western US, National Wild Turkey Federation; Scott Smith, Deputy Director of External Operations, Wyoming Game and Fish. Highlights from panelists included:

Noreen Walsh: “The question is not ‘Do we treat invasive species when sensitive species are present.’ It’s not a yes or no question. The question is ‘How do we treat those invasives when sensitive species are present?’ ”Scott Smith: “The state of Wyoming plays a leading role in the conservation of sage grouse. It remains a high-priority for us; Wyoming supports about 43 million acres of sage grouse habitat and 37% of the population nationwide.”

If you find one that’s interesting, I encourage you to take some notes and email to me and I will post. What did you learn that you found interesting and did not already know? Thank you.

Causes of Fire Worseness- Help Complete This List!

by

In August and September 2007, a lightning strike sparked the 48,000-acre Castle Rock wildfire near Ketchum, Idaho. Cheatgrass helped fuel the fire. Photo © Kari Greer via U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters on Flickr

Before we start looking at press coverage, we need to list all the possible causes of worseness. Ideally, an article would say “fires are worse as defined by this criterion” and “causes for worseness are complex, and these are the factors that may be involved.” Right now I’d like to ask for help in making a complete list of these factors. Granted, it’s made more difficult by vagueness on what exactly is meant by “worseness” but still, I think we can take a stab at it. Here are a few that I’ve picked up:

Physical/Biological
1. Past Fire Suppression
2. Drought, and heat or combinations of the above (some proportion x, of which is climate change) both as they impact
a) fuel conditions
b) suppression activities

3. Increased length of fire season (some proportion x of which is climate change, but various 2nd order causes, including other climate patterns, more human ignitions, changes in species, and so on)
4. Non-native species with different fire-related characteristics than previous occupants of the landscape.
5. Changes in native fuels (e.g. more dead trees or changes in canopy structure or species composition??)

Social/Economic
6. More people living in the WUI (so infrastructure needs protection)
7. Tourism is more important economically, but smoke and closures impact that.
8. More people living and visiting the woods means more human-caused ignitions.

Suppression Management and Policy
9. Changes in policy (WFU), strategies and tactics.

I became more aware of 4 recently due to an article in New Scientist here. But there are many other articles around.

INVASIVE species of grass are making wildfires in the US up to twice as large and three times as frequent.

One species, cheatgrass, is now widespread in California and was involved in last year’s Thomas Fire, the largest recorded in the state until the Mendocino Complex Fire now burning (see Converted 747 flies to the rescue in battling California’s giant fire).

Like cheatgrass, many of the invaders are finer than native species, and so ignite more easily, and occupy space within and between patches of native grass. Other invaders, such as silk reed, grow more than 3 metres high and can spread fire into trees.

Emily Fusco at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst presented preliminary results of her study last week in New Orleans at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America. She analysed the impact of nine widespread alien grasses in areas of the US they have invaded.

Fusco combined this information with ground and satellite fire records, comparing fire frequency and size in infested habitats versus comparable but uninvaded habitats. She found all the invasive species except one made fires more frequent, and all but two made fires larger.

There are also different potential causes for some of the factors listed above. For example, non-Native species extending the fire season as in this NPR story.

Jeanne Chambers of the U.S. Forest Service is another combatant in the war on cheatgrass. She says in Nevada, they’re seeing fires burning as late as November and as early as January.

“That really has never happened in the past. When we have dry conditions and we have cheatgrass in the understory, we have fuels that can allow those fires to burn almost any time of the year.”

But back to my list, does anyone have other “worseness causes” to add?

Tales of two trees

by

Whitebark pine is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act (meaning that listing is warranted).  The U. S. Fish and Wildlife (and tree) Service has recently downgraded its priority for listing from 2nd priority to 8th.

The primary threat to the species is from disease in the form of the nonnative white pine blister rust and its interaction with other threats…  However, the overall magnitude of threat to whitebark pine is somewhat diminished given the current absence of epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle, and because of this, individuals with genetic resistance to white pine blister rust likely have a higher probability of survival… Overall, the threats to the species are ongoing, and therefore imminent, and are now moderate in magnitude.

White ash is not a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act.  However, it is threatened with extinction as result of the introduced emerald ash borer.  The Forest Service is applying euthanasia treatments to the Allegheny National Forest.

The Emerald Ash Borer Remediation project would regenerate stands that have been or will be affected by non-native invasive insects. The purpose of this project is to manage the proposed treatment areas on the Bradford Ranger District to achieve a diversity of desired forest trees, a healthy and resilient ecosystem, and diminish the risks and consequences of forest health threats.

Desired tree seedling species do not develop in sufficient quantities on the Allegheny National Forest without intensive forest management. Interfering understory vegetation generally outcompetes tree seedlings. It is a result of decades of selective deer browsing (Horsley, Stout, deCalesta 2003). Unless management actions create suitable conditions for the establishment and development of desired tree seedlings, important ecological structure, function and processes will not be maintained in stands where white ash, American beech and Eastern hemlock individually or collectively make up the majority of the community.

Managing and regenerating declining stands now will promote natural regeneration of desired trees. It will sustain healthy, well-stocked forested stands over the long-term. This project is designed to address project area forest health concerns by regenerating stands before natural regeneration opportunities are lost.

Projected mortality is 99% of the affected trees without treatment (presumably it’s 100% with the treatment).  They don’t say what “desired trees” they are regenerating, and I can’t make much sense out of “natural regeneration” from the trees that would be “lost” (since they will be logged).  It looks to me like they are making sure there are no survivors, and if this is practiced across the range of the white ash, it would obviously become a candidate for listing.  Is there a better way?  Especially in the two old growth management areas where some of this project would occur, where making money off of timber harvest is not part of the purpose?  (Maybe killing deer would help – how about reintroducing wolves?)

Here’s the story that got my attention.  It mentions the need for a forest plan amendment, but the Forest Service documents do not mention this (and it would have to be part of the scoping package).

Together We Can Reduce Pest Invasions: Guest Post from Faith Campbell

by

faith Faith Campbell has given her time and effort (prodigiously, is the word that comes to my mind) for many years to protecting our forests from introduced pests and diseases, most recently for The Nature Conservancy. As she is retiring, I asked her for a retrospective on her work, and she generously provided one below. Faith- thanks for all you’ve done, and all you continue to do for our forests!

When I was a child, the streets of Washington, D.C. were still shaded by towering elms with sinuous, interlocking branches. When as a 20-something I hiked in Shenandoah National Park, dark hemlock groves were favorite spots. I have many photographs of limber pines silhouetted against Hallet’s Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park. I love Hawai`i’s `ohi`a trees growing out of cracks in the lava.

I know I am not alone in mourning the loss – past, current, threatened – of these and other trees. To me, these losses are severely damaging to the environment and represent an ethical failure: we are wantonly squandering species and species assemblages that have evolved over 10,000 or more years.

Many people have devoted their careers to tackling the threats posed by non-native arthropods and pathogens. I have spent 20 years trying to help them get the resources they need – both funding and political support. The longer I have been engaged, the more clearly I see that those of us who want to defend America’s trees from non-native pests need to change the political dynamic. We need to persuade the “political class” of three facts: that the threat to our trees is real, that protecting trees matters, and that solutions are possible.
In short, we can choose different actions and policies to minimize the risk that new damaging pests will invade and spread.

Many people are hurt by the death of trees caused by pests:
• homeowners who must pay to cut down beloved trees, and whose homes are diminished aesthetically and often financially when the tree is gone
• tax-payers in towns which must spend millions to cut down and replace city trees
• people whose livelihoods and cultures are tied to specific types of trees, for example, maple syrup producers, Native American basketweavers or acorn collectors, owners of walnut groves who planned on proceeds from selling the timber to finance retirement or grandchildren’s college educations
• people who enjoy hiking, camping, hunting, or other forms of recreation in the woods,

On a larger scale, about 60 million Americans depend on streams flowing from National Forests for their drinking water. Many cities are planting trees to save energy, trap pollutants, and slow climate change.

The question is, how do we engage the people who care about these issues in ways that will help to change the perception of invasive species, especially forest pests, among the political class? Can we channel their anger, frustration, even despair, into political clout to pressure the Congress and Administrative agencies to adopt more effective regulations and fund programs adequately?

I think one key player that we must somehow engage more effectively is the media. Can we persuade the regional and national media to cover the “why & how” of pest invasions, and what can be done to prevent new invasions? At present they tend to describe only the devastating impacts – which leaves people feeling helpless.

I hope to devote the next several years to trying to change this political dynamic. I welcome your thoughts, opinions, and – most of all – help!

Faith Campbell

Fading Forests III, America’s Forests: What Choice Will We Make?

by

forest-pests-county-map-640x32

And now for something completely different. I received a note from Faith Campbell about thes report, issued May 23.

Here’s a link and below is a summary:

Fading Forests III is a new report released by the University of Tennessee and The Nature Conservancy compiling the latest data and analysis on the introduction, spread, and costs of non-native invasive tree pests and diseases. Fading Forests III is the third invasive species study produced by co-authors Scott Schlarbaum of the University of Tennessee and Faith Campbell of The Nature Conservancy over a 20 year period.

Among the key findings:

In the last dozen years the emerald ash borer has spread from three states to 22; the Asian longhorned beetle has been detected at four additional sites; 28 new tree-killing pest species have been discovered.
Existing government programs have failed to halt introductions or respond effectively.
New pests are attacking tree species that have already been decimated by previous invasive species.
Spending to control and prevent invasive species lags far behind the growth of infestations and the value of the private and public resources at risk.

The site above links to the very cool Forest Service Northern Station Alien Pest Exchange, so if you click on the real map (not on the one I reposted) you can go to your own and neighboring counties and see what pests are there.

Thank you Nature Conservancy and Forest Service, and Scott Schlarbaum and Faith Campbell!

How to Save Countless Trees in 10 Minutes or Less | Conservancy Talk

by

How to Save Countless Trees in 10 Minutes or Less | Conservancy Talk.

by Faith Campbell of the Nature Conservancy

We Americans love our trees – whether they are in our yards, in nearby parks, or in the wilderness.

Unfortunately, many of our iconic trees are threatened by non-native insects and diseases that have been accidentally brought to America. Dozens of tree-killing pests have entered the U.S. as unintended hitchhikers on imported plants or décor items or in the crates and pallets that package a wide range of goods.

Trees under threat from these non-native, tree-killing insects and diseases include the maples, elms, ash, and oaks that shade our homes and parks and provide habitat to birds, squirrels, and other wildlife. One of the most damaging of the insects is the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB), a large, shiny, black and white beetle from Asia. The Asian longhorned beetle attacks dozens of species of trees belonging to 15 plant families, most often maples, elms, and willows.

At greatest risk are the Northern hardwood forests that reach from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes and beyond – approximately 48 million acres in the United States plus the majority of Canada’s hardwood forests.

Also at risk are shade trees along city streets and in our backyards all across the country. Nationwide, the ALB could kill a third of urban trees, which have a compensatory value of $669 billion. In some cities, two-thirds of the trees would be killed if the Asian longhorned beetle became established.

The ALB has been introduced to North America several times over the last 20 years because larvae can live in wooden crates and pallets. Regulations put in place in 1998 are helping prevent this from happening again, but beetles that snuck in before that have caused seven known North American outbreaks: New York City, Chicago, New Jersey (2 separate outbreaks), Massachusetts, Ohio, Toronto. Every one of these outbreaks was detected first by homeowners who noticed that trees in their neighborhood looked poor.

What Can You Do?

1.Don’t move firewood. Larvae of the Asian longhorned beetle or other tree-killing pests can be deep inside the wood. When the wood is transported to a new location, mature beetles can emerge and start new infestations. Please – use only local or heat treated firewood when you go camping or traveling. Visit dontmovefirewood.org
2. Urge your friends, your coworkers, and your family not to move firewood. Explain that it can carry invasive insects that will emerge and ruin their favorite forests.
3. Educate yourself on how to spot the symptoms of pest infestations. When everyone is on the lookout, we can detect infestations earlier – when it is easier to minimize the damage and control the infestation.
4. Make looking for pests and tree damage part of your regular activities, like taking walks around the neighborhood or visiting playgrounds and parks. August is a good time to look for the Asian longhorned beetle. It is a large insect – an inch or more long; shiny black with white spots. But often you won’t see the beetle itself, since it might be high in the leaves of the tree. Look for tell-tale symptoms: the best are the dime-sized holes in the branches or trunk – out of which adult beetles emerge. Other signs include shallow pits in the bark chewed by female beetle in which they lay their eggs; and sawdust collecting in branch crotches or on the ground at the base of the tree. To see training videos about detecting Asian longhorned beetles or other tree-killing pests, visit HealtyTreesHealthyCities.org.
5. And finally, be sure to take photos and report anything you find to your state agricultural, natural resources, or forestry agency.

Introduced Species Found on Two-Thirds of FIA Plots in Northeast, Midwest

by

Introduced Species Forestry Source June 2013

I think this is interesting; nice work by Steve Wilent in the Forestry Source so here goes:Introduced Species Forestry Source June 2013. Below is an excerpt.

I recently talked with Schulz to learn more about the inventories as well as her and Gray’s findings and what they tell us about introduced plant species. What follows is a portion of that conversation.

Were you surprised that two-thirds of the plots had at least one introduced species?

Yes, at first it was a big surprise. And then when we started looking at what species were coming out as introduced. When you’re dealing with thousands of plots and tens of thousands of species, you
need to go to a database to sort things out and find which species are introduced and which are native. We used the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Plants Database to look for introduced species.
We had to narrow the field, because there are many species that are natural in some areas and introduced in others. We tried to be conservative in determining which were the introduced species.
And there are many species that people aren’t aware are introduced, such as the grass timothy, which is easily recognized, and other benign species like common plantain. They are indeed introduced
species, but not every introduced species turns out to be a nasty ecosystem transformer.

Many of the ones that do become transformers started off as introduced species, and sometimes they sit around in the environment for quite a while before something happens—some sort of disturbance—
that lets them start to gain ground and become more successful. It can be many years before they are recognized as being a species that may be of concern.

A couple of thoughts..I think she highlights that there are “bad” non-natives and “OK” non-natives. Non-natives are labelled “bad” for a reason. Which fits in with Lackey’s point in his paper here.

or example, in science, why is it that native species are almost always considered preferable to nonnative species? Nothing in science says one species is inherently better than another, that one species is inherently preferred, or that one species should be protected and another eradicated.
To illustrate, why do most people lament the sorry state of European honeybees in North America, a nonnative species that has outcompeted native bee species? Yes, our honeybees are nonnative, what many people would label as an invasive species, but people value their ecological role.
Conversely, zebra mussels, another common, but nonnative species are nearly universally regarded as a scourge. Where are the advocates of this species? Even with increased water clarity, no cheerleaders.
Or, what about North American feral horses — wild horses — mustangs! This is another nonnative species, but one that enjoys an exalted status by many. Would you want to be the land manager tasked with culling the ever-expanding population of this invasive, nonnative species?
Values drive these categorizations, not science.

But more pragmatically, there are many non-natives around. Any public money directed to their eradication (in my view) should be based on criteria including how “bad” they are specifically, to what; and (not inconsequentially) the likelihood of some kind of specific success.

APHIS rulemaking on imported plants – opportunity to comment

by
Before the fall: American chestnuts in the Great Smokey Mountains of North Carolina in 1910. COURTESY OF THE FOREST HISTORY SOCIETY, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Before the fall: American chestnuts in the Great Smokey Mountains of North Carolina in 1910.
COURTESY OF THE FOREST HISTORY SOCIETY, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

Received this from Faith Campbell of The Nature Conservancy. This rulemaking could have more impact on our forests than a plethora of thinning projects. Not to speak of invasives meddling with “range of natural variation”.. er.. they’re definitely “natural” but not “historic”ally in the U.S. Here’s her email…

Imports of living plants have historically been one of the most important pathways by which tree-killing insects and pathogens have entered the country. Examples of pests introduced via this pathway include chestnut blight, white pine blister rust, hemlock woolly adelgid, and sudden oak death.

On April 25th, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service published a proposed regulation [https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/25/2013-09737/restructuring-of-regulations-on-the-importation-of-plants-for-planting] that would restructure its regulations governing imports of plants. Among the several proposed changes is language in proposed Section 319.37-21 that would establish APHIS’ authority and a framework under which plant producers overseas could be required to implement “integrated pest management measures” to ensure that plants shipped to the U.S. would be pest-free. APHIS would require use of such integrated measures when the pest risk associated with those plants could be addressed only through the use of such measures.

While the specifics of any integrated pest management measures program would be developed through negotiations by APHIS with the exporting country, the proposed overall framework would have the following components:

· Production facilities would generate plants from propagative material that is free or nearly free of pests.

· Production facilities would have an approved set of standard operating procedures that include adequate pest control, regular inspection and testing, and detailed recordkeeping of all aspects of plant production, including the origin of plants that will eventually be exported so that they may be traced back if a pest is detected by the importing country.

· The phytosanitary agency of the producing country oversees the production facility and performs regular audits to ensure that all elements of the production system comply with program standards.

· APHIS may perform on-site audits of the production system. APHIS also audits imports to ensure that these plants meet the approved standards for the clean stock program.

· Penalties and remedial action in the case of noncompliance are negotiated by APHIS and the exporting country’s phytosanitary agency.

· APHIS will require plant brokers to keep records facilitating trace-back and follow specified procedures to ensure the continued phytosanitary status of plants under their control.

The deadline for comments is June 24, 2013.

I encourage you to review the proposal and submit comments. Points you might want to make:

The proposal is one of the most important actions APHIS has taken in decades to close down the plants for planting introduction pathway. The combined actions will enable APHIS to act more quickly, even pro-actively, to minimize the risk of pest introductions. The important innovations include:

o Creating the new authority to require foreign plant suppliers to implement integrated measures (as outlined briefly above);

o Integrating the proposed new strategy with the recently finalized NAPPRA strategy,[1] under which APHIS can pre-emptively prohibit the most high-risk plant imports until effective safeguards are adopted;

o Shifting most of the specific provisions out of the regulations and into the Plants for Planting Manual should allow more rapid adaptation to changed pest situations;

o Consolidating regulatory provisions that apply to all or nearly all plant imports will improve the shipping public’s understanding an compliance.

You might also suggest that additional clarity is need re: conditions for “post-entry quarantine”. The provisions in this proposal [Proposed §319.37-23] apparently apply to only a limited number of taxa for which extensive periods in post-entry quarantine are already required. In comments on past components of this rulemaking, some of us have urged expansion of post-entry quarantine to additional taxa in order to further reduce the pest risk from a wider variety of plant and pest taxa. We called at the same time for strengthening conditions of post-entry quarantine in these expanded situations in order to ensure efficacy. Our comments were inspired in part by 2001 episode in which citrus longhorned beetles – a very large insect – escaped from bonsai trees kept in “post-entry quarantine” in a commercial nursery.