Language selection

Search

RMD–22-03: Pest Risk Management Decision Document: Risk management for spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula White)

Preface

As described by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) process includes three stages: initiation, pest risk assessment and pest risk management. Initiating the PRA process involves identifying pests and pathways of concern and defining the PRA area. The pest risk assessment stage provides the scientific basis for the overall management of risk. The pest risk management stage is the process of identifying and evaluating potential mitigation measures which may be applied to reduce the identified pest risk to acceptable levels and selecting appropriate measures.

This Risk Management Document (RMD) includes a summary of the findings of a pest risk assessment and records the pest risk management process for the identified issue. It is consistent with the principles, terminology and guidelines provided in the IPPC standards for pest risk analysis.

On this page

Executive Summary

In 2014, spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula (White)) was first detected within the United States (U.S.) in the state of Pennsylvania and has since spread to 14 eastern U.S. states. This includes recent infestations declared in Oakland County, Michigan (August, 2022) and in Erie County, New York (September, 2022) in close proximity to the Niagara, Ontario wine production region along the Canada-U.S. border.

Based on the best available risk intelligence, it is predicted that spotted lanternfly (SLF), a regulated pest for Canada, will be a major pest for Canada's grape and fruit tree industry and also negatively impact the nursery and forestry sectors.

Spotted lanternfly could be introduced to Canada in numerous ways, including on plant commodities such as nursery stock and forestry products, and on things that are not plants or plant products including conveyances, shipping containers and household goods.

Due to the proximity of the pest and the numerous possible pathways of entry, the risk of introduction to Canada is considered very high. The CFIA is working proactively to delay introduction while also preparing to respond when this pest arrives, using risk intelligence to inform the CFIA's risk management and risk communication efforts. 

This document presents the risk management options, published for consultation from December 2022 to February 2023, for the plant commodities considered to pose the highest risk for introduction of SLF to Canada, logs with bark and nursery stock, and CFIA's decision for managing these pathways. Based on the risk assessment, and after analyzing all comments that were received, the CFIA has decided to move forward with option 4 for logs with bark, with the exception of coniferous logs, and option 3 for nursery stock. In both cases, domestic measures will mirror import requirements when SLF regulated areas are established in Canada.

Once finalized, the specific domestic and import requirements for SLF will be available to the public through the CFIA website and the CFIA's Automated Import Reference System (AIRS).

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to communicate the CFIA's decision for managing the risk of Lycorma delicatula, spotted lanternfly (SLF) in Canada and the pest risk management options that were considered.

Definitions, abbreviations and acronyms

Definitions for terms used in this document can be found in the Plant Health Glossary of Terms and the IPPC Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms.

Reproducing population
"Reproducing population" means that there is biological evidence indicating successful reproduction and establishment within the natural environment.
Nursery stock
For the purpose of this directive "nursery stock" is defined as any propagative woody plant material, both rooted and unrooted.

Background and pest risk assessment summary

This Risk Management Document (RMD) summarizes the pest risk assessment that was completed in 2014 and updated in 2021.Footnote 5 The update in 2021 gathered and summarized new information about the distribution in the United States, and re-evaluated elements of the original risk assessment based on current information, including risk posed by forestry products such as logs.

SLF is native to China, India, Taiwan, and Vietnam.Footnote 11Footnote 16 In 2014, SLF was first detected within the United States (U.S.) in the state of Pennsylvania and has since spread to 14 eastern U.S. states. This includes recent infestations declared in Oakland County, Michigan (August, 2022) and New York State where an interception was found in Buffalo, NY in September, 2022, across the border from the Niagara wine region in Ontario, Canada. Currently, no species of Lycorma are present in Canada, and all other known species are distributed in Asia.Footnote 16 The SLF has a distinctive appearance that is unlikely to be confused with other insects occurring in Canada.Footnote 4

Pest biology and host range

SLF is a large planthopper in the order of true bugs, which have piercing sucking mouthparts that are used to drill into the phloem of plants to allow the insect to feed directly on the sap.Footnote 11 SLF has one generation per year. The egg is the overwintering stage. The nymphs begin hatching in May and June and pass through four nymphal stages. The first adults are seen in July and can remain active until December in the U.S.. Egg-laying begins in September and continues until November in Pennsylvania. The life history in the U.S. remains the same as recorded in Asia and is expected to be similar in the areas of Canada at risk for establishment of SLF.

Females lay one to two egg masses, each containing an average of 30–60 eggs that are grouped into vertical rows.Footnote 13Footnote 21 The egg masses are approximately 25 mm long and are covered in a yellowish-brown waxy coating that hardens to form an ootheca. Once hardened, it appears gray and resembles dried mud, often becoming dry and cracked over time.Footnote 13Footnote 30Footnote 31

All life stages of SLF feed on sap from various plant species. Nymphs are highly polyphagous, but as they mature, they reduce their range of preferred hosts. Adults have a narrower host range and are highly attracted to tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima, Simaroubaceae) and a few other preferred species.Footnote 1 The absence of tree-of-heaven in some areas of Canada will not prevent establishment because other hardwoods present in southern Ontario and Quebec, such as silver maple, Acer saccharinum L. (Sapindaceae), weeping willow, Salix babylonica L. (Salicaceae), river birch, Betula nigra L. (Betulaceae)Footnote 32, black walnut Juglans nigra, L. (Juglandaceae) chinaberry Melia azedarach L. (Meliaceae), oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb. (Celastraceae), hops Humulus lupulus L. (Cannabaceae), sawtooth oak Quercus acutissima Carruthers (Fagaceae), butternut Juglans cinerea L (Juglandaceae), and tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifiera L. (Magnoliaceae)Footnote 25 are suitable full-life-cycle hosts, albeit often with reduced ability to survive and reproduce than on preferred hosts.

Tree-of-heaven and black walnut occur in close proximity (<1 km) to vineyards in BC and ON.Footnote 6 In BC, tree-of-heaven occurs within 1 km of vineyards in the Kelowna, Osoyoos, and Penticton areas of the Okanagan. In Ontario, both tree-of-heaven and black walnut occur within 1 km of vineyards in Essex County, Niagara, and the greater Toronto area west of Etobicoke. In Quebec, fewer location records were available for tree-of-heaven and black walnut. None of the available records for tree-of-heaven in Quebec are located within 1 km of vineyards, although there are 2 black walnut locations within 3 km of vineyards just west of Montreal.

SLF has exhibited rapid invasion combined with an increased potential for harmful consequences. Nymphs are highly polyphagous, have been recorded on over 172 host plants worldwideFootnote 2, and many of these are native, cultivated, or alien to Canada. It is believed that the full host list is not fully known yet.Footnote 25 The high activity level of nymphs suggests that even hatchlings are likely to find suitable hosts in Canada, especially in the highest risk areas for establishment.

Canadian areas at risk

The highest risk areas for establishment of SLF in Canada are predicted to be in southern Ontario, the southernmost parts of Quebec and the interior valleys of British Columbia. These areas directly overlay many of the fruit and grape producing areas of Canada. Lee et al.Footnote 22 found that spotted lanternfly eggs are capable of surviving temperatures around -11°C, but below that threshold survival decreases.Footnote 34 ParkFootnote 26 conducted tolerance experiments and found that the instantaneous low lethal temperature causing 100% mortality of L. delicatula eggs was -20 °C, however, 15 days of -10°C and 10 days of -15°C were also sufficiently lethal. Wild-collected egg masses where January minima are below -16°C or January means are under -9°C showed less than 2% hatching success the next spring.Footnote 26 Based on the accumulated evidence, it is unlikely that the SLF will be able to establish in areas in Canada where winter temperatures are routinely below -11°C. Therefore, although egg masses can travel long distances via human-mediated transport, cold temperatures in Canada will likely limit the spread of the insect to relatively warm areas. Ongoing research at Natural Resources Canada is exploring the cold tolerance limit for SLF and the results of this research may more precisely define the potential range for establishment.

Pathways for entry, establishment and spread

There are many possible pathways of introduction for SLF which is an effective hitchhiking pest and can lay its eggs on almost any smooth surface, including plants and non-plant products, and can be present as egg masses from September to May.Footnote 27Footnote 3Footnote 17Footnote 10Footnote 20 The risk of entry for all pathways is mostly linked to the presence of egg masses, which in general, are difficult to detect.Footnote 15 Egg masses can survive long distance transport and cold temperatures. The arrival and establishment of SLF in Pennsylvania, hypothesized to have originated from China, suggests survival of long-distance transport and storage, especially in the egg stage.Footnote 10 All materials that have been outdoors in close proximity to host plants during the egg-laying period represent a risk.

The SLF life cycle revolves around plants, and the primary substrates on which egg masses are laid is the surface of the bark of trees of many plant families.Footnote 23 Whole plants imported as nursery stock or as plants for planting, as well as branches, logs, etc., are likely pathways of entry into Canada. Plants for planting are thought to be the primary source for the entry and original spread of the pest through South Korea.Footnote 19 In SLF infested areas, egg masses have been found not just on plants for planting and logs but also on plant pots, recreational vehicles, camping equipment, patio furniture, fences, building materials, and other items stored outside during the egg laying period. Egg masses have also been detected on conveyances such as shipping containers, trucks and trains.

SLF adults and nymphs are not capable of dispersing significant distances on their own, but they do disperse locally and adults are capable of flying. Adults and nymphs will disperse or drop off of items when disturbed. While hitchhiking adults and nymphs are less likely to survive long-distance transport, both live adults and nymphs have been observed on vehicles and transported goods.

Potential economic consequences

Major economic impacts related to SLF have been realized in the United States. In Pennsylvania, reduced grape quality, yield losses of up to 90% and death of vines have been observed despite significantly increased pesticide applications. In 2019, it was estimated that annual revenue losses may rise from $50 million to $325 million were SLF to infest the entire state of Pennsylvania.Footnote 18

The establishment of SLF in Canada is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those observed in the United States. The Canadian wine and grape industry contribute $9 Billion in economic impact to Canadian economy and almost 96% of the fruit farms in Canada are located in southern Ontario, southwestern British Columbia, southern Quebec and the Maritimes, which covers the same areas predicted as the area of establishment in Canada.

Pest management

In the U.S., the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) and state cooperators are collaboratively implementing a prevention and response program to detect, contain and suppress SLF. State quarantines, at the county level, have been established in some infested states including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. At the state level, management and suppression activities may include surveillance, permit requirements for all commercial movement of regulated articles (including vehicles) outside of state quarantine areas, pesticide applications and certification of plant material. Numerous pesticide products labels have been amended to add SLF in the U.S. and are available for producers, governmental response efforts and the general public.

Despite efforts and available tools, SLF populations have continued to spread in the United States. Where control measures against SLF are available, they have not been sufficient to prevent further establishment. While some measure of SLF control may be observed in crops that are treated regularly, the large host list presents multiple alternative choices of wild untreated plants, assuring local establishment and reintroduction of the pest post-treatment.

Few predators feed on the SLF including praying mantises, spiders and predacious bugs, and the level of predation is not considered high enough to provide reliable control.Footnote 12 Birds avoid them and Song et al.Footnote 29 found that they possess several defenses against predation.

Parasitoids and entomopathogenic fungi have been reported to attack SLF, but so far the level of control in the U.S. is low. The spongy moth parasitoid Ooencyrtus kuvanae (Howard), Encyrtidae can parasitize eggs of SLFFootnote 24, but the level of parasitism is very low.Footnote 12 An epizootic event was recorded in Pennsylvania with high mortality of SLF caused by the entomopathogenic fungi Batkoa major and Beauveria bassiana, but so far this was a localized event.Footnote 7 More recent laboratory bioassays with B. bassiana show 90-93% mortality of SLF nymphs and 82-99% mortality of adults after 14 days.Footnote 8 This study was completed under optimal conditions for infection and future field studies are required to evaluate efficacy under normal, field conditions.

The CFIA established a SLF Technical Advisory Committee in 2021 comprising Federal, Provincial, industry and environmental non-governmental organizations to work to address this pest in areas such as communications, surveillance and response and treatment options.

Limited control options are available in Canada and currently there are no registered pesticides with SLF on the label. Through the SLF Technical Advisory Committee response and treatment working group suitable candidates for emergency use, minor use and full label registration are being determined, however, even after products are identified, label changes can take weeks to months for approval. Therefore, the CFIA is also working with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to determine short term chemical control options while longer term solutions are identified and put into place.

In the absence of pesticide control products, treatment options in Canada would be limited to physical control which could include scraping of egg masses and crushing of nymphs and adults, regulatory controls to slow the spread of the pest and cultural control including removal of host trees.

Pest risk management options

General risk management considerations

Due to the proximity of SLF to Canada, the volume of trade and traffic from areas infested with this pest, and the numerous potential pathways through which egg masses and hitchhiking adults and nymphs are able to spread, it would not be feasible to impose specific requirements on all pathways and products from infested areas in either the United States or within Canada after SLF is established here. Commodity-specific requirements will focus on the highest risk pathways for human assisted movement where risk mitigation measures are anticipated to be most effective, such as the movement of nursery stock and logs with bark. For all other pathways and products, a robust communication strategy will continue to be implemented to raise awareness of SLF and its potential pathways of spread, along with the obligation to report SLF sightings to the CFIA, and the need for risk mitigation measures (such as removal of all life stages) prior to movement of regulated articles out of an SLF regulated area. Outreach will continue to focus on raising awareness with the general public, the transportation sector and importers of goods typically stored in outdoor environments to prevent introduction and spread within Canada. This approach is similar to that taken for spongy moth (Lymantria dispar dispar), a hitchhiking pest which also moves on numerous pathways, mainly through human mediated movement of egg masses.

Given that SLF is a regulated quarantine pest for Canada, should SLF be detected within Canada (no evidence of a reproducing population), the CFIA would consider the implementation of localized regulatory control measures to reduce the immediate risk of spread to the local environment and mitigate the risk of early establishment of the pest. Control measures may include prohibiting the movement of potentially infested articles out of an area where the pest has been detected and/or placing a quarantine on imported articles on which the pest has been detected. Treatment in the form of physical controls or chemical applications may be ordered to render the pest non-viable (depending on the approved treatment options available at the time of the detection). The party in care and control of an infested article or area would be responsible for arranging any treatments ordered and associated costs.

The approach described above to eradicate localized incursions would be taken during the early detection phase in an effort to slow the establishment of SLF in Canada, where control efforts on localized incursions are considered feasible and effective. These determinations may require consultation with relevant provincial authorities. Any regulatory control measures implemented at this stage are intended to be short term and would be removed once the localized incursion is deemed to have been rendered non-viable.

Should SLF be determined to have established within Canada (with confirmation of a reproducing population), CFIA regulatory efforts would move towards slowing the spread of the pest and protecting non-infested areas of Canada. This would be accomplished through the establishment of regulated areas and implementation of domestic movement requirements to facilitate the movement of high risk articles moving out of these areas while mitigating the risk of spread of SLF. During this stage of the response, the CFIA would no longer order treatment in areas where the pest is considered established and any requirements implemented domestically would need to be in alignment with any import requirements established for this pest. The management options being considered for the import and domestic pathways are outlined in the commodity specific management sections of this document. While the detection of egg masses in the environment would be evidence of a reproducing population, there may be other factors that need to be considered to determine establishment.

To manage the movement of regulated articles and slow the spread of SLF should the pest establish within Canada, a series of regulatory tools can be used:

  1. In the immediate stages following establishment, a Notice of Prohibition of Movement (NOP) would be issued for individual properties where SLF has been detected. Regulated articles would be defined on the NOP and movement of these articles out of the area defined on this notice would be prohibited without appropriate risk mitigation measures and written authorization of a CFIA Inspector. The use of an NOP would be recommended for the short term regulatory control of an area to reduce the immediate risk of spread and allow pest mitigation measures to be applied while allowing time for surveillance activities to occur where data can be gathered on pest distribution. As an infested area increases in size and the pest becomes more widely established, issuance of NOPs at the property level becomes less effective. This is due to the numerous pathways by which the pest can travel beyond an individual property, and the resources needed for CFIA to issue and manage those individual notices. However, this tool would be the most effective short-term domestic management option to provide movement controls for SLF within Canada while other long-term regulatory tools are being implemented.
  2. Once a pest is considered established and the pest distribution is known, a Ministerial Order (MO) may be recommended to the Minister to declare an area infested for SLF to manage the movement of regulated articles and slow the spread of the pest through human-mediated pathways. As opposed to regulating by NOP, regulation through an MO would permit regulated articles to move within a larger regulated area without restriction, while prohibiting their movement out of the regulated area without appropriate risk mitigation measures and written authorization of a CFIA Inspector. This is one of the options for longer-term domestic management of SLF within Canada and is anticipated to be recommended to the Minister for SLF due to the potential impacts of this pest, the likelihood of establishment in Canada once the pest is introduced and the need to act quickly to control the human-assisted movement of the pest.
  3. Another strategy for establishing long-term domestic controls is the implementation of a regulated area to manage the movement of regulated articles through revision of Schedule II of the Plant Protection Regulations (PPR). This approach would work in the same way as an MO, but would allow simplified updates when the pest distribution changes over time, as they can be communicated through a published map, in accordance with S. 16 of the Plant protection Act. The initial amendments to add SLF to Schedule II of the PPR could be a lengthy process and would therefore be considered only for long-term regulatory control of SLF.

Commodity specific management options

During the RMD consultation from December 2022 to February 2023, stakeholders were with pest risk management options for the importation of logs with bark from areas of the U.S. infested with SLF and domestic movement options for nursery stock should a regulated area for SLF be established in Canada. Pros and cons are provided below for each proposed option.

Forestry products

Initially, it was thought that the absence of tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima, Simaroubaceae) in some areas of Canada would prevent establishment of SLF. However, new research suggested other hardwoods present in southern Ontario and Quebec, such as silver maple, Acer saccharinum L. (Sapindaceae), weeping willow, Salix babylonica L. (Salicaceae), river birch, Betula nigra L. (Betulaceae)Footnote 32, black walnut Juglans nigra, L. (Juglandaceae) chinaberry Melia azedarach L. (Meliaceae), oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb. (Celastraceae), hops Humulus lupulus L. (Cannabaceae), sawtooth oak Quercus acutissima Carruthers (Fagaceae), butternut Juglans cinerea L (Juglandaceae), and tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifiera L. (Magnoliaceae)Footnote 25 are suitable full-life-cycle hosts of SLF. There are over 100 potential host species of SLF, many of which are important forestry species. SLF is known to lay its eggs on or under the bark of live trees as well as on cut logs and lumber. Of these forest products, unprocessed and untreated logs with bark represent the highest risk for the introduction of SLF when no other risk mitigation measures are applied. Therefore, the following risk management options were considered for the logs with bark pathway imported from the continental U.S.:

Import requirement options for logs with bark
Option 1
  • No implementation of import requirements for logs with bark from areas infested with SLF. (Status quo)

Pros

  • Industry would continue to be able to trade without restrictions or additional phytosanitary requirements.

Cons

  • Increased risk of SLF being introduced to Canada earlier than would be expected through natural spread alone.
  • Earlier establishment of the pest in Canada would lead to increased management costs for the forestry and horticulture industries, as these would need to be applied sooner than would be expected if import controls were in place to slow the spread of SLF.
  • Potential negative trade implications and/or loss of market access to U.S. states or other countries where SLF is not established.
Option 2

Prohibit the importation of all logs with bark from areas infested with SLF.

Pros

  • Gives maximum protection and eliminates the risk of movement of the pest through the logs with bark pathway from areas where the pest has established.

Cons

  • Potential negative impact to trade and Canadian importers. Industry would not be able to import logs with bark from areas infested with SLF and established trade patterns may be lost
  • Does not align with the phytosanitary principles of minimal impact and technical justification, as outlined in International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 1 Phytosanitary principles for the protection of plants and the application of phytosanitary measures in international trade.
  • Unjustified restrictions placed on industry and a barrier to options for safe trade. Given the numerous pathways of human-assisted movement such as vehicles and inanimate objects which cannot feasibly be regulated, prohibiting the movement of logs with bark alone would not adequately address the risk of introduction.
Option 3

Allow for the importation of logs with bark from areas infested with SLF with a phytosanitary certificate attesting to freedom from SLF based on visual inspection or treatment or Canadian importer participation in a CFIA approved SLF risk mitigation program during the low risk period (January to April), prior to SLF egg hatch which begins in May.

Logs being imported from states known to be infested with SLF would be permitted, provided they meet one of the certification options:

  • A phytosanitary certificate, which includes the following additional declaration:
    "The material was inspected and found to be free from spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula."

OR

  • A phytosanitary certificate, indicating in the treatment section that the material was treated to kill spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula, including treatment details.
    • The material must be fumigated with methyl bromide at normal atmospheric pressure, at the rate of 48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 4 hours at 16°C (60°F), or at the rate of 64 g/m3 (4 lbs/1000 ft3) for 4 hours at 4.5 to 15.5°C (40 to 59°F), OR
    • The material must be heat treated to attain a minimum core temperature of 56°C for 30 minutes. The heat treatment process must be verified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in accordance with the USDA-American Lumber Standard Committee (ALSC) Heat Treatment Program for Export.

OR

  • During the low risk period (January to April), prior to egg hatch, allow the importation of logs with bark from areas infested with SLF by CFIA-approved Canadian processing facilities without a phytosanitary certificate.
    • A permit to import would be required
    • Before a permit would be issued, a facility wishing to be recognized as an approved processing facility would need to develop a CFIA-approved Preventative Control Plan (PCP) which addresses storage, bark removal and disposal.
    • All logs imported from areas infested with SLF would be required to have bark removed and processed prior to the start of the emergence of nymphs (by April 30)

In addition to the requirements above, tree species which are regulated for other quarantine pests by Canada would need to meet the requirements as stated in AIRS.

Pros

  • Eliminates the risk of movement (during high risk period) of the pest through the logs with bark pathway from areas where the pest has established.
  • Reduces the regulatory burden on trading partners during a time of low risk of introduction.
  • This option lowers the risk of introduction while maintaining some trade.

Cons

  • CFIA resources will be required to enforce additional import requirements related to this pest, but administration of these activities could be combined with other similar programs (e.g. oak wilt, spongy moth) which would increase efficiency.
  • The Forest industry will have to develop an import program that is labor intensive to move products to areas where the pest has not established and a domestic program to move products from infested areas if the pest becomes established in Canada.
  • Mills south of the St. Lawrence in Quebec rely on year round access to oak logs imported from the U.S. in order to operate. These oak logs are being imported from states where SLF is present. To date, phytosanitary certification by U.S. officials has not been possible for all oak logs. Therefore, these mills would be reliant on participation in the CFIA approved risk mitigation program and would be negatively impacted by only having access to imported logs from January to April and not year-round.
Option 4 (Recommended)

Allow for the importation of logs with bark from areas infested with SLF with a phytosanitary certificate attesting to freedom from SLF based on visual inspection or treatment or participation in a CFIA-approved SLF risk mitigation program throughout the entire year. This option is the same as option 3 but allows for year round importation of logs with bark without phytosanitary certification.

Logs being imported from states known to be infested with SLF would be permitted, provided they meet one of the following certification options:

  • A phytosanitary certificate which includes the following additional declaration:
    "The material was inspected and found to be free from spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula."

OR

  • A phytosanitary certificate indicating in the treatment section that material was treated to kill spotted lanternfly Lycorma delicatula.", including treatment details.
    • The material must be fumigated with methyl bromide at normal atmospheric pressure, at the rate of 48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 4 hours at 16°C (60°F), or at the rate of 64 g/m3 (4 lbs/1000 ft3) for 4 hours at 4.5 to 15.5°C (40 to 59°F), OR
    • The material must be heat treated to attain a minimum core temperature of 56°C for 30 minutes. The heat treatment process must be verified by the USDA, in accordance with the USDA-ALSC Heat Treatment Program for Export.

OR

  • Allow importation of logs from areas infested with SLF by CFIA approved Canadian processing facilities to import forest products with bark attached through out the year.
    • A permit to import would be required
    • Before a permit would be issued, a facility wishing to be recognized as an approved processing facility would need to develop a CFIA approved Preventative Control Plan (PCP) which addresses storage, bark removal and disposal. Logs would be required to have bark removed and processed in a timeframe commensurate with the risk period and PCP measures.
    • In addition the facility should be vigilant and visually examine log shipments upon arrival and immediately report suspect SLF findings to a local CFIA office and treat the shipment in an authorised approved manner.

Pros

  • This option lowers the risk of introduction while maintaining trade.
  • Provides technically justified control measures to slow the human assisted spread of the pest to Canada through the logs with bark pathway.
  • Aligns with the phytosanitary principles of minimal impact and technical justification, as outlined in ISPM 1.
  • Gives adequate protection and significantly reduces the risk of movement of the pest through the logs with bark pathway from areas where the pest has established.
  • Gives two viable options for trade to continue.
  • Could be linked to or combined with an existing PCP for another regulated pest (e.g. oak wilt)

Cons

  • Does not give maximum protection nor completely eliminate the risk of movement (during high risk period) of the pest through the logs with bark pathway from areas where the pest has established.
  • CFIA resources will be required to enforce additional import and domestic movement requirements related to this pest, but administration of these activities could be combined with other similar programs (e.g. oak wilt, spongy moth).
  • The Forest industry will have to develop an import program to move products to areas where the pest has not established and a domestic program to move products from infested areas if the pest becomes established in Canada.
Domestic movement requirements for logs with bark

Given the risk of introduction and likelihood of establishment of SLF, the domestic movement requirements will be equivalent to the import option chosen for the logs with bark pathway and implemented only should this pest become established within Canada.

Horticultural products

Nursery stock is considered a high risk pathway for the movement of SLF from areas of infestation both into Canada and within Canada following pest establishment in Canada. It is thought to be the primary source of introduction of this pest into South Korea.Footnote 5 Compared with other types of plants for planting, nursery stock is considered to be the highest risk of being contaminated with SLF, as production occurs primarily outdoors, often in unprotected environments in smooth-sided pots, which are considered a suitable surface for egg laying. While movement of nursery stock poses a risk of introduction and spread of SLF, this risk can be mitigated through a systems approach with a pest specific module or a targeted inspection program, as the insects themselves are highly visible and their egg masses are not difficult to detect if one knows what to look for and where to look.Footnote 5

Import requirements for nursery stock

In July 2021, the CFIA established import requirements for all nursery stock being imported from the continental U.S. as a measure to reduce the risk of spreading SLF through the nursery stock pathway following reports of pest movement on this pathway within the U.S. All nursery stock imported into Canada from the continental U.S. now requires one of the following additional declarations attesting to freedom from SLF on the phytosanitary certificate:

  1. 1) "The plants in this shipment have been officially inspected and found to be free from spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula."
  2. OR
  3. 2) "The plants in this shipment have been produced exclusively in facilities or areas officially recognized by USDA-APHIS as free from spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula."
  4. OR
  5. 3) "The plants in this shipment have been exclusively grown and stored in an enclosed structure which excludes spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula."

The CFIA continues to recognize the United States -– Canada Greenhouse-Grown Plant Certification Program (GCP) and the United States Nursery Certification Program (USNCP) as effective systems approaches for mitigating pest risk. The CFIA therefore continues to accept GCP labels and USNCP phytosanitary certificates in lieu of a phytosanitary certificate with the specified AD from exporting facilities in the U.S. where a pest module for SLF has been implemented.

Domestic movement options for nursery stock

Given the risk of introduction and likelihood of establishment of SLF, the following risk management options are being considered for the domestic nursery stock pathway when this pest become established within Canada:

Option 1
  • No implementation of domestic requirements for nursery stock in the designated regulated area and removal of restrictions on nursery stock imported from the U.S.

Pros

  • Industry would continue to be able to trade intra- and inter-provincially without restrictions or additional phytosanitary requirements.

Cons

  • Increased risk of SLF being introduced to non-regulated areas of Canada earlier than would be expected through natural spread alone.
  • Earlier establishment of the pest throughout Canada would lead to increased management costs for the fruit tree, grapevine, and nursery industries, as these would need to be applied sooner than would be expected if domestic controls were in place to slow the spread of SLF.
  • Potential negative trade implications and/or loss of market access to U.S. states where SLF is not established.
  • Does not align with the basic phytosanitary principles of non-discrimination and managed risk, as outlined within ISPM No. 1. Since CFIA would need to remove the import requirements on nursery stock from the U.S., this option would increase the risk of further introductions to other areas of Canada where the pest has not yet established through the import pathway.
Option 2

Prohibit the domestic movement of nursery stock out of a designated regulated area. 

Pros

  • Eliminates the risk of movement of the pest through the nursery stock pathway from areas where the pest has established.

Cons

  • Does not align with the phytosanitary principles of minimal impact and technical justification, as outlined in ISPM 1. If this option were selected, import requirements for nursery stock from the U.S. would need to be aligned with domestic requirements and prohibited at a commensurate level.
  • Unjustified restrictions placed on industry in areas where the pest has established, which does not align with the approach our U.S. trading partners have implemented. Given that there are numerous pathways of human-assisted movement such as vehicles and inanimate objects which cannot feasibly be regulated, prohibiting the movement of nursery stock alone would not adequately address the risk of spread.
Option 3 (Recommended)

Allow for the domestic movement of nursery stock from a designated regulated area under a CFIA-issued domestic movement certificate (DMC), provided it can be certified free from SLF using one of the following means:

  1. The material is inspected by CFIA and found free from SLF. The accompanying DMC must include the following statement:
    "The plants in this shipment have been officially inspected and found to be free from spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula."
  2. The material is produced exclusively in a CFIA-approved screenhouse or alternate enclosed structure that excludes SLF. The accompanying DMC must include the following statement:
    "The plants in this shipment have been exclusively grown and stored in an enclosed structure which excludes spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula."
  3. The material is produced and maintained at a facility officially recognized by the CFIA as free from SLF through the administration of a CFIA-approved SLF certification program or pest module. The accompanying DMC must include the following statement:
    "The plants in this shipment have been produced exclusively in facilities or areas officially recognized by CFIA as free from spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula."

The CFIA continues to recognize the United States – Canada Greenhouse-Grown Plant Certification Program (GCP) and the Canadian Nursery Certification Program (USNCP) as effective systems approaches for mitigating pest risk and Canadian facilities with CFIA accepted SLF pest modules in place would be eligible to move regulated material.

Note that SLF requirements would apply only to nursery stock located within a regulated area. Domestic movement of material located outside of an SLF regulated area would not be subject to SLF requirements.

Pros

  • Provides technically justified control measures to slow the human assisted spread of the pest to the unregulated portion(s) of Canada through the nursery stock pathway.
  • In alignment with current import requirements imposed on nursery stock from the U.S. and takes a similar regulatory approach as our U.S. trading partners.
  • Requirements would be applied consistently within the import and domestic spaces based on the known distribution of the pest.
  • Aligns with the plant protection principles of non-discrimination, managed risk, minimal impact and technical justification, as outlined in ISPM 1.
  • Helps maintain trading partner's confidence in Canada's phytosanitary systems, potentially reducing impact on trade.
  • The GCP and Canadian Nursery Certification Program (CNCP) programs allow for the implementation of modules to address pest-specific risk. This would allow for participating facilities to implement SLF risk mitigation measures into their current programs to facilitate both the domestic movement of product and export of material to the U.S..
  • CFIA anticipates stakeholder support for this approach, as it is intended to delay the establishment of the pest in non-infested areas of Canada, providing for additional time for potential treatment options to become approved and for industry to develop best management practices.

Cons

  • The nursery industry would have to meet domestic movement requirements in areas where the pest has established, requiring a more labour-intensive systems approach for preventing the movement of potentially-infested nursery stock.
  • CFIA resources will be required to enforce additional domestic movement requirements related to this pest, but administration of these activities could be combined with other existing programs (Japanese beetle, spongy moth, etc.), reducing the resource burden where pest presence overlaps.

Recommended Options

The following table summarizes requirements already established and options that were considered as part of this RMD and in the consultation process.

Commodity Import options Domestic options
Nursery stock Requirements established 2021.
  • Allows for importation of nursery stock with a phyto attesting to freedom from SLF
  1. No implementation of domestic requirements and removal of import requirements
  2. Prohibit domestic movement from regulated areas of Canada
  3. Allow for domestic movement with a movement certificate (Recommended)
Logs with bark
  1. No import requirements
  2. Prohibit all log imports from SLF infested areas
  3. Allow importation with a phyto or with participation in a CFIA approved risk mitigation program only during the low risk period (January — April)
  4. Same as option 3 but allow importation with participation in a CFIA approved risk mitigation program year round. (Recommended)
Same options as outlined for import. Domestic measures will be commensurate with the import option selected following consultation.
All other pathways and products No pathway or commodity specific requirements. As a regulated pest, import of the pest is prohibited. No pathway or commodity specific requirements. As a regulated pest, domestic movement of the pest is prohibited.

SLF is currently absent from Canada. Due to the proximity of the pest to Canada and the numerous possible pathways of entry, the risk of introduction to Canada is considered to be very high. Once introduced, SLF is predicted to be a major pest for Canada's grape and fruit tree industry with negative impacts on the nursery and forestry sectors. Based on these considerations and the risk assessment data, the CFIA recommended the following options for the highest risk commodity pathways in order to prevent the introduction to Canada and slow the spread of SLF and protect non-infested areas of Canada should the pest become established:

Horticultural products - Option 3

Align domestic requirements with current import requirements for U.S. origin nursery stock and allow for the movement of material from a designated regulated area under a CFIA-issued movement certificate, provided the material can be certified free from SLF.

Forestry products - Option 4

Permit importation of logs from areas infested with SLF based on visual inspection or treatment and/or participation in a CFIA-approved SLF risk mitigation program throughout the year. Align domestic movement requirements for the movement of logs with bark from a designated regulated area under a CFIA-issued movement certificate, provided the material can be certified free from SLF.

Risk Management Decision

Consultation

Comments on this risk management document were solicited from stakeholders from December 19, 2022 to February 3, 2023. All comments received were reviewed and taken into consideration, and additional information and clarification was added to this document where needed.

For the import of logs with bark, support was expressed for option 4. However, concern was also raised about the ability of SLF to establish in areas of Canada where the greatest volume of logs with bark from infested U.S. states are imported and therefore, the need for import requirements. Clarification on the areas at risk of establishment was requested. In response to these concerns, the CFIA revisited the question of climatic suitability in Canada and ran a CLIMEX model using data from areas in the United States where spotted lanternfly is confirmed to be established and causing damage. Through this exercise, the CFIA has reconfirmed that the areas at highest risk for SLF establishment are southern Ontario to southern Quebec, and parts of British Columbia are also included based on climatic suitability and host plant availability. Conservatively, SLF is predicted to be able to establish in any area of Canada where grapes are grown.

Feedback received regarding logs with bark also questioned the rationale for including softwood logs in the proposed import requirements. Upon further evaluation, including discussion with scientific researchers in the U.S. and Canada, the CFIA has determined that coniferous logs represent a lower risk for the introduction of SLF than deciduous species as coniferous species are not considered preferred hosts by SLF and are not routinely fed upon. As such, the CFIA will move forward with import restrictions for logs with bark of deciduous species only.

For the domestic movement of nursery stock, all respondents that commented on the options outlined in the RMD were supportive of option 3 with some respondents providing additional suggestions for consideration such as permitting outdoor production during periods of low risk and the recognition of CFIA-approved programs with SLF-specific pest modules in lieu of CFIA inspection. Option 3 has been clarified to reflect some of these suggestions, and they will also be taken into consideration when the commodity-specific requirements are developed.

Several respondents indicated support for addressing the risk of SLF being introduced to Canada through transportation and conveyance pathways. There are a number of mitigation measures being implemented through U.S. quarantines for these pathways. For example, a permit is required for all businesses moving articles out of quarantine areas, including any Canadian trucking companies which move regulated articles from these areas. The CFIA will explore steps to validate and evaluate whether these programs would meet Canadian import requirements. The CFIA will continue to enhance its education, awareness and outreach measures in the transportation and conveyance sectors.

Decision

Based on the risk assessment, and after analyzing all comments that were received, the CFIA has decided to move forward with option 4 for logs with bark, with the exception of coniferous logs and option 3 for nursery stock. In both cases, domestic measures will mirror import requirements when SLF regulated areas are established in Canada.

Next steps

A directive outlining commodity-specific requirements for the import and domestic movement of logs with bark and nursery stock will be drafted in consultation with stakeholders. During the development of the directive, stakeholders are encouraged to actively contribute and provide suggestions to determine how phytosanitary requirements could be implemented in order to meet CFIA's plant protection mandate while taking industry operations into account and facilitating trade. During the drafting of this directive, the CFIA will review the mitigation systems for SLF that are already established in the U.S. and recognize these measures where possible.

Endorsement

This risk management document has been approved by the Chief Plant Health Officer.

Date modified: