Fiscal Year 2020 began on 1 October. Congress has not yet passed funding bills (appropriations) for the full year. Agencies are operating now on a short-term continuing resolution which expires on November 21st. Meanwhile, representatives of the House and Senate will meet to reconcile the differences between the two bodies’ appropriations bills in hope that a year-long bill can be finalized by that time.
(Disagreement between President Trump and the Congress about funding for the border wall might prevent adoption of full-year appropriations bills and lead to another government shutdown.)
I report here the differences between House and Senate bills funding the USDA APHIS and Forest Service programs that are vital to addressing non-native forest pests.
APHIS
Over the years, I have complained that inadequate funding is a major cause of shortfalls in APHIS’ efforts to detect new invasions by tree-killing pests and to respond to those invasions in effective ways.
While funding levels are still too low, at least Congress is holding funding steady for APHIS for Fiscal Year 2020 (which began three weeks ago, on October 1st). Both House and Senate bills maintain funding for two crucial programs at the FY19 levels:
- “tree and wood pests” program – $60 million (this matches the FY19 level; it is $4 million above the funding provided in previous years); and
- “Pest Detection” – $27.4 million.
The House provided slightly higher funding than the Senate for two other programs:
- “specialty crops” (including sudden oak death) – $186.5 million in the House bill, $186 million in the Senate bill; and
- “methods development” – $21.686 million in the House bill, $20.686 million in the Senate bill.
In the report accompanying its bill, the House called for two additional funding options to address emergencies. First, it set up a contingency fund of $470,000 to control outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal diseases and pest animals and birds to meet emergency conditions. Second, the report repeated language from past reports that authorizes the Secretary to take “such sums as may be deemed necessary” from other USDA programs in order to counter pest emergencies threatening any segment of U.S. agricultural production.
The Senate report addressed several high-profile tree pests. It called for complete eradication of the Asian longhorned beetle; mandated that APHIS report on its efforts to eradicate ALB and spotted lanternfly and to minimize spread of the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers; and to assist states that have recently detected the emerald ash borer. (This language is helpful, but it falls short of what I previously advocated – that APHIS continue efforts to prevent EAB spread, especially through movement of firewood.) The Senate report also urged APHIS to maintain FY19 level funding addressing the sudden oak death pathogen, in particular to improve understanding of the two strains of the pathogen present in Oregon’s forests link to blog to inform control and management techniques in wildlands. (Actually, management in wildlands falls largely to the Forest Service, with scientific input from both Agriculture Research Service and – to some extent – the NORS-DUC research nursery managed by APHIS.)
For a lengthier justification of my funding requests, see my earlier blog on APHIS funding
Funding for Resistance Breeding through NIFA
As I pointed out in my blog in May, the 2018 Farm Bill included an amendment (Section 8708) that establishes a new priority for a grant program managed by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The amendment would 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. The amendment affects 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. However, this program has not been funded for more than a decade. In my blog, I asked you to support a $10 million appropriation to NIFA to fund a competitive grant program for such forests restoration.
Neither the House nor the Senate provided funding for this program.
USFS
The House bill provides $277,155,000 for USFS Research and Development – nearly $20 million more than the Senate bill ($257,640,000). The House report links this increase to the recognition of the increasing risk to urban, rural, and wildland forests from insect and disease outbreaks and invasive plant infestations. The report calls on the Forest Service to develop a research program that addresses several priorities critical to forest health, including preventing the spread of disease and invasive species.
USFS engagement on pest issues with other federal agencies and state, local government, and private land managers is carried out through the Forest Health Management program under the State and Private Forestry division. The Senate bill and report are confusing because they have separated out salaries and other expenses. As a result, I can’t compare its figures to those in previous years or to those from the House. Partly for this reason, I urge you to support the House bill, which is quite clear in appropriating $103,736,000 for Forest Health Management, which is a programmatic increase of $19 million above the FY19 level and $29,919,000 above the budget request. I am encouraged by the House’ report, which encourages the Forest Service to address high priority invasive species, pests, and diseases, including the emerald ash borer and bark beetle infestations.
For longer explanations, see my earlier blog on USFS funding.
These bills show an increasing awareness of forest pest issues in key funding committees in both the House and Senate. Let’s reinforce this message – and spread it to the rest of Congress. Please contact your senators and representative and ask them to support these funding levels.
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.