Category: animal diseases

EEICAT: improved method for assessing bioinvasion impacts

As bioinvasions and their impacts continue to expand globally, managers and decision-makers charged with developing effective management and mitigation strategies urgently need tools that can assess and rank all impacts. These start with impacts on species’ populations … but go much farther, to the assemblage, ecosystem, and abiotic levels. Impacts at the “species and assemblage” level include species extinction (locally or more broadly), changes in species range, assemblage structure, successional patterns, and the soundscape. Impacts at the “ecosystem function” and “abiotic” levels include changes to primary production, food webs, water quality, and nutrient cycles. The analysis also addresses changes that do not affect native biota directly, although they present no examples.  

For a decade, scientists studying bioinvasions have used the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) framework to standardize categorization of species-level impacts. One group that has not used this methodology is experts on tree pests. Why? Does the approach fail to describe the impacts of non-native arthropods and pathogens on tree species and forest ecosystems more broadly? Or is it simply because of academic silos?

Even more important: are the science and practical management of invasive species and forest pests losing valuable insights, resources, policy choices, … because of this schism? Would both groups gain from closer interactions?

In any case, the framework used by many scientists working on “invasive species” is undergoing a revision to better capture cascading and systemic effects from bioinvasion. A group of scientists has created the Extended EICAT (EEICAT) framework. (See the publication reference at the end of this blog to learn the process of development and details of the new system.) The proponents claim that the new system recognizes the functional interdependence of species in ecosystems, which means that alterations in species assemblages inevitably amplify throughout the system. E.g., alterations in physico-chemical characteristics or habitat structure. Impacts can even cross-ecosystem impacts between ecosystems that are often managed separately. An example is a change in the quality, magnitude, and novelty of resource flows between terrestrial and aquatic systems. To address these multifaceted effects, EEICAT integrates 19 impact types into the analysis. The intention is to improve communication about the complex ecological impacts caused by bioinvasions and facilitate prioritization of responses to competing bioinvasions.

While the various outcomes from bioinvasion can be positive or negative for nature and people, the EEICAT does not use value-laden distinctions. These determinations are left to stakeholders, managers, and community members, based on their own perspectives. Instead, it compiles and standardizes information about the measurable changes to species numbers (some decrease, others increase); to ecosystem processes (e.g., nutrient dynamics or hydrological regimes).

EEICAT incorporates the “reversibility concept”, which addresses the potential for a native sp (including individuals, pops, and assemblages), ecosystem function, or abiotic environmental to recover after removal of the bioinvader.  The system developers distinguish “naturally reversible changes” and “naturally irreversible changes”. In the former case, the affected spp, ecosystem processes or abiotic conditions are thought likely to return to their original state within 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer) through natural processes or human-assisted actions that do not exceed what is already being done. This does not include reintroductions or restoration efforts that require new efforts. Instances of “naturally irreversible changes” are those in which the affected species, ecosystem functions, or abiotic conditions cannot return to their original state within that timeframe without significant additional human intervention, or even after intense human intervention. The system has reached a different, stable equilibrium. These “permanent” changes are the result of one or more species’ global extinction, or persistent environmental alterations, e.g., soil modification, altered hydrology, or irreversible changes in nutrient cycling.

The proponents assert that EEICAT allows multiple impacts reported in a single study to be classified independently at each impact level. Furthermore, the EEICAT analysis does not require extensive research on the assessed species or understanding of the mechanisms through which the invasive species affects native species or the environment. EEICAT framework is applicable to any amount of info available in each study. It also explicitly assesses the adequacy / reliability of evidence [data, methods, approach] used in studies of bioinvasions that are included in the analysis.

EEICAT framework enables researchers to evaluate how “ecosystem engineer” species influence key ecological functions by explicitly accounting for changes to ecosystem processes, e.g., nutrient dynamics or hydrological regimes. For example introduced bivalves increase water clarity in certain systems, triggering cascading effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functions.

The EEICAT framework also allows separation of the mechanisms of impact vs. attribution of impact. For example, when a non-native plant species alters nutrient availability, thereby changing the microbial community, EEICAT assigns separate impact categories to the two impacts.

Regarding cross-ecosystem effects, the proponents cite rats on islands. Their predation suppresses seabird pops; reduced guano alters the nutrient dynamics of adjacent coral reef ecosystems. Thus assign impact categories not only to the changes in nutrients, but also to ecological functioning. This provides a more comprehensive view of interconnected effects.

Proponents of the proposed new framework assert that the fundamental distinction between EEICAT and the earlier EICAT is that the earlier assessment is “species-based”, whereas the new one is “impact-based”. It is broader because it focuses on specific combinations of invading species plus the affected systems. It is better able, they assert, to account for contrasting impacts in different invasions.

EEICAT can be applied to any invasion event (i.e., a specific combination of invasive species, recipient system, and context). It broadens the range of evidence that can be integrated into the assessment. Decision-makers benefit from access to more information. The information can also be provided in more easily understood form through two visualization tools:

  1. An “invasive species profile” aggregates all recorded impacts caused by a single invading species. This facilitates clear communication of the bioinvasion’s impact severity to managers and stakeholders, plus how those impacts vary by context.
  2. An “invaded ecosystem profile” compiles impacts from different species to a site or location. This is particularly useful for synthetic analyses (e.g., meta-analyses), evidence syntheses, and manager assessments.

Resulting profiles can help stakeholders prioritize species or ecosystems for responses.

https://www.dontmovefirewood.org/pest_pathogen/phytophthora-root-rot-html/to are ants. No disease agent is discussed or even named. This gap is surprising given the devastating and geographically extensive impacts of e.g., avian malaria, chitrid fungi (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans) on amphibians, and Phytophthora cinnamomi on the flora of western Australia.

One example in Table 3 pertains to native Hawaiian forests. The underlying study analyzed changes in ecosystem functions caused by the invasive nitrogen-fixing tree Falcataria moluccana. The EEICAT proponents say their analysis of this study would supports more informed decisions in conservation planning and ecosystem management. Indeed, the principal author of the underlying study has recently published a suggested method to manage the Falcataria moluccana invasions by replacing these trees with either native species or valued crops under an agroforestry program. Neither of the articles mentions that exactly this same area (the Puna District on the “Big Island) has suffered widespread death of the native tree ʻōhiʻa lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) as a result of the invasive disease rapid ʻōhiʻa death (ROD). The more recent article does address the fact that native plant species are extremely rare in this region.

Would integrating studies of tree-killing arthropods and pathogens into the EEICAT system provide benefits? First, let’s consider analytical methodology. Many analyses of forest pests’ impacts already discuss at least some of the wider ecological (and economic) outcomes. (To explor this, visit www.dontmovefirewood.org and read some of the species profiles under the “invasive species” tab.) Would comparing these findings to an EEICAT analysis confirm the proposed methodology? Or would it instead suggest needed adaptations? In either case, the results should improve scientists’ work.

Second, would the science and practice of managing invasive species be strengthened by bridging the differences in methods and terminology between those focused on plants and vertebrates and those focused on tree-killing invertebrates and microbes? Would greater unity result in more attention to bioinvaders from policy-makers and/or conservation practitioners and advocates? Especially since (nearly) all the major forest pest invasions would qualify as “naturally irreversible changes” or even “permanent”: the affected species, ecosystem processes or abiotic conditions are thought unlikely to return to their original state within 10 years or 3 generations (whichever is longer) in the absence of intense human-assisted actions. If joining forces might bring about greater societal efforts, is the EEICAT methodology a promising tool to achieve this goal?

Finally, would applying the EEICAT system improve the analyses of tree-pest impacts? Would this approach result in incorporation of types of effects that would otherwise be missed – either often or in specific cases? Are there relationships among forest species, or between species and ecological functions, that might be discovered? Might preparation of “invaded ecosystem profiles” that include bioinvaders from earthworms to canopy foliage feeders provide an informative perspectives that is now lacking?

SOURCE

Carneiro, L., Pincheira-Donoso, D., Leroy, B., Bertolino, S., Camacho-Cervantes, M., Cuthbert, R.N., et al. (2026) Expanding invasive species impact assessments to the ecosystem level with EEICAT. PLoS Biol 24(3): e3003665. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003665

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Or https://fadingforests.org/

Tree-killing pests can undermine conservation programs on tropical islands

an aye-aye – one of the highly endangered lemurs dependent on moist tropical forests of Madagascar; photo by Andrew Ciscel via Wikimedia

A forthcoming study examines two important issues: interactions of pathogens’ spread and changing climate, and invasive species threats to tropical islands’ forests.

Underwood et al. (in press) analyzed how an introduced vascular wilt pathogen — Leptographium calophylli – is likely to affect a tree endemic to Madagascar’s already threatened mid-level elevation humid & subhumid forests, Calophyllum paniculatum (sorry; I can find no photographs of the tree species).

Climate change is expected to cause substantial shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns on the island. These temperature and moisture regimes in turn govern pathogen sporulation, infection efficiency, and survival. They also affect the host’s levels of stress and defenses. The direction of change is not certain, however. In some cases, warming and other changes to the climate might facilitate a pathogen’s spread, allowing it to track shifts in the host’s range and expand into previously unoccupied refugia. In other cases, these changes might erect environmental thresholds that limit the pathogen’s survival and spread, thereby creating spatial refugia for the host.

diademed lemur, courtesy of Animalia

Environmental change increases the area of suitable landscape, that is, it weakens climatic barriers to establishment. Continued anthropogenic movement of some vector (biological or not) generates multiple introductory events over time. As a result, the likelihood of a successful establishment also increases, even if the probability per individual introduction is unchanged. Underwood et al. say that invasion outcomes thus become increasingly dependent on propagule pressure.

On many other tropical islands the threat from climate change is exacerbated by deforestation. On Madagascar, clearing driven by slash-and-burn agriculture and fuelwood harvesting has already reduced natural forest cover to less than 10% of its original extent. [For more on this topic, see e.g., Mittermeier et al. (2011).]  Underwood et al. cite a determination by the ForestAtRisk model that humid forest in Madagascar could be almost entirely lost by 2100.

Loss of Madagascar’s forest has global implications. The island is one of 36 global biodiversity hotspots for both flora and fauna (e.g., lemurs). Its flora exceeds 12,000 plant species, of which 83% are endemic. In this case, the host tree species — Calophyllum paniculatum — is already considered vulnerable by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Thus it is of global importance to understand the relative importance of several threats so that conservations can adopt the most effective countermeasures.

While they do not say so explicitly, it appears that Underwood et al. worry that too few of the conservationists active on Madagascar are paying attention to the possible impact of introduced pathogens. They note that pathogen-driven mortality of dominant or functionally unique trees can rapidly alter community structure and ecosystem function, potentially triggering local extinctions and cascading ecological consequences. For example, if an infection removes mature trees, their loss reduces fruit and nectar availability and so depresses populations of dependent wildlife. The trees’ death also diminishes above-ground carbon stocks and litter inputs. In combination, these impacts can shift community composition toward disturbance-tolerant states and heighten susceptibility at forest margins. These changes difficult to reverse once thresholds crossed.

red-bellied lemur in Ranomafana National Park – site of the first detection of Leptographium calphylli; via Flickr

This threat is not hypothetical. Since 2016 mature C. paniculatum at one site – a National Park – have been dying from a vascular wilt disease caused by a species in the Leptographium genus, probably Leptographium (formerly Verticillium) calophylli. While the species hasnot yet officially been recorded in Madagascar, it is established on neighboring Indian Ocean islands and across much of mainland Africa. Various species in the fungal genus are known to cause disease in other woody hosts. Underwood et al. suggest it was probably transported to Madagascar on infected wood, although they present no data.

Inside forests, Leptographium spp. are vectored by bark beetles in the Cryphalus genus. At least 25 Cryphalus species occur on the African Continent; some are vectoring disease on Seychelles and Mauritius.

The analysis by Underwood et al. indicates that future climatic conditions are likely to worsen the Leptographium calophylli infection over coming decades. The causal agent is likely to retain two-thirds of its current probable distribution and expand into previously uninhabited regions. The suitable habitat is expected to stretch across the entire north-south humid belt – the entire distribution of the host tree. Underwood et al. (in press) say it is even possible that the pathogen might remain in the forest, subsisting on other hosts, after C. paniculatum becomes functionally extinct across its range.

Meanwhile, that host – Calophyllum paniculatum – is projected to experience severe range shifts, with an overall net contraction across all climate change scenarios. It is forecast up to 67% of its current area by 2100. This range contraction will be compounded by fragmentation and dispersal limitation resulting from from deforestation. The refugia will be few and geographically isolated by late in the 21st century.

red-veined swallowtail; photographed in Ranomafana National Park by Frank Vassen, via Wikimedia

Are conservationists considering the implications of Leptographium calophylli’s probable persistence? Underwood et al. imply they are not; they say the impact of this and related pathogens on Madagascar & nearby islands is “still an unknown to the conservation community”. They urge their colleagues to conduct a set of research actions to identify, monitor, & limit the fungus’ spread – – and thereby improve the effectiveness of conservation efforts.

  1. Host range & other targets: determine whether L. calophylli infects other taxa in Madagascar – especially the endemic species and genera. They suggest systematic field sampling of multiple species across sites within the core probable range of L. calophylli. A trained pathologists should be consulted to officially identify the pathogen.
  • Determine the spread phase of the pathogen. They suggest random sampling of species & sites within & outside of the fungus’ probable distribution, mapping the possible start point & dispersal patterns, including both anthropogenic & natural spread routes.
  • Assess applicability of IPBES tools & suggestions for invasive species management to the case of a fatal pathogen in the context of tropical islands’ characteristics. How might Madagascar implement prevention, early detection & rapid response systems?

I applaud Underwood et al. for trying to alert the conservation community active on tropical islands to the simultaneous impacts of multiple global & regional change drivers on vulnerable species. Probably other host-pathogen systems are experiencing the same diverging trajectories that might intensify their biodiversity loss, particularly when compounded by deforestation.

SOURCES

Mittermeier, R.A., E.E. Louis Jr., M. Richardson, C. Schwitzer, O. Langrand, A.B. Rylands. 2010. Lemurs of Madagascar. Conservation International, Arlington, USA. ISBN 9781934151235

Underwood, E.L., K.A Brown, A. Ronnfeldt, M. Mulligan, N. Walford, R. Allgayer. In press. Climate change facilitates fungal pathogen expansion while driving endemic host range contractions in a tropical biodiversity hotspot. Research Square.

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Or

https://fadingforests.org

A New Year …Will there be a new priority on countering invasive species?

Alaska yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis); one of the species vulnerable to Phytophthora austrocedri; APHIS has determined it is too late to try to slow its spread. Photo by Nucatum amygdalarum via Wikimedia

On 30 December 2025, US Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins issued a Secretary’s Memorandum setting five new priorities for research and development. One is to protect agriculture from invasive species. Another is to resolve longstanding trade barriers due to sanitary and phytosanitary concerns.

The Secretary’s intention is to strengthen US agriculture to benefit both farmers and consumers. He justifies the action by claiming that President Lincoln’s original purpose in establishing USDA was to acquire and diffuse useful information on subjects connected with agriculture. According to this interpretation, Lincoln recognized that working to improve agriculture and secure the nation’s food supply would benefit everyone. The emphasis on research and development was reiterated by the almost simultaneous adoption of the Morrill Act of 1862, which created the system of land-grant universities and development of the Cooperative Extension System via the Smith-Lever Act of 1914.

The memorandum specifies five priority areas of research to be pursued by all USDA agencies and offices – to the maximum extent permitted by law and in accordance with any applicable regulations and procedural requirements.

  1. Increasing Profitability of Farmers & Ranchers — especially reducing volatility in profitability. Goals include reducing inputs or increasing mechanization and automation.
  2. Expanding Markets for US agricultural products. Two approaches are mentioned: generating science and data to resolve longstanding sanitary and phytosanitary trade barriers; and expanding use of agricultural commodities in novel biobased products and bioenergy.
  3. Protecting the Integrity of American agriculture from Invasive Species. The memorandum lists four examples of current invasive pest and pathogen threats: new world screwworm in Mexico; continued westward expansion of spotted lanternfly; persistence of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry flocks; and citrus greening. It notes that invasive species threaten both agriculture and natural resources. The research is to focus on new and effective methods for preventing, detecting, controlling,and eradicating these threats.
  4. Promoting Soil Health to Regenerate Long-Term Productivity of Land. The research is to promote soil health practices, increase water-use efficiency, & reduce the need for inputs.
  5. Improving Human Health through Precision Nutrition and Food Quality. Research on “precision nutrition” is said to improve understanding of how healthy dietary patterns impact individuals. Research will also focus on increasing foods’ nutritional content and quality.
Vaccinium myrtillus (photo by Anneli Salo via WikiMedia); one of several species in genera shared with North America that are infected by Phytophthora spp in the Italian alps

The memorandum also instructs USDA’s Office of the Chief Scientist (that is, the Under Secretary for Research, Education, & Economics) to coordinate these priorities within USDA and among key partners in other federal agencies.

Does This Policy Mean Substantially Stronger USDA Efforts to Counter Bioinvasions?

Can we expect new energy in USDA’s programs aimed at managing non-native forest pests and invasive plants that damage forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other natural systems? The first paragraph of the memorandum states that it is USDA policy to reaffirm a focus on the Department’s original objectives of maximizing and promoting American agriculture; ensuring a safe, nutritious, and secure food supply; enhancing rural prosperity; and protecting our National Forests & Grasslands. That is promising.

The explicit recognition that invasive species pose severe threats to both agriculture and natural resources is also promising. I welcome the inclusion of two plant pests among the examples. Livestock diseases usually receive far more attention in USDA pronouncements.

I note three caveats:

  • The prominence of enhancing markets for US agricultural exports (# 2). In the past, this longstanding emphasis has led to undercutting phytosanitary agencies’ ability to counter suspected — but incompletely understood — pest risks. I discussed the impracticality of determining a newly detected species’ probable impacts in Chapter 3 of my report, Fading Forests II.
  • The memorandum makes no reference to implementing stronger sanitary or phytosanitary policies. In my view, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has sufficient knowledge to support adoption of a more assertive regulatory stance with regard to both new introductions and spread within the country? Does the memorandum signal support for such a stance by high-ranking USDA officials?

These officials have often reminded APHIS that it is not a research agency.  However, its staff do “methods development” and it funds considerable research through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Programs – Section 7721 of the Plant Protection Act and a matching program for animal diseases.

  • The US Forest Service does have a research division – although the Trump Administration proposed its virtual elimination in early 2025. The Congressional appropriators have provided funding for USFS R&D – but those bills have not yet been enacted into law. I have complained for years that USFS R&D allocates too few resources (about 1% of the total budget) to research on introduced pests and disease pathogens. Might this new directive help fix this problem?

I hope the emphasis on protecting National Forests & Grasslands does not result in narrowing the types of invasive pests addressed.

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Or

https://fadingforests.org

Status of Hawaiian species threatened by bioinvasion

stand of Miconia under albizia overstory on Big Island, Hawai`i; photo by F.T. Campbell

As I will describe in another blog, participants in the annual meeting of the National Plant Board link in Honolulu learned the basics about the uniqueness of agriculture and native species on remote Pacific islands. I want to complement this information by reminding you about other Hawaiian and Guamaian species at risk – although did not learn anything new.

As Martin and Andreozzi pointed out, the Pacific islands import nearly all their food and other consumables. Considerable interest in some quarters in Hawai`i to increase agricultural production. However, large swaths of land in the low-elevation area surrounding Pahoa on the Big Island is completely dominated by the albizia (Falcataria Molucca) [see photo above]. J.B. Friday says it is cost-prohibitive to remove these trees in order to restore agriculture in the area. Local people are concerned because in storms the trees fall onto houses and roads, causing considerable damage.

I saw numerous clumps of the notorious invasive plant Miconia calvescens. Dr. Friday told me that conservationists now focus on keeping this plant out of key areas, not trying to eradicate it completely.

area being restored by volunteers; photo by F.T. Campbell

Local people trying to restore disease-damaged forests by planting other native plants and hand-clearing invasive plants. Some of the ohia seedlings infected by Austropuccinia psidii.

ohia seedling with symptoms of ohia rust (Austropuccinia psdii); detected by J.B. Friday; photo by F.T. Campbell

Dr. Friday showed me many areas where ʻōhiʻa trees have been killed by rapid ʻōhiʻa death. Since this mortality occurred a decade or more ago, other plants have grown up. Pic  In many if not most cases, this jungle includes dense growths of guava Latin the most widespread invasive tree on the islands (Potter). ‘Ōhi‘a trees continue to thrive in Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park – also on the Big Island – because the NPS makes considerable efforts to protect them from wounding by feral pigs. Demonstrates importance of fencing and mammal eradication in efforts to protect this tree species.

healthy ʻōhiʻa tree on cinder cone created by eruption of Kilauea Iki in 1959; photo by F.T. Campbell

I also saw healthy koa (Acacia koa) in the park, especially at sites along the road to the trail climbing Mauna Loa.

Regarding the wiliwili tree, I was told that it remains extremely scarce on Oahu.

wiliwili tree in flower; photo by Forrest Starr

I heard nothing about the status of naio – another shrub native to the Big Island – but on the dry western side of the island.

I rejoice that scientists are making progress in protecting and restoring Hawaii’s endemic bird species. Specifically, they are at the early stages of controlling mosquitoes that transmit fatal diseases. All 17 species of endemic honeycreepers that have persisted through the 250 years since Europeans first landed on the Islands are now listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Spp Act. The “Birds, not Mosquitoes” project has developed lab-reared male mosquitoes that, when they mate with wild female, the resulting eggs are sterile. (Male mosquitoes don’t bite, so increasing their number does not affect either animals or people.) Over time, the invasive mosquito population will be reduced, giving vulnerable native bird populations the chance to recover. Scientists began releasing these modified mosquitoes in remote forests on Maui and Kaua‘i in November 2023. In spring 2025, they began testing releases using drones. Use of drones instead of helicopters reduces the danger associated with flying close to complicated mountain rides in regions with variable weather.   This project should be able to continue; the Senate Appropriations Committee report for FY26 allocates $5,250,000 for this project.

American Bird Conservancy is sponsoring a webinar about this program. It will be Wednesday, August 27, 2025 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM ET. Sign up for the webinar here

thicket of guava on the Big Island, Hawai`i; photo by F.T. Campbell

Finally, scientists are releasing a biocontrol agent targetting strawberry guava, Psidium cattleyanum, the most widespread invasive tree on the Islands (Potter et al. 2023). Distribution involves an interesting process. A stand of guava is cut down to stimulate rapid growth. The leaf-galling insect Tectococcus ovatus reproduces prolifically on the new foliage. Twigs bearing the eggs of these insects are collected and tied into small bundles. The bundles are then dropped from helicopters into the canopies of dense guava stands, where they establish and feed – damaging the unwanted host.  

brown tree snake; photo via Wikimedia

Guam

Guam’s endemic birds have famously been extinguished by the non-native brown tree snake. Dr. Aaron Collins, State Director, Guam and Western Pacific, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, informed participants at the National Plant Board meeting about the extensive efforts to suppress snake populations in military housing on the island, reduce damage to the electric grid, and prevent snakes from hitchhiking to other environments, especially Hawai`i and the U.S. mainland.

The program began more than 30 years ago, in 1993. The program now employs 80 FTEs and has a budget of $4 million per year. It was initiated because live and dead snakes had been found in shipments and planes that landed in Hawai`i and the U.S. mainland. Avoiding the snake’s establishment on Hawai`i is estimated to save $500 million per year. The program is a coordinated effort by USDA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Defense. Probably this estimate helped advocates reverse a decision by the “Department of Government Efficiency” to defund the program.

The program enjoys some advantages over vertebrate eradication programs on the mainland. For example, since Guam has no native snakes, it can use poison, e.g., in mouse-baited traps that can be dropped from planes. A recent innovation is auto-resetting traps baited with mammals; they can electrocute numerous snakes per night.

SOURCE

Potter, K.M., C. Giardina, R.F. Hughes, S. Cordell, O. Kuegler, A. Koch, E. Yuen. 2023. How invaded are Hawaiian forests? Non‑native understory tree dominance signals potential canopy replacement. Lands. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01662-6

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Or

https://fadingforests.org

FY26 Funding: APHIS doing well; will Congress save the USFS?

effects of emerald ash borer — one of the non-native pests threatening forests across the North American continent; photo by Leslie A. Brice, taken in Maryland

Forest Service: What the Administration Proposed

According to the Washington Post, the Administration’s plans for shrinking the federal government would cut employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) by 35% by 2026 – a loss of ~32,000 employees. Of these, the USDA Forest Service (USFS) was targetted for significant losses. The Administration proposed to end the Research and Development program, firing 1,641 employees. The State, Private, and Tribal program would lose 94% of its staff of 580 people. The National Forest System was to be cut by 30%, or 1,603 people. These and cuts to additional USFS programs would have totaled 39% of the agency’s approximately 30,000 staff.

The Administration issued a plan to reorganize USDA. This plan called for phasing out the USFS’ nine Regional Offices. Apparently only two offices would remain: a reduced state office in Juneau and an eastern service center in Athens, Georgia. Seven of the current stand-alone Research Stations would be consolidated into a single location in Fort Collins. The proposal retains two separate entities: the Fire Sciences and Forest Products Laboratories.

How Congress’ Appropriations Committees Responded

As I reported earlier, the Congress has not accepted these proposed cuts to the USFS. Under normal circumstances provisions in Congressionally-enacted appropriations legislation should prevail over the Administration’s plan, but now, who knows?

beech leaf disease — one of many non-native diseases threatening our forests that need further research; photo by F.T. Campbell

USFS Research and Development Program

The House Appropriations bill provides $301,706,000 for the research account, including $34 million for Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA). The Senate bill provides more for the overall research program — $308.5 million; but a little less — $32 million – for FIA. I remind you that FIA data inform us about changes in the forest, including damage caused by introduced insects and pathogens. But these data do not identify or disseminate information about how such threats might best be countered.

The Senate bill specifically retains the USFS’ five regional offices and experimental forests. The report accompanying the bill specifies funding for several issues, especially needle blights on loblolly pine and western conifers and poor regeneration of white oak (Quercus alba). The only other topic of research mentioned in the bill is fire research. I fear that might led to decreased attention to non-fire aspects of introduced tree-killing insects and pathogens – which collectively threaten a similarly sized area of America’s forests.

USFS State, Private, and Tribal Forestry program

The House bill provides $281 million for the forest health program. The bill specifies that this funding “includes forest health management, invasive plants, and conducting international programs and trade activities.” This would seem to restore funding for the Forest Health Management program – both the “cooperative lands” and “federal lands” subprograms. However, I found no language specifying funding levels for each subprogram.

The Senate bill provides $38 million more — $319.5 million — for the forest health program. The report specifies that the Cooperative lands forest health management program should be funded at $42 million. However, the Appropriations Committee allocated significant proportions of this total to specific projects. Nearly a quarter of the appropriation targets the spruce budworm outbreak in the eastern U.S. Also, $2 million is earmarked for management of the sudden oak death pathogen in the forests of Oregon and California. Another $3 million funds a pilot program for management of the highly invasive plant cogongrass. Other priorities are programs targetting Western bark beetles and invasive woody plant species – although no funding levels are specified.

dead whitebark pine at Crater Lake National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell

The Senate bill also provides $19.6 million to support Congressionally-directed components of Forest Resource Information and Analysis; I don’t understand whether this is  within or separate from the FIA program.

Under the National Forest System, the Senate bill instructs the USFS to spend at least $2 million per year on recovery of species of plants and animals listed under the Endangered Species Act, presumably including whitebark pines.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is relatively well-off under the Administration’s plans. This agency is expected to lose 15% of employees – 1,180 people. According to Acting Deputy Administrator for Plant Protection and Quarantine Matthew Rhoads, 400 APHIS employees have accepted the Administration’s deferred resignation offer. Leaving are many program leaders – including the previous Deputy Administrator, Mark Davidson. While APHIS is allowed to hire to refill some positions, the future remains uncertain. I note a positive here: the new Farm Security Plan emphasizes efforts to combat bioterrorism, including APHIS’ safeguarding role. While I welcome that priority, I fear that the focus might be quite narrow, leaving out threats to natural resources such as native forest trees.

The impact of the proposed USDA reorganization on APHIS is unclear. The plan envisions continued reductions of the workforce and moving more than half of the remaining USDA employees away from Washington, D.C. to five regional offices.

APHIS also has done well under the House and Senate appropriations process. The House Appropriations Committee issued a press release touting its work as “Champions of U.S. farmers, agriculture, and rural communities”. The first example of this supportive effort reads: “Continuing critical investments in agricultural research, rural broadband, and animal and plant health programs.” Funding for APHIS is described as supporting the Trump Administration and its mandate from the American people. The Office of Management and Budget is said to have prioritized protecting American agriculture from foreign pests and diseases.

The Senate’s report instead cites traditional justifications for funding APHIS. It said that the appropriated funds will help protect the nation’s animal and plant resources from diseases and pests. (As usual, the examples cited are all animal diseases: chronic wasting disease, new world screwworm, and avian influenza.)

The reports accompanying both bills say agricultural quarantine – preventing pest introduction – is an important responsibility of the federal government. I am cheered by this statement since the Trump Administration puts such emphasis on shedding responsibilities.

Unlike the USFS, funding levels for most APHIS programs are unchanged from this year. (Of course, inflation has reduced the amount of work that can be carried out using the same amount of money.) The following table shows funding for programs of interest during the current year (FY2025) and levels proposed by the House and Senate bills for Fiscal Year 2026 (which begins on October 1).

                                                                        Figures in millions of dollars (rounded up)

FY2025 enacted            FY26 House                 FY26 Senate

APHIS total                                  $1,148                          $1,146                          $1,168

Plant health subtotal                   $387.5                                                              $388.6

Agric. quarantine                      $35.5                            $35.5                            $35.5

Field crop and rangeland           $12                               $11                               $11.5

Pest detection                           $29                               $28.5                            $29

Methods development               $21.5                            $21.5                            $21.5

Specialty crops                          $206.5                          $216.3                          $208.5

Tree and wood pests                  $59                               $59                               $58.6

Emergency preparedness and response* $44.5         $44.5                            $44.3

* this fund is apparently for both animal and plant emergencies

The Senate and House bills contain identical language authorizing the Secretary “in emergencies which threaten any segment of [US] agricultural production …, [to] transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the agencies or corporations of [USDA] such sums as may be deemed necessary, to be available only in such emergencies for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious diseases … in accordance with sections … 431 and 442 of the Plant Protection Act … and any unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency purposes in the preceding fiscal year shall be merged with such transferred amounts”. The House report reminds the Administration that this language means that the emergency fund is intended to enhance, not replace, use of funds transferred from the Commodity Credit Corporation when confronting pest or disease outbreak emergencies. I have long sought increased funding for APHIS to respond quickly when a new invasive organisms is detected. Such flexibility is necessary because the regular process for adopting an appropriation stretches over about three years.

Also, both bills support continuation of APHIS’ feral swine management program. However, they prioritize funding projects in areas with the highest pig populations. I think this is backwards from the perspective of efficiency – although it might build political support for the program.

The House report mentions management of Arundo canes, said to be depleting groundwater levels in western states; eastern spruce budworm in the Northeast; spread of the southern pine beetle and spotted lanternfly; and invasions by the non-native shrub glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus).

The Senate report notes that two strains of the sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum and here – the EU1 and NA1 strains – pose major threats to Douglas-fir-tanoak forests in Oregon and California and the associated quarantines restrict exports of logs. Therefore, the report says funding for addressing this threat should be no lower than the FY24 level. (Oregon senator Jeff Merkley is the top Democrat on the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee.)  

I am thrilled to see that the House report requires APHIS to report within a year on recommendations to enhance existing protocols to better protect Hawai`i from bioinvasion. The report is to evaluate the feasibility of APHIS working with the state to improve biosecurity, prevent invasive species establishment, and mitigate damage from those already there. The report is to evaluate the risk of invasive species arriving via movement of people, baggage, cargo, and other items.

endemic honeycreepers of Hawai`i

Finally, the “Big Beautiful Bill” adopted by the Congress in June, increased funding for APHIS’ Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention (Plant Protection Act Section 7721) from $75 million to $90 million – but only for Fiscal Year 2026. This grant program continues to be crucial to funding vital programs. This year the program has funded more than 300 projects. I wonder – might forest pathologists prepare a proposal for next year that would fund a study to improve America’s phytosanitary program regarding pathogens? Two possible study topics might be 1) evaluating the efficacy of APHIS’ current regulations in preventing introduction of fungal pathogens, oomycetes, bacteria, viruses, and nematodes on imported plants and/or 2) identifying currently unknown microbes resident in regions that are important sources of origin for traded plants, vulnerability of hosts in the U.S., and new technologies for detecting pathogens

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Or

https://fadingforests.org

Invasive species cost more than extreme weather attributable to climate change; 17 times more than previously estimated!

ash tree killed by emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of (then) Mayor of Ann Arbor John Hieftje

Since the 1990s, scientists have been trying to the determine costs imposed by invasive species. They hope that measuring monetary costs will motivate political decision-makers to take more assertive actions to counter this ecological treat. As Daigne et al. (2021) point out, too few countries are implementing effective control and mitigation strategies. They say this inaction stems, largely, from undervaluing bioinvasions’ impacts by the general public, stakeholders and decision-makers.

A major step in this effort was creation of the InvaCost database. The goal was to provide a reliable, comprehensive, standardized and easily updatable synthesis of bioinvasions’ monetary costs worldwide.

Several publications based on this database appeared. I have blogged about studies published in 2021 or 2022: a) the costs of bioinvasions generally (Cuthbert et al. 2022);  b) the costs imposed by invasive species in protected areas (Moodley et al. 2022; c) a focus on the “worst” 100 invasives (as determined by the IUCN) (Ahmed et al. 2022); and d) assessing costs associated with various pathways of introduction (Turbelin et al. 2022).

The InvaCost database, as applied in these studies, demonstrated that bioinvasions impose tremendous costs –a minimum of US $1.288 trillion for the period 1970 – 2017. These costs increased on average three times per decade (Daigne et al. 2022).

Still, everyone has recognized that InvaCost data have significant limitations. First, three-quarters of the records in the original database came from North America, Oceania and Europe; and referred to animal taxa, even though plants are a major group of invaders. Also, a large proportion of total invasion costs – for all taxa – probably is undetected. Finally, the many non-market values of species and ecosystems are extremely difficult to calculate (Daigne et al. 2022).

As a result of these deficiencies, the earlier studies discussed in the blogs referenced above substantially underestimated the true costs associated with bioinvasion (Cuthbert et al. 2022).

Now a new study, led by Ismael Soto, finds that the underestimate is huge. Global costs associated with a subset of 162 species (17% of all the species in the InvaCost database) is nearly 17 times higher than reported in the InvaCost database.

Soto et al. (2025) applied species distribution models and macroeconomic data to interpolate these 162 species’ probable impacts in 172 countries  

Japanese knotweed – one of the invasive plants proving very costly in Europe, according to I. Soto

The newly identified costs were greatest in Europe; second place fell to North America. This is because both higher damage costs and management expenditures are linked to higher gross domestic product and extent of agricultural area, in addition to environmental suitability. Analysis of monetary costs per unit area revealed that ‘cost hot spots’ are predominantly located in densely populated urban areas and locations hosting key industries. These tend to be in coastal zones, i.e., Europe, the east coast of China, and the east and west coasts of the US.

cypress aphid Cinara cupressi – a threat to both native & plantation trees in Africa; photo by Blackman & Eastop via Wikimedia

The authors found that the greatest increase in estimated costs for countries in Africa and Asia. These countries had not previously recorded any economic costs arising from invasions by these 162 species. I have blogged about forest pest threats in Africa.

The authors also significantly increased estimated costs linked to invasive plants. Daigne et al. found that invasive insects caused ~90% of reported costs in the InvaCost database as of 2022. Vertebrates ranked second, plants third. In contrast, Soto et al. determined that invasive plants had the highest average estimated damage costs (US $42.10 billion) and management expenditures ($0.81 billion).

Substantial total costs were also reported for arthropods, mammals and birds. Reported damage and management costs were much lower for molluscs, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Daigne et al. suggest this might be due to their lower (observable) damage to human infrastructure, research biases leading to fewer studies, or disparities resulting from the filtering process used in their own study.

Williams et al. (2023) focus on insects, which cause damage primarily to agriculture, human health, and forestry. Insects constitute the highest number of species introduced as ‘Contaminants’ (n = 74) and ‘Stowaways’ (n = 43). They also impose the highest costs among species using these two pathways.

Forest insects and pathogens account for less than 1% of the records in the InvaCost database. I believe that this figure reflects significant under-reporting of these invasion events. Even at this paltry level of reported invasions, forest insects and pathogens were responsible for causing 25% of total annual costs ($43.4 billion) (Williams et al. 2023). This discrepancy illustrates the huge economic cost associated with widespread mortality of trees. Yet authorities in most countries continue to provide completely inadequate resources to counter this threat.

The authors of these publications examining economic losses associated with bioinvasion all note that ecological damage is additional. Soto et al. note that bioinvasions contribute to 60% of already recorded global extinctions. Interestingly, the species ranked third using the criterion of monetary damage is the cactus moth Cactoblastis cactorum. This insect threatens flat-padded Opuntia cacti across the United States and in the center of endemism, Mexico.

a flat-padded Opuntia — vulnerable to the cactus moth; photo by F.T. Campbell

Soto et al. found a lag of ~46 years between first (reported) detection of an introduced species and the peak of damage costs. They suggest that the rising monetary cost reflects the species becoming more abundant or occupying a larger area. The authors also say this finding demonstrates the value of implementing mitigation measures as soon as possible. Their finding thus validates others’ advocacy for investing in prevention and rapid response measures (see Cuthbert et al. and Daigne et al.). Soto et al. were cheered by the fact that spending on management measures – when it was reported – often followed soon after a species’ detection – or even before (e.g., prevention).

But Decision-Makers Usually Delay – Why?

Prevention is a hard sell. Decision-makers find it difficult to justify management expenditures before impacts become obvious. By that time, of course, management of the invasion is extremely difficult and expensive – if it is possible at all. Ahmed et al. found particularly effective wording to describe this problem: bioinvasion costs can be deceitfully slow to accrue, so policy makers don’t appreciate the urgency of taking action. Another contributing factor is that when efficient proactive management succeeds in preventing any impact, it paradoxically undermines evidence of the value of this action!

Programs to minimize the economic and ecological consequences of bioinvasion are severely obstructed – if not doomed! – by the following difficulties:

  • Resources are in short supply. Experts find that demands to address other threats to agriculture or natural systems outcompete appeals to ramp up invasive species efforts.
  • Prediction is uncertain. Cuthbert et al. found that none of the species with the highest pre-invasion investment was among the top 10 costliest invaders in terms of damages. Cuthbert et al. do not discuss whether this is evidence that the prevention efforts were effective? Or, alternatively, that prevention efforts target the wrong species.
  • Harm is in the eye of the beholder. Stakeholders’ perceptions of whether an introduced species causes a detrimental impact vary. For example, Moodley et al. point out that species imposing the highest economic costs might not be the ones causing the greatest ecological harm.
  • Externalities. Those harmed by a bioinvasion often are different from those that decide whether to act. Ahmed et al. argue that this creates a moral dilemma.

These decisions are political — influenced by citizens’ expressed wishes. Changing decision-makers’ perceptions of what is important is up to us!!! Start a parade!!!

SOURCES

Ahmed, D.A., E.J. Hudgins, R.N. Cuthbert, .M. Kourantidou, C. Diagne, P.J. Haubrock, B. Leung, C. Liu, B. Leroy, S. Petrovskii, A. Beidas, F. Courchamp. 2022. Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:1927–1946 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0

Cuthbert, R.N., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, A. Turbelin, D.A. Ahmed, C. Albert, T.W. Bodey, E. Briski, F. Essl, P. J. Haubrock, R.E. Gozlan, N. Kirichenko, M. Kourantidou, A.M. Kramer, F. Courchamp. 2022. Bioinvasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of The Total Environment Volume 819, 1 May 2022, 153404

Diagne, C., B Leroy, A-C. Vaissière, R.E. Gozlan,  D. Roiz, I. Jaric,  J-M. Salles, C.A. Bradshaw, and F. Courchamp. 2021. High and rising econ costs of bioinvasions worldwide Published online: 31 March 2021

Moodley, D., E. Angulo, R.N. Cuthbert, B. Leung, A. Turbelin, A. Novoa, M. Kourantidou, G. Heringer, P.J. Haubrock, D. Renault, M. Robuchon, J. Fantle-Lepczyk, F. Courchamp, C. Diagne. 2022. Surprisingly high economic costs of bioinvasions in protected areas. Biol Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02732-7

Soto, I., P. Courtois, A. Pili, E. Tordoni, E. Manfrini, E. Angulo, C. Bellard, E. Briski, M. Buric, R.N. Cuthbert, A. Kouba, M. Kourantidou, R.L. Macêdo, B. Leroy, P.J. Haubrock, F. Courchamp and B. Leung. 2025.  Using species ranges and macroeconomic data to fill gap in costs of biological invasions. Nat Ecol Evol doi: 10.1038/s41559-025-02697-5

Turbelin, A.J., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, D. Moodley, M. Kourantidou, A. Novoa, P.J. Haubrock, C. Bernery, R.E. Gozlan, R.A. Francis, F. Courchamp. 2022. Introduction pathways of economically costly invasive alien spp. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:2061–2079 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02796-5

Williams, G.M., M.D. Ginzel, Z. Ma, D.C. Adams, F.T. Campbell, G.M. Lovett, M. Belén Pildain, K.F. Raffa, K.J.K. Gandhi, A. Santini, R.A. Sniezko, M.J. Wingfield, and P. Bonello. 2023. The Global Forest Health Crisis: A Public Good Social Dilemma in Need of International Collective Action. Annual Review of Phytopathology Vol. 61, 2023

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at  https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/

or

www.fadingforests.org

Protect salamanders from fatal disease

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has taken new action to protect North America’s salamanders from the pathogenic Salamander Chytrid Fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans; Bsal). The Center for Invasive Species Prevention (CISP) welcomes this action and urges you to help the Service to finalize it.

To read and comment on the interim rule, go here. The comment period closes on March 11.

oriental fire-bellied newt (Cynops orientalis); one of the non-native species imported in largest numbers before the 2016 Lacey Act interim rule; photo by Sebastian Voitel

USFWS acted under its authority to contained in the “injurious wildlife” provisions of the Lacey Act [18 U.S.C. 42(a)]. This statute, first adopted in 1900, empowers the Secretary of Interior to regulate human-mediated transport of any species of wild mammal, wild bird, fish, mollusk, crustacean, amphibian, or reptile found to be injurious to human beings; to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry; or to America’s wildlife or wildlife resources. Regulated articles include offspring or eggs of the listed species, dead specimens, and animal parts.

Any importation of a listed taxon into the U.S. is regulated. However, regulation of transport within the United States is complicated because of clumsy wording of the statute. In 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals [U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers, Inc. v. Zinke [852 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2017)] ruled that the law regulates transport of listed species (and their progeny, parts, etc.) between the contiguous 48 States and several other jurisdictions: Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, other U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. However, transport among the “lower 48” states (e.g., from Virginia to Kentucky) or from the “lower 48” states to Alaska, is not regulated (unless the route to or from Alaska passes through Canada). In past years conservationists asked Congress to amend the law to close this obvious gap in protection, but without success.

It is still illegal to transport listed species across any state borders if the wildlife specimen was either imported to the U.S. or transported between the above-enumerated jurisdictions in violation of any U.S. law. [Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(1)] 

Those wishing to transport a listed species for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes may apply for a permit from USFWS to do so.

The threat to salamanders

The United States is a center of diversity for salamanders. Our nation is home to 221 species of salamanders, more than any other country. These species are in 23 genera in nine families. In fact, nine of the 10 families of salamanders worldwide are found in the U.S. Highest diversity is found along the Pacific Coast and in the southern Appalachian Mountains. As the most abundant vertebrates in their forest habitats, salamanders make significant contributions to nutrient cycling and even carbon sequestration.

Because they depend on both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, salamanders face many threats to their existence. Twenty species of American salamanders from 6 genera (Ambystoma, Batrachoseps, Eurycea, Necturus, Phaeognathus, Plethodon) are listed under the Endangered Species Act link as endangered or threatened. A subspecies of hellbender salamander (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleghaniensis) has been proposed for listing.

Amylosterium xxx – marbled salamander; photo by John B. Clare via Flickr

Over the last 12 years, they have faced an alarming new threat.

In 2013, European scientists detected rapid, widespread death of salamander populations in the Netherlands. They determined that the cause was a fungal disease caused by Batrachochytrium salamandrivoran (Bsal). Their alarm was heightened because this fungus is closely related to another, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), which had recently caused serious decline of more than 100 frog and toad species, including driving several to extinction, and had been transported to all continents except Antartica.

Responding to this new threat, amphibian conservation specialists and wildlife groups generally banded together to put pressure on the USFWS to take regulatory action. In response, in 2016, the USFWS adopted an interim rule link prohibiting importation of 20 genera of salamanders. These genera had been shown by scientists to contain at least one species which either suffered mortality when it was exposed to  Bsal or could transmit the disease to other salamanders. At the time, Bsal had been shown by scientific studies to be lethal to two American species; USFWS had evidence that U.S. species in other genera could “carry” the pathogen and infect other animals. Three of the species included in the 2016 action had already been listed as endangered or threatened. USFWS’ action cut down the number of salamanders being imported annually by ~95% (based on official import data compiled by the USFWS’ Office of Law Enforcement).

The prohibitions do not apply to articles that cannot transmit the fungus. These include eggs or gametes; parts or tissues that have been chemically preserved, chemically treated, or heat treated so that the pathogen, if present, is rendered non-viable; and molecular specimens consisting of only the nucleic acids from organisms.

Now, 8 years later, the USFWS is acting to finalize the 2016 “interim” rule and to regulate importation and transportation of an additional 16 genera of salamanders. This step had been urged by the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS), and many others, in their public comments on that Interim Rule. Extending protection to these 16 genera is based on research conducted since the 2016 Rule. Species in 13 of the newly protected genera are considered likely carriers of the disease. Nine species have been demonstrated to be killed by Bsal. No studies have yet determined the vulnerability of more than 50 species in 10 genera of North American salamanders, including four species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The 36 genera covered by the combined actions of 2016 and 2025 actions are currently considered to comprise ~ 426 species. However, changes in taxonomy are frequent. So USFWS is no longer enumerating the species protected, but is instead relying on listing genera. The regulations apply to all species in a listed genus (whether so classified now or in the future) as well as hybrids of species in any listed genus, including offspring from a pair in which only one of the parents is in a genus listed as injurious.

Appalachian hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleghaniensis; historic book illustration via Flickr

USFWS chose to issue “interim” rules in both 2016 and 2025 because that action takes effect almost immediately. (The 2025 interim rule take effect on January 25th.) The usual rulemaking process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) often takes years to complete. During that time, the species proposed for listing may still be imported and transported – that is, they could place additional salamander populations at risk of infection by Bsal. The USFWS states that it is unlikely to be able to protect or restore species and ecosystems if the pathogen does become established in the U.S.

In the interval between 2016 and now, Canada banned importation of all living or dead salamanders, eggs, sperm, tissue cultures, and embryos in response to the Bsal threat.

During these years scientists also completed several studies aimed at clarifying which salamander species are either at risk of infection by Bsal or are able to harbor and transmit the pathogen to other salamanders. The USFWS cites studies by, inter alia, Yuan et al. 2018, Carter et al. 2020, Barnhart et al. 2020, Grear et al. 2021, and Gray et al. 2023. USFWS says it cannot act in the absence of such studies, since it must justify its protective actions on scientifically defensible information.

Another relevant question is whether Bsal is already established in North America? Waddle et al. 2020 carried out an intensive search in 35 states that found no evidence that it is. The USFWS concludes that prohibiting importation of additional salamander taxa is still an effective measure to protect North American biodiversity. This is because the international commercial trade in salamanders is the most likely pathway by which Bsal would be introduced to the United States. We note in support of this assertion that former USFWS employee Su Jewell found years ago that none of the 288 non-indigenous species listed as injurious while they are not established in the U.S. has become established since the listing. 

The Federal Register document includes a lengthy discussions of why the USFWS has chosen to act under the Lacey Act rather than try some other approach, e.g., setting up quarantine areas or a disease-free certification program for traded salamanders. Among the factors they considered were the current absence of certainty in testing procedures and the possibility of falsified documentation.

WEAKNESSES THE LACEY ACT

The Lacey Act is the principal statute under which the U.S. Government tries to manage invasive species of wildlife – at least those that are not considered “plant pests”. It is not surprising that a law written 125 years ago is no longer the best fit for current conservation needs. See our earlier blog and discussions by, inter alia, Fowler, Lodge, and Hsia and Anderson.

Here, the USFWS lacks authority to regulate pathogens [viruses, bacteria, and fungi that cause disease] or fomites (materials, such as water, that can act as passive carriers and transfer pathogens). Instead, USFWS regulates the hosts. The USFWS previously listed dead salmonids as “injurious” because their carcasses can transmit several viruses.   

Another issue is that USFWS cannot designate a taxon “injurious” and regulate trade in it until the Service has conclusive scientific evidence that the species or genus meets the definition. The USFWS has chosen to rely on genus-level data rather than require that each species be tested. Still, as we noted above, American salamanders in 10 genera remain outside the Lacey Act’s protections because studies have not yet been conducted. The USFWS concedes that many of these genera might contain species that are vulnerable to this potentially deadly fungus.

As to relying on laboratory tests of a taxon’s response to the pathogen, the USFWS believes that environmental stresses inherent living in the wild might exacerbate a salamander species’ vulnerability to the disease.

The USFWS is requesting public comment specifically on:

(1) the extent to which species in the 16 genera listed by this interim rule are currently in domestic production for sale – and in which States this occurs? How many businesses sell salamanders from the listed genera between enumerated jurisdictions (e.g., between “lower 48” states and Hawai`i or the District of Columbia)?

(2) What state-listed endangered or threatened species would be affected by introduction of Bsal?

(3) How could this interim rule be modified to reduce costs or burdens for some or all entities, including small entities, while still meeting USFWS’s goals? What are the costs and benefits of the modifications?

(4) Is there any evidence suggesting that Bsal has been established in the U.S.? Or that any of these genera are not carriers of Bsal? Or that additional genera are carriers of Bsal? Is there evidence that eggs or other reproductive material pose a greater risk than USFWS determined, so should be regulated?

(5) Could a reliable health certificate system be developed that would allow imports of Bsal-free salamanders? Are there treatments that would ensure imported salamanders are reliably free of Bsal? How could compliance be monitored? As to salamander specimens, parts, or products, are there other treatments proven adequate to render Bsal non-viable?

(6) Do any Federal, State, or local rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict w/ this interim rule?

CISP encourages those with knowledge of amphibian conservation and disease to comment. Slow progress has been made toward blocking Bsal from the U.S., but the story is not yet closed.

See also the articles by Su Jewell,

Jewell, S.D. 2020 A century of injurious wildlife listing under the Lacey Act: a history. Management of Biological Invasions 11(3): 356–371, https://doi.org/10. 3391/mbi.2020.11.3.01

Jewell, S.D. and P.L. Fuller 2021 The unsung success of injurious wildlife listing under the Lacey Act. Management of Biological Invasions 2021 Volume 12 Issue 3

Posted by Faith Campbell and Peter Jenkins (former member of CISP’s board and consultant to NECIS and other groups on amphibian disease regulation)

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

Feral pigs – 20 years of APHIS engagement

feral hogs in state wildlife area, Florida; photo by Craig Oneal via Flickr

Most invasive species detection and control programs suffer from inadequate funding. Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) are the exception. True, feral hogs are widely considered among the most damaging of invasive species. They are conspicuous. And they cause damage to agricultural crops – thus energizing a politically powerful constituency. (The extent of that damage is open to question; see my discussion below.) Can we learn from the political success of this program to build support for countering other invasive species?

[Several forest pests are also listed as among the “100 worst” invasive species: Asian longhorned beetle, chestnut blight, gypsy or spongy moths, Dutch elm disease, Phytopthora cinnamomi. Many invasive plant species present in the United States are also listed. These bioinvaders have not elicited the same level of response.]

According to a US Department of Agriculture report (USDA 2018), feral hogs only recently spread throughout the United States. In 1982, they were thought to inhabit only a small percentage of counties in 17 states. As of 2018, they were recognized as present in ~ 43% of all counties in the country; those counties were in 38 states and three US territories. USDA APHIS lists the following impacts from feral hog activities: damage to crops (including tree seedlings), livestock pastures and feed supplies, other kinds of property, and natural resources. In addition, feral pigs might transmit disease to the human food supply and possibly to livestock, and occasionally threaten public safety. In response, APHIS proposed to develop a national response. The goal was to reduce the risks and damages and encourage better coordination among the states and with Canada and Mexico. Since environmental conditions and laws vary among states, APHIS provides resources and expertise while allowing operational flexibility. The early focus was on primarily northern states where eradication was considered viable. By 2019, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, and New York had been declared “pig free”.

The Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program was officially established as by the 2018 Farm Bill. It was funded at $75 million over the five-year life of the 2018 Farm Bill – or ~$15 million per year. The program is implemented jointly by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and APHIS. According to the website, USDA focused these efforts where feral swine pose the highest threat.

APHIS has published a report covering the initial 2014 – 2018 program. I expect they will shortly publish a report covering 2018- 2023. My quick review of the available but outdated report shows that nearly all the pig removal projects funded by the program aimed to protect property, particularly agriculture. Protection of natural resources benefited from far fewer projects. The states funding natural resource  projects most generously were Washington (92% of projects!); Illinois (62%); Nevada (48%); Florida (47%); Idaho and Missouri (both at 44%); Wisconsin and New Hampshire (both at 41%); Ohio (35%); Utah (34%); and Arizona (32%). Some of the Western states have considerable land managed by federal agencies; this might explain their relative focus on natural resources. Pennsylvania allocated only 1% of its projects to protecting natural resources. West Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands allocated none. I hope this tilt lessens in more recent years – although the program will clearly always be focused on agriculture.

There were no programs in five states: Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Note that the summary of the draft Senate Farm Bill says this program would be funded at $75 million per year in future. This would increase funding 15 fold. I think this is probably a mistake in writing the summary; that the total funding would continue to be $75 million over five years.

I also reviewed the annual report issued by the APHIS Wildlife Services program’s National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC). The Center lists 17 publications by NWRC staff and cooperators dealing with various aspects of feral pig management [other than swine fever transmission]. Topics included feral pigs’ social structure; factors that influence reproductive rates; factors that influence efficacy of bait/trap programs; in-field methods to determine animal’s weight; and the extent to which hunters, farmers and the public accept various control techniques.

feral hog damage in a corn field; photo by Craig Hicks, USDA APHIS

Two of the studies – Didero et al. and VerCauteren et al. – aim to answer a fundamental economic question of feral hog management: how to determine the level of damage feral hogs cause to agricultural crops. Interestingly, authors of both studies conclude that existing data do not allow that determination. According to VerCauteren et al., understanding of wild pig damage is limited largely to one kind of damage — rooting – as it affects some natural resources (e.g., wetlands), some crops (e.g., grains, nuts, and beans), and some property (e.g., golf courses and cemeteries). They found few reports documenting damage from other behaviors or effects on pasture, livestock, sensitive species, public recreation spaces, and historical sites. Furthermore, they could not generalize the findings of even those studies that attempt to link the level of damage to pig population density. This is because these studies use many different metrics. They say that designing studies to capture the full scope of damage even in a local area will be complex because of the variety of resources at risk and of mechanisms by which damage might occur (e.g., rooting, consuming plants or animals, wallowing …). VerCauteren et al. suggest specific approaches that should be applied in future studies so that economic estimates will be consistent, shareable, and repeatable. I encourage you to read the articles to learn details of what is known about feral hog damage.  

I rejoice that one set of NWRS studies focuses on Missouri.  As I have blogged previously, Missouri has operated an aggressive program since the 1990s. I appreciate that APHIS is trying to learn how Missouri officials determined which approaches work best, and built support for the program among farmers, landowners, hunters, etc.

NWRC staff and cooperators also studied some other issues relating to invasive species impacts.  One study sought to predict the level of suppression of brown treesnakes that must be achieved to protect birds that might be reintroduced on Guam. A second study sought to find out whether invasive coqui frogs can survive in the colder climates of high elevations in Hawai`i. There is concern that the frogs might compete with native birds for food.  

SOURCES

Didero, N.M., K.H. Ernst, S.C. McKee, and S.A. Shwiff. 2023. A call and suggested criteria for standardizing economic estimates of wild pig damage. Crop Protection 165:106149. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106149

United States Department of Agriculture National Feral Swine Damage Management Program Five Year Report FY14 – FY18

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services. 2024. Innovative Solutions to Human Wildlife Conflicts. National Wildlife Research Center Accomplishments, 2023.

VerCauteren, K.C., K.M. Pepin, S.M. Cook, S. McKee, A. Pagels, K.J. Kohen, I.A. Messer, M.P. Glow,  N.P. Snow. 2024. What is known, unknown, and needed to be known about damage caused by wild pigs. Biol Invasions (2024) 26:1313–1325          https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-024-03263-z

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

or

www.fadingforests.org

Europe outlaws “ecocide”

American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus); photo by Will Brown via Wikimedia; one of invasive animals deliberately introduced to Europe in the past

In February 2024 the European Parliament approved legislation outlawing “ecocide” and providing sanctions for environmental crimes. Member states now have two years to enshrine its provisions in national law.

The new rules update the list of environmental crimes adopted in 2008 and enhance the sanctions. The goal is to ensure more effective enforcement. Listed among the offenses are:

  • the import and use of mercury and fluorinated greenhouse gases,
  • the import of invasive species,
  • the illegal depletion of water resources, and
  • pollution caused by ships.

This action followed an in-depth analysis of the failures of the previous EU environmental directive, first adopted in 2008 (Directive 2008/99/EC). The review found that:

  • The Directive had little effect on the ground.
  • Over the 10 years since its adoption few environmental crime cases were successfully investigated and sentenced.
  • Sanction levels were too low to dissuade violations.
  • There had been little systematic cross-border cooperation.

EU Member states were not enforcing the Directive’s provisions. They had provided insufficient resources to the task. They had not developed the needed specialized knowledge and public awareness. They were not sharing information or coordinating either among individual governments’ several agencies or with neighboring countries.

The review found that poor data hampered attempts by both the EU body and national policy-makers to evaluate the Directive’s efficacy.

The new Directive attempts to address these weaknesses. To me, the most important change is that complying with a permit no longer frees a company or its leadership from criminal liability. These individuals now have a “duty of care”. According to Antonius Manders, Dutch MEP from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), if new information shows that actions conducted under the permit are “causing irreversible damage to health and nature – you will have to stop.” This action reverses the previous EU environmental crime directive – and most member state laws. Until now, environmental crime could be punished only if it is unlawful; as long as an enterprise was complying with a permit, its actions would not be considered unlawful. Michael Faure, a professor of comparative and international environmental law at Maastricht University, calls this change revolutionary.

Lorton Prison; via Flickr

Another step was to make corporate leadership personally liable to penalties, including imprisonment. If a company’s actions cause substantial environmental harm, the CEOs and board members can face prison sentences of up to eight years. If the environmental harm results in the death of any person, the penalty can be increased to ten years.  

Financial penalties were also raised. Each Member state sets the fines within certain parameters. Fines may be based on either a proportion of annual worldwide turnover (3 to 5%) or set at a fixed fine (up to 40 million euros). Companies might also be obliged to reinstate the damaged environment or compensate for the damage caused. Companies might also lose their licenses or access to public funding, or even be forced to close.

Proponents of making ecocide the fifth international crime at the International Criminal Court argue that the updated directive effectively criminalizes “ecocide” — defined as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”

Individual member states also decide whether the directive will apply to offences committed outside EU borders by EU companies.

Some members of the European Parliament advocate for an even stronger stance: creation of a public prosecutor at the European Union level. They hope that the Council of Europe will incorporate this idea during its ongoing revision of the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. To me, this seems unlikely since the current text of the Convention, adopted by the Council in 1998, has never been ratified so it has not come into force.

The Council of Europe covers a wider geographic area than the European Union – 46 member states compared to 27. Members of the Council of Europe which are not in the EU include the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania; several mini-states, e.g., Monaco and San Remo; and countries in arguably neighboring regions, e.g., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.

While I rejoice that invasive species are included in the new Directive, I confess that I am uncertain about the extent to which this inclusion will advance efforts to prevent spread. The species under consideration would apparently have to be identified by some European body as “invasive” and its importation restricted. As we know, many of the most damaging species are not recognized as invasive before their introduction to a naïve environment. On the other side, the requirement that companies recognize new information and halt damaging actions – even when complying with a permit! – provides for needed flexibility.

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

or

www.fadingforests.org

Birds v. mosquitoes: hope in Hawai`i

‘i‘iwi (Drepanis coccinea) – formerly very common from low to high elevations; photo by James Petruzzii_U

The endangered honeycreepers (birds) of Hawaiian forests are receiving the attention they deserve – and desperately need. There is good news! Promising and significant efforts are under way, matched to a recent strategic plan.  However, it is too early to know their results.

Nearly two and a half years ago, I blogged about efforts by a multi-agency consortium (“Birds, Not Mosquitoes” ). It was working to suppress populations of non-native mosquitoes, which vector two lethal diseases: avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) and avian pox virus (Avipoxvirus). A single bite from an infected mosquito is enough to weaken and kill birds of some species, e.g., the ‘i‘iwi.

The threats from these diseases – and their spread to higher elevations as mosquitoes respond to climate change – pile on top of – other forms of habitat loss and inroads by other invasive species. All of the 17 species of honeycreeper that have persisted until now are listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Four are in danger of extinction within as little as 1 – 2 years. These are ‘Akeke`e (Loxops caeruleirostris), ‘Akikiki (Oreomsytis bairdi)), Kiwikiu (Maui parrotbill, (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), and `Akohekohe (Palmeria dolei).

Akikiki; photo by Carter Atkinson, USGS

All these bird species are endemic to the Hawaiian archipelago — found nowhere else on Earth. They are already remnants. Nearly 80 bird species have gone extinct since people first colonized the Hawaiian Islands 1,500 years ago. Eight of these extinctions were recognized in October 2021.  Extinction of the final cohort would compromise the integrity of unique ecosystems as well as the Islands’ natural and cultural heritage.

I rejoice to report that the federal government has responded to the crisis. In late 2022 several Interior Department agencies adopted a multiagency Strategy for Preventing the Extinction of Hawaiian Forest Birds. The strategy specifies responsibilities for the key components of the program. These include: a) planning and implementing landscape-level mosquito control using Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT); b) translocating birds to higher elevation sites on other Hawaiian islands; c)  establishing captive populations of at-risk birds; and d) developing next-generation tools that increase the scope or efficacy of these actions. All these activities are being developed and conducted through intensive consultation with Native Hawaiians.

On August 8, 2023, the Secretary of Interior announced the allocation of $15,511,066 for conservation and recovery efforts for Hawaiian forest birds. About $14 million of the total was from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117-58). The funds are being channelled primarily through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ($7.5 million) and the National Park Service (NPS) ($6 million). Other sources of funding are the “State of the Birds” Program (FWS – $963,786); the national-level competitive Natural Resource grants program (NPS – $450,000); and the Biological Threats Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS – $100,000).

What Is Under Way

I do worry continuing these efforts will be harder once their funding is subject to annual appropriations. However, they are a good start!

Steps have been taken on each of the four key component of the Strategy for Preventing the Extinction of Hawaiian Forest Birds:  

a) Planning and implementing landscape-level mosquito control using Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT – see below) to reduce the mosquito vector of avian malaria.

  • The Consortium has obtained all necessary state permits, regulatory approval of the approach by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and done required consultations under the Endangered Species Act.
  • The Department of the Interior has funded a public-private partnership between the National parks and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to develop, test, and carry out the first deployments of IIT. These occurred in May 2023 at high-elevation sites on the island of Maui. The next releases are planned for Kaua`i.
  • Consortium participants are carrying out the consultations and scientific preparations need to support the next deployment on the Big Island.

b) Translocating birds to higher elevation sites on the one island where they exist – Hawai`i.

  • Initial planning has begun to guide translocation of the endangered Kiwikiu (Maui parrotbill) and Akohekohe to higher-elevation, mosquito-free, habitats on the Big Island.

c) Establishing captive populations of the most at-risk species

  • To facilitate captive breeding of the four most endangered species, the two existing aviaries in Hawai`i need to be expanded. Space must be provided for at least 80 more birds. A contract has been signed for construction of this new aviary space.

d) Developing next-generation tools that increase the scope or efficacy of these actions.

  • Lab capacity has been expanded to monitor the effectiveness of IIT, as well as for developing next-generation mosquito control tools.
those who decide funding work here … & they work for us!!!!

The Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT) explained

The incompatible insect technique has been used successfully elsewhere to combat mosquitoes that transmit human diseases. Many insect taxa – including mosquitoes – harbor a naturally-occurring bacteria (Wolbachia). This bacterium has more than one strain or type. When a male mosquito with one type of Wolbachia mates with a female mosquito bearing a different, incompatible type, resulting eggs do not hatch. The IIT project releases male mosquitoes that have an incompatible strain of the bacterium than do local females. (Male mosquitoes do not bite animals seeking a blood meal, so releasing them does not increase the threat to either birds or people.) Implementation requires repeat treatment of sites at a cost of more than $1 million per site per year. It is hoped that this cost will fall with more experience.

Funding for the Strategy’s Four Components

As I noted above, much of the funding for these efforts has come from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117-58). Grants under this one-time statute are intended to cover project costs for perhaps five years. Other sources of funds are Congressional appropriations to Interior Department agencies under programs which presumably will continue to be funded in future years. These include the “State of the Birds” program; Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation, especially its §6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund; and State Wildlife Grants administered by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. However, funding under these programs is never guaranteed and competition is fierce. I hope participants – and the rest of us! – can be effective in lobbying for future funds required to save Hawaii’s birds from extinction.

a) Deploying IIT

Over Fiscal Years 2017 – 2021 (ending September 2021), Interior Department agencies supported the IIT program by:

  • Providing $948,000  to the State of Hawai`i from “State of the Birds”, State Wildlife Grants, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) §6;
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  provided $545,000 plus staff time’ 
  • National Park Service  provided $1.2 million for IIT preparations at Haleakala National Park and surrounding state and Nature Conservancy lands
  • U.S. Geological Survey provided about $7.05 million in research on Hawaiian forest birds, invasive mosquitoes, and avian malaria.

The State of Hawai’i allocated $503,000 and employee staff time.

In addition,

  • the National Fish and Wildlife Fund provided a total of $627,000 in grants to TNC and American Bird Conservancy for Wolbachia IIT.
  • TNC committed to supporting some of the initial costs to deploy Wolbachia IIT for the first site in Hawai`i through a contractor (see below)
  • American Bird Conservancy provided funding for coordination and public outreach.

In FY2022 (which ended in September 2022),

  • NPS provided $6 million for on-the-ground work on Maui, also development and initial production of Wolbachia IIT.
  • Interior Department Office of Native Hawaiian Relations provided in-kind services to engage with Native communities’ members

b) Moving endangered birds to mosquito-free areas at high elevations on the Big Island

This is planned to begin by 2030. Interior committed unspecified funds to planning and consultation with Native Hawaiians.

c) Rearing captive birds

 FWS supports operation of the two existing aviaries through two funding channels: $700,000 annually provided directly to the aviaries, plus another $500,000 per year through ESA §6through the State of Hawai`i. The San Diego Zoo – which operates the aviaries — provides $600,000 – $800,000 per year in the form of in-kind services, staffing, veterinarians, and administrative support. Interior’s Office of Native Hawaiian Relations provided in-kind services to support to engagement with Native Hawaiian community members

d) Regarding exploration of “next-generation” mosquito control tools

The FWS provided $60,000 to a scientific laboratory to study precision-guided Sterile Insect Technique (pgSIT) tools to protect bird species threatened by avian malaria.

Funding for the portions of these programs dependent upon annual appropriations is uncertain. Current signs are promising: House and Senate bills to fund for the current year (Fiscal Year 2024) – which began in October 2023! – both support at least some aspects of the program. According to American Bird Conservancy, the Senate appropriations bill has allocated $2.5 million to parts of the program. According to the Committee report, the House appropriations bill allots $4.7 million to the State of the Birds program to respond to urgent needs of critically endangered birds. The report goes on to direct the FWS to “incorporate adaptation actions into new and revised recovery plans and recovery implementation strategies, such as with the mosquito vector of avian pox & malaria in the revised Hawaiian Forest Birds recovery plan. …” Per the report, the Appropriations Committee “continues to encourage the [NPS] to respond to the urgent landscape-scale needs of critically endangered forest birds with habitats in national parks.” The report then specifies species threatened by non-native mosquitoes carrying avian malaria and other pathogens. Finally, the report allocates $500,000 to the U.S. Geological Survey for research on the Hawaiian forest birds.

Meanwhile, the American Bird Conservancy is preparing to advocate for $20 million for FY25 through “State of the Birds” Activities and associated NPS and USGS programs. The details of this amount have not yet been laid out.

CISP will support this request and urges you to do so also. We will suggests ways to help when we know more.

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

or

www.fadingforests.org