# **U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)**

**Report to the Invasive Species Advisory Council (ISAC)**

# October 14, 2004

Compiled By Hilda Diaz-Soltero

USDA Senior Invasive Species Coordinator

A. **[USDA Progress on ISAC recommendations on the October 2003
meeting]{.underline}**

1.  ISAC recommendation: **Increase efforts in education and public
    awareness**

    -   Invested energy and provided special support to the 3 USDA
        National Agricultural Library staff that manage the NISC web
        site invasive species.gov

    -   Funded the following education and public awareness projects in
        FY 2004 out of the USDA Invasive Species Coordination budget:

        i.  Acquired BUGWOOD high quality images on invasives for the
            web site (\$10K)

        ii. USDA Office of Communications experts redesigned basic
            products and materials and created templates for NISC and
            ISAC (\$12.5K)

        iii. Provided support to PLANTS database to obtain invasive
             species county level distribution information from
             Mississippi and Alaska (\$20K)

        iv. Developed and implemented Webcrawler technology that
            identifies sales on invasive species in the Internet,
            requests owners to stop sales of invasives, and refers
            persistent violators to APHIS enforcement for further action
            (\$45K)

        v.  Developed and used the USDA permanent exhibit on invasive
            species (\$5K)

> \- Organized and provided, in cooperation with US Geological Survey,
> invasive weeds information during a Children's program (reaching 600
> children and adults) at the U.S. Botanic Garden during the 2004
> National Invasive Weed Awareness Week.

-   Recruited and made a permanent position for the Public Affairs
    Assistant Director for the Council, Ms. Anna Cherry. USDA fully
    funds this new NISC position.

-   Formed an alliance between NISC Public Affairs Assistant Director
    and the public affairs and education staff in 7 USDA agencies that
    share the invasive species portfolio.

2.  ISAC recommendation: **Increase efforts in economic analysis to make
    the case for investments in invasive species efforts.**

    -   The Economic Research Service funded grants for \$1.5 million in
        2003 and \$1.2 million in 2004. The "Program of Research on the
        Economics of Invasive Species Management" (PREISM) is a national
        competitive program open to any public or private research
        institution or organization, or individuals meeting
        peer-reviewed professional criteria as economic researchers. The
        Program's purpose is to provide analysis of economic issues
        related to managing invasive pests in increasingly global
        agricultural markets, in order to inform national
        decision-making concerning invasive species of agricultural
        significance or affecting, or affected by, USDA programs. This
        is a long-term program at ERS, with \$2 million in annual base
        funds to support it. The Economic Research Service recently
        organized a workshop to review progress on the first set of
        economic analysis grants. Economists made presentations and
        received candid feedback on areas to refine or improve their
        work.

    -   Supported the Forest Service economists that lead the tamarisk
        economic cost benefit analysis. This effort will be an example
        for future economic analysis on other invasive species.

    -   The Forest Service initiated the design of a program to assess
        the economic impacts of invasive species in natural
        environments, particularly in national forests and grasslands.
        The program would develop applied risk assessment frameworks for
        evaluating economic effects of program options for invasive
        species, including prevention, detection, adaptation, and
        restoration. It would test and refine frameworks in real-time
        program decision-making. And it would conduct periodic
        comprehensive assessment of economic impacts of invasive species
        in national forests and grasslands.

B. **[USDA progress on ISAC recommendations on the March 2004
meeting]{.underline}**

3.  ISAC recommendation: **What are NISC agencies doing to avoid harm?**

    -   USDA's has 7 agencies with a part of the invasive species
        portfolio: Forest Service (FS), Natural Resources Conservation
        Service (NRCS), Agricultural Plant and Animal Health Inspection
        Service (APHIS), Agricultural Research Service (ARS),
        Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
        (CSREES), Economic Research Service (ERS) and the Farm Service
        Agency (FSA).

    -   The agencies are compiling the report to ISAC. There are 3
        different categories for the report:

> a\) The activities USDA agencies are carrying out to do no harm;
>
> b\) The way in which, when they do carry out other activities, they
> are also designed to do no harm;
>
> c\) A list activities that ARE doing harm, and the future actions the
> agency will take to change the activities so that they do no harm.
>
> Within the above categories, agencies will include their own
> activities as well as activities where they show coordination with
> another federal agency, per the mandate under the Invasive Species
> Executive Order.
>
> \- A separate report is being submitted to ISAC on this issue.

4.  ISAC recommendation \# 2: **NISC should use cost avoidance as a
    performance measure for initiatives.**

**ERS response:** ERS recently completed a report entitled "Economic and
Policy Implications of Wind-Borne Entry of Soybean Rust into the United
States." In this report, the value of damages prevented by entry of
soybean rust was used to measure cost avoidance as a performance measure
for any initiative focused on preventing entry of soybean rust into the
United States.

**CSREES response:** There are USDA documents with information on
soybean rust that address the potential economic implications if soybean
rust is introduced into the U.S. (an Economic Research Service Report)
and the soybean rust exclusion (or prevention) plan prepared by the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. CSREES was instrumental in
getting ERS to generate this report. Copies of the ERS and APHIS
documents are available for ISAC, if you so desire.

**APHIS response:** APHIS usually does not have pest risk probability
estimates readily available that would allow us to identify with
precision truly avoided costs. Generally, our descriptions are in terms
of either losses already experienced because of an outbreak and/or
losses that could be incurred assuming a pest becomes broadly
established. Here are selected examples from recent APHIS regulatory
analyses.

## Citrus canker 

> The establishment of citrus canker in Florida would result in an
> estimated direct cost to the citrus industry of about \$100 million
> per year. An estimated 140,000 acres of trees valued at \$148 million
> would be abandoned. Loss of exports to countries that would not accept
> fruit from an area with citrus canker is estimated to be at least \$55
> million per year.

[*Ralstonia solanacearum*]{.underline}

> The recent 2003 Ralstonia outbreak cost the floriculture industry
> \$1.5 to \$2 million in geranium plant losses. The Ralstonia outbreak
> could have jeopardized not only the entire US geranium industry,
> valued at \$204 million per year, but also the potato industry, valued
> at \$3.2 billion per year, if it had not been contained.

[Exotic Newcastle disease]{.underline}

> Losses associated with an outbreak of this disease include production
> losses at affected establishments, eradication and quarantine costs,
> and trade restrictions. Production losses arise from lost production
> in depopulated premises and industries linked to the poultry sector.
> There are also additional costs to be borne by producers and
> slaughterers, as restrictions are imposed to prevent the spread and
> eradicate the disease. These restrictions and eradication measures
> also mean added costs to government for implementation and
> enforcement. In addition to a reduction in demand from international
> consumers, Exotic Newcastle disease outbreaks are generally
> accompanied by the imposition of trade restrictions that limit
> exports.
>
> In 1971, a major outbreak of the disease occurred in California
> commercial poultry; it lasted two years. As a result, 1,341 infected
> flocks were identified, and almost 12 million birds were destroyed.
> The eradication program cost taxpayers \$56 million (\$262 million in
> 2004 dollars), severely disrupted the operations of many producers,
> and increased the prices of poultry and poultry products to consumers.
>
> On October 1, 2002, Exotic Newcastle disease was confirmed in backyard
> poultry in Southern California. The disease spread from backyard
> poultry to commercial poultry operations in California, backyard
> poultry in Nevada and Arizona, and poultry in Texas and New Mexico. A
> task force of over 1,500 people from APHIS and the California
> Department of Food and Agriculture fought this devastating disease.
> About 4 million birds were destroyed to contain the spread.

[Mexican fruit fly]{.underline}

> The economic impacts of Mexican fruit fly establishment would be felt
> by the agricultural sectors of states where commercial host crops are
> grown, most seriously affecting Florida and California. Annual costs
> associated with a widespread Mexican fruit fly infestation in the
> United States have been estimated at approximately \$900 million.

[Karnal bunt]{.underline}

> This is a fungal disease of wheat, durum wheat, and triticale (a
> hybrid of wheat and rye). Upon detection of Karnal bunt in Arizona in
> March 1996, Federal quarantine and emergency actions were imposed to
> prevent the interstate spread of the disease to other wheat producing
> areas in the United States. The impact of Karnal bunt and subsequent
> Federal actions on the wheat industry were \$44 million in the
> 1995-1996 crop season. The quarantine remains in effect, although its
> physical boundaries have been modified as additional information from
> sampling and testing has become available.

[Asian long-horned beetle]{.underline}

> This beetle has the potential to cause extensive tree damage. In the
> eastern region of the United States there are 279 million acres of
> hardwood forests, representing about 75 percent of the land of all
> eastern forests. That forest acreage is in addition to land in urban
> and suburban areas where hardwood trees are common. It has been
> estimated that maple trees account for at least 30 percent of the
> street and park plantings in urban areas. Nursery stock is also at
> risk.
>
> Preserving the health of hardwood trees and forests is critical.
> Forests are valuable not only for their forest products, but also for
> recreation, wildlife, fisheries, water quality and aesthetics. In
> populated areas, street, backyard, and park trees provide shade,
> oxygen and other quality-of-life benefits.
>
> Industries at risk to the spread of the Asian long-horned beetle are
> important economically. For example, in 1996 the timber processing
> manufacturing industries in the northeast region accounted for 7
> percent of the employment, 6 percent of the wages, and 7 percent of
> the value of shipments of all manufacturing industries in the region.
> This translates to a workforce of 272,100 employees earning \$7.4
> billion. Timber processing industries\' shipments were valued at
> \$44.0 billion in 1996 in products made from softwood timber as well
> as hardwood timber.
>
> Other industries also rely on healthy hardwood trees for their
> economic well being. Approximately one-half of all landscape trees
> sold by nurseries and greenhouses in the U.S. are hardwood trees.
>
> The maple syrup industry relies on healthy maple trees, especially the
> sugar maple. In 2001, New York, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont
> accounted for 65 percent of value of the U.S. maple syrup production
> of \$28.2 million. The tourism industry is tied to leaf color changes
> in the fall, and the maple tree is noted for producing some of the
> most vivid colors. Between mid-September and late October the hardwood
> forests of New England draw a million tourists and generate \$1
> billion in revenue, up to one-fourth of the tourism revenue generated
> annually in New England.

5.  ISAC recommendation \# 3: **NISC should urge all the agencies
    involved in invasive species to commit more resources to screening
    of intentional introductions.**

**APHIS response:** APHIS prevention programs are directed at animals,
plants, and their products that may invasive species or pathways for the
introduction of invasive species. As such, the Agency's risk-based
efforts to regulate imports address both unintentional and intentional
introductions. A description of some of the applicable regulatory
processes and related information requirements follows.

[Regulation of certain animals and animal products:]{.underline}

> APHIS regulates, as set forth in 9 CFR parts 91 through 99, the
> importation of animals and animal products to guard against the
> introduction of animal diseases into the United States in accordance
> with authority in the Animal Health Protection Act.
>
> On October 28, 1997, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register
> (62 FR 56027-56033, Docket No. 94-106-8) informing the public that
> APHIS was adopting a policy of recognizing regions, and levels of risk
> among those regions, with regard to the importation of animals and
> animal products. That same day, APHIS published in the Federal
> Register a final rule (62 FR 56000-56026, Docket No 94-106-9)
> establishing procedures (1) for recognizing regions, and (2) by which
> regions may request permission to export animals and animal products
> into the United States under specified conditions, based on the
> regions\' disease status.
>
> The procedures set forth in that October 1997 final rule are the
> procedures used today in accepting and evaluating requests for
> regionalization. When a chief veterinary officer (CVO) of a foreign
> region requests consideration for regionalization and permission to
> import animals and animal products into the United States, we ask that
> the request include information about the region\'s animal disease
> status, veterinary infrastructure, livestock demographics, and degree
> of physical or other separation from regions of higher disease risk.
> (A list of the topics for which we require information is included in
> the regulations in 9 CFR 92.2.) Using the information provided by the
> Chief Veterinary Officer of the region, along with information
> available to us from other sources, we use a science-based approach to
> evaluate whether such importations can be safely allowed, either with
> or without risk mitigation measures.
>
> As part of our process of considering a request for regionalization or
> other disease status recognition, we make available to the public the
> information upon which we conducted our evaluation. This information
> is posted to the APHIS Veterinary Services Web site and is discussed
> in any rulemaking documents we publish in the Federal Register
> regarding our evaluation of the request.
>
> In order for our evaluation process to be transparent to both domestic
> entities and individuals as well as to our trading partners, on July
> 26, 2004, APHIS published in the Federal Register (69 FR 44487, Docket
> No. 04-007-1) a notice of the availability of a document that
> describes the way in which APHIS applies risk analysis to the
> decision-making process for regionalization. The document, titled
> \`\`Process for Foreign Animal Disease Status Evaluations,
> Regionalization, Risk Analysis, and Rulemaking,\'\' describes the
> following:

-   The process for initiation of an evaluation;

-   The composition of the review teams that participate in various
    components of the evaluation;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The role of site visits in evaluations;

-   The types of risk analyses that are conducted and the situations in
    which different types of analyses are used;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The assignment of responsibility for conduct of risk analysis;

-   The basis for recommendations to APHIS management regarding
    requests;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The regulatory process APHIS follows to seek public comment on
    recommendations to recognize regions and allow the requested
    importations; and

-   Time considerations from initial request to final rulemaking.

> The informational document is available on the Internet at
> [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html).
> At the bottom of that Web site page, click on "[Process for Foreign
> Animal Disease Status Evaluations, Regionalization, Risk Analysis and
> Rulemaking](http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/pdf/region-memo0504final.pdf)."

[Regulation of certain plants and plant products:]{.underline}

> Regulations contained in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the
> importation of plants, plant parts, and plant products into the United
> States in accordance with the authority in the Plant Protection Act.
> APHIS enforces the part 319 regulations and considers requests to
> amend the part 319 regulations to allow the importation of plants,
> plant parts, or plant products that are not currently allowed
> importation under the regulations.
>
> On June 19, 2001, APHIS published a notice in the
> [Federal]{.underline} [Register]{.underline} (66 FR 32923- 32928,
> Docket No. 00-082-1) which described procedures and standards employed
> by APHIS in its consideration of such requests. As part of that
> document, we requested that persons seeking to import a new commodity
> for which a risk analysis is required submit specific information in
> support of their request in order to expedite consideration of the
> request. In the notice, we explained that if APHIS is provided with
> certain information regarding the commodity, its country of origin,
> and the pests associated with it, then APHIS would be better able to
> consider the request and conduct the risk analysis in a timely
> fashion. After reviewing the submitted information, APHIS may request
> any other information needed to complete a risk analysis.
>
> The Office of Management and Budget is currently reviewing a document
> in which APHIS is proposing to establish regulations governing the
> submission of requests to change the part 319 import regulations.
> Adoption of this proposal would help ensure that APHIS is provided
> with the information needed to prepare a risk analysis and/or other
> analyses that evaluate risks and other effects associated with the
> proposed change to the regulations. This information is needed for
> APHIS to effectively consider the request; submission of the
> information at the time the request is made allows APHIS to proceed
> with consideration of the request in a timely manner.
>
> Risk analyses and other analyses required under several statutes and
> Executive Orders are integral parts of the body of documentation that
> are required by law to support changes in APHIS regulations. The
> findings of these analyses form the foundation of the rational basis
> for rulemaking required under the Administrative Procedures Act.
> Problems, such as a shortage of data, with any one of these analyses
> can have effects on the timely processing of a request.
>
> For this reason, APHIS is considering proposing that the following
> information be submitted with commodity import requests:

-   Information about the party submitting the request

-   Information about the commodity proposed for importation

-   Shipping information

-   Description of all pests and diseases associated with the commodity
    proposed for exportation to the United States

-   Current strategies for risk mitigation or management

> In conjunction with any requirements that may be promulgated, APHIS
> plans to post information related to this subject on the APHIS
> Internet site. The site would include a document that clearly explains
> the information required to be submitted at the time of the import
> request, background information on the rulemaking process and the
> analytical requirements APHIS must meet as it proposes and adopts
> revisions to its import regulations, and documents intended to
> facilitate the preparation of the information described in this
> document prior to submission to APHIS.

[Regulation of nursery stock:]{.underline}

> The information requirements described above would apply to many
> commodities, including nursery stock, also known as plants for
> planting.
>
> The Office of Management and Budget is currently reviewing another
> document that would solicit public comment on whether and how APHIS
> should amend the regulations (contained in 7 CFR part 319.37, and
> sometimes referred to as Q37) that govern the importation of nursery
> stock. Under current regulations, all plants for planting are allowed
> to enter the United States if they are accompanied by a phytosanitary
> certificate and if they are inspected and found to be free of plant
> pests, unless their importation is specifically prohibited or further
> restricted by the regulations. APHIS is considering several possible
> changes, including establishing a category in the regulations for
> plants for planting that would be excluded from importation pending
> risk evaluation and approval; developing ongoing programs to reduce
> the risk of entry and establishment of quarantine pests via imported
> plants for planting; combining existing regulations governing the
> importation of plants for planting into one subpart; and reevaluating
> the risks posed by importation of plants for planting whose
> importation is currently prohibited. APHIS is also considering how to
> best collect data on current imports of plants for planting so they
> can accurately ascertain the volume, type, and origin of such plants
> entering the United States.

[Listing of noxious weeds:]{.underline}

> Under the authority of the Plant Protection Act, APHIS regulates, in 7
> CFR parts 360 and 361 the importation and interstate movement of
> plants and plant products that may be noxious weeds, i.e., that can
> directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops, livestock,
> poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation,
> the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the
> environment. Information regarding the procedures and information
> requirements, including those pertaining to risk analyses, for the
> listing of noxious weeds in the regulations can be found at
> <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/weeds>

6.  ISAC recommendation \# 4: **NISC should request all Federal agencies
    to identify existing grant programs, cooperative agreements and
    other mechanisms that are potential sources of funds for invasive
    species projects.**

# 

# USDA has compiled the most complete list of grant opportunities for work on research, technical assistance or management of invasive species. A copy of the document is being shared with you today. USDA will sponsor a workshop on these grants during the USDA Weeds Day in the 2005 national Invasive Weeds Awareness Week.

7.  ISAC recommendation \# 6: **ISAC recommends to NISC that an
    "Invasive Species of the Month" public information and education
    program be implemented.**

> \- Anna Cherry, the new NISC Public Affairs Assistant Director, has
> initiated this program. Both terrestrial and aquatic invasive species
> are being showcased. Other USDA staff participates in the preparation
> and review of the content, writing in the appropriate formats and in
> the installation of the Species of the Month on the NISC web site.

8.  ISAC recommendation #7: **Encourage NISC policy liaisons to attend
    the next ISAC meeting and present strategic plans for their
    respective agencies.**

    -   USDA Forest Service will make a presentation on the new "Forest
        Service Strategic Plan On Invasive Species" later in the
        program. The FS is the second USDA agency to have such a plan.

    -   APHIS recently updated its agency wide strategic plan that is
        largely devoted to invasive species work. We will have a
        presentation of the APHIS strategic plan at the spring 2005 ISAC
        meeting.

I respectfully submit this report to ISAC. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me during or after this ISAC meeting.
Thank you.

Ms. Hilda Diaz-Soltero

Senior Invasive Species Coordinator

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Work - (202) 354-1880

Fax - (202) 371-1751

Cell - (510) 301-1164

Email address - hdiazsoltero@fs.fed.us

Office: Natl. Invasive Species Council

1201 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC

Mail: 1849 C St. NW (OS/SIO/NISC)

Washington, DC 20240