Month: March 2019

We have long known that significant damage to our forests have been caused by non-native insects and diseases. Now USFS scientists have found that exacerbated mortality caused by these pests is showing up in official monitoring data – the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data. In a presentation at the 81^st Northeastern Forest Pest Council, Randall Morin described the results of applying FIA data to determine  mortality levels caused by several of the most damaging invaders. He found an approximately 5% increase in total mortality volume nation-wide.

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.)

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.

The increase in mortality above the background rate was the worst for redbay due to laurel wilt disease – 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 – to approximately three-fold – was found for ash trees attacked by the emerald ash borer (from 2.6% to 10.9%); beech dying from beech bark disease (from 0.7% to 2.1%); and hemlock killed by hemlock woolly adelgid, hemlock looper, and other pests (from 0.5% to 1.7%).

Some species are presumed to have an elevated mortality rate, but the pre-invasion “background” rate could not be calculated. These included American chestnut (mortality rate of 7%), butternut succumbing to butternut canker (mortality rate of 5.6%), and elm trees succumbing to “Dutch” elm disease (mortality rate of 3.5%).

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

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), Asian longhorned beetle (120.5 trillion ft³), balsam woolly adelgid (61 trillion ft³), sudden oak death (44.6 trillion ft³), and white pine blister rust (27.7 trillion ft³).

The proportion of the host volume invaded by these non-native pests is 94% for white pine blister rust, 48% for balsam wooly adelgid, 29% for European gypsy moth, 12% for sudden oak death, and one half of one percent for Asian longhorned beetle.

Of course, measuring impact by wood volume excludes some of the species suffering the greatest losses because the trees are small in stature. This applies particularly to redbay, but also dogwoods. Also, American chestnut was so depleted before FIA inventories began that it is also not included – despite the species’ wide natural range and large size.

[You can see the details for particular species by visiting the FIA “dashboards”. A particularly good example is that for hemlock woolly adelgid, available here.

USFS Response

Of course, the Forest Service has been trying to counter the impact of invasive insects and pathogens for decades, long before this study documented measurable changes in mortality rates.

Unfortunately, funding for the agency’s response has been falling for decades – 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.

The President’s FY2020 budget proposes additional cuts.

The proposal would cut funding for the USFS Research division by $42.5 million (14%); cut staff  by 212 staff years (12.5%). It would refocus the research program on inventory and monitoring; water and biological resources; forest and rangeland management issues, especially fire; forest products innovations; and people and the environment.

As shown by the above graph, this proposed cut follows years of loss of expertise and research capacity.

The President’s budget proposes to slash the State & Private Forestry account by 45.6% – from $335 million to just $182 million. The critically important Forest Health Management program is included under State & Private Forestry. The cuts proposed for FHM are 7% for work done on federal lands (from $44.9 million to $41.7 million; and 16% for work done on non-federal “cooperative” lands (from $38 million to $31.9 million). Staffing would be reduced by 4% for those working on federal lands, a startling 38% for those working on cooperative lands.

For details, view the USDA Forest Service budget justification, which can be found by entering into your favorite search engine “FY2020 USFS Budget”. Funding details begin on p. 12; staffing number details on p. 15.

These severe cuts are proposed despite the fact that the budget justification notes that pests (native as well as exotic) threaten more than four million acres and that those pests know no boundaries. The document claims that the Service continues to apply an “all lands” approach.

When considering individual invasive pest species, these proposed cuts exacerbate reductions in previous years. Some cuts are probably justified by changes in circumstances, such as improved understanding of a species’ life cycle resulting from past research. However, some are still troubling. (Again, for details, view the USDA Forest Service budget justification, which can be found by entering into your favorite search engine “FY2020 USFS Budget”. A table listing species-specific expenditures in recent years, and the proposed FY2020 levels, is on pp. 38-39.)

The budget proposes to eliminate spending to manage Port-Orford-cedar root disease – 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 – 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 – the supposed priority of the Administration’s budget.

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

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 “emerging pest” account. Species targeted by these funds, I have been told, include beach leaf disease; goldspotted oak borer; and the invasive polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers.

Unfortunately, the “emerging pest” account funds are not included in the table on pp. 38-39 of the budget justification. Nor have I been able to learn from program staff how much money is in the fund and how much has been allocated to these or other pest or disease threats.

Adequate funding of the USFS Research and Forest Health Management programs could allow the agency to support, inter alia, efforts by agency and academic scientists to breed trees resistant to the damaging pest. I am aware, for example, of efforts to find “lingering” ash, beech, hemlock, whitebark pine, and possibly also redbay. None is adequately funded.

Please contact your member of Congress and Senators and urge them to support adequate funding for these two Forest Service programs. Research should be funded at $310 million (usually 5% or less of these funds is devoted to invasive species); Forest Health should be funded at $51 million for cooperative lands and $59 million for federal lands. It is particularly important to advocate for funding for the “cooperative lands” account since both the Administration and many members of Congress think the Forest Service should focus more narrowly on federal lands.

It is particularly important to contact your member if s/he is on the Interior Appropriations subcommittees. Those members are: 

House:

• Betty McCollum, Chair  (MN 4^th)

• Chellie Pingree (ME 1^st)
• Derek Kilmer (WA 6^th)
• José Serrano (NY 15^th)
• Mike Quigley (IL 5^th)
• Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ 12^th)
• Brenda Lawrence (MI 14^th)
• David Joyce, Ranking Member  (OH 14^th)
• Mike Simpson (ID 2^nd)
• Chris Stewart (UT 2^nd)
• Mark Amodei (NV 2^nd)

Senate:

• Lisa Murkowski, Chair (AK)
• Lamar Alexander (TN)
• Roy Blunt (MO)
• Mitch McConnell (KY)
• Shelly Moore Capito (WV)
• Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS)
• Steve Daines (MT)
• Marco Rubio (FL)
• Tom Udall, Ranking (NM)
• Diane Feinstein (CA)
• Patrick Leahy (VT)
• Jack Reed (RI)
• Jon Tester (MT)
• Jeff Merkley (OR)
• Chris van Hollen  (MD)

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.

As I have written often, inadequate funding is a major cause of shortfalls in USDA APHIS’ efforts to detect new invasions by tree-killing pests and to respond to those invasions in effective ways. So, I ask you to contact your Representative and Senators in support of appropriations for APHIS and –National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) for the next fiscal year – (FY)2020.

APHIS’ efforts to detect and respond to non-native tree-killing pests were rudely interrupted by the five-week Government Shutdown from 22 December until late January. While inspection of incoming shipments continued, U.S.-based activities were halted. Chaos and confusion continued until 15 February, when the President signed legislation that funds APHIS (and other government agencies) until the end of September – the remainder of FY2919.

Surprise! The funding bill provides increased funds for two key APHIS programs:

• $60 million for the “tree and wood pests” program — $4 million above the funding provided in recent years; and
• $186 million for “specialty crop” pests (including sudden oak death) — $7.8 million above recent levels. 

I ask you to ask the Congress to maintain these funding levels for these budget “lines”.

I ask you also to support continuing the FY19 levels for two other programs:

• Methods Development — $27.4 million; and
• “Detection Funding” – $20. 7 million.

New this year, I hope you will support a $10 million appropriation to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to fund a competitive grant program intended to restore to forests tree species significantly damaged by non-native insects and plant pathogens.

Justification for the Funding Requests

As we know, non-native insects and pathogens that threaten native tree species have been and continue to be introduced to the United States. These pests impose significant costs: Aukema et al. 2011 (full reference at the end of the blog) estimated

• municipal governments spend more than $2 billion per year to remove trees on city property that have been killed by these pests.
• homeowners spend $1 billion every year to remove and replace trees on their properties
• homeowners absorb an additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values.

Costs are rising: the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers are projected to cost municipalities and homeowners in California $36.2 billion if their further spread is not prevented (McPherson 2017)

When you contact your Representative or Senators, tell them about the impact of non-native pests in your location!

The significant ecological impacts are poorly quantified.

USDA APHIS is responsible for preventing such pests’ entry, detecting newly introduced pests, and initiating rapid eradication programs. Yet, despite rising risks of pest introduction commensurate with rising import volumes, funding for APHIS’ program targetting the “tree and wood pests” associated with crates and pallets has remained at or below $55 million since FY2012 – until the modest increase last year to $60 million. Among the forest pests detected during this period are the spotted lanternfly and here and Kuroshio shot hole borer.

Among the pests probably introduced on a second pathway, imports of living plants, are the two pathogens threatening Hawaii’s most widespread tree, ʻōhiʻa lehua and here, and beech leaf disease and here in the Northeastern states. The better-funded “specialty crops” account could help fund responses to these damaging pathogens.

Ask your Congressional representatives to urge APHIS to apply part of the increased funding for the “tree and wood pest” program to continue the regulatory program for the emerald ash borer (EAB) and here. In September, APHIS has proposed to terminate the EAB regulatory program. Program termination would greatly increase the risk that EAB will spread to the mountain and Pacific Coast states. California has five native species of ash vulnerable to EAB. Ash trees provide a higher percentage (8%) of Los Angeles’ tree canopy than any other species. This proportion will rise as other tree species succumb to the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers. Oregon’s one native species of ash is widespread in riparian areas and many urban plantings consist of ash. Ash trees are the fifth most common genus among Portland’s urban trees. Many stakeholders have urged APHIS to continue to regulate movement of firewood and other materials that facilitate EAB’s spread.

The “Specialty Crops” program currently funds APHIS’ regulation of nursery operations to prevent spread of the sudden oak death pathogen. In future, this budget line would be the logical source of funds to manage the spotted lanternfly, which has been carried out through a combination of emergency funding under 7 U.S.C. §7772 and grants funded through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Program (§7721 of the Plant Protection Act). (See below.)

Ask your Congressional representatives to support continued funding of APHIS’ “Methods Development” program at the FY19 level of $27.4 million. This program assists APHIS in developing detection and eradication tools essential for an effective response to new pests.  

Similarly, ask your Congressional representatives to support continued funding of the “Detection” budget line at the FY19 level of $20.7 million. This program supports the critically important collaborative state –federal program pest-detection program that is critical to successful eradication and containment programs.

APHIS’ Additional sources of funds

APHIS has always had authority to obtain “emergency” funds through 7 U.S.C. §7772. Emergency funds come from permanent USDA funding; they are not subject to annual appropriations. This authority has been tightly controlled by the Office of Management and Budget; I believe the last time APHIS obtained “emergency” funds for a tree pest was the emerald ash borer a decade or more ago. A year ago, APHIS accessed $17 million in emergency funding to address the expanding spotted lanternfly outbreak [USDA Press Release No. 0031.18 February 7, 2018] and OMB also requires that APHIS quickly transfer programs started with emergency funds to the regular budget. As I note above, response to the expanding spotted lanternfly outbreak should logically be shifted to the “specialty crops” budget account.

For a decade, APHIS has had access to a separate source of funds: the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program. This program is also funded through permanent funds, not subject to the vagaries of annual budgeting and appropriations. Until last year, this program operated under Section 10007 of the 2014 Farm Bill; with passage of a new Farm Bill last year, it is now designated as Section 7721 of the Plant Protection Act. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2018, APHIS has authority to spend up to $75 million per year.

Funds are provided under a competitive grants program to universities, states, Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, non-profits, and Tribal organizations “to conduct critical projects that keep U.S. crops, nurseries, and forests healthy, boost the marketability of agricultural products within the country and abroad, and help us do right and feed everyone.” [USDA press release “USDA Provides $66 Million in Fiscal Year 2019 to Protect Agriculture and Natural Resources from Plant Pests and Diseases” February 15, 2019]

Over the decade since the program began, it has funded, but my calculation, about $77 million in projects targetting tree-killing pests. The proportion of total program funding allocated to tree-killing pests has risen in the most recent years, driven largely by funding to counter the spotted lanternfly outbreak which began in Pennsylvania but has since spread (see above). In the current year (FY2019), APHIS used this program to fund $10 million in projects to address the spotted lanternfly. The SLF funds equaled 57% of the total funding for tree pests provided under the program in FY2019.

Implications of the Tangle of Funding Sources

What is the significance of funding programs through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program as distinct from appropriated funds? Clearly, having access to $75 million that is not subject to the limits imposed by Administration budget priorities or Congressional appropriations allows considerable freedom. Does this freedom allow APHIS to support work on pests that might not qualify to be “quarantine” pests?  For example, under the Plant Protection Act, APHIS normally does not engage on pests found only in one state. The polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers fall into this category. So did the spotted lanternfly for the first several years – until its detection in Delaware and Virginia in late 2017. If so, then the presence of the lanternfly in several states would seem now to indicate that funding sources should be shifted – at least in part – to appropriated funds. But would such a shift result in less funding – a result I think would be most unwise!

The beech leaf disease doesn’t clearly qualify for designation as a “quarantine pest” because of the uncertainty about the causal agent. So far, there has been no Section 7721 funding to support efforts to identify the causal agent or to improve detection or curtail spread of the disease.

Funding for Resistance Breeding through NIFA

As we know, dozens of America’s tree species have been severely reduced or virtually eliminated from significant parts of their ranges by non-native insects and pathogens. Last year’s Farm Bill – the  Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 – included an amendment (Section 8708) that establishes a new priority for an existing grant program to support restoration to the forest of native tree species that have suffered severe levels of mortality caused by non-native insects, plant pathogens, or other pests. Grant-receiving programs would incorporate one or more of the following components: collection and conservation of native tree genetic material; production of sufficiently numerous propagules to support landscape-scale restoration; and planting and maintenance of seedlings in the landscape.

In January a panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommended that the U.S. apply multifaceted approaches to combat these threats to forest health. One component strategy is breeding of trees resistant to the pest.

Ask Congress to begin applying the Academies’ recommendation by providing $10 million to NIFA to fund the Competitive Forestry, Natural Resources, and Environmental Grants Program under Section 1232(c)(2) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 582A-8, as amended.

I hope everyone will contact your Representative and Senators. If your Congressional representative is listed below, your contact is particularly helpful because these are the members of the House or Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittees – the people with the greatest influence over what gets funded:

House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee members:

• Sanford Bishop Jr., Chairman 
• Rosa DeLauro                                      CT
• Chellie Pingree                                     ME
• Mark Pocan                                         WI
• Barbara Lee                                         CA
• Betty McCollum                                  MN
• Henry Cuellar                                      TX
• Jeff Fortenberry, Ranking Member      NE
• Robert Aderholt                                               AL
• Andy Harris                                         MD
• John Moolenaar                                               MI

Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee members:

• John Hoeven, Chairman                                  ND
• Mitch McConnell                                 KY
• Susan Collins                                       ME
• Roy Blunt                                            MO
• Jerry Moran                                         KS
• Cindy Hyde-Smith                               MS
• John Kennedy                                     LA
• Jeff Merkley                                        OR
• Dianne Feinstein                                  CA
• Jon Tester                                            MT
• Tom Udall                                           NM
• Patrick Leahy                                       VT
• Tammy Baldwin                                  WI

SOURCES

Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. Liebhold, D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle.^. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States PLoS One September 2011 (Volume 6 Issue 9)

McPherson, Gregory. September 28, 2017. Memorandum to John Kabashima re: Potential Impact of ISHB-FD on Urban Forests of Southern California