{"id":1193,"date":"2019-03-28T19:06:04","date_gmt":"2019-03-28T19:06:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nivemnic.us\/?p=1193"},"modified":"2020-07-22T17:31:39","modified_gmt":"2020-07-22T17:31:39","slug":"usfs-lacks-sufficient-resources-to-counter-threats-to-our-forests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nivemnic.us\/?p=1193","title":{"rendered":"USFS Lacks Sufficient Resources to Counter Threats to our Forests"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\nhave long known that significant damage to our forests have been caused by\nnon-native insects and diseases. Now USFS scientists have found that\nexacerbated mortality caused by these pests is showing up in official\nmonitoring data \u2013 the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data. In a presentation\nat the 81st<\/sup> Northeastern Forest Pest Council, Randall Morin\ndescribed the results of applying FIA data to determine  mortality levels caused by several of the most\ndamaging invaders. He found an approximately 5% increase in total mortality\nvolume nation-wide. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Morin also compared a map prepared by Andrew Liebhold showing the number of non-native tree-killing pests established in each county of the continent to the mortality rates for those counties based on the FIA data. (See two maps below.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
map showing number of non-native forest pests established in each county of the Continental States; from Liebhold\/USFS<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Dr. Randall Morin’s map showing levels of tree mortality, based on FIA data<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Counties showing the highest mortality rates in FIA data do not align with counties with highest numbers of invasive species. Morin thinks the discrepancy is explained by such human factors as invasion pressure and the ease of pest movement through the good transportation network in the Northeast. He assigns less importance to habitat invasibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The increase in mortality above the background rate was the worst for redbay due to laurel wilt disease<\/a> \u2013 the annual mortality rate rose from 2.6% to 10.9% — slightly more than a four-fold increase. Almost as great an increase in mortality rates \u2013 to approximately three-fold \u2013 was found for ash trees attacked by the emerald ash borer<\/a> (from 2.6% to 10.9%); beech dying from beech bark disease<\/a> (from 0.7% to 2.1%); and hemlock killed by hemlock woolly adelgid<\/a>, hemlock looper, and other pests (from 0.5% to 1.7%). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some species are presumed to have an elevated mortality rate, but the pre-invasion \u201cbackground\u201d rate could not be calculated. These included American chestnut<\/a> (mortality rate of 7%), butternut succumbing to butternut canker<\/a> (mortality rate of 5.6%), and elm trees succumbing to \u201cDutch\u201d elm disease<\/a> (mortality rate of 3.5%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The non-native pests and pathogens that have invaded the largest number of counties are white pine blister rust<\/a> (955 counties), European gypsy moth (630 counties), dogwood anthracnose<\/a> (609 counties in the East; the western counties were not calculated); emerald ash borer (479 counties); and hemlock woolly adelgid (432 counties).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The invaders posing the most widespread threat as measured by the volume of wood of host species are European gypsy moth (230.9 trillion ft3<\/sup>), Asian longhorned beetle<\/a> (120.5 trillion ft3<\/sup>), balsam woolly adelgid<\/a> (61 trillion ft3<\/sup>), sudden oak death<\/a> (44.6 trillion ft3<\/sup>), and white pine blister rust (27.7 trillion ft3<\/sup>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proportion of\nthe host volume invaded by these non-native pests is 94% for white pine blister\nrust, 48% for balsam wooly adelgid, 29% for European gypsy moth, 12% for sudden\noak death, and one half of one percent for Asian longhorned beetle. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of\ncourse, measuring impact by wood volume excludes some of the species suffering\nthe greatest losses because the trees are small in stature. This applies\nparticularly to redbay, but also dogwoods. Also, American chestnut was so\ndepleted before FIA inventories began that it is also not included \u2013 despite\nthe species\u2019 wide natural range and large size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[You can see the details for particular species by visiting the FIA \u201cdashboards\u201d. A particularly good example is that for hemlock woolly adelgid, available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

USFS Response<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of\ncourse, the Forest Service has been trying to counter the impact of invasive\ninsects and pathogens for decades, long before this study documented measurable\nchanges in mortality rates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, funding for the agency\u2019s response has been falling for decades \u2013 with concomitant reduction in staffs needed to carry out the work. See the graph below from p. 108 of my report, Fading Forests III, available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The\nPresident\u2019s FY2020 budget proposes additional cuts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal would cut funding for\nthe USFS Research division by $42.5 million\n(14%); cut staff  by 212 staff years\n(12.5%).<\/strong> It would refocus the research program on inventory and monitoring;\nwater and biological resources; forest and rangeland management issues, especially\nfire; forest products innovations; and people and the environment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As shown by the above graph, this\nproposed cut follows years of loss of expertise and research capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The President\u2019s budget\nproposes to slash the State & Private Forestry <\/strong>account by 45.6% – from $335\nmillion to just $182 million. The critically important Forest Health Management\nprogram is included under State & Private Forestry. The cuts proposed for\nFHM are 7% for work done on federal lands (from $44.9 million to $41.7 million;\nand 16% for work done on non-federal \u201ccooperative\u201d lands (from $38 million to\n$31.9 million). Staffing would be reduced by 4% for those working on federal\nlands, a startling 38% for those working on cooperative lands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For\ndetails, view the USDA Forest Service budget justification, which can be found\nby entering into your favorite search engine \u201cFY2020 USFS Budget\u201d. Funding\ndetails begin on p. 12; staffing number details on p. 15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These\nsevere cuts are proposed despite the fact that the budget justification notes\nthat pests (native as well as exotic) threaten more than four million acres and\nthat those pests know no boundaries. The document claims that the Service continues\nto apply an \u201call lands\u201d approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When\nconsidering individual invasive pest species, these proposed cuts exacerbate reductions\nin previous years. Some cuts are probably justified by changes in\ncircumstances, such as improved understanding of a species\u2019 life cycle\nresulting from past research. However, some are still troubling. (Again, for\ndetails, view the USDA Forest Service budget justification, which can be found\nby entering into your favorite search engine \u201cFY2020 USFS Budget\u201d. A table\nlisting species-specific expenditures in recent years, and the proposed FY2020\nlevels, is on pp. 38-39.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The budget proposes to eliminate spending to manage Port-Orford-cedar root disease<\/a> \u2013 which was funded at just $20,000 in recent years but received $200,000 as recently as FY2016. Forest Health Management would cease funding restoration for whitebark pine pests, including white pine blister \u2013 despite widespread recognition of the ecological importance of this species. Research on blister rust would continue, but at just over half the funding of recent years. Spending on oak wilt disease would be cut by 45%; funding for protecting hemlocks by 40% (the latter received $3.5 million in FY16). Funding for management of sudden oak death is proposed to be cut by 31% . Cuts to these programs seem particularly odd given that much of the threat is on federal lands \u2013 the supposed priority of the Administration\u2019s budget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The budget calls for a 12% cut in funding for the emerald ash borer \u2013 at the very time that USDA APHIS plans to terminate its regulatory program<\/a> and state agencies and conservationists are looking to the Forest Service to provide leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Bob Rabaglia, entomologist for the Forest Health Management program, the proportion of the FHM budget allocated to invasive alien species (as distinct from native pests) has been rising in recent years. Some of this increase is handled through a new \u201cemerging pest\u201d account. Species targeted by these funds, I have been told, include beach leaf disease<\/a>; goldspotted oak borer<\/a>; and the invasive polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, the\n\u201cemerging pest\u201d account funds are not included in the table on pp. 38-39 of the\nbudget justification. Nor have I been able to learn from program staff how much\nmoney is in the fund and how much has been allocated to these or other pest or\ndisease threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adequate\nfunding of the USFS Research and Forest Health Management programs could allow\nthe agency to support, inter alia<\/em>,\nefforts by agency and academic scientists to breed trees resistant to the\ndamaging pest. I am aware, for example, of efforts to find \u201clingering\u201d ash,\nbeech, hemlock, whitebark pine, and possibly also redbay. None is adequately\nfunded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please contact your member of Congress and Senators\nand urge them to support adequate funding for these two Forest Service\nprograms. Research should be funded at $310 million (usually 5% or less of these funds is devoted to invasive species);\nForest Health should be funded at $51 million for\ncooperative lands and $<\/strong>59 million for federal lands. It\nis particularly important to advocate for funding for the \u201ccooperative lands\u201d\naccount since both the Administration and many members of Congress think the\nForest Service should focus more narrowly on federal lands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is particularly important to contact your member if\ns\/he is on the Interior Appropriations subcommittees. Those members are:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

House: <\/p>\n\n\n\n