Marketing and
Regulatory
Programs
Animal and
Plant Health
Inspection Service
Co operating State
Departments of
Agriculture
Emerald Ash Borer
Program Manual
Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire)
ii Emerald
Ash Borer Program Manual, Agrilus planipennis
(Fairmaire), ver. 1.
6
P
repared by:
J
ames H. Buck, Ph.D.
USDA APHIS PPQ Program Analyst
Emerald Ash Borer Program
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Considerable assistance, guidance, and review of sections in this Program Manual was
contributed by: Joseph Beckwith, Philip Bell, Paul Chaloux, Kevin Dodds, Jody Feliciano,
Joel Floyd, Paula Henstridge, Craig Kellogg, Sharon Lucik, Deborah McPartlan, Michelle
Mikula, Elizabeth Pentico, Michael Stefan , Ken Witt, and Dr. James Zablotny. Camille
Chapman also assisted with formatting.
Cite this report as follows: USDA–APHIS. 2015. Emerald Ash Borer Program
Manual,
Agrilus planipennis ( Fairmaire) USDA–APHIS –PPQ–Emergency
and Domestic Programs–Emergency Planning, Riverdale, Maryland.
Revised December 2015
C
over Illustration: Joel Floyd
CONTENTS
AC
KNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
C
ONTENTS iii
LI
ST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vi
1
) INTRODUCTION a) Purpose 1.1
b) Disclaimers 1.1
c) Program Safety 1.1
d) Support for Program Decision- Making 1.1
2
) PEST INFORMATION a) Systematic Placement 2.1
b) Background Information 2.1
c) Historical Information 2.1
d) Economic Impact 2.3
e) Host Range 2.4
f) Geographic D istribution 2.4
g) Biology 2.4
h) Life Cycle 2.5
i) Development 2.6
3
) IDENTIFICATION a) Importance 3.1
b) Authorities 3.1
c) Identification 3.1
d) Similar Species 3.4
e) Collection and Preparation of Specimens 3.8
f) Screening for Suspect Buprestidae and S pecimen Submission 3.9
4
) RESPONSE PROCEDURES a)Introduction 4.1
b) Consultation 4.1
c) N
ew State Detection 4.1
d) Identification by APHIS Identifier 4.1
e) Confirmation by SEL 4.1
f) Public Declaration and SPRO Memo 4.1
g) Radial Delimiting Survey 4.2
h) Analysis of Survey Data 4.2
i) Community Management Plan 4.2
j) Biological Control 4.2
iii
k) Eradication 4.2
l) Currently 4.3
m) Long Range Management Options 4.3
5) SURVEY PROCEDURES
a) Introduction 5.1
b) Trace Back and Trace Forward Investigations 5.1
c) General Detection Surveys 5.1
d) Visual Survey 5.2
e ) Symptoms of EAB Infestations 5.3
f ) Delimiting Survey 5.5
g ) Destructive Sampling 5.6
h) Monitoring Survey 5.6
i ) Survey Sample Collection 5.6
j ) Quality Control for Survey Activities 5.6
6) REGULATORY PROCEDURES
a) Instructions to Officers 6.1
b) Authorities 6.1
c) Regu lating the Spread of EAB 6.1
d) Regulated Articles 6.2
e) Approved Regulatory Treatments 6.2
f ) Quarantine Boundaries 6.3
g) Regulatory Management of Outlying Infestations 6.4
h) Reg ulated Establishments 6.4
i) Princip al Regulatory Activities 6.5
j) Inves tigations and Violations 6.6
k) Regulatory Records 6.6
l) Quality Control 6.6
m) Outreach 6.6
n) Special Regulatory Operations 6.6
o) Issuing an Emergency Action Noti fication 6.6
p) Regulatory Forms 6.7
7) MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
a) Overview 7.1
b) Community Preparedness Planning 7.1
c ) Biological Control 7.2
d) Chemical Control 7.4
e) Eradication Criteria 7.4
8) ENVIRONMENTA L COMPLIANCE
a) Overview 8.1
b) Disclaimer 8.1
c) Protected Species 8.1
d) E nvironmental Assessment 8.1
iv
9) PUBLIC OUTREACH a) Introduction 9.1
b) Gen eral Outreach Objectives 9.1
c) General Outreach Acti vities and Initiatives 9.2
d) Outreach Material 9.3
e) Telephone H otline 9.3
f) Web Site 9.3
g) Public Meetings or Informational Open Houses 9.3
h) Media Relations 9.4
10) REFERENCES 10.1
11) DEFINITIONS 11.1
12) APPENDICES
Appendix A - Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire) Screening Aid A -1
Appendix B - Emerald Ash Borer Larval Screening Guide B -1
Appendix C – Emerald Ash Borer Program Contacts C -1
Appendix D – Information Packet D -1
Appendix E – Guidance on Conducting Select Regulatory Activities in the Emerald Ash Borer Program E -1
Appendix F – Useful Sources to Identify Regulatory Concerns F -1
Appendix G – PPQ Form 518 (Report of Violation) G -1
Appendix H – PPQ Form 523 (Emergency Action Notification) H -1
Appendix I – PPQ Form 530 (Limited Permit) I- 1
Appendix J – PPQ Form 540 (Certificate) J -1
Appendix K - Passive dispersal pathways of emerald ash borer,
Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire), (Coleoptera: Buprestidae)
identified by USDA APHIS PPQ EAB Program K -1
Appendix L - Standard Operating Procedur e (SOP) for Domestic
Transport of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Host Logs to Ports
of Export L-1
v
TABLES AND FIGURES PAGE
Figure 2. 1 Emerald ash borer life cycle 2.5
Figure 3.1 Agrilus planipennis egg on bark 3.1
Figure 3.2 A. planipennis egg cluster 3.1
Figure 3.3 Unhatched Agrilus planipennis neonate on bark 3.2
Figure 3.4 Three instars of A. planipennis larvae 3.2
Figure 3.5 Anterior abdominal segments 3.2
Figure 3.6 Posterior abdominal segments 3.3
Figure 3.7 Agrilus planipennis prepupal stage 3.3
Figure 3.8 Pupal ventral and dorsal views 3.3
Figure 3.9 Agrilus planipennis adult 3.4
Figure 3.10 Agrilus anxius and A. bilineatus adults 3.5
Figure 3.11 Agrilus bilineatus and A. cyanescens adults 3.6
Figure 3.12 Agrilus masculinus and A. vittaticollis adults 3.7
Figure 3.13 Emerald Ash Borer: Specimen Processing and Communication
Protocol (Form 391) 3.10
Figure 5.1 Symptoms of EAB on Fraxinus s pp. 5.3
Figure 5.2 Symptoms of EAB on Fraxinus spp. 5.4
Table 6.1 Interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas 6.2-6.3
vi
1. Introduction Emerald Ash Borer
Purpose The Emerald Ash Borer Program Manual contain s information to guide
a management program for the emerald ash borer (EAB) beetle, Agrilus
planipennis (Fair maire), (Coleoptera : Buprestidae ).
The g uidelines are intended to assist Plant Protection and Quarantine
field operations and cooperators in implementing specific action plans
to manage infestations and prevent the spread of EAB to other locations.
Th is information provide s strategies for detection and response to an
infestation of EAB by presenting available information for
implementing general and delimiting surveys , identification, regulatory,
management , or containment procedures . Specific program acti vity
should be based on information a vailable at that time.
Plant Protectio n and Quarantine (PPQ) develops guidelines through
discussion, consultation, or agreement with other Animal and Plant
Health Inspe ction Service (APHIS) staff, State Plant Regulatory
Officia ls (SPRO) , U.S. Forest Se rvice, T ribal governments, and other
S tate and Federal agencies and cooperators directly involved in EAB
management . The APHIS Emergency Response Programs Manual and
other pest national response guidelines may be found at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/emergenc
y/index.shtml
Disclaimers Document comprehensiveness: This document is not intended to be
complete and exhaustive, but a foundation based on literature available
to assist future EAB control efforts. As ongoing research and program
efforts provide new information, the direction and strategies of the
manual may change to reflect the best management practices for the
control of EAB. For the latest updates on this pest, it is recommended
to conduct periodic literature search es on the web and in other archives .
Commercial Suppliers or Products: References to commercial
suppliers or products should not be construed as an endorsement of the
company or product by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Program Safety Safety of the public and program personnel has priority in preprogram
planning and training, and throughout operations. Safety officers and
supervisors must enforce on- the-job safety procedures.
Support for
Program Decision-
Making
The USDA APHIS PPQ Center for Plant Health, Science and
Technology ( CPHST) provides technical support, in consultation with
other scientists, to emergency pest response program directors
concerning risk assessments, survey methods, management strategies,
regulatory treatments, and other aspects of the pest response program.
1.1
2. Pest Information Emerald Ash Borer
2.1
Systematic
Placement
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Coleoptera
Family: Buprestidae
Genus: Agrilus
Species: planipennis
Entomological Author: Fairmaire,
Léon Marc Herminie
Approved Name: Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire)
Synonyms: Agrilus marcopoli (Obenberger 1930)
Agrilus marcopoli ulmi (Kurosawa 1956)
Agrilus feretrius (Obenberger 1936)
Common Names: emerald ash borer (English)
agrile du frêne (French)
изумрудная ясеневая златка (Russian)
Background
Information Emerald ash borer (EAB) is a non-native phloem-feeding pest of North
American ash trees. This devastating pest was first found in 2002 in
North America where it was discovered in southeastern Michigan and
adjacent areas in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. It is thought to have been
introduced in the 1990’s on solid wood packing material originating
from Asia.
This extremely destructive beetle poses an enormous threat to all of
North America’s ash resources. Unlike many other wood boring
beetles, EAB aggressively kills healthy and stressed trees; many dying
within two to three years after becoming infested. Currently, EAB has
no known effective natural enemies in North America. If it is not
contained or its effects mitigated, this pest will continue to infest and
kill all species of trees in the genus Fraxinus. The impact on ash in
North America has been compared to the effects of chestnut blight and
Dutch elm disease, which devastated rural and urban forests in the 20
th
century.
Historical
Information
Upon initial detection in 2002, only two short papers occurred in the
literature: Chinese Academy of Science (1986) and Yu (1992). These
papers include brief morphology, biology, host range, and symptoms of
infestation.
In 2002, shortly after EAB was confirmed as the cause of significant ash
tree mortality observed in Detroit, Michigan, five counties were found
to be infested and were placed under quarantine. Since that time,
APHIS, U.S. Forest Service, State, and local cooperators have
2. Pest Information Emerald Ash Borer
2.2
conducted survey, control, and eradication activities. Efforts included
imposing quarantines, conducting surveys, delimiting areas around
confirmed infested sites, removing ash trees, and developing
information which will support management efforts. Lack of effective
survey and control technology made containment efforts challenging.
Intensive visual survey efforts in 2003 expanded this area by 12
additional counties in Michigan. After intensive survey efforts in
northern Ohio, EAB was discovered in three counties. Additionally,
due to a 2002 Michigan quarantine violation involving nursery stock,
control actions were implemented in Maryland and Virginia in 2003.
Survey for emerald ash borer (EAB) has undergone an evolution of
tactics, scope, and application since its discovery in 2002. Survey was
originally based on visually detectable symptoms (exit holes, bark
cracks, epicormic branching, woodpecker feeding sites, etc.) to
determine presence or absence of EAB. Visual survey was applied at
various levels of intensity and with various techniques (e.g., ground
surveys, ladders, climbing devices, bucket trucks). Overall results were
poor and newly infested areas were often left undiscovered. It soon
became apparent that destructive sampling of suspect trees was
necessary.
Artificially stressed (girdled) trap trees offered an alternative to visual
survey and were adopted program-wide in 2005. This technique was an
improvement for defining or delimiting the extent of an EAB infestation
and was used to evaluate areas treated for EAB (eradication cuts). Trap
trees, however, are expensive to establish and evaluate, and offer
liability problems for workers and the public. Uniformity of survey is
also an issue because of difference in size, species, and locations of trees
as well as methodology and timing of stressing prior to adult flight.
Continued developments in trap and lure design enabled the EAB
Program to implement a survey based on attractant-baited traps in 2008.
Traps offer several advantages over trap trees including lower cost,
uniformity of sampling unit, greater safety, fewer logistical problems,
and more precision in sampling. Based on the positive results and
feedback from the trap-based 2008 through 2012 surveys, APHIS’s
2013 EAB survey will again use the purple prism traps.
Beginning in 2012, trap placement was based on a survey sampling
design developed in collaboration between the APHIS EAB Program
and the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Health Technology Enterprise
Team (FHTET). Beginning with the 2015 survey, the Center for Plant
Health Science and Technology constructed an improved risk-based
sampling design which employs several different models to achieve a
2. Pest Information Emerald Ash Borer
2.3
greater likelihood of detecting EAB. This computer-generated EAB
survey sampling design product combines a scientific model of the
likelihood of detecting EAB with historical program data and regulatory
knowledge. Very simply stated, the survey sampling design model will
pre-select geographic locations (cells) to deploy
EAB traps resulting in the
highest probability of pest detection.
As of February 2015, EAB infestations have been detected in 25 states;
Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin. Strategies to manage the pest currently focus on survey
activities using a detection tool, a trap, along with regulatory activities
and public awareness campaigns to prevent human-assisted movement.
Outreach efforts have emphasized “Don’t Move Firewood”, as firewood
movement is a primary method of human-assisted spread for this pest.
APHIS continues to identify effective tools to manage and control EAB
populations and works to develop a biological control program.
Economic Impact The eastern United States produces nearly 114 million board feet of ash
saw timber with a value of $25.1 billion (McPartlan et al. 2006). White,
black, and green ash make up over 7 percent of all hardwood species
and 5.5 percent of all tree species in the northeastern United States and
eastern Canada. The wood is used for a variety of applications
including tool handles, baseball bats, furniture, cabinetry, solid wood
packing materials, pulp, and paper. The continued spread of this pest
threatens these resources and may permanently alter landscape
ecosystems of the Midwest, which consists of up to 20 to 40 percent ash
in some areas.
There is potential for extensive negative economic effects if this wood-
borer were to become widespread in the United States. If left
unchecked, EAB will continue to infest and destroy ash trees, resulting
in the losses of millions of dollars to the lumber and nursery industries
as well as urban communities. Preliminary findings by U.S. Forest
Service estimate that EAB’s potential impact to the national urban
landscape is a potential loss of between 0.5 to 2 percent of the total leaf
area (30-90 million trees) and a value loss of between $20-60 billion
(McPartlan et al. 2006).
Infested States may experience significant economic losses in forest
products if EAB spreads from the currently quarantined area.
Quarantines imposed by State and Federal agencies have negative
impacts on the nursery, landscaping, timber, recreation, and tourism
industries which are economically important to the region.
